>Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> napisa?(a):
>
>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
>>
>
>Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application area may
>also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data transmission,
>so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
>
>ae
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:15:52 -0700, miso<miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2012 9:29 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:19 +0200, "Andrzej Ekiert"
>>>> <dspicant@tlen.pl> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid> napisa?(a):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application area
>>>>> may
>>>>> also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data
>>>>> transmission,
>>>>> so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ae
>>>>
>>>> My method as well... keep it _art_, but _privately_ documented.
>>>>
>>>> I'm expert witness in a case right now where a heathen patented a
>>>> block diagram... science fiction, then is suing now that technology
>>>> has caught up with fiction :-(
>>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>> To the best of my knowledge, one cannot patent a block diagram - not
>>> even as a design patent.
>>> And design patents are essentially worthless since one minor aspect
>>> can be changed to generate a new design patent.
>>> Crudely put, the shape of a paper clip cannot be patented in a way to
>>> protect its use; change the wiggle or bend here to make a different
>>> design and thus create competition that cannot be negated by
>>> "interference".
>>>
>>
>> The only thing that matters in the patent is the "claims" section.
>>
>> Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather
>> have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the
>> patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior art.
>>
> True, but expensive.
>
> ?-)
But for the purpose of the OP, you don't need to follow through on the
patent, just filing establishes prior art. A patent can be expensive to
defend, but you don't need to defend it if you are just trying to make
it available to all, you only need prior art to prevent someone else
from patenting it.
Rick
>Dnia 25-09-2012 o 06:15:52 miso <miso@sushi.com> napisa?(a):
>
>> Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather =20
>> have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the =20
>> patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior =
art.
>
>I did talk to a patent lawyer to estimate costs involved in having =20
>something patented internationally. A costly hobby I would say. And if =
it =20
>comes to court, then a small company cannot afford to defend.
>
>My opinion on patents is that the whole purpose of this system has been =
=20
>circumvented in the recent decades. Patents now do not protect =
individual =20
>inventors. They are only useful to corporations that already have money =
=20
>and lawyers. Also, the patent databases are polluted with useless or =20
>obvious "inventions". Worse - anything you do, you may fall into a =
patent =20
>trap. I would like to see this whole system thrown to trash.
>
>Regards,
>Andrzej
You are a registered member of the disorganized group now.
?-)
Reply by josephkk●September 28, 20122012-09-28
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:15:52 -0700, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:
>On 9/24/2012 9:29 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:19 +0200, "Andrzej Ekiert"
>>> <dspicant@tlen.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid> =
napisa?(a):
>>>>
>>>>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application =
area
>>>> may
>>>> also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data
>>>> transmission,
>>>> so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
>>>>
>>>> ae
>>>
>>> My method as well... keep it _art_, but _privately_ documented.
>>>
>>> I'm expert witness in a case right now where a heathen patented a
>>> block diagram... science fiction, then is suing now that technology
>>> has caught up with fiction :-(
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>> To the best of my knowledge, one cannot patent a block diagram - =
not
>> even as a design patent.
>> And design patents are essentially worthless since one minor aspect
>> can be changed to generate a new design patent.
>> Crudely put, the shape of a paper clip cannot be patented in a way =
to
>> protect its use; change the wiggle or bend here to make a different
>> design and thus create competition that cannot be negated by
>> "interference".
>>
>
>The only thing that matters in the patent is the "claims" section.
>
>Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather=20
>have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the=20
>patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior art.
>
>Hi all,
>The reason for this post is that I want to safeguard my idea from any =20
>patenting attempts. Releasing the details to the public domain should do=
=20
>the trick, so here they are:
>
>Imagine a transformer built from two coils routed on a PCB on two =20
>different layers (top and bottom for example). The thickness of the PCB =
=20
>provides the isolation required. Transmission is performed by shorting =
one =20
>coil, forming a closed loop - one end is grounded, the other connected =
to =20
>a microcontroller pin. The micro grounds the pin and that's one state. =20
>When the micro puts the pin in high impedance, the other state is =20
>transmitted. A micro on the other side measures the inductance of the =20
>other (coupled) coil. By observing a variation in inductance it can tell=
=20
>if the coil on the other side is shorted or not.
>
>Should anyone be interested, I have it implemented. We do this on =20
>Microchip's microcontrollers and measure the inductance with the CTMU =20
>hardware peripheral. Works at 80kbps full-duplex on a PIC24F. I have =20
>written an application note and posted it on my company website. We call=
=20
>the thing "Freesolator", since it requires almost no components (one =20
>resistor, once you have CTMU on board). We have demo boards and can make=
=20
>the source code available. See http://protronik.pl/freesolator-en.html
>
>Hope you don't find this post too spammy. I couldn't think of a better =20
>method of undeniable disclosure.
>
>Cheers,
>Andrzej Ekiert
I suggest you use Creative Commons as well. It is reasonably funded and
is capable of being proper "witness" should some nutter (patent troll) =
try
to steal it.
?-)
Reply by Andrzej Ekiert●September 27, 20122012-09-27
Dnia 27-09-2012 o 17:03:20 legg <legg@nospam.magma.ca> napisa=C5=82(a):
> There are also a number of commercially available chipsets designed to=
> facilitate magnetic data coupling. I don't know how they compare in
> price to a pair of PICs.
I know the market. I have used iCouplers in my designs. I have even been=
=
digging out the information how they do their work internally, to make =
sure my method was different. A pair of PICs can be "free", if you need =
=
them anyways to do the other tasks on both sides of the link - in that =
case using an additional IC for isolation is always more expensive.
> Publication is always an alternative to patenting, but it doesn't
> absolve you of the responsibility for patent searching, prior to
> commercial use. You didn't mention that this was the case and in doing=
> so may be placing other implimenters at hazard.
I also did some patent searching, but you need to remember, that no sear=
ch =
can be complete. There may exist patents missed because:
1) they didn't show up in patent search engines, for whatever reasons;
2) they are filed, but not published yet;
3) there are so many patents to check, that the analysis is practically =
=
non-feasible;
4) the patent in question may have been filed in a country you don't eve=
n =
thought to check.
Ensuring non-infringement is hardly possible and in my case the search i=
s =
more expensive than the expected revenue. Again, I would love to see the=
=
whole patent system thrown to trash, to free myself from that kind of =
problems. As soon as I start to be afraid to implement my own independen=
t =
invention, the purpose of that system is subverted.
Regards,
ae
>Hi all,
>The reason for this post is that I want to safeguard my idea from any
>patenting attempts. Releasing the details to the public domain should do
>the trick, so here they are:
>
>Imagine a transformer built from two coils routed on a PCB on two
>different layers (top and bottom for example). The thickness of the PCB
>provides the isolation required. Transmission is performed by shorting one
>coil, forming a closed loop - one end is grounded, the other connected to
>a microcontroller pin. The micro grounds the pin and that's one state.
>When the micro puts the pin in high impedance, the other state is
>transmitted. A micro on the other side measures the inductance of the
>other (coupled) coil. By observing a variation in inductance it can tell
>if the coil on the other side is shorted or not.
>
>Should anyone be interested, I have it implemented. We do this on
>Microchip's microcontrollers and measure the inductance with the CTMU
>hardware peripheral. Works at 80kbps full-duplex on a PIC24F. I have
>written an application note and posted it on my company website. We call
>the thing "Freesolator", since it requires almost no components (one
>resistor, once you have CTMU on board). We have demo boards and can make
>the source code available. See http://protronik.pl/freesolator-en.html
>
>Hope you don't find this post too spammy. I couldn't think of a better
>method of undeniable disclosure.
>
>Cheers,
>Andrzej Ekiert
On 9/25/2012 1:44 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:53:43 +0100, John Devereux<john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> miso<miso@sushi.com> writes:
>>>
>>> The only thing that matters in the patent is the "claims" section.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather
>>> have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the
>>> patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior
>>> art.
>>
>> It might well be the best way to stop someone else patenting it.
>
> There are places to publish such things that are far cheaper than a patent.
>
>> But it would not be a good way to let other people use it who might want
>> to. The mere fact that it is patented would put off most people I
>> think. What about explicitly releasing it into the public domain?
The Washington area Consultants Network group of the IEEE recently
sponsored a "Patent" town hall discussion with a patent consultant, a
patent lawyer and two representatives of the patent office. One of the
things I learned was that a great way to establish prior art is to file
a preliminary patent application. I don't recall the exact term used
for this filing, so I may not have it correct, but it only costs $300
and clearly establishes prior art so that no one else can ever patent
the idea. I think the "preliminary" filing expires in a year so you
also can't patent it if you don't follow up within the year.
Rick
Reply by krw...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz●September 25, 20122012-09-25
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:09:00 -0400, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:53:43 +0100, John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >miso <miso@sushi.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 9/24/2012 9:29 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
>> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> >>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:19 +0200, "Andrzej Ekiert"
>> >>>> <dspicant@tlen.pl> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid> napisa?(a):
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application area
>> >>>>> may
>> >>>>> also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data
>> >>>>> transmission,
>> >>>>> so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ae
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My method as well... keep it _art_, but _privately_ documented.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm expert witness in a case right now where a heathen patented a
>> >>>> block diagram... science fiction, then is suing now that technology
>> >>>> has caught up with fiction :-(
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ...Jim Thompson
>> >>> To the best of my knowledge, one cannot patent a block diagram - not
>> >>> even as a design patent.
>> >>> And design patents are essentially worthless since one minor aspect
>> >>> can be changed to generate a new design patent.
>> >>> Crudely put, the shape of a paper clip cannot be patented in a way to
>> >>> protect its use; change the wiggle or bend here to make a different
>> >>> design and thus create competition that cannot be negated by
>> >>> "interference".
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The only thing that matters in the patent is the "claims" section.
>> >>
>> >> Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather
>> >> have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the
>> >> patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior
>> >> art.
>> >
>> >It might well be the best way to stop someone else patenting it.
>>
>> There are places to publish such things that are far cheaper than a patent.
>
>Such as Circuit Cellar.
>
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:53:43 +0100, John Devereux <john@devereux.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >miso <miso@sushi.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 9/24/2012 9:29 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
> >>> Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:19 +0200, "Andrzej Ekiert"
> >>>> <dspicant@tlen.pl> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid> napisa?(a):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application area
> >>>>> may
> >>>>> also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data
> >>>>> transmission,
> >>>>> so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ae
> >>>>
> >>>> My method as well... keep it _art_, but _privately_ documented.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm expert witness in a case right now where a heathen patented a
> >>>> block diagram... science fiction, then is suing now that technology
> >>>> has caught up with fiction :-(
> >>>>
> >>>> ...Jim Thompson
> >>> To the best of my knowledge, one cannot patent a block diagram - not
> >>> even as a design patent.
> >>> And design patents are essentially worthless since one minor aspect
> >>> can be changed to generate a new design patent.
> >>> Crudely put, the shape of a paper clip cannot be patented in a way to
> >>> protect its use; change the wiggle or bend here to make a different
> >>> design and thus create competition that cannot be negated by
> >>> "interference".
> >>>
> >>
> >> The only thing that matters in the patent is the "claims" section.
> >>
> >> Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather
> >> have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the
> >> patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior
> >> art.
> >
> >It might well be the best way to stop someone else patenting it.
>
> There are places to publish such things that are far cheaper than a patent.
Such as Circuit Cellar.
>
> >But it would not be a good way to let other people use it who might want
> >to. The mere fact that it is patented would put off most people I
> >think. What about explicitly releasing it into the public domain?
>
> See above.
>
> >Although this seems to be discouraged for some reason. A better way
> >might be to use one of the "open hardware" sites that are springing up.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net