Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[unregistered_user]

And just to make it easy for Rob that "why" HINGES ON THE WIDTH OF THE SAMPLE PULSES not the phase since Poole clearly was aware that was where the tucker was.

And further the width of those out of phase sample pulses must be a multipe OF the TWO Transmitter Pulse periods OR Frequencies ...well for it to work properly anyway.

I can't see why anyone can't use their own pulses widths since Candy has made no claim regarding Pooles patent. The fact that some of those pulse widths may overlap Candy's claim is just plain bad luck he had the opertunity to prevent everyone from using improvements to Pooles patent when he filed his patent.

It would take some serious convincing to explain why Pooles patent was comprehensively sidelined.

[Aziz]

There isn't real issue with patented methods. You can copy, steal, invent, re-invent an idea for private purposes anyway. For own private purposes, there is no limit and restrictions.

For commercial interests, then the location of a market is important. When an idea isn't protected for a specific country/region, then you can obviously steal the idea and sell it there. This is common known in the industries moral.

But the user (buyer of technology) have to pay for the protection (patent charges). Did somebody ask the user, whether he want's to pay this fee?

Even an idea is published already, it can still be stolen and patented. The patent offices are interested in making money. Many patents -> big profit.

So I have decided to let the user decide, whether he/she wants to breach protected ideas. How to make this?
Do lots of device controlling with pure software. Keep device firmware apart from the device. Load the firmware just-in-time, which is initiated and configured from the user. Some device firmware is only available on countries without the patent protection. So the device firmware is always a country specific code.

You may have an idea, why I am trying to use the laptop as an universal processing element.

Aziz

[Mechanic]

Hi Unregistered_User!
BTW I like your original name!
I think what needs to happen is somebody needs to build a detector based on Poole's patent and see the results.

Carl,
Are Whites thinking about building a prototype detector based on Poole's patent?

Cheers

[unregistered_user]

Hi Unregistered_User!
BTW I like your original name!
I think what needs to happen is somebody needs to build a detector based on Poole's patent and see the results.

Carl,
Are Whites thinking about building a prototype detector based on Poole's patent?

Cheers

No problems I think Minelab did the same.

[Fred]

When an idea isn't protected for a specific country/region, then you can obviously steal the idea and sell it there.

Can it be exported then to the country where the device is patented?
If so,with the actual globalization, patenting anything would be almost a nonsense...

[Aziz]

Hi Fred,

Can it be exported then to the country where the device is patented?
If so,with the actual globalization, patenting anything would be almost a nonsense...

but you can make a basic legal device version, which can be updated easily by the user at the end. Who will control this over internet?
If I would have a device firmware, I would very likely also have a Simbabwe version for people in Simbabwe only.


Patent's makes products definitely expensive and they didn't really protect ideas in the globalisation today. Why M/L is using much white paint for their products?
Patent's becoming more technology obstacle and has really no benefits to the end user!

Aziz

[bugwhiskers]

Hi unregistered_user,

It may surprise you (or maybe not) that ML have received a lot of money in the form of Australian Taxpayer funded Government grants to perfect the MPS/Detector technology. Ostensibly, this was for UXO reasearch but no doubt the benefits filtered on down to Hobbyist metal detectors. The figure of $10 million AU has been bandied about.

A Google search on "Robert Edward Poole" has turned up an association with Plessey and very little else. If nothing else, the discovery of "the missing link" may one day help us to be rid of the accursed Gold Tax.

regards
bugwhiskers

[unregistered_user]

Hi unregistered_user,

It may surprise you (or maybe not) that ML have received a lot of money in the form of Australian Taxpayer funded Government grants to perfect the MPS/Detector technology. Ostensibly, this was for UXO reasearch but no doubt the benefits filtered on down to Hobbyist metal detectors. The figure of $10 million AU has been bandied about.

A Google search on "Robert Edward Poole" has turned up an association with Plessey and very little else. If nothing else, the discovery of "the missing link" may one day help us to be rid of the accursed Gold Tax.

regards
bugwhiskers

I'll reserve my comments we'll be having a beer sometime in the future I suspect.

[unregistered_user]

Can it be exported then to the country where the device is patented?
If so,with the actual globalization, patenting anything would be almost a nonsense...

I repectably suggest to the moderator and to you Aziz that talk of illegal activity be considered with great caution. Aziz you actually stand to benefit if you play by the rules.
And those rules apply equally to anyone found out no matter how respectable they have appeared up until now.

So lets just keep this legal, on topic and in the spirit of honesty.

Thank you.

[unregistered_user]

Hi Unregistered_User!
BTW I like your original name!
I think what needs to happen is somebody needs to build a detector based on Poole's patent and see the results.

Carl,
Are Whites thinking about building a prototype detector based on Poole's patent?

Cheers

Don't forget to add a "chocolat box" Roby should have the drawing finished any time now.

Roby don't forget to ground one side of each coil or just draw a short line between them, there's a good lad.

[Qiaozhi]

Can it be exported then to the country where the device is patented?
If so,with the actual globalization, patenting anything would be almost a nonsense...

No ... if something is considered a patent infringement in another country, then you cannot export it to that country. Of course, as Aziz pointed out (as an academic-only exercise, of course) this doesn't stop any illegal sales, or even local (illegal) software updates. With the internet and globalization, it is difficult to police this activity. This would also explain the white paint in ML machines. If you can't stop your competitors, then at least slow them down.

[unregistered_user]

No ... if something is considered a patent infringement in another country, then you cannot export it to that country. Of course, as Aziz pointed out (as an academic-only exercise, of course) this doesn't stop any illegal sales, or even local (illegal) software updates. With the internet and globalization, it is difficult to police this activity. This would also explain the white paint in ML machines. If you can't stop your competitors, then at least slow them down.

2 points.
1. If something is considered a patent infringement....
..... particularly by claims in a patent already in the public domain.

2. This would also explain the white paint in ML machines...
.... The patent should stand regardless naturally however I'm sure you would do the same if you were them. Its standard prudent comercial practice and the company has it's first responsibility to it's share holders investments to prevent theft of it's IP.

Sorry to be a bore but I don't think comments such as those contribute to the discussion.
I'm more interested in the actual thread topic not ad hominem attacks.

Or I will find someplace else to comment is that clear?

[Carl-NC]

There isn't real issue with patented methods. You can copy, steal, invent, re-invent an idea for private purposes anyway. For own private purposes, there is no limit and restrictions.

Per US patent law, you cannot:

35 U.S.C. 271Infringement of patent.
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

So even merely making a patented device for your own personal use is an infringement. Obviously, this is practically impossible to enforce.

There is also this interesting clause:

(b)Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

When the SD2000 schematics were posted on Geotech, I got a letter from Minelab requesting their removal, citing this clause. In the end, they were reasonable and dropped their request. But it brings up the point that, although we can freely discuss technologies covered by active patents, we should not encourage patent infringement, even under the guise of "personal use".

- Carl

[Aziz]

Hi Carl,

Per US patent law, you cannot:

35 U.S.C. 271Infringement of patent.
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

So even merely making a patented device for your own personal use is an infringement. Obviously, this is practically impossible to enforce.

There is also this interesting clause:

(b)Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.

When the SD2000 schematics were posted on Geotech, I got a letter from Minelab requesting their removal, citing this clause. In the end, they were reasonable and dropped their request. But it brings up the point that, although we can freely discuss technologies covered by active patents, we should not encourage patent infringement, even under the guise of "personal use".

- Carl

That's interesting, that many countries have their own regulations. Private purpose does not mean, that you can sell the device. That would be then a commercial interest. I know, the international laws on patenting have still many disputes between Europe and America.

But what is, when an already published idea is patented later? Isn't this a pure plagiarism?

Even patent's are the most important source for plagiarism. We should focus on making novel methods rather than investing this time to copy an idea.

Who can give the guarantee, that a good idea won't be plagiated? Even the idea is made public.

Aziz

[Qiaozhi]

2 points.
1. If something is considered a patent infringement....
..... particularly by claims in a patent already in the public domain.

2. This would also explain the white paint in ML machines...
.... The patent should stand regardless naturally however I'm sure you would do the same if you were them. Its standard prudent comercial practice and the company has it's first responsibility to it's share holders investments to prevent theft of it's IP.

Sorry to be a bore but I don't think comments such as those contribute to the discussion.
I'm more interested in the actual thread topic not ad hominem attacks.

Or I will find someplace else to comment is that clear?

I was simply pointing out that you cannot export goods to another country if they contravene someone else's patent in that country.

Why you would think that my post was an ad hominem argument (i.e. a personal attack) is beyond me. Unless you are guilty by association.