Commercial schematics - please read

[Carl]

The original intent of this web site was (and still is) to dissiminate information about metal detector design, of which there ain't much out there. The major thrust of my efforts has been to obtain permission to post magazine project articles. However, I am reaching the end of that road, as there is not a whole lot left to post. Also, most of those projects are not as advanced as what some of you are looking for, and often they do not even provide relevant information to build upon.

A long time ago, I had thought about creating a section for commercial schematics, but I rejected the idea for several reasons. One, I didn't have many to post. Two, most manufacturers (OK, all manufacturers) would not be too pleased to see their schematics posted. Three, there may be copyright issues, and I doubt I could ever get the necessary permission.

However, let's be realistic... commercial schematics are out and about, and a number of them have been posted on the forums from time to time. I have had no complaints so far. Also, the whole veil of secrecy surrounding detector schematics seems a bit silly, when you can order Sam's Photofacts for damn near every TV, radio, and VCR ever made. It's even sillier, considering the ease at which a detector circuit can be traced out, and the fact that detector manufacturers do just that with competitor's models.

So... my question to the forum is, should I just go ahead and create a "Commercial Schematics" page? My only personal requirement is that a schematic cannot be an original from the manufacturer, to avoid copyright issues, unless permission to post it can be secured.

What do others think about this? I welcome input from manufacturers, if they desire, and all emails sent directly to me will be considered confidential.

- Carl

[Chris]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Hi Carl,

Yes, that's a good idea.

I have a question to your PI-1. What is Auto Trackspeed? And how does it work?

chris

[C.Pruysers]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Carl it is a wonderful idea provided the one that is sending you the schematics will be protected . When you leave out the original name of the detector what do you know !!! Somebody sent you a schematic of some detector and you posted it .Look into it some more please . Kees

[Carl]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Yes, schematic "donations" could be anonymous, or not, donor's choice. I think I would properly label all schematics with the detector names.

- Carl

[Pawel]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

I'm sure everybody will like the idea (except the manufcturers of course).
It would be funny to play the game "how does it work", then "how to improve this piece of junk" and finally "how to build a much better device".

Btw, do you think the Big Boys have a sense of humor?

Regards,

Pawel

[Cees van Berkel]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Dear Carl,

I think that I (we?) can learn a lot from commercial schematics. So I like your idea
very much!!

Best regards,

Cees (Holland)

[Nicko]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Carl,

Whilst I agree with all that it'd be great to look at commercial examples, I would be careful. By knowingly hosting copyright information you are exposing yourself to litigation. At the end of the day, whatever others may or may not do, you should be very careful. Removing the names of original posters, manufacturers or device names will not protect you should anyone come after you. There is intellectual property in those schematics (which is of course why we are interested), and having invested in it, I'm sure the owner, someday, will want to protect that investment...

Nicko

[Dave J.]

shark-infested waters?

The issues you've raised, are ones I've had to research. Here are my opinions.

If you trace out a schematic from a physical product, that's "reverse engineering", and you're clean. Any manufacturer who cries, offer them Kleenex.

However, if you take a schematic that the manufacturer has published, and then republish its content (even by hand redrawing it), you're in the same situation as someone who publishes a map which is redrawn from another published map. Companies whose business is publishing maps, deliberately put little mistakes or "artistic license" in their work, which a lazy copyist will unknowingly copy, and reveal that they have cheated. The same with a manufacturer's schematic.

If a manufacturer has released a schematic in a way that takes it out of the realm of trade secrets, you then have pretty free use of the information. But-- copyright law still applies.

In theory.

In practice, it may well be different. International copyright law is still a bit of a mess and not usually enforceable except where huge amounts of money are at stake. And this is the age of the Internet. Even if someone in the USA were to publish a redrawn schematic of a metal detector, would the manufacturer be likely to sue? No. Not worth the trouble.

An exception might be made if the offender had a confidential business relationship with the manufacturer. So don't anyone go asking me for schematics!

Someone like Carl is in an awkward situation. He manages a website on which other people provide content. He has no way of verifing that all that content is "clean". In the case of regular forum content, if it ever came to court, the judge would probably rule that the very nature of a forum is that the manager of the forum has limited control over content, just as the owner of a streetcorner has limited responsibility for what people say while standing on that streetcorner.

A schematic is somewhat of a different matter. It isn't ordinary forum content, and its very nature raises the possibility of copyright infringement. The forum manager might not knowingly be the infringer, but a higher standard of responsibility would be imposed than for written content.

It is my recommendation that Carl not publish schematics, even redrawn schematics, of commercial products, unless he has documented reason to believe that the schematics were legally produced.

--Dave J.

[Robert Hoolko]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Carl

Speaking of schematics, do you mind if I chop up your PI-1 schematic, replace some of the parts with an ADuC812, and re-post it?

Robert

[Carl]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Have at it... if you don't do it, I will!

- Carl

[Carl]

Re: shark-infested waters?

I've been reading up on copyright law, and I agree with you. Reverse engineering, in a "clean" manner, is allowed, but redrawing schematics is not.

I have just about decided what to do about this, but I'll give it a few more days, to see if anyone else wants to chime in.

- Carl

[Sean Goddard]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Go for it Carl, but as Dave J. says, be careful.

I think manufacturers tend to be far too secretive, about their beepers. Why, because they dont want people to see just how little they get for their money.

OK, I know a LOT of R & D gos into these machines, but surely there's some sort of "formula" that manufacturers use (ahem...Tesoro..cough, cough, ...splutter) whi means they can turn out the same stuff, of at least very similar stuff without any major investment.

I think Fisher, White's, Minelab and Garrett do not come under the above, as they always seem to be bringing out machines that keep on pushing the boundaries back all the time.

[FJ]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

Carl also has to be sensitive to an advertiser in Western & Eastern pulling out and letting it be known that they have made the decision based on Carl's actions. That might hit Carl where it hurts most.
FJ

[Carl]

Re: Commercial schematics - please read

True, but I'm certain that any manufacturer would contact me first, and it would never get that far.

- Carl

[Siliquae_Sid]

Go For it Carl! Stuff the moronic manufacturers, let them rot in thier own secretive mire .

If not I'll host it, and they can try sue me instead. Fat lot of good it will do them .

ALL detector manufacturers are small two bit companies, they might get their lawyers to write a few "Don't do that or else" letters , but call their bluff and they realise that it costs upwards of $60,000 to prosecute a so called copyright infringement (about what it costs for Tesoro to develop, OMG do they ACTUALLY DO THAT..NOPE a new machine). They simply can't afford to take you to court, it just costs too much, for too litle return.

If they win, they lose, simply post the case proceedings on the internet and shame them. Let's see people buy the rubbish they produce after that! Either way, YOU have them over a barrel. They are stuffed