Detector IP vs Customs

[WM6]

If you import an unlicensed copy of some product, even for personal use, most countries under "international" IP legislation will allow the copyright holders to deny bringing such objects into the country.

Yes, but who decide, if some product is unlicensed copy?

Is copyright holders opinion enough to stop free market circulation of goods, or he need to have court decision in his hands to start official actions against someone?

[ODM]

who decide

Lawyers and money, ultimately.

[Qiaozhi]

Still a bit off-topic but still an important concern: If you import an unlicensed copy of some product, even for personal use, most countries under "international" IP legislation will allow the copyright holders to deny bringing such objects into the country. This applies for electronics devices, clothes/luggage, recordings - and just about anything. It's not something usually seen, unless they decide to raise the issue with customs officials or other law enforcement, and a copied product shows up in random checks. It can lead to confiscation of the offending item(s), fines, or even law action.

It doesn't have to look like the original product. If it's an unlicensed clone (like some handheld game consoles) it can be offensive even if the schematic etc. doesn't match the original precisely. Whether it's right or wrong is a bit of moot point as long as it's illegal.

OK - still off-topic ... The situation described here is the importing of cloned devices, which implies illegal manufacture. Personally I was talking about a one-off clone for personal use, or even an own-designed, own-built detector that just happens to infringe a patent or two. I think many people here get unnecessarily twitchy and anxious about patents when they embark on a design for their own use. Even if you decide to proceed to manufacture, (as Carl has said previously) there often ways around an existing patent.

[ODM]

Sorry about the off topic business. It's an important topic still (for another thread!) - but as mentioned before, it was about potential trouble with some foreign brand of detector which might be outright copies.

And I don't generally think things will be that harsh, it was just for cases where unlicensed copies are mentioned. Even then it's not often checked by customs officials unless they do a random pick, or expect such.

I've no more to say about that topic here

[Carl-NC]

It is not illegal to back-engineer a design for educational purposes, or even to build a clone for your own use. However, if you back-engineer a design in order to manufacture a clone for sale on the open market, then that is illegal. You can even post your back-engineered design in the forums, as long as it was obtained from an actual device, and is not merely a copy of the original schematics.

Be careful with this. If patents are involved, then it could be illegal. Building a patented device for the purpose of evaluation of the patent claims is generally allowed*, but building it for personal use is not. Posting a back-engineered patented design is technically legal, unless it is construed that you are doing so to encourage people to violate the patent, in which case you may be guilty of contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement.

If we are simply talking "trade secrets" then the hurdles are very low, even for selling clones.


*Per US patent law, your mileage may vary.

[ODM]

Now it's its own thread, nice! Yes, it's best to tread very carefully. Depending on local legislation an one-off copy is still illegal manufacture per those terms, even if there might be some - again local - exceptions such as copies of archive records for private use.

I wouldn't personally wish to take that risk, unless I was ready to lose that particular metal detector.

Some countries also have regulations against metal detectors in private use, in that they must be either registered on import, or a complete ban for private persons, for example in some regions of Sweden which was mentioned earlier. These are usually placed with the purpose of cultural heritage protection.

[WM6]

If patents are involved, then it could be illegal. Building a patented device for the purpose of evaluation of the patent claims is generally allowed*, but building it for personal use is not.

.

But Carl, "Building a patented device for the purpose of evaluation" is personal use too. Where you see the difference? Or in other words: how you can evaluate something, if you do not use it?

[Carl-NC]

But Carl, "Building a patented device for the purpose of evaluation" is personal use too. Where you see the difference? Or in other words: how you can evaluate something, if you do not use it?

It's a fine line, just something to consider.

[Prospector_Al]

Now it's its own thread, nice! Yes, it's best to tread very carefully. Depending on local legislation an one-off copy is still illegal manufacture per those terms, even if there might be some - again local - exceptions such as copies of archive records for private use.

I wouldn't personally wish to take that risk, unless I was ready to lose that particular metal detector.

Some countries also have regulations against metal detectors in private use, in that they must be either registered on import, or a complete ban for private persons, for example in some regions of Sweden which was mentioned earlier. These are usually placed with the purpose of cultural heritage protection.

Hyvä päivä ODM,

Pehaps I'll visit Finland, instead.

I have samples of hot rocks from various parts of the world, and what I have found is that the ratio between the reactive and resistive signal amplitudes varies enormously. It's even more astounding that you can't judge the characteristics of a hot rock by its looks. The hottest hot rock from Australia is pink in colour.

By the same token, the soil itself may vary in the same way. In my opinion, the only way one can actually determine if a given ground balancing method will work is by testing it where you intend to use the detector. That means you have to travel...
I went to Turku, once, and survived a visist to a sauna and a plunge into a cold lake immediately afterwards.
I know that Finnish metal detector technology is prominent in the industrial field. Outukompu Oy, comes to mind. Maybe they'll let me into the country without confiscating my detector.

I'm eager to learn if Finland has soil that is as highly mineralized as Autralia or Hawaii and if the ratio between magnetite and maghemite is different from the soils in other parts of the world.

All the Best,

Allan

[Ferric Toes]

Hi Allan,

Yes, reactive to resistive does vary a lot. CA black sand has reactive at 4.7kHz of 30,000 S I units measured on a Bartington susceptibility bridge, yet gives only a reading of 20 on my viscosity meter. Bad Australian ironstone has reactive susceptibility of 29,000 and viscosity reading of 1100. My hottest Oz rock is the colour of dark chocolate. You pays your money and takes your choice. The good thing for PI is that there is little difference in the decay whether the amplitude is small or large. Alway close to 1/t^-1. The results I have for a Hawaiian test site are weak compared to Oz. I doubt if Finland comes close either. I'm always ready to test samples. Only need 10gms weight.

Eric.

[Qiaozhi]

Posting a back-engineered patented design is technically legal, unless it is construed that you are doing so to encourage people to violate the patent, in which case you may be guilty of contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement.

I guess that's a very grey area, best to be avoided then.

If you build a detector for yourself that violates someone else's patent, then it could only become a problem if you boast about it. Otherwise who's to know what's in the box?

[Prospector_Al]

Hi Allan,

Yes, reactive to resistive does vary a lot. CA black sand has reactive at 4.7kHz of 30,000 S I units measured on a Bartington susceptibility bridge, yet gives only a reading of 20 on my viscosity meter. Bad Australian ironstone has reactive susceptibility of 29,000 and viscosity reading of 1100. My hottest Oz rock is the colour of dark chocolate. You pays your money and takes your choice. The good thing for PI is that there is little difference in the decay whether the amplitude is small or large. Alway close to 1/t^-1. The results I have for a Hawaiian test site are weak compared to Oz. I doubt if Finland comes close either. I'm always ready to test samples. Only need 10gms weight.

Eric.

Hi Eric,

Since I don't have the means to measure magnetic viscosity, I'll send you a sample when I get something new. I think I have your address on file.

The first tramp metal detector I designed worked with iron ore containing about 70% magnetite and the rest was inert country rock. All was well until I ended up in Ontario, Canada, where they mined "Pentlandite". This ore was conductive owing to a sulfide contaminant. The ore had a long time constant, so the obvious solution was to take a sample far back, amplify it and subtract it from an earlier sample. That's when I discovered the "electronic hole phenomenon". The most interesting part was that this particular ore had a time constant that varied with the orientation of the specimen.

Have you come across anything like that? The other big revelation to me was that the response from magnetic viscosity was indistinguishable from a signal caused by eddy currents. If the relaxation time of the viscosity was similar to the time constant of a conductive target, you could not tell them apart.

I think I have deviated from the theme of this thread again, so I must add that the detector I'm proposing to test has solved the problem of separating the eddy current response from viscous signals, and my concern is that the novel ideas incorporated in this detector may be become public knowledge before I have filed a patent...

Maybe I'll stay in California until this has been accomplished.

All the Best,

Allan

[Aziz]

Sorry for being off-topic again. But I think this is important to know.

Iron oxides/hydroxides (compounds) may have different colors due to varying grain sizes.
The same stuff may occur in different colors caused by different grain sizes.
Aziz