Patent Restrictions?

[brucester]

Hello,

I was wondering if someone could point out the key patents preventing new players from entering the PI MD game?

Like for example, is simply pulsing the coil, amplifying the decay and comparing the result patented?

Or is it individual things such as particular ways of ground balancing or shielding a coil etc?

I contacted the young man over at MIYD who was working on 2 seperate detectors. One that compares decay time with a simple AVR and another that does full DSP on the decay using a 32bit chip.

From what i can tell, he kept it bare bones, completely basic PI. His reply was that he never went commercial because of patent restrictions. What patents would restrict him from selling these detectors?

Surely pulsing a coil is state of the art and analysing the signal is completely software. If the code is original what patents does is breach?

Thanks for a point in the right direction :P

[dougAEGPF]

http://www.google.com/?tbm=pts#hl=en...w=1920&bih=908

dougAEGPF

[mikebg]

Doug, you specify information for MINELAB patents, but are silent on the issue of CHINELAB. :-)

[Carl-NC]

Patents mostly involve specific methods of doing things, not broad concepts. Methods can be in hardware or software, it doesn't matter. In either case, a patent usually isn't restricted to a single narrow implementation, but covers equivalent implementations.

[moodz]

Hello,

I was wondering if someone could point out the key patents preventing new players from entering the PI MD game?

Like for example, is simply pulsing the coil, amplifying the decay and comparing the result patented?

Or is it individual things such as particular ways of ground balancing or shielding a coil etc?

I contacted the young man over at MIYD who was working on 2 seperate detectors. One that compares decay time with a simple AVR and another that does full DSP on the decay using a 32bit chip.

From what i can tell, he kept it bare bones, completely basic PI. His reply was that he never went commercial because of patent restrictions. What patents would restrict him from selling these detectors?

Surely pulsing a coil is state of the art and analysing the signal is completely software. If the code is original what patents does is breach?

Thanks for a point in the right direction :P

You will only be "nailed" by a corporate if your detector looks like it could be mass produced, lower price and has good performance characteristics that will challenge the value equation of current market leaders.

If you are a competent tech its very easy to make a hobby detector that works reasonably well ( see carl's projects and others in this forum and the book ).

It is somewhat harder to make a detector that works extremely well and achieves the goals of ground balance, EF cancel, discrim, power saving, EMI reject and all the other UD ( ultimate detector ) goals.

It is even harder to then take your UD design and ready it for market ( manufacturing , logistics, marketing, support etc etc )

Then having done all that you will receive a "discovery" order and injunction from selling from a corporate to see if you have infringed their IP .... and it could be over something really "trivial" ... like storing data in NV ram or having a data port. This activity alone will delay you for months and cost you plenty. ( not just money ).

See Carl's laws ( i dont have the ref at the moment ) for good support on my comments.

Oh .. I and did I mention a serious amount of cash on hand ??

My advice is just make stuff for yourself and few friends and dont tell anyone about it


moodz

[Aziz]

Everything can be "adapted and arranged". *LOL*
And it has the name "function". *LOL*

The patent system is broken. The inventors invent things to prevent & sue competition only.
Aziz

[brucester]

I see, thanks for that guys.

I guess i underestimated corporate control and power :P

[mikebg]

Moodz, please explain what will happen if CHINELAB start importing into Australia a thing which there is patented, for example something like the QED project. Does Bugwhiskers pay much money to Australian court to stop the importation of CHINQED?

[Carl-NC]

I guess i underestimated corporate control and power :P

Eh, it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. It's pretty easy to avoid patents with metal detectors.

[vbeeeks]

My advice is just make stuff for yourself and few friends and don't tell anyone about it
Moodz

Eh, it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. It's pretty easy to avoid patents with metal detectors. Carl-NC

I believe in the above two theorems - copy all the patents of minelab - grab the technology - reverse engineer (yourself or with some help) and build the labs in your own version distribute among close friends - and enjoy - also you can come back here for sharing your find under 'Tech' forum and we will analyze each others ethical private build. I hope they cannot re-patent their patent and so the technology prior art will be in "private open" domain. But wait - is it any worth copying the dud designs for your personal use - I hope not - why waste time and money as such.

[moodz]

Moodz, please explain what will happen if CHINELAB start importing into Australia a thing which there is patented, for example something like the QED project. Does Bugwhiskers pay much money to Australian court to stop the importation of CHINQED?

according to Carl's rules you need $100,000 dollars and nerves of steel if you want to play a hand at the patent game so I would estimate that BW has already spent more than $10,000 on legal costs so would he stop Chinelab ... Probably someone else would.

[moodz]

I believe in the above two theorems - copy all the patents of minelab - grab the technology - reverse engineer (yourself or with some help) and build the labs in your own version distribute among close friends - and enjoy - also you can come back here for sharing your find under 'Tech' forum and we will analyze each others ethical private build. I hope they cannot re-patent their patent and so the technology prior art will be in "private open" domain. But wait - is it any worth copying the dud designs for your personal use - I hope not - why waste time and money as such.

No .. I don't advise copying ML patents ... Just build your own circuits based on prior expired patent ip and public domain with maybe help from people on forums like this. The ML patents are more about locking up the status quo than innovating .., which is good for me because it will be a lot easier for me to demonstrate true innovation in this area as the fundamental Pi detector topology has not changed substantially in 30 years.

moodz

[UrbanFox]

The inventors invent things to prevent & sue competition only.
Aziz

Companies also patent their inventions to secure their right to use. If they don't patent and someone else does, they can be paying royalties for the right to use, or they can be stopped from using.

[dougAEGPF]

No .. I don't advise copying ML patents ... Just build your own circuits based on prior expired patent ip and public domain with maybe help from people on forums like this. The ML patents are more about locking up the status quo than innovating .., which is good for me because it will be a lot easier for me to demonstrate true innovation in this area as the fundamental Pi detector topology has not changed substantially in 30 years.

moodz

Here a little challenge for some folk here skilled in the area,writing the source code to execute the GB method described in the QED patent.Anyone up for the challenge? What are members thoughts on ML's patented GB methods? ie anyone think that most if not all are prior art?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

Here a little challenge for some folk here skilled in the area,writing the source code to execute the GB method described in the QED patent.Anyone up for the challenge? What are members thoughts on ML's patented GB methods? ie anyone think that most if not all are prior art?
dougAEGPF

Doug, if ML's patents are founded on prior art then do something instead of continually waffling on. I notice your appeal against one Minelab patent application went nowhere, and the patent was issued. Perhaps you are just not smart enough to understand a patent!

However, it would be a real challenge to make anything of the QED GB method from reading the patent, wouldn't it. Post the QED patent here!! I defy Geotech members to understand and reproduce the QED GB method solely from reading the QED patent. I think you are right Doug. In this instant the patent system was broken and the examiners stuffed it up. Further Doug, re the potential for patent invalidation, it has been suggested that BW may have been discussing SMR as applied to lab or medical equipment, and finally to the QED, over 12 months prior to submitting his patent application. Is that true, Doug?

Tell me Doug, if BW was so sure of his patent securing anything, than why did he try to sell the patent to Minelab? If you blokes understand anything of Minelab's patents, then why was BW asking ML what he had to do to avoid infringing Minelab patents?

Minelab has previously identified to you blokes two patents they believed you blokes were possibly infringing. Instead of asking Minelab to explain to you blokes what you need to do to not infringe, do you think it would be a good idea to seek independent expert patent advice, or do you consider there are enough experts in patent interpretation and enforcement on this forum to make up for your inability to understand patents and patent enforcement?

Note Doug, if you blokes seek independent expert patent advice and avoid infringing, BW could be selling the QED at his leisure.