Jimmie D wrote:
"Jim Lux" wrote in message
...

JIMMIE wrote:



I also assume they know their business, I also assume that if they
tested the antenna they actually collected qualitative information if
they knew their business. It seems obvious to me that this data was
intentionally left out . Deception by ommission.

If the inventor does not want these types of assumptions being made
then he should provide all information to clarify the issue.


Jimmie

Not necessarily. Patents are a strategic weapon in the technology
business. Your best bet is to have your patent have a sort of vague title



Dont think I metioned patents at any time.

True enough.. However, URI has filed for patents on this antenna. And,
there's lots of ways an inventor can use their invention for financial
gain, only some of which involve convincing folks that it's a good
invention.


On the other hand if you want
someone to buy your new miracle whiz bang antenna you either let people know
how great it is with data from a reliable source or you omit your data
giving vague discriptions to pull in the suckers.

Perhaps the goal isn't to sell antennas in this case? Maybe it's to
burnish the reputation of a university? Maybe it's to establish a patent
portfolio in the burgeoning world of wireless communications, and just
hope somebody else with deep pockets (e.g. a cellphone mfr) comes up
with a practical idea that's close enough to what you patented.

I dont think an affidavit
from the testing facility on measured field strength compared to a full size
antenna who have endangered his product.

The test facility would normally provide a copy of the data to whoever
paid for the tests. The data package would include appropriate
certifications that the equipment was calibrated and to what standards.
It would also usually have a description of the test procedure used,
either explicitly, or by reference to some standard published procedure.

It's the buyer of the data that has the responsibility to make the
claims and comparisons. (or not... I've been involved in some
measurement campaigns where the data wasn't disclosed, for competitive
reasons.) In any event, the independent test facility would almost
never make any sort of "summarizing conclusions", except, perhaps for a
regulatory compliance test, where they'd say: The tested device (S/N
#001) met all requirements for XYZ, as demonstrated by the attached test
data and procedures. Note well the reference to a single test article.
All the lab can say is that "the thing we tested did this".. they won't
(and can't) make any assertions about the design or whether other
articles of the same design will perform the same, etc.