# Swiftech Withdraws H220 CPU Liquid Cooling Kit from US Market



## btarunr (Jul 20, 2013)

Rouchon Industries Inc., d/b/a/ Swiftech today announced the withdrawal from US sales of the H220 CPU cooling kit. On June 7 2013, Rouchon Industries Inc., d/b/a/ Swiftech received a letter from Asetek' s lawyers claiming that the H220 CPU cooler infringes on their US patents 8,240,362 (the '362 patent) and 8,245,764 (the '764 patent) and to cease selling, offering for sale and importing the H220 CPU cooler in the United States. Pending final disposition of this matter, Swiftech immediately placed a hold on shipments of the H220 CPU cooling kits into the USA.

On June 27, 2013 Swiftech's counsel responded to Asetek' s attorney by a letter stating that preliminarily, Swiftech does not believe that the H220 product infringes any valid claim of the '362 and '764 patents. Nonetheless, in an effort to avoid any unnecessary litigation Swiftech also asked whether Asetek would be willing to offer a nonexclusive license for the asserted patents. On July 12, 2013 Swiftech received a response from Asetek' s law firm stating that the company does not offer licenses. 






Swiftech continues to firmly assert its position with regards to the alleged infringement as stated in its letter dated June 27, 2013. Nevertheless, in order to avoid litigation the company's management has now made the business decision to withdraw the H220 CPU cooler from the US market. Given these circumstances, Swiftech wants to hereby reassure its US customers that: 1/ it will continue to provide full technical and warranty support for the H220 CPU cooling kits that have been sold in the US, and 2/ the product will continue to be sold in other countries.

Swiftech sincerely apologizes to its US customers for this extraordinary situation, the very first in its long history. For the past 15 years, Swiftech has been at the forefront of technological innovation in this industry, and it will continue to do so. In the words of Gabriel Rouchon, the company's Chairman and CTA: "I want our customers to know and expect with absolute confidence that Swiftech's resourcefulness will once again be brilliantly demonstrated in the immediate future."

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

There will be a lot more of this, anyone using a pump/block combo will infringe on these patents. Swiftech knows they infringe on the patents, otherwise they wouldn't have rolled over so quickly.

Asetek is in the right here, but they should allow licensing, and I believe is someone went to court about it Asetek would be forced to give reasonably priced licenses.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 20, 2013)

I hope CM Seidon puts up a better fight. It's a very nice Asetek alternative. It would be a shame if US buyers lost that too.

SilverStone was pretty vocal in claiming that its new Tundra kits don't step on Asetek's toes. Hope that stays, too.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

btarunr said:


> I hope CM Seidon puts up a better fight. It's a very nice Asetek alternative. It would be a shame if US buyers lost that too.



My guess is CoolIT will be the one to put up the fight.  We'll see about the CM Seidon, Asetek started the lawsuit process against them in March, and that unit is an obvious rip-off of Asetek products, I even thought it was Asetek made when I saw it.


----------



## erocker (Jul 20, 2013)

Screw competition! Free market? Hahaha!!

Perhaps Mercedes Benz should start suing over the automobile. We'd all be driving Benz's around here!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jul 20, 2013)

McSteel said:


> This is even worse than that idiotic patent for using a 140mm fan in a PSU... But not as bad as Apple's rounded rectangle.
> The US Patent Office *really* needs a revision or six.
> 
> *Nice going Asetek. Swiftech clearly outplayed you, so now you resort to suing, instead of improving your own offerings. Classy*.



Sounds a lot like Apple lately.


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 20, 2013)

It makes me wonder how anyone can these days even make or invent anything if every friggin thing in this world is already patented and protected in one or another way. It totally sucks. Big stand alone things, fine. But these days, they patent mouse clicking and breathing (almost), so how can you go beyond if they cover even the basics which are almost always needed to achieve something greater?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

erocker said:


> Screw competition! Free market? Hahaha!!
> 
> Perhaps Mercedes Benz should start suing over the automobile. We'd all be driving Benz's around here!



That is why licensing exists.



RejZoR said:


> It makes me wonder how anyone can these days even make or invent anything if every friggin thing in this world is already patented and protected in one or another way. It totally sucks. Big stand alone things, fine. But these days, they patent mouse clicking and breathing (almost), so how can you go beyond if they cover even the basics which are almost always needed to achieve something greater?



Yet there are thousands of patents for new ideas every day.


----------



## brian111 (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> There will be a lot more of this, anyone using a pump/block combo will infringe on these patents. Swiftech knows they infringe on the patents, otherwise they wouldn't have rolled over so quickly.
> 
> Asetek is in the right here, but they should allow licensing, and I believe is someone went to court about it Asetek would be forced to give reasonably priced licenses.



I have no idea if they knew they were infringing on patents, put the expense of litigation might explain "rolling over".


----------



## silkstone (Jul 20, 2013)

Coolermaster have been making AIO coolers for a very long time (not many were very good though). I can't see how they don't hold patents for AIO solutions.
I had an Aquagate viva back in 2007, way before Astek released anything on the market.

Asetek are behaving like patent bullies. There is no way they came up with the idea of AIO coolers.


----------



## Xzibit (Jul 20, 2013)

I don't see why people are upset. 

Asetek has a right to protect its patents and sue if need be.  These aftermarket AIO are being made/designed overseas where copyright laws aren't as strict or ignored and then being shipped to US market.

If other regions dis-reguard your claim on a patent why wouldn't you protect it in a region/country where your patent is recognized.  Makes perfect sense unless you like loosing money that otherwise would be yours.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 20, 2013)

I'm using a Aquagate R80, wonder if that was a actual CM design?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Coolermaster have been making AIO coolers for a very long time (not many were very good though). I can't see how they don't hold patents for AIO solutions.
> I had an Aquagate viva back in 2007, way before Astek released anything on the market.
> 
> Asetek are behaving like patent bullies. There is no way they came up with the idea of AIO coolers.



The claim Asetek is making has nothing to do with the idea of AIO liquid cooling, their claims are based on the idea of combining the pump and waterblock into one unit.  As far as I've seen they were the first to demonstrate and begin the process to patent this idea way back in 2003.

And Asetek has been producing AIO liquid coolers for OEMs since at least 2005.  The HP Blackbird was the first real consumer level product to see an AIO unit from Asetek, and it came out in 2007, but they had been doing AOI units for workstation and server class computers for a least 2 years before that.


----------



## micropage7 (Jul 20, 2013)

first i think its coz of product failure but it just coz of patents


----------



## HammerON (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> The claim Asetek is making has nothing to do with the idea of AIO liquid cooling, their claims are based on the idea of combining the pump and waterblock into one unit.  As far as I've seen they were the first to demonstrate and begin the process to patent this idea way back in 2003.
> 
> And Asetek has been producing AIO liquid coolers for OEMs since at least 2005.



I am all for patents in some situations. However in this instance I am against it as it stifles competition in this product area (one that has grown rapidly as of late). One thing I found attractive about Swiftech's H220 is the ability to add to the loop (expandability). This is not a feature that I have seen with any other AIO water cooling solutions.
So with Asetek having the patent then we can only rely on them for what they produce (or don't produce).


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

HammerON said:


> I am all for patents in some situations. However in this instance I am against it as it stifles competition in this product area (one that has grown rapidly as of late). One thing I found attractive about Swiftech's H220 is the ability to add to the loop (expandability). This is not a feature that I have seen with any other AIO water cooling solutions.
> So with Asetek having the patent then we can only rely on them for what they produce (or don't produce).



As I've said, that is why licensing exists.  The system is set up to not allow one company to hold a monopoly.  Asetek might refuse licensing at first, but once one(or a few) company(s) actually takes the issue to court Asetek will have to allow licensing at a reasonable cost.  If neither party can agree on a reasonable cost then the courts can decide that too.

At this point, no company has to stop producing coolers that Asetek claims infringes on the patents.  They can let Asetek take them to court, they would lose, but at the same time they could get the courts to rule that Asetek has to allow licensing.  It is just going to take a company to actually do it and not just role over.

In fact, more than likely the other companies Asetek has already sued(like CoolIT) have already settled out of court for some relatively small sum(compared to what they've made on the products so far) as well as a continuing licensing fee.  We just haven't heard anything about it because no one really talks about out of court settlements and a lot of times a condition of the settlement is that you don't talk about it.  I mean, Asetek sued CoolIT almost a year ago, and we haven't heard anything come of it, likely because they settled out of court a while ago and CoolIT continued on making AIO coolers.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 20, 2013)

Sorry - missed your post on licensing. Good point.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

HammerON said:


> Sorry - missed your post on licensing. Good point.



To be fair to you, my other post about licensing was in the other thread, and the post in this thread was a small easily missed single line.


----------



## Nordic (Jul 20, 2013)

Asetek may be completely in the right under current law, but one could question if the laws might need revision. I don't know enough to say if Asetek is abusing the patent laws but other companies have. It could be even that the real patent trolls are so prevalent that any company using the patent laws seems like a patent troll whether or not they are.


----------



## GC_PaNzerFIN (Jul 20, 2013)

We do not offer licensing because we want a monopoly. Lets sue them for breaking our patents which we don't license.

Patenting something very general and fundamental is very questionable and most of the time illegal. You are obliged to license it at "reasonable" fee.



micropage7 said:


> first i think its coz of product failure but it just coz of patents



Haha same. Wouldn't have been surprising because of all the problems with this kit.


----------



## ypsylon (Jul 20, 2013)

Patent Trolls, Patent Trolls, we are Patent Trolls... Negotiation is irrelevant, you will be Trolled. Resistance is futile. 

In truth Swiftech kit is quite OK, but CM Eisberg Prestige trounces everything from Asetek. Asetek are simply pissed off at the competition. Euphemism "patent infringement" is just smoke screen.

Thinking at the Asetek HQ is: sales dropping we should troll somebody for lost 'profits'.


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Jul 20, 2013)

ypsylon said:


> Thinking at the Asetek HQ is: sales dropping we should troll somebody for lost 'profits'.



Id hardly say sales are dropping a lot of Antec, Corsair - even the AIO that comes with the AMD FX line is made by Asetek (afaik they are even making some TT AIO's though they might deny it, the design is similar) 

I wouldnt say sales are dropping


----------



## Norton (Jul 20, 2013)

btarunr said:


> In the words of Gabriel Rouchon, the company's Chairman and CTA: "I want our customers to know and expect with absolute confidence that Swiftech's resourcefulness will once again be brilliantly demonstrated in the immediate future."



   Seems to me, based on this statement, that Swiftech may already have a plan and would rather spend their money on deploying it rather than feeding lawyers/putting their profits into Asetek's pocket.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 20, 2013)

Surely the all in one pump/block cannot be copyrighted, only the design/internals. Maybe Swiftech has a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it, and call it a weasel.


----------



## xhawn11 (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> There will be a lot more of this, anyone using a pump/block combo will infringe on these patents. Swiftech knows they infringe on the patents, otherwise they wouldn't have rolled over so quickly.
> 
> Asetek is in the right here, but they should allow licensing, and I believe is someone went to court about it Asetek would be forced to give reasonably priced licenses.



They pulled out quickly because they know they wont win a 'murican company in 'murica (apple vs samsung)


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jul 20, 2013)

Asetek are danish, not american, just saying...


----------



## silkstone (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> The claim Asetek is making has nothing to do with the idea of AIO liquid cooling, their claims are based on the idea of combining the pump and waterblock into one unit.  As far as I've seen they were the first to demonstrate and begin the process to patent this idea way back in 2003.
> 
> And Asetek has been producing AIO liquid coolers for OEMs since at least 2005.  The HP Blackbird was the first real consumer level product to see an AIO unit from Asetek, and it came out in 2007, but they had been doing AOI units for workstation and server class computers for a least 2 years before that.



Ahh, I apologize then. I didn't know Astek had done it first. 
however, the patents are for the AIO system. Including radiator, pump and waterblock.

The 2 patents they are using (in one of the lawsuits) are these:

The two patents are intrinsically related: the latter was filed back in 2010, while the former revised the design of the system to better reflect the state of the art when it was filed in 2011. Both include reference to the use of a liquid-cooling system connected to a pump and radiator, designed to be fully integrated into a single maintenance-free design - and if you think that sounds a little broad, you might be right given that the patents encompass 'different embodiments of the heat exchanging system as well as means for establishing and controlling a flow of cooling liquid.'

- from the link you provided. It seems like they give out patents for anything nowadays. People have been combining pumps, waterblocks and radiators for years. I remember when I was 16 or so and people were pulling radiators from mini's (the car) to use in their computers.


----------



## Steven B (Jul 20, 2013)

this ladies and gentlemen is how sad/small the US DIY market is, that is a company is even threatened with patent infringement, they would rather save the litigation money and pull the product lol.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> The claim Asetek is making has nothing to do with the idea of AIO liquid cooling, their claims are based on the idea of combining the pump and waterblock into one unit.  As far as I've seen they were the first to demonstrate and begin the process to patent this idea way back in 2003.
> 
> And Asetek has been producing AIO liquid coolers for OEMs since at least 2005.  The HP Blackbird was the first real consumer level product to see an AIO unit from Asetek, and it came out in 2007, but they had been doing AOI units for workstation and server class computers for a least 2 years before that.



My CM aquagate R80 is from 2005.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

james888 said:


> Asetek may be completely in the right under current law, but one could question if the laws might need revision. I don't know enough to say if Asetek is abusing the patent laws but other companies have. It could be even that the real patent trolls are so prevalent that any company using the patent laws seems like a patent troll whether or not they are.



I agree, companies like Rambus abuse the shit out of the law.  In this case Asetek is in the right.  They aren't trying to use some vague patent that doesn't really apply to the actual product to sue companies for money.  They also aren't suing over products that they never intend to product.



ypsylon said:


> Patent Trolls, Patent Trolls, we are Patent Trolls... Negotiation is irrelevant, you will be Trolled. Resistance is futile.
> 
> In truth Swiftech kit is quite OK, but CM Eisberg Prestige trounces everything from Asetek. Asetek are simply pissed off at the competition. Euphemism "patent infringement" is just smoke screen.
> 
> Thinking at the Asetek HQ is: sales dropping we should troll somebody for lost 'profits'.



Actually, up until this point Asetek really couldn't sue anyone.  Because the patents took so long to be approved they had no real way to enforce them, they had to wait for the patent to be approved.

Now that the patents are approved they can start going after the people infringing on them.

Generally a patent troll pulls up some old patent that doesn't apply to anything they currently produce.  Asetek isn't being a patent troll here, not everyone that sues for patent infringement is being a patent troll.  Asetek is genuinely protecting its ideas and products, and they aren't suing for money like a patent troll does.



silkstone said:


> Ahh, I apologize then. I didn't know Astek had done it first.
> however, the patents are for the AIO system. Including radiator, pump and waterblock.
> 
> The 2 patents they are using (in one of the lawsuits) are these:
> ...



Yes, but the part they are contesting is the pump/block combo.  This isn't an argument over AIO coolers, it is entirely based on the idea of combining the pump/block into one unit, which Asetek patented back 2003.  Patents cover all the new ideas presented in them, and as far as I can tell no one was even thinking about combining the pump and block before 2003/4 when Asetek filed these patents.



tigger said:


> My CM aquagate R80 is from 2005.



Your point?


----------



## JDG1980 (Jul 20, 2013)

These days, patents mostly seem to be used to obstruct innovation. We'd probably be better off getting rid of them entirely. There is no reason to think that the lack of a 2-decade monopoly will stop individuals or companies from innovating new designs.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 20, 2013)

nice, i seek too many times about h220 in god price, always $150 and above with low availability


----------



## silkstone (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Your point?



Their original patent was filed May 6th 2005. The patent in question is an continuation on the patent filed Jan 1st 2009. I see nothing about 2003. If CM released a product in 2005, you can bet your ass it was in development since at least 2004.

I can't find the original patent. But, I'd be very interested to see it.

Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US20120061058.pdf (pdf)

Edit - Found it

https://www.google.com/patents/WO2006119761A1?cl=en

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week34/OG/html/1381-3/US08245764-20120821.html

It's quite a lot of reading and I'm going to bed, so i'll take a look later. However, it seems they patented every possible type of heatsink. I'm not sure if it mentions a pump + waterblock in a single unit until the latest patent.

From a very quick read through. I think you are wrong. The pump + waterblock component of the patent only seems to have been added this past year (2012). I need to read it in full to check nothing is mentioned in the earlier patent though, but logic is; if it is mentioned in a prior patent, why would they request a continuation?

I can;t believe that it is in their 2005 filing.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 20, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Their original patent was filed May 6th 2005. The patent in question is an continuation on the patent filed Jan 1st 2009. I see nothing about 2003. If CM released a product in 2005, you can bet your ass it was in development since at least 2004.
> 
> I can't find the original patent. But, I'd be very interested to see it.
> 
> ...



The pump block combo's original drawing uses Socket 478 mounting, its been in there for a while...

Edit:  This is the original patent filed in 2004.  It clearly has the pump/block combo in it.

http://www.google.com/patents/EP1923771A1


----------



## badtaylorx (Jul 20, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> The pump block combo's original drawing uses Socket 478 mounting, its been in there for a while...
> 
> Edit:  This is the original patent filed in 2004.  It clearly has the pump/block combo in it.
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents/EP1923771A1



i take it this does not involve the apogee II???


----------



## cdawall (Jul 20, 2013)

badtaylorx said:


> i take it this does not involve the apogee II???



That's what I was trying to figure out in the previous thread. The apogee drive and apogee drive II both appear to violate the patents...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2013)

badtaylorx said:


> i take it this does not involve the apogee II???





cdawall said:


> That's what I was trying to figure out in the previous thread. The apogee drive and apogee drive II both appear to violate the patents...



See that is what differentiates a patent troll from a company legitimately defending its patents.  The Apogee Drive doesn't compete with any Asetek products.  It is really in a different market segment from Asetek products.  Asetek products are for people that don't want a custom water loop, that just want a sealed no hassle AIO liquid cooler.  The Apogee Drive II is for people that do want custom liquid cooling, they are different market segments.  The courts have demonstrated that they will not allow a company that has no products, and no plans to release products in a market segment, to enforce patents in that market segment.  If Asetek was really a patent troll they could go after the Apogee Drive, but they obviously aren't.  They are only going after products that infringe on their patents in market segments they are actually in.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 21, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> See that is what differentiates a patent troll from a company legitimately defending its patents.  The Apogee Drive doesn't compete with any Asetek products.  It is really in a different market segment from Asetek products.  Asetek products are for people that don't want a custom water loop, that just want a sealed no hassle AIO liquid cooler.  The Apogee Drive II is for people that do want custom liquid cooling, they are different market segments.  The courts have demonstrated that they will not allow a company that has no products, and no plans to release products in a market segment, to enforce patents in that market segment.  If Asetek was really a patent troll they could go after the Apogee Drive, but they obviously aren't.  They are only going after products that infringe on their patents in market segments they are actually in.



well said!


----------



## erocker (Jul 21, 2013)

So... Couldn't they just sell the drive, rad and tubes, with a little bottle of coolant in one nice little package... just not put together?


----------



## Nordic (Jul 21, 2013)

erocker said:


> So... Couldn't they just sell the drive, rad and tubes, with a little bottle of coolant in one nice little package... just not put together?



They could. But that leaves what is most scary about watercooling left for someone who hasn't done it before.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2013)

erocker said:


> So... Couldn't they just sell the drive, rad and tubes, with a little bottle of coolant in one nice little package... just not put together?



Sure, but at that point why would anyone buy it? If they are going to do that, you might as well buy one of their other kits.

Edit: It seems they already do that anyway. You just have to provide you own tubing. http://www.swiftech.com/h2o-x20-elite.aspx


----------



## silkstone (Jul 21, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> The pump block combo's original drawing uses Socket 478 mounting, its been in there for a while...
> 
> Edit:  This is the original patent filed in 2004.  It clearly has the pump/block combo in it.
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents/EP1923771A1



Fair enough. I couldn't find that patent before. It'd be interesting to see if Coolermaster had anything in development before that patent was filed. Apparently, neither parties are commenting on the case.

They should at least be required to license the patent out, I personally do not like the Antek units very much and think it would be a shame to see those as the only option.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Fair enough. I couldn't find that patent before. It'd be interesting to see if Coolermaster had anything in development before that patent was filed. Apparently, neither parties are commenting on the case.
> 
> They should at least be required to license the patent out, I personally do not like the Antek units very much and think it would be a shame to see those as the only option.



Yeah, right now it seems Asetek is taking the stance that they don't licence their technology.  However, if it went to court, the past precedent is that the court will force them to license the technology at a reasonable price.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 21, 2013)

Hood said:


> Merely combining elements of prior engineering art should not constitute a patent; it's just an idea that anyone can describe.  I could patent 100 ideas a day by simply describing them in writing, any damn fool thing I could dream up, and just wait for some sucker to make something that I could claim infringes on my patent.  Oh wait, that would make me a patent troll.  The problem is in the Patent Office.  I'm not saying they're corrupt, but if not, they are unique among all the government agencies.  Patents should only be issued for specific designs that improve on prior art in tangible ways.  Instead we have thousands of patents for "improved turbo design" after some brainiac added a few fins or just swirled a port with a die grinder.  Or someone screwed a pump to a water block and thought they invented something, and the idiots in the Patent Office agreed to grant them a patent worded so vaguely that nobody else can screw a pump to a water block without paying them, even when it's a vastly improved design that makes the original look crude in comparison.




Here's the fun of the US patent system, a patent isn't really worth squat until it enters court.

Let's say I patent a bicycle with a laser cannon mounted on the front.  Some levity is needed, so just hang with me.  Both the bicycle and the laser cannon might be patentable works, but my patent is the combination.  Company X decides to take their own laser and bicycle combination to the market.  I automatically win the patent suit, right?

-WRONG-

Company X and I go to court.  A judge looks at the patent, and needs to determine two things.  One, is the patent actually valid for the situation.  As this is a clear case of similar products, we're still in business there.  Two, does the patent actually describe a new or non-trivially derived use of material to complete its stated objective.

Point two is sketchy.  The patent office has approved the patent, but a judge can basically invalidate it.  The patent failing to pass the judge's scrutiny means that it is not a valid and defensible patent, and you've got a worthless patent.

With the flood of patents hitting the US patent office, more and more of these patents are being invalidated, despite approval.  It's severely screwed up, but nobody's trying to fix it because it would take patent lawyers.  Patent lawyers make huge amounts of money in patent litigation, so they aren't chomping at the bit to change things.  


So, best case Swiftech goes to court, spends huge amounts of money, and gets the patent overturned.  The problem is the legal fees in this sort of transaction can never be recouped.  Cooler Master might be able to afford this, but Swiftech might be too small.  Worst case, litigation leads to the patent being upheld.  This sort of patent will kill pretty much everyone not buying from Asetek.  Goodbye market diversity, and reasonable pricing.

I think Swiftech is just conceding the fight, because the legal fees are too large.  It's shameful that this is where we are, and even more shameful that this sort of patent was approved in the US.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 21, 2013)

cdawall said:


> If I could patent a square with rounded corners and a button I would.



Apple would steal that Idea CD and you would be in litigation for years.


----------



## drdeathx (Jul 21, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Here's the fun of the US patent system, a patent isn't really worth squat until it enters court.
> 
> Let's say I patent a bicycle with a laser cannon mounted on the front.  Some levity is needed, so just hang with me.  Both the bicycle and the laser cannon might be patentable works, but my patent is the combination.  Company X decides to take their own laser and bicycle combination to the market.  I automatically win the patent suit, right?
> 
> ...




We sure appreciate the education. Being computer nerds, I think we know what a patent is and what happens when companies steal the idea or design...

Swiftech is bending cause their lawyers told them too.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2013)

The patent in question covers that L-shaped fitting on the block/pump, which can turn around 180° while remaining watertight.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 21, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> See that is what differentiates a patent troll from a company legitimately defending its patents.  The Apogee Drive doesn't compete with any Asetek products.  It is really in a different market segment from Asetek products.  Asetek products are for people that don't want a custom water loop, that just want a sealed no hassle AIO liquid cooler.  The Apogee Drive II is for people that do want custom liquid cooling, they are different market segments.  The courts have demonstrated that they will not allow a company that has no products, and no plans to release products in a market segment, to enforce patents in that market segment.  If Asetek was really a patent troll they could go after the Apogee Drive, but they obviously aren't.  They are only going after products that infringe on their patents in market segments they are actually in.



Here's where we're going to have to differentiate opinions on the matter.

Asetek has filed a patent that is basically applicable to any closed loop heat transfer system.  You're looking at a patent from a computer hardware focused company, and only seeing that one application.

In reality, houses can use a system of tubes beneath the flooring for heating and cooling.  A heat transfer segment, with an integrated pump, can push the heated or cooled liquid out and into the tubes.  The tubes then transfer a portion of their heat into the surroundings.  These systems have been around in high-end houses and building for decades.  

Now, tell me that Asetek has a case.  A patentable system must demonstrate that it is a unique solution, and not a trivial combination of existing components.

So, Swiftech is doing the only sensible thing.  They are forgoing the huge money pit that this litigation will cost.  They are pulling the product that they think might be the source of this litigation, and they are changing their aims.


I cannot call this trolling, because it isn't.  I'm calling this a crappy patent, that should never have been approved by the US patent system.  Because it would take a law suit to challenge this, Swiftech is backing down.  They cannot afford the litigation, but hopefully someone else will.

As far as not suing for other products, just wait.  Rarely do companies stop when something is proven viable.  If one lawsuit threat stops the AIO competitors, another could well kill the custom loop makers.  Who's to say that Asetek won't be designing these systems in the near future?  I prefer to allow action to speak, and Asetek's licensing refusal speaks volumes about their intents.



Edit:
Let's clarify one more thing. If you were to spend 20 minutes, and remove all references to CPU and computer what do you have?  A patent for a generic closed loop heat transfer system, where the pump happens to be integrated with one of the heat transfer surfaces.  I could make the same claims about any car radiator, home heating/cooling system, and the environmental water heating systems used in houses (black sacks on the roof absorb solar energy, heat water, then the heated water is used in the house). 

This indicates that the patent was improperly awarded, and any judge presented with it should invalidate it for not meeting basic requirements.  If the US patent office was competent and well staffed this crap never would have been given out in the first place.


----------



## Hood (Jul 21, 2013)

btarunr said:


> The patent in question covers that L-shaped fitting on the block/pump, which can turn around 180° while remaining watertight.



Are the Cool IT-made products next on the list, since they also employ the rotating fittings?  If so, Corsair has problems...


----------



## btarunr (Jul 21, 2013)

Hood said:


> Are the Cool IT-made products next on the list, since they also employ the rotating fittings?  If so, Corsair has problems...



Yes, Asetek does have an ongoing litigation with CoolIT.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Here's where we're going to have to differentiate opinions on the matter.
> 
> Asetek has filed a patent that is basically applicable to any closed loop heat transfer system.  You're looking at a patent from a computer hardware focused company, and only seeing that one application.
> 
> ...



You went and typed all that out and it was a complete waste.  You're still trying to argue based on the assumption they are suing over AOI cooling systems, they aren't.  They are suing about the individual, unigue, parts that they developed and patented.  I swear I read somewhere that it was the pump/block combo, but BTA said it was the rotating fitting.  Either way, they aren't suing simply because they threw a bunch of pre-existing parts together into a system and patented the system.  Parts of the system didn't exist before they developed them, that is why they have a valid claim, and these unique parts in the patent are what they are trying to prevent other companies from using.

And if you spend 20 minutes removing CPU and computer, you still have a patent on the pump/block combo and 180° rotating fittings, both of which as far as anyone can tell didn't exists before Asetek developed them.  Both of these things are innovative ideas that seem to be unique, no patent judge would invalidate the patent on these.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 21, 2013)

btarunr said:


> The patent in question covers that L-shaped fitting on the block/pump, which can turn around 180° while remaining watertight.



"The two patents are intrinsically related: the latter was filed back in 2010, while the former revised the design of the system to better reflect the state of the art when it was filed in 2011. Both include reference to the use of a liquid-cooling system connected to a pump and radiator, designed to be fully integrated into a single maintenance-free design - and if you think that sounds a little broad, you might be right given that the patents encompass 'different embodiments of the heat exchanging system as well as means for establishing and controlling a flow of cooling liquid.'"

and

"The patent in question, publication number US 2012/0061058 (PDF warning), describes 'a cooling system for a computer system [...] comprising a reservoir having an amount of cooling liquid, said cooling liquid intended for accumulating and transferring the thermal energy dissipated from the processing unit to the cooling liquid. The cooling system has a heat exchange interface for providing thermal contact between the processing unit and the cooling liquid for dissipating heat from the processing unit to the cooling liquid.'"

- http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2013/03/11/asetek-sues-cm/1
- http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/08/31/astek-sues-coolit/1


I haven't read anything about the L-Shaped fitting. But, I have yet to find a well-written (neutral) article on the matter.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 21, 2013)

btarunr said:


> The patent in question covers that L-shaped fitting on the block/pump, which can turn around 180° while remaining watertight.



What?

Neither patent 362 or 764 make mention of that component.  The diagrams provided in the patent filing don't even include provisions for that fitting.

Are you seeing something that I am missing?  If so, please point it out so I can understand where you're coming from.




newtekie1 said:


> You went and typed all that out and it was a complete waste.  You're still trying to argue based on the assumption they are suing over AOI cooling systems, they aren't.  They are suing about the individual, unigue, parts that they developed and patented.  I swear I read somewhere that it was the pump/block combo, but BTA said it was the rotating fitting.  Either way, they aren't suing simply because they threw a bunch of pre-existing parts together into a system and patented the system.  Parts of the system didn't exist before they developed them, that is why they have a valid claim, and these unique parts in the patent are what they are trying to prevent other companies from using.
> 
> And if you spend 20 minutes removing CPU and computer, you still have a patent on the pump/block combo and 180° rotating fittings, both of which as far as anyone can tell didn't exists before Asetek developed them.  Both of these things are innovative ideas that seem to be unique, no patent judge would invalidate the patent on these.



Don't go by what you read, do the reading.  Here is the article the other thread linked to, from Swiftech: http://www.swiftech.com/pr-7-19-13-h220-removedfromus.aspx

Their two filings don't make mention of a fitting.  What they are (and they're really one filing later updated to reflect the changing reality) is an attempt to make a pump, radiator, block system into a two component system.  This is clear as day if you look at the pictures.

My argument is that this is not a novel approach or idea.  It's a logical progression.  They took a pump, relocated it in the cooling loop, and tried to patent it.  The structure of the pump could likely be patented, assuming that the pump worked in some novel way.  That is not well defined in the patent.

I am all for patents protecting unique ideas.  Asetek likely spent a good chunk of money in designing the system, which was an engineering challenge.  What it was not is a novel idea.  The purpose of a patent, hopefully we both agree on this, is to protect novel ideas not engineering investments.  


As far as the 180 degree bracket, that should be patentable.  It is a unique design, that is not a trivial design change.  Assuming that is buried in the patent somewhere deep, Asetek has a winner.  The problem is that unique idea should have a patent, not the heat change system that is incorported around it.  

Neither cited patent from Swiftech covers the bracket, so I don't know how that conclusion has been reached.  If there is something other than the press release cited, please do provide it.  I'd be happy to be wrong if why I am wrong could be cited, rather than conjectured at.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 21, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> The pump block combo's original drawing uses Socket 478 mounting, its been in there for a while...
> 
> Edit:  This is the original patent filed in 2004.  It clearly has the pump/block combo in it.
> 
> http://www.google.com/patents/EP1923771A1



I just read through this.

It appears to be the original patent + the 2008 update.

Does the unedited 2004 patent contain a water block + pump combination. If not, then it should not even have been considered for a patent due to prior art.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Don't go by what you read, do the reading.  Here is the article the other thread linked to, from Swiftech: http://www.swiftech.com/pr-7-19-13-h220-removedfromus.aspx
> 
> Their two filings don't make mention of a fitting.  What they are (and they're really one filing later updated to reflect the changing reality) is an attempt to make a pump, radiator, block system into a two component system.  This is clear as day if you look at the pictures.
> 
> ...



You can't use the logic that someone would have thought to do it eventually to invalidate a patent.  That is true of most patents.  The fact is no one had thought of combining the pump and block before Asetek, it was a unique idea, and patenting it is a valid thing to do.

Tons of patents are just someone taking something and improving it in a new way that no one else thought of, that is the definition of innovation.



silkstone said:


> I just read through this.
> 
> It appears to be the original patent + the 2008 update.
> 
> Does the unedited 2004 patent contain a water block + pump combination. If not, then it should not even have been considered for a patent due to it being existing technology.



You can read the original on the USPTO website here.  I can't get the image to work, but the descriptions of the figures still match, so it appears that yes the pump/block combo was in the original 2004 filing.

Again, the original art shows 478 mounting hardware, that should give you an idea of how old these drawing are, 775 replaced 478 in 2004 and 478 was pretty much off the market by 2005.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 21, 2013)

As the patent also mentions a separate res, block, pump and radiator system, I am dubious as to the scrutiny the patent was given. It seems like a patent for a 'pre-assembled' water cooling solution. 

We'll see what a judge says at the outcome though. It's a lot of text to read for a Sunday afternoon so I will reserve judgement until a judge rules on it or I see a proper write up on the issue.

Edit - I got the image from the original it appears it was issued in 2005.


----------



## DannibusX (Jul 21, 2013)

Only read the first page here, so here I go.

Asetek is clearly in the right in demanding licensing fees for their intellectual property.  Asetek clearly doesn't meet the requirement of being a patent troll.  They actually manufacture AIO units.  They invented the pump/block, they patented it at the very least, so it's their property.

Swiftech, etc. should immediately begin the process of license fee negotiations.  If Asetek won't license it, then they are dicks, lol.


----------



## Mindweaver (Jul 21, 2013)

Wow.. Just when I was going to pull the trigger on one of these units..


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 21, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> You can't use the logic that someone would have thought to do it eventually to invalidate a patent.  That is true of most patents.  The fact is no one had thought of combining the pump and block before Asetek, it was a unique idea, and patenting it is a valid thing to do.
> 
> Tons of patents are just someone taking something and improving it in a new way that no one else thought of, that is the definition of innovation.



Answer me this question, then either agree to the absurdity or continue with an argument that is untenable.

Tomorrow I am going to file a patent.  This patent will be based off of an initially three component system; a pump, a radiator, and a heat transfer surface.  Instead of three unique components, I will combine all three into one.  It will have the heat transfer surface on the bottom, the pump integrated above that, a flow through a finned radiator, then a series of pipes taking the cooled fluid back down into the heat transfer surface.

The unit itself will look very similar to a conventional large air cooler, with an extra large base.

I am taking three things that were once separate, and combining them into a single device.  By your logic, this is patentable.  On top of the patent issued to me, I can sue pretty much everyone.  I will argue that the competitive options may use a large loop, but selling all three things together violates my patent.


Please, argue that what I am saying is wrong.  Argue that this is somehow a derivative work, and it would never get a patent.  My argument is that Asetek already has a similar patent.  That is the problem I've got.  They got a patent for something that should never have been issued a patent.  The connectors can reasonably be patented.  The pumps, depending upon operational methodology, can be patented.  Bolting two existing components together is not novel or unique, and thus should not have been patentable.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 21, 2013)

silkstone said:


> As the patent also mentions a separate res, block, pump and radiator system, I am dubious as to the scrutiny the patent was given. It seems like a patent for a 'pre-assembled' water cooling solution.
> 
> We'll see what a judge says at the outcome though. It's a lot of text to read for a Sunday afternoon so I will reserve judgement until a judge rules on it or I see a proper write up on the issue.
> 
> ...



Patents can cover a lot of technology, they do not have to focus on one item.  You do not have to patent every individual part.  If you patent a system that contains unique parts, then the unique parts are patented as well.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Answer me this question, then either agree to the absurdity or continue with an argument that is untenable.
> 
> Tomorrow I am going to file a patent.  This patent will be based off of an initially three component system; a pump, a radiator, and a heat transfer surface.  Instead of three unique components, I will combine all three into one.  It will have the heat transfer surface on the bottom, the pump integrated above that, a flow through a finned radiator, then a series of pipes taking the cooled fluid back down into the heat transfer surface.
> 
> ...



Sure, its patentable, but you couldn't sue everyone.  They already have prior art.  Your concept would improve upon it, compacting the design, and would likely require some pretty nifty engineering to make into on unit that can hang off a CPU socket.  You would get the patent, and that engineering that you did would be protected, but you couldn't sue everyone that makes AIO coolers.

You want a perfect example of how the patent system allows people to take something an innovate it just look at barbed wire.  There are literally thousands of patents for barbed wire were someone took the original design and just tweaked it.  Moved the barbs closer, changed the barb design, changed the material it is made from.  Barbed wire was original made of wire, someone decided to make it out of stamped razor thin metal and patented that.  Then someone came along and figured out if you run a reinforcing wire down the middle of the stamped metal it worked better, he combined the two previous concept into one and patented that.  It was still a patent for barbed wire, but the idea of combining the wire and stamped metal was something no one else had thought to do, and hence was patentable.  However, he couldn't go back and sue everyone else that was making barbed wire out of just wire or just stamped metal.

That is why Asetek isn't suing everyone selling closed water loops.  If the pump is separate or contained in the res or radiator, they aren't suing them, because they know they really can't.

Also, you'd think combing different parts of a system would be logical and easy to do.  But, ironically, Swiftech tried combining the pump with the radiator, they even patented it so no one else could do it.  It doesn't work nearly as well as combining the pump with the waterblock.  Thee reason is that a lot of people put the radiator at the top of the case, the highest point in the case.  So when the fluid gets a little low the pump begins sucking air in this situation.  However, putting the pump on the waterblock greatly reduces the likelihood of the pump sucking air.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jul 21, 2013)

This argument is getting us nowhere.  I concede that you have some reasonable points, but the truth is both of our ideas mean little.  Going to court is the only way this is going to be solved, and lawyers don't run on logic.  


With that, I concede.  Continued point and counterpoint doesn't serve either of us.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 22, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Answer me this question, then either agree to the absurdity or continue with an argument that is untenable.
> 
> Tomorrow I am going to file a patent.  This patent will be based off of an initially three component system; a pump, a radiator, and a heat transfer surface.  Instead of three unique components, I will combine all three into one.  It will have the heat transfer surface on the bottom, the pump integrated above that, a flow through a finned radiator, then a series of pipes taking the cooled fluid back down into the heat transfer surface.
> 
> ...



Ultra sold that 5-6 years ago and its already been patented.


----------



## jihadjoe (Jul 22, 2013)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> Bolting two existing components together is not novel or unique, and thus should not have been patentable.



Just about every complex machine is about bolting two or more existing, simpler components together. If we can't patent based on that logic, then by all rights we shouldn't be able to patent anything at all.


----------



## bmaverick (Jul 22, 2013)

If Asetek even wins against any of the others, it will fail due to the prior Apple G5 LCS that uses the Panasonic pump+block combo.  The time Asetek was even fileing for the patents, Panasonic was already in production.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 22, 2013)

bmaverick said:


> If Asetek even wins against any of the others, it will fail due to the prior Apple G5 LCS that uses the Panasonic pump+block combo.  The time Asetek was even fileing for the patents, Panasonic was already in production.



The Panasonic system didn't use a pump/block combo, the pump was separate from the blocks.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 23, 2013)

It looks like the pump and block are together. Along with the radiator, that is.x


----------



## Grnfinger (Jul 23, 2013)

looks very heavy


----------



## Norton (Jul 23, 2013)

silkstone said:


> It looks like the pump and block are together. Along with the radiator, that is.x
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/130722/kuehlblock.jpg




Here's another one:





XIGMATEK AIO-S80DP

*EDIT- Here's an Easter Egg- click Xigmatek's product page for this 
http://www.xigmatek.com/product/liquid-aios80dp.php


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 23, 2013)

silkstone said:


> It looks like the pump and block are together. Along with the radiator, that is.x
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/130722/kuehlblock.jpg



I owned one of these, look at it from a different angle, the pump is clearly completely separate from the waterblocks.  In fact, anyone into watercooling will recognize the pump they used.








Norton said:


> Here's another one:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/130722/Xig AIO.jpg
> XIGMATEK AIO-S80DP
> ...



True, but that came out in 2007, long after Asetek's patent, and the pump was still technically a separate unit from the block.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 23, 2013)

Its a ddc1t with the noise isolator block at the bottom. I had one myself.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Jul 23, 2013)

I'd like to find one of them in a market for a tenner


----------



## silkstone (Jul 23, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> I owned one of these, look at it from a different angle, the pump is clearly completely separate from the waterblocks.  In fact, anyone into watercooling will recognize the pump they used.
> 
> http://www.the620guy.com/Images/ebay/2011-08-15/Apple G5 Dual 2-7GHz 512K 5.JPG
> 
> ...



Couldn't it be argues that as they are bolted together, it is essentially a single unit rather than separate pieces? The tech in the swiftech units does seem different as in the pump has been opened at the bottom and had the waterblock bolted on, but is it a big enough difference?

The meat of their patent seems to cover any type of integrated heatsink, block (+rad), can certain aspects of a patent be invalidated whilst keeping the individual components intact?


----------



## johnspack (Jul 23, 2013)

Having a hard time getting this...  aren't all closed loop cooling systems pretty much the same darn thing?  Weird.....


----------



## Sp33d Junki3 (Jul 24, 2013)

johnspack said:


> Having a hard time getting this...  aren't all closed loop cooling systems pretty much the same darn thing?  Weird.....


Yes they are, Swiftech H220 and CM Eisberg is not a closed loop. They are watercooling kits, that is pre-built for your convenience.

This is basically gone too far in my books by Asetek. I see the reason to sue Coolit, which is a copy of theirs. 
But Swiftech I do not see it, when they been doing this for so long.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 24, 2013)

silkstone said:


> Couldn't it be argues that as they are bolted together, it is essentially a single unit rather than separate pieces? The tech in the swiftech units does seem different as in the pump has been opened at the bottom and had the waterblock bolted on, but is it a big enough difference?
> 
> The meat of their patent seems to cover any type of integrated heatsink, block (+rad), can certain aspects of a patent be invalidated whilst keeping the individual components intact?



Being bolted together into a single functioning system is different then making them one solid unit.  If you can pull a piece out and the piece still works as it is intended, then it is still technically a separate part.  In Asetek's case, the waterblock becomes part of the pump and the pump becomes part of the waterblock, the two will not function separately.

And yes, patent judges can pick apart patents invalidating some parts while upholding others.



johnspack said:


> Having a hard time getting this...  aren't all closed loop cooling systems pretty much the same darn thing?  Weird.....





Sp33d Junki3 said:


> Yes they are, Swiftech H220 and CM Eisberg is not a closed loop. They are watercooling kits, that is pre-built for your convenience.
> 
> This is basically gone too far in my books by Asetek. I see the reason to sue Coolit, which is a copy of theirs.
> But Swiftech I do not see it, when they been doing this for so long.



This isn't about closed loop coolers, it is about the pump/block combo(and maybe the special fittings).


----------



## tacosRcool (Jul 24, 2013)

Why can't everybody just get along?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jul 24, 2013)

tacosRcool said:


> Why can't everybody just get along?



Because it sucks to spend time developing an idea only to have another company rip the idea off and sell it as their own.


----------



## Sp33d Junki3 (Jul 24, 2013)

I never said it was about close loops coolers.


----------



## MT Alex (Jul 24, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Because it sucks to spend time developing an idea only to have another company rip the idea off and sell it as their own.



Swiftech's pump system is vastly superior to Asetek's, and their block is only similar in the fact that it is copper.  Following the whole pump/block patent theory would be like Yugo suing Lamborghini because they put a motor in a car chassis.


----------



## erocker (Jul 24, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Because it sucks to spend time developing an idea only to have another company rip the idea off and sell it as their own.



Must especially suck when the other company makes a vastly superior product too.


----------



## jihadjoe (Aug 12, 2013)

erocker said:


> Must especially suck when the other company makes a vastly superior product too.



Didn't this happen way back in 1905 with Springfield and Mauser? From what I've read about it the US paid royalties to the tune of $200,000 when they found that the M1903 infringed on seven of Mauser's patents.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 12, 2013)

erocker said:


> Must especially suck when the other company makes a vastly superior product too.



What exactly do you mean by "vastly superior"?  The Asetek built H110 hands the H220 its ass performance wise.  The only thing "superior" is the BS customization, which basically defeats the point of an AIO.


----------



## xhawn11 (Aug 13, 2013)

^ is that the best review you can find?


----------



## Frick (Aug 13, 2013)

xhawn11 said:


> ^ is that the best review you can find?



Reviewing coolers isn't difficult, as long as all coolers are tested in the same way, which I'm pretty sure is the case at Anandtech.


----------



## MT Alex (Aug 13, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> What exactly do you mean by "vastly superior"?  The Asetek built H110 hands the H220 its ass performance wise.  The only thing "superior" is the BS customization, which basically defeats the point of an AIO.
> 
> http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph6716/52896.png



Umm, the H100 is a 280mm rad compared to the H220s 240mm, so yeah, it gets a few degrees, not exactly an ass whooping.  The true comparison would be the H100i with it's similar radiator, which doesn't perform as well or as quiet.  Thanks for the chart, though.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2013)

MT Alex said:


> Umm, the H100 is a 280mm rad compared to the H220s 240mm, so yeah, it gets a few degrees, not exactly an ass whooping.  The true comparison would be the H100i with it's similar radiator, which doesn't perform as well or as quiet.  Thanks for the chart, though.



Except the H100i isn't made by Asetek.


----------



## MT Alex (Aug 13, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> Except the H100i isn't made by Asetek.



Then why isn't it on the chopping block as well?  That wasn't the point of the post, anyhow, which you conveniently didn't respond to.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2013)

MT Alex said:


> Then why isn't it on the chopping block as well?



CoolIT products are on the chopping block, CoolIT and Asetek are in a legal battle over the issue.



MT Alex said:


> That wasn't the point of the post, anyhow, which you conveniently didn't respond to.



You're absolutely right, a true comparison would be the H100 vs H220 with the same fans, but I couldn't find any respected reviews comparing the two.


----------



## MT Alex (Aug 13, 2013)

newtekie1 said:


> CoolIT products are on the chopping block, CoolIT and Asetek are in a legal battle over the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely right, a true comparison would be the H100 vs H220 with the same fans, but I couldn't find any respected reviews comparing the two.



Fair enough
I'm hoping that a solution is found that works out for all manufacturers involved, not only for their sake, but also the consumer's.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 13, 2013)

That is also the H110 280, not an H100. Big difference there.


----------



## claes (Aug 14, 2013)

MartinsLiquidLab did one with the h100i. http://martinsliquidlab.org/2013/03/13/corsair-hydro-series-h100i-aio-cpu-cooler/9/

That said, the Corsair AIOs are not really comparable to the h220. The h220 has a superior pump in every regard - way quieter, much more flow. It is also expandable, in that you can use it to cool your GPUs or any other component you can find a block for. It also comes with much, much better fans.


----------



## erocker (Aug 14, 2013)

claes said:


> MartinsLiquidLab did one with the h100i. http://martinsliquidlab.org/2013/03/13/corsair-hydro-series-h100i-aio-cpu-cooler/9/
> 
> That said, the Corsair AIOs are not really comparable to the h220. The h220 has a superior pump in every regard - way quieter, more flow. It is also expandable, in that you can use it to cool your GPUs or any other component you can find a block for. It is also comes with much, much better fans.



Indeed. The Swiftech h220 is by far the superior product for all of the AIO water coolers. Which makes sense as to why they were first on the chopping block. Swiftech now just needs to do better advertising with their kit that is the same thing as the AIO h220, just not assembled.


----------



## m1dg3t (Aug 14, 2013)

xhawn11 said:


> ^ is that the best review you can find?



 TruDat!



erocker said:


> The Swiftech h220 is by far the superior product for all of the AIO water coolers.



Hands down! Nearly identical performance to an Apogee drive 2/mcr220 combo


----------



## DanishDevil (Sep 20, 2013)

NCIXUS is selling the H220 on sale for $129.99 through September 25th! Just picked one up, I hope the order goes through. 

http://us.ncix.com/products/?sku=79583&vpn=H220&manufacture=Swiftech&promoid=1258


----------



## newtekie1 (Sep 20, 2013)

erocker said:


> Indeed. The Swiftech h220 is by far the superior product for all of the AIO water coolers. Which makes sense as to why they were first on the chopping block. Swiftech now just needs to do better advertising with their kit that is the same thing as the AIO h220, just not assembled.



I'm pretty sure CoolIT was sued first, Swiftech is just the first to give up and actually pull products.


----------



## spikey27 (Sep 24, 2013)

*spikey27*

Although Asetek's response said they did not offer such licensing, I believe the opposite to be true. Visit their site, and others using their technology, and decide for yourself.

Numerous posts herein suggest Asetek is protecting their interests. I totally disagree - what they're doing is using their patent (validity not yet determined) and the threat of a lawsuit related thereto, to eliminate their strongest competition who likely has the best product through intimidation.

I hope somebody has the fortitude to destroy their patents.

For starters, I don't believe Asetek had the first such product. I suspect someone else (CoolerMaster?) had something which serves as apriori.

My 2cents worth.


----------

