I was just thinking...

[Aziz]

Well if it's a composite waveform generated in real time by a DSP then I will contest the patent as I made this system public on this forum over a YEAR ago...wait no I've done more research, Bruce Candy has........Patented the BFO!!!

Speculation.

Let's wait and see (and laugh).

Aziz

[Carl-NC]

Nothing? Anyone?

[Tepro]

Happy new year to all

To let you all know dont think that THE patent is a holy thing once it is dropped,we got rules to stay off the to copy part or whole BUT,

All patents when dropped and finding interesting enough the chinese take it and bring the products on the market without any problems,becouse we got laws to keep hold on they dont.So what is THE point of making à patent on Some invention is not protected anymore.
Imo there are to manny things we can use as part or parts to use if we dont copy the whole,
and make use of seeing how the brands set up the PCB and parts.

As most of you retrace and use other routings and parts or complete Flip the MD layout there is no patent rights to speak of ( see first ever patented md and all after use same principal)
As with the most electronics we use daily.

Regarts
Tepro
Just my two cents

[Qiaozhi]

Sorry Carl,

can't give you hints. You have to go through all the patents.
I'm sure, you will find something.

Aziz

I thought that would be the answer.

[mario]

Sorry Carl,

can't give you hints. You have to go through all the patents.
I'm sure, you will find something.

Aziz

I too want to believe Aziz, but clearly you are not helping your own cause.

If you're going to make an accusation, regardless how obvious it might be, please do follow up with clear examples.

In this case, clearly, we can use your allegation as cause for hiding behind speculation or something we may not know much about. For instance, It's becoming increasingly frustrating to see people not share their ideas for fear the boogey man (aka. John Candy) might be reading.

[Aziz]

I too want to believe Aziz, but clearly you are not helping your own cause.

If you're going to make an accusation, regardless how obvious it might be, please do follow up with clear examples.

In this case, clearly, we can use your allegation as cause for hiding behind speculation or something we may not know much about. For instance, It's becoming increasingly frustrating to see people not share their ideas for fear the boogey man (aka. John Candy) might be reading.

Hi Mario,

sorry, but I can't help you all. Everybody is invited to read the patents and to make their own opinion. That's very simple and unbiased. Of course, provided that, someone is able to read and understand them.

Regardless of who the patent troll is (there are many), they all prevent the discussion of good ideas.

Cheers,
Aziz

[WM6]

For instance, It's becoming increasingly frustrating to see people not share their ideas for fear the boogey man (aka. John Candy) might be reading.

No need for frustrations, be sure that those people do not have any valued idea to share, except a big mouth.

[mario]

Hi Mario,

sorry, but I can't help you all. Everybody is invited to read the patents and to make their own opinion. That's very simple and unbiased. Of course, provided that, someone is able to read and understand them.

Regardless of who the patent troll is (there are many), they all prevent the discussion of good ideas.

Cheers,
Aziz

You disappointed us Aziz.

Carl was right to demand proof for something not so apparently obvious.

It's becoming increasingly clear that those who make the patent trolling allegation may not have any ideas at all to contribute.

Like what was posted before, if you are concerned your idea will be stolen, get a patent. Otherwise, make it public in as many places as possible.

[mario]

No need for frustrations, be sure that those people do not have any valued idea to share, except a big mouth.

thank you

[Aziz]

You disappointed us Aziz.

Carl was right to demand proof for something not so apparently obvious.

It's becoming increasingly clear that those who make the patent trolling allegation may not have any ideas at all to contribute.

Like what was posted before, if you are concerned your idea will be stolen, get a patent. Otherwise, make it public in as many places as possible.

The real proof is there, where someone is able to find it. I do not want to bias your opinion.


Do you think, that I should share everything with you all?
Sorry, this is the wrong demand.

Aziz

[Qiaozhi]

The real proof is there, where someone is able to find it. I do not want to bias your opinion.


Do you think, that I should share everything with you all?
Sorry, this is the wrong demand.

Aziz

As Carl asked you earlier:
"If anyone can point out a clear case where ML/BC has filed a patent on a publicly-disclosed method, I'd like to hear it.

By not answering the question in support of your allegations against ML/BC, you lead us to only one conclusion ... that you have no evidence to support your case.
Either you need to provide a particular example, or cease complaining about patent trolls.

[Carl-NC]

I'm not "demanding proof," just trying to open up the discussion. A number of people (mostly overt ML-bashers) have made some pretty bold claims about outright thievery, which I personally don't see.

However, I do see very pointed weaknesses in ML's patents, including prior art. These threads have some very valuable discussions:

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15417
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15850

The existence of prior art doesn't mean that ML intentionally stole an idea; I've mentioned that one of my ADI patents turned out to be old news, I just didn't know it until much later. Likewise, a publicly-posted idea that shows up in a ML patent doesn't mean that they troll the forums looking for things to steal. A number of times I've seen "new" ideas posted that White's has either explored, or is currently exploring. Very little has never been thought of.

I will admit that I use ideas posted in these forums for my day job. If any of these ideas are novel and pan out to produce a new design, I will gladly compensate the originator. This is happening in one case where someone posted an excellent idea on a novel use for wireless; with his permission, I incorporated the idea into a patent we were working on anyway, added his name as an inventor, and when the design is done we will give him a nice reward. I am currently evaluating 2 more outside ideas.

In any case, many of the arguments I've seen against ML patents have been completely off-base due to a misunderstanding of what the patents are actually claiming. Yet, there are plenty of problems in their patents that could be discussed, if people could calm down, drop the bashing, and approach things objectively. Such discussions could be incredibly valuable toward developing viable competition, if that's what folks are shooting for.

And, no, I don't demand that Aziz or anyone else share their ideas, nor would I suggest that his refusal to do so means that he has nothing of value to share. I also cannot share a lot of what I am doing, for obvious reasons, but I do share what I can, and help people as much as possible. I see the same thing from Aziz.

- Carl

[Midas]

In any case, now that the US has joined the rest of the world as a "first-to-file" nation, if you want to prevent someone from enforceably patenting a method, simply write up a public disclosure and post it. Preferably in several places, and then get a few screen captures with dates for documentation. Notice I said "enforceably"... it is pretty easy to pull one over on the USPTO and get a patent on just about anything, even perpetual motion. But with clearly documented prior art, the patent will be unenforceable.

I will admit that I use ideas posted in these forums for my day job. If any of these ideas are novel and pan out to produce a new design, I will gladly compensate the originator. This is happening in one case where someone posted an excellent idea on a novel use for wireless; with his permission, I incorporated the idea into a patent we were working on anyway, added his name as an inventor, and when the design is done we will give him a nice reward. I am currently evaluating 2 more outside ideas.

These appear to me to be somewhat contradictory statements the latter of which seems to be supporting Aziz's position. The issue isn't whether the the inventor is compensated or not. As you point out in the first paragraph, the fact that the idea is in the public domain means that it shouldn't be patentable by anyone, not even the inventor. In essence the idea now belongs to everyone. IF you are still able to obtain a patent that includes forum ideas (and I assume, consider it to be enforceable) then what protection does public disclosure really offer against perhaps less scrupulous commercial operators?

[Carl-NC]

These appear to me to be somewhat contradictory statements the latter of which seems to be supporting Aziz's position. The issue isn't whether the the inventor is compensated or not. As you point out in the first paragraph, the fact that the idea is in the public domain means that it shouldn't be patentable by anyone, not even the inventor. In essence the idea now belongs to everyone. IF you are still able to obtain a patent that includes forum ideas (and I assume, consider it to be enforceable) then what protection does public disclosure really offer against perhaps less scrupulous commercial operators?

In the latter case, a person posted a very rough idea on a forum. Like the idea of a "flying submarine" it wasn't directly patentable, but I used the idea to create specific methods that are patentable, and I gave the guy credit by making him a co-inventor. He'll also get compensation when we have it ready for consumption.

Had he posted detailed patentable methods then I could not have taken those a gotten a legitimate patent. Except, possibly, in the case that I was already working on the same invention and had clear documentation of prior, continuous work up to the filing date. That is under the old rules of "first-to-invent" and was subject to the "less scrupulous" effect.

Now, under "first-to-patent" rules, you could put 5 years into developing a new invention and the day before you file the patent someone could post a public disclosure for the same thing and your patent is DOA, assuming the PTO sees the public disclosure. If they miss it and issue the patent, then it is DOA on enforcement attempts. This provides incentive to patent an invention ASAP. There are pitfalls with both approaches, but "first-to-patent" eliminates subjectivity over when an invention was invented.

In any case, if you want to prevent an idea from being patented, posting it in the public domain is still probably the best approach. Certainly better than not posting it, and the old register-mail-it-to-yourself trick is absolutely worthless. If you do post an idea, writing it in the style of actual patent claims with method details is best. See this one by Dave Johnson:

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?34,...077#msg-130077

It is exceptionally clear in its claims.

- Carl

[Midas]

In the latter case, a person posted a very rough idea on a forum. Like the idea of a "flying submarine" it wasn't directly patentable, but I used the idea to create specific methods that are patentable, and I gave the guy credit by making him a co-inventor. He'll also get compensation when we have it ready for consumption.

Had he posted detailed patentable methods then I could not have taken those a gotten a legitimate patent. Except, possibly, in the case that I was already working on the same invention and had clear documentation of prior, continuous work up to the filing date. That is under the old rules of "first-to-invent" and was subject to the "less scrupulous" effect.

Now, under "first-to-patent" rules, you could put 5 years into developing a new invention and the day before you file the patent someone could post a public disclosure for the same thing and your patent is DOA, assuming the PTO sees the public disclosure. If they miss it and issue the patent, then it is DOA on enforcement attempts. This provides incentive to patent an invention ASAP. There are pitfalls with both approaches, but "first-to-patent" eliminates subjectivity over when an invention was invented.

In any case, if you want to prevent an idea from being patented, posting it in the public domain is still probably the best approach. Certainly better than not posting it, and the old register-mail-it-to-yourself trick is absolutely worthless. If you do post an idea, writing it in the style of actual patent claims with method details is best. See this one by Dave Johnson:

http://www.findmall.com/read.php?34,...077#msg-130077

It is exceptionally clear in its claims.

- Carl

Yeah that's pretty much what I thought but its still puts people with ideas in an extremely awkward position. Essential posting an idea and hoping that you can use the forum to flesh it out and in the process contribute to the community does expose you to a very real risk that someone with more skills and experience in the field, and the resources of a large company behind them will work behind the scenes to close off all practical routes to actually implementing that idea. It could well turn out that neither you or the community sees any benefit from your contribution.

In some cases the idea itself could be far more valuable than practical skills needed to implement it. ie The idea is unique but there's millions (that's a guess.. probably true) of electronic engineers in the world. In the example you gave, you chose to do the right thing and compensate the individual but really you had no legal obligation to do so, and if the guy had played hard ball and tried for some ridiculous share in the profits I'm sure you would have told him where to go and gone ahead with the patent anyway.

The only way to make certain that you are contributing directly to the community is to have an already fully formed idea and posting the whole thing in explicit detail. Unsurprising fully formed ideas are far more valuable (and you can add another massive premium to get it written in patent speak) and its a rare individual that's willing to all that effort to just give them away.

Incidentally I believe DARPA is working on a flying submarine... some sought of combined electric\kerosene jet engine has been proposed as a propulsion source.