Cycling and cloudy water

  • Get the NEW AquariaCentral iOS app --> http://itunes.apple.com/app/id1227181058 // Android version will be out soon!
Apr 2, 2002
2,568
213
66
New York
Some people are too lazy to read. Some people think they are smarter and more knowledgeable than the Patent offices in multiple countries.

Some people want to argue against granted patent in effect for many years. They want to deny the simple facts in front of them.

Some people lack even a a small amount of sense of common sense. they will deny what is right in front of their own eyes.No matter how much incontrovertible evidence you show them.

To quote the grateful dead: "Got two good eyes But we still don't see"

13 patents and they are all illegal. Are you kidding me? If they were not legit why has nobody in the entire industry challenged the patent of ot os sp clearly not legal. And the start of the patent process getting things to where they are today was over 20 years ago.

Three seminal peer reviewed papers cited by hundreds of other researchers. I guess all of them are wrong too. How are they doing it?

So I wonder where the loach got his doctorate or at least a masters degree in microbiology? I wonder where I can find any peer reviewed papers he has published. Or maybe I am barking up the wrong tree and the loach is an attorney with expertise in patent law? Or maybe the real truth is that he has no clue and what he is saying and not saying indicate this.

So I have presented papers, patents and other evidence in support of what I have said. What has the loach produced except for his personal opinion of how things work but with no support in any form. All he does is to keep claiming all of my evidence is somehow not valid or are illegal patents or anything but disproven. The one thing of which I am certain is I would bet dollars to donuts he has not read through any of the papers or patents.

I can bring this from more angles that some folks even new existed. So lets look at some of the classifications for The patents here. The patent office has classifications which relate to patents. What classifications are there for the ammonia oxidizing bacteria Dr. Hovanec patented. There are 11 of them but here are just a few. These classifications are not unique to Dr. Hovenec's work, they are there to be used by anybody. You can see all of them here: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040157313A1/en?inventor=t+hovanec&oq=t+hovanec

C12N1/20 - Bacteria; Culture media therefor
Media compositions for bacteria, compositions comprising bacteria (with or without other compounds), processes of isolating, maintaining or propagating bacteria.

C12N9/0012 - Oxidoreductases (1.) acting on nitrogen containing compounds as donors (1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7)

C02F3/34 - Biological treatment of water, waste water, or sewage characterised by the microorganisms used
Biological treatment processes using special types of microorganisms (specific species or consortia which are identified and not commonly used).

C12R1/01 - Processes using microorganisms using bacteria or actinomycetales

I will offer readers with one more piece of evidence that only requires common sense to understand. Let's assume that the loach is right and the patents are not legal. How could Spectrum accept assignment of them? Surely their legal department would have caught their being illegal. Yet 4 subsidiaries of their pet division have created products which are based on the patents. Combine this with the fact that we know no other companies have a product on the market which states it contains the patented bacteria and that rely on the related processes and probes etc.

Spectrum Brands and Dr. Hovanec and their lawyers all believe the patents are valid. Clearly companies like SeaChem, Fluval. API. Fritz and a host of others appear to respect these patents as well. But the loach assures us they are not legal???????

So on one side of this the standing alone is the loach. On the other side is an array of patent offices around the world, the people andcompanies who are using the patents they control and a host of companies in the industry and their lawyers who will not violate them.

I am sorry, but this all leaves me rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. I will leave folks with this from the 1742 poem "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College," by Thomas Gray.:

where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise
proverb It is better to remain unaware or ignorant of things that may otherwise cause one stress; if you don't know about something, you don't need to worry about it.
From https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Where+ignorance+is+bliss,+'tis+folly+to+be+wise

I can lead a horse to water, but......
 

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,407
678
120
13 patents and they are all illegal. Are you kidding me? If they were not legit why has nobody in the entire industry challenged the patent of ot os sp clearly not legal.
No, I did not say they were not legal. I said they are not enforceable (IF they patent unmodified nitrifying bacteria) that's entirely different.
Again, a patent is an exclusionary right, that has to be enforced by the patent holder. "the industry" does simply not care about it, until they get sued by the patent holder at which point the defense simply has to waive the supreme court ruling. A patent says nothing. It can be useless, it might not work, it might not be the best method, things that are claimed don't have to be true. Lots and lots of patents get invalidated by the court when the patent holder sues someone for infringement. Just like it happened with Kalo, which patented those bacteria. The same thing would happen with the nitrifying bacteria.

You have to argue against the supreme court ruling which is identical to this case:

If you only found an organism, then you CANNOT patent it. It doesn’t matter if you scoured the deepest Amazon jungle to find the rarest of insects – if it’s naturally occurring, then it’s not patentable. The Supreme Court dealt with this in Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. where the product was essentially a bacterial culture in powder or liquid form.[2] The Court held that although Kalo had discovered the bacteria and its unique ability to form a nitrogen-fixing association with legumes, the product was not patent eligible because the bacteria were a “phenomenon of nature.[3] The Court stated that the qualities of the bacteria “are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men” and “manifestations of laws of nature,” discovery of which is not patentable.[4]
Extract of the supreme court ruling from http://ipwire.com/stories/patentability-living-organisms/

What has the loach produced except for his personal opinion of how things work but with no support in any form.
The supreme court ruling is not my opinion. It's a fact, and the opinion of the court. See above.

So on one side of this the standing alone is the loach. On the other side is an array of patent offices around the world
Which is the highest institution, the supreme court or the patent office?
Do all of the patent offices in the world have more power as the supreme court?


PS you are moving the goal posts now once again, quoting 13 patents. Are there 13 different species of bacteria patented? Remember, it is your argument, you have the burden of proof. It is not up to me to pick one out. Let's stick with your claim the bacteria are patented. The supreme court ruling proves it will not hold up in court, and as such is not enforceable. That is why your reasoning fails. The patent does not prevent other companies from selling nitrifying bacteria, just as none of the studies you listed prevents it.
 
Apr 2, 2002
2,568
213
66
New York
Smoke and mirrors again, Notice that the loach has not been able to answer or reply to anything I have posted not one. The are some huge companies out there who sell bacteria products which are basically not what ends up in aquariums. Why has not a single one of the challenged the any of the patents? Please I am waiting for the loach to answer this. Does he have any understanding of how businesses works. They are not stupid. If they thought they had a reasonable change of challenging the patents so they could make the same product themselves, why has none of them done so? if it is so clear that the Supreme court would invalifate the patens.... Hos stupid does thre loach think these companies are?

Nor is there an logic to what he keeps saying. If he is correct about what he says, does he also believe that the US patent office is not aware of what he states? Consider the dates in some of the footnotes in that link.

Footnotes:

[1] Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012).

[2] Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 129 (1948).

[5] Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 318 (1980).

[11] Plant Patent Act of 1930, 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164, and Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2321-2582.

So, most of these rulings have been around for many decades. Yet the US patent office still granted patents on both nitrite and ammonia oxidizing bacteria. Does the loach believe the US patent office routinely grants patents which it knows would never withstand a challenge to their legality? Maybe the US. patent office lawyer are all idiots? But i doubt it. here is another bacterial patent.

If any company is able to challenge the Hovanec patents successfully with little effort, why has nobody done so in the 20+ years some of them have been in effect? SeaChem knows what nitrifiers are in tanks, yet they sell spores. Why? They do not cycle a tank, they are not even true nitrifying bacteria which do not form spores. Consider how much money is made by Dr. H and Spectrum Brands from selling all the various patented forms of the starter product. Why would another company not go after that income if they thought they could do so? According to the loach it is so obvious that the patents are not enforceable. Moreover, if it was so obvious the patents were not enforceable if another company made the same product, why would the patent holders waste the time and money either filing or defending a clearly unenforceable patent?

The there are the Ph.D. microbiologists and their lawyers. Why would they even bother trying to file for a patent which should never have been granted. They would be smart and uniformed enough to know what applications are likely or unliekly to be granted and if they would withstand a challenge. We have to assume there are a lot of people involved here who have to be awfully stupid - Dr. Hovanec, Marineland, Spectrum, the US Patent Office. All of them have to be idiots and the loach must be a genius since he is apparently smarter than them all.

So I will say this again, I have provided a mountain of evidence as to why the patents exist, why they have not been challenged, and that they are respected by competitors. All the loach can do is keep saying Supreme Court.

I have one more thing to offer. There is a company called ATM Aquarium Products. They say all of the same things about the nitrifying bacteria as I have said. They also sell a product which contains live nitrifying bacteria. They are willing to identify them. You can buy it on Amazon here (the FW variety, but they also offer a SW version) https://www.amazon.com/ATM-Aquarium-Products-Freshwater-Nitrifying/dp/B00BS97WU8 If you go and look you will this
STRAINS: Nitrosomonas & Nitrobacter for primary ammonia and nitrite consumption in the freshwater environment
Nope, no Nitrospira. Why not? Anybody want to guess? Have some fun and read here on the ATM site about thr true nitrifyung bacteria.
The Shocking Truth About Nitrifying Bacteria Products

But there are other bacteria that have been patented, try this one Consortium of nitrifying bacteria

Let me save the loach some time so he doesn't have to bother posting again.

SUPREME COURT!!!!!!
 

the loach

AC Members
Aug 6, 2018
1,407
678
120
Notice that the loach has not been able to answer or reply to anything I have posted not one.
Not true, see above. If I forgot something, specify. I'm not avoiding anything but I might have overlooked something.

The are some huge companies out there who sell bacteria products which are basically not what ends up in aquariums. Why has not a single one of the challenged the any of the patents? Please I am waiting for the loach to answer this.
I did answer that. But that's ok, I will do it again. The patents don't have to be challenged, as it is up to the patent holder to enforce it. In other words, you can have a patent. Others sell your thing. Nothing happens until the patent holder takes legal action. Do you see how the patent doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything, unlike a law?

They are not stupid. If they thought they had a reasonable change of challenging the patents so they could make the same product themselves, why has none of them done so?
Tons of different nitrifying products exist, it's just that you won't acknowledge them cause you believe a patent is causing them all to be fake.

So, most of these rulings have been around for many decades. Yet the US patent office still granted patents on both nitrite and ammonia oxidizing bacteria. Does the loach believe the US patent office routinely grants patents which it knows would never withstand a challenge to their legality?
Again they make mistakes, next to that it's not really a concern as any patent infringement goes through court. They just register.

why would the patent holders waste the time and money either filing or defending a clearly unenforceable patent?
Show evidence where they defended it. Otherwise you're making that up and they just filed it. Possible reasons that come to mind, it's good for promotion, prestige, tax deductable, maybe intimidate competitors.

All the loach can do is keep saying Supreme Court.
Yes, for it is the highest institution, it can even strike down presidential directives. They have the final word. That's why I said argue against the ruling for it is not my opinion. Cause you have not been able to explain that the ruling is not true or how it doesn't apply. You just came up with questions. Fine to answer them for you, but it doesn't prove your case.

Also consider the possibility that you are wrong in your interpretation of the patent(s), and they are about modified bacteria, or something else.
Still, a patent of something that is obvious, was already happening is non enforceable and does not prevent anyone. And everyone was already culturing those bacteria before they were named.
So my opinion currently is the patents are on elaborate production methods and testing such as the probe rather as the bacteria themselves.

The supreme court rulings clearly state that you can not patent a bacteria or its function unless it is modified.
And that is a good thing. Why would you want a man or a corporation to own a bacteria through a patent? No good can come of it.
 
Last edited:
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store