I want to share my project with you, but I am afraid of ML patent.

[gamen83]

Hello guys,

I made a PI metal detector based on a cheap stm32 board and the result is just fantastic. It totally outperforms my Whites dual field detector and many other. It works really stable even on some hard soils(Not Australian soil, but still a pretty nasty soil). I would like to share the schematics, PCB and the source code with you. I'm sure many people will appreciate it as it is easy to build, cheap and powerful detector. The problem is I don't want to have problems with some detector manufacturers. This is why before sharing the project I would like to ask you if I am using some patented technology?

• My detector is processing the signal directly from the op-amp's out.
• It uses well known digital filters to filter and average the signal. Also oversampling and decimation.
• Here comes the part which I'm afraid may cause some problems - It has GB option based on the Eric Foster GB method with three(or more) samples. The GB works by single click on a button. No need to manually set the balance.
• It has a color tft display showing all the settings, signal level and basic information about the target conductivity.
• It has 3 different audio modes.
• Two different color themes.
• Works in static or dynamic mode. User can control the SAT speed.
• User can change the TX width and frequency.
• User interface is done by one rotary encoder and 4 buttons.

I saw several ML patents(For instance THIS one, but there are several more) on digital signal processing and they are describing signal processing and GB technique. I don't understand the whole document as my english is very bad, but it really looks similar to the way my detector is working. Do you think I can share my design without any problems?

[Carl-NC]

Supposing something in your design actually infringes a Minelab patent, that would still not prevent the dissemination or discussion of the design. It only means you can't build it for use or sale. Patent law gives leeway for people to build and test the claims of the patent. In short, I wouldn't worry about it.

[gamen83]

Carl, thank you for the answer, but I'm still a bit concerned. I already build it for use to me and two friends. Also another person saw me to use it on the beach and wants me to make one more and sell it to him and of course I accepted the offer . I am a .net developer and don't need to make profit from metal detectors, but it is just pleasure when someone wants to buy your machine this is why I accepted.

I still can not realize how is this possible to patent such a trivial thing as simple ground balancing just because it is performed by a microcontroller? It is just silly. Can I patent assembling and disassembling electrical devices with electrical screwdriver instead of using the old manual one? Or making tea with water boiled in microwave instead of water boiled on hot plate? Maybe I just don't understand this patents. So I'm asking are this actions really patented:

Using MC for:
1. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my first sample(A).
2. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my second sample(B).
3. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my third sample(C).
4. Then calculating the balance (A - C) / (B - C) and so on...

My question is: Are the above actions really under patent? Please if anyone have the answer write it here.
Another option is to share it without GB function, but it is sad.

[macross]

Carl, thank you for the answer, but I'm still a bit concerned. I already build it for use to me and two friends. Also another person saw me to use it on the beach and wants me to make one more and sell it to him and of course I accepted the offer . I am a .net developer and don't need to make profit from metal detectors, but it is just pleasure when someone wants to buy your machine this is why I accepted.

I still can not realize how is this possible to patent such a trivial thing as simple ground balancing just because it is performed by a microcontroller? It is just silly. Can I patent assembling and disassembling electrical devices with electrical screwdriver instead of using the old manual one? Or making tea with water boiled in microwave instead of water boiled on hot plate? Maybe I just don't understand this patents. So I'm asking are this actions really patented:

Using MC for:
1. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my first sample(A).
2. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my second sample(B).
3. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my third sample(C).
4. Then calculating the balance (A - C) / (B - C) and so on...

My question is: Are the above actions really under patent? Please if anyone have the answer write it here.
Another option is to share it without GB function, but it is sad.

If you are that concerned, how about just including .hex file and not the actual source code? That way nobody can tell from the hex file how GB is achieved.

[Ferric Toes]

Carl, thank you for the answer, but I'm still a bit concerned. I already build it for use to me and two friends. Also another person saw me to use it on the beach and wants me to make one more and sell it to him and of course I accepted the offer . I am a .net developer and don't need to make profit from metal detectors, but it is just pleasure when someone wants to buy your machine this is why I accepted.

I still can not realize how is this possible to patent such a trivial thing as simple ground balancing just because it is performed by a microcontroller? It is just silly. Can I patent assembling and disassembling electrical devices with electrical screwdriver instead of using the old manual one? Or making tea with water boiled in microwave instead of water boiled on hot plate? Maybe I just don't understand this patents. So I'm asking are this actions really patented:

Using MC for:
1. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my first sample(A).
2. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my second sample(B).
3. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my third sample(C).
4. Then calculating the balance (A - C) / (B - C) and so on...

My question is: Are the above actions really under patent? Please if anyone have the answer write it here.
Another option is to share it without GB function, but it is sad.

If your GB is based on the method I used since 1983 then I can't see a problem however it is implemented. ML have never approached me to say that I am infringing their patent. Anyway, I was selling detectors using my principle years before any ML patent on GB methods.

I used 4 samples to give earth's field cancellation so mine would be (A - C) / (B - D). However, C and D are late samples and to all intents and purposed can be replaced by one sample; in your case C. That, to anyone skilled in the art, would be obvious and not a patentable difference.

Eric.

[Qiaozhi]

If your GB is based on the method I used since 1983 then I can't see a problem however it is implemented. ML have never approached me to say that I am infringing their patent. Anyway, I was selling detectors using my principle years before any ML patent on GB methods.

I used 4 samples to give earth's field cancellation so mine would be (A - C) / (B - D). However, C and D are late samples and to all intents and purposed can be replaced by one sample; in your case C. That, to anyone skilled in the art, would be obvious and not a patentable difference.

Eric.

I haven't had time to study the patent in detail, but even a cursory glance shows it's so obfuscated by the mathematics that only the most skilled patent examiner could fully understand the underlying principle.
Here's the patent in PDF format.

[greylourie]

If your GB is based on the method I used since 1983 then I can't see a problem however it is implemented. ML have never approached me to say that I am infringing their patent. Anyway, I was selling detectors using my principle years before any ML patent on GB methods.

I used 4 samples to give earth's field cancellation so mine would be (A - C) / (B - D). However, C and D are late samples and to all intents and purposed can be replaced by one sample; in your case C. That, to anyone skilled in the art, would be obvious and not a patentable difference.

Eric.

Davor posted a clear example of what Eric suggests. He posted it here: http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...981#post193981

[gamen83]

Guys, I know there are detectors performing the GB method mentioned by Eric. But as far as I understand the patent is not about the GB method, but about using MC to perform the signal processing and the math of the GB. If I am right then this patent is simply a monopoly. Anyway as I said my English and my technical skills are not so good to understand what exactly is patented so I hope I'm wrong.

[ivconic]

Until i see here workable schematic and code; i will take this whole story as huge pile of crap!
Fear from Minelab?! C'mon!
What kind of story is that?
Who do you think we are here?

[Qiaozhi]

I made a PI metal detector based on a cheap stm32 board and the result is just fantastic. It totally outperforms my Whites dual field detector and many other. It works really stable even on some hard soils(Not Australian soil, but still a pretty nasty soil). I would like to share the schematics, PCB and the source code with you. I'm sure many people will appreciate it as it is easy to build, cheap and powerful detector. The problem is I don't want to have problems with some detector manufacturers. This is why before sharing the project I would like to ask you if I am using some patented technology?

• My detector is processing the signal directly from the op-amp's out.
• It uses well known digital filters to filter and average the signal. Also oversampling and decimation.
• Here comes the part which I'm afraid may cause some problems - It has GB option based on the Eric Foster GB method with three(or more) samples. The GB works by single click on a button. No need to manually set the balance.
• It has a color tft display showing all the settings, signal level and basic information about the target conductivity.
• It has 3 different audio modes.
• Two different color themes.
• Works in static or dynamic mode. User can control the SAT speed.
• User can change the TX width and frequency.
• User interface is done by one rotary encoder and 4 buttons.

I saw several ML patents(For instance THIS one, but there are several more) on digital signal processing and they are describing signal processing and GB technique. I don't understand the whole document as my english is very bad, but it really looks similar to the way my detector is working. Do you think I can share my design without any problems?

We occasionally get fairly new members who have similar claims to your own, and eventually it turns out that they actually don't have anything, and are simply fishing for information. Either that or they want to drum up interest in their design with a view to making some money.

If you genuinely have something to share with the Geotech community, then please post the details here for everyone to see. As Carl said: "Supposing something in your design actually infringes a Minelab patent, that would still not prevent the dissemination or discussion of the design. It only means you can't build it for use or sale. Patent law gives leeway for people to build and test the claims of the patent. In short, I wouldn't worry about it."

You've been given the go-ahead, so let's see it.

[crane]

Using MC for:
1. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my first sample(A).
2. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my second sample(B).
3. Collecting n points from the signal in an integer array. Then filter and averaging the result. This result is my third sample(C).
4. Then calculating the balance (A - C) / (B - C) and so on...

My question is: Are the above actions really under patent? Please if anyone have the answer write it here.
Another option is to share it without GB function, but it is sad.

Re the GB method...If your samples are all of equal length then you are safe and you are unlikely to infringe unless your GB method cancels two different ground types with one setting of the GB. For instance the ground and a hot rock.

[kosacid]

im messing about testing my own ideas some parts you have to copy just because its the way they work, but if i find a better way i don't see a problem posting it here even though i have copied some parts and improved them, im new here and i get what the forms are about, i cant see no one complain because you made something better or added to a original design, well that's my view anyway

[ivconic]

I don't know what are you people talking about here?!??
Are you that brainwashed by capitalistic propaganda?
Let me explain you one important thing!
Let's say you are buying a detector, some hot model (i will avoid to name here any brand or model because it applies to all the same).
So... let's say it is advanced model from certain brand and it costs $5000... alright?
You are buying it, spending your bloody hard earned money... right?
You bought it, it is yours finally... right?
It is yours property and nobody's else... right?
It belongs to you!
Your bloody earned money, your sweat, your hard labor, your precious time and your precious life energy... right?
Than it is your own property.
NOBODY... and i mean N O B O D Y can stop you to open it, brake it, pour it with water, burn it, spit on it, pi$$ on it... take macro shots of the inside of it... right?
Or to open it and mod it, improve it, degrade it...
Or to open it and start tracing it's internal traces, pcbs etc etc...
You may make 100% copy on paper (or in computer software) , you may take it apart, you may make documentation from it, servicing tips, hints... EVERYTHING!
There is NO law to sanction nor prevent you to do that. It is up to your decision and your FREE WILL!
Is that clear to all of you?
Also you can share your photos and hand draws between your friends ... alright?
What you CAN NOT DO; is to fabricate copies of it and SELL them or gain any money by "commercialise" it or any of it's parts.
That's what you MUST NOT do. Only that.
But most certainly you CAN share anything else what you saw or redraw looking in it; especially on hobbyists forum like this one is.
Because it is not property of somebody else; it is your own property! You payed your own money for it and you can do whatever you want with it.
Nobody... not even a God damn ML can do anything against that... never!
You can even retrace only a part from it and include it in your own diy later. No patent rights were harmed that way... UNTIL you try to sell that diy!
The law forbids only making business on somebody's else intellectual property without having signed and verified licence which precisely defines and describes each step of such act.
Everything else apart from that; you may freely DO with your property, your device. Because it is ONLY YOURS ! You payed legally and regularly for it!
...
And generally patent troubles are story of its kinds... it stinks hard allover the place!
Because some "dudes" are trying to misuse holes in law ( and huge illiteracy at patent office clerks) and trying to gain benefits by patenting everything they can grab!
It is gone to madness and beyond with all those patent stories! Totally insane, totally lunatic!
For example; you can take ordinary LM358, wire it up with few resistors and capacitors on most pointless way, and later you can file patent on that!
Than you'll become a "patent holder" and that nonsense becomes your own "intellectual property".
"Great" ML (and few other idiotic brands) are trying to compete on patenting almost EVERYTHING!
One day in future they will probably get a patent on fresh air too.
Well... F*CK them ALL!
99% of the things they patented so far; are stolen intellectual properties from somebody else from the past.
Electronic as science evolved on pure enthusiasm and not on money and interest!
Hundreds and hundreds of pure enthusiasts did a great deal of job to form a huge knowledge base for future.
99% of "patents" are nothing but stolen knowledge from that knowledge base.
This forum is perfect example for how pure enthusiasm, gathered on one place, based on completely free and good will, can create new quality and new knowledge.
Last thing we want to see here is fear from those BUSTARDS!
Money hungry stealing BUSTARDS!
The same ones who are advertising and selling you something which is usually 20x times less valuable than they claim. 50x... sometimes even 100x times less valuable.
...
Think about this!
Eventually you will realize how true all this is.

[davy74]

Well said could'nt agree more - I maintain, prolong & eventually improve the performance or reliability of a lot of the things I spend my hard earned cash on (my property) & have absolutely no qualms with sharing any knowledge that arises with others, in fact even in the context of my job, as an industrial equipment maintenance engineer, that's what I'm paid to do, foresee failures & engineer them out before they happen, we know no bounds in achieving this goal, we see planned obsolescence at first hand with depressing regularity as well, some of the improvements my colleagues & I have made to 'kit' have disseminated to & been used by the OEM vendor in future models so sharing of knowledge benefits all concerned - this is one of the cornerstones of engineering practice.
Don't think I've ever considered Pi$$ing on anything though I've probably come close to it once or twice with my car breaking down..........

[ivconic]

Well said could'nt agree more - I maintain, prolong & eventually improve the performance or reliability of a lot of the things I spend my hard earned cash on (my property) & have absolutely no qualms with sharing any knowledge that arises with others, in fact even in the context of my job, as an industrial equipment maintenance engineer, that's what I'm paid to do, foresee failures & engineer them out before they happen, we know no bounds in achieving this goal, we see planned obsolescence at first hand with depressing regularity as well, some of the improvements my colleagues & I have made to 'kit' have disseminated to & been used by the OEM vendor in future models.

Totally correct and right!
Smart companies (so few) even do stimulate such enthusiasm.
"...Electronic as science evolved on pure enthusiasm and not on money and interest!..."
Bottom line.