Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

"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
and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search (harder to
do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite well). You'd
have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the examiner to
grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot of various
schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers the same
general application, there's a high probability that your patent "might"
be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a possibility. If they
are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested significant dollars in
the product), then it's easy to negotiate a license and royalty, just to
lay to rest the risk that you might file suit and force them to stop mfr
and distribution.

The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how to
design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their new
product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from vagueness
comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that uncertainty has
definite business value.

The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to
cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build your
device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B has a
patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts; and B can
make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to license each
others patents, then between them, they can control the nut and bolt
market, without money needing to change hands. Again, vagueness works to
your advantage here.

Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works.


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

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

This:
"Our Technical Coordinator, Rob, K1DFT was guest presenter at the April
5th meeting of the Dallas (Texas) Amateur Radio Club. He thrilled a
packed house with a multimedia presentation concerning his invention,
the Distributed Loaded Monopole or DLM.
Rob telephoned me after the event in addition to one of my Dallas
friends who was in the audience to tell me how well the presentation was
received. Congratulations Rob!! The Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)
antenna testing range performed a full day of tests on a great many
different versions of the DLM just the week before he left for Texas and
validated every one of the DLM’s performance claims. That should quiet
the nay sayers out there who wanted proof of the antenna’s efficiency
and bandwidth."

From he
http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/a...php?storyid=12

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

This page:
http://lists.contesting.com/_towerta.../msg00225.html

shows someone is "listening", however, somehow he missed the
"plano-helical coil", where each hairpin "turn" is serving as a small
capacitance ...

Also, the "plano-spiral top hat" seems to have been missed, essentially,
I picture a concentric wound "flat" coil which also seems to present
itself to being available to the "capacitive loading" effect. I have
simply taken a flat sheet of 1/16 aluminum and cut a continuous spiral
to create one to experiment with ...

Geesh, I would trade a few hours work for just a good pic of this
antenna, or at least a better description! Save a LOT of experimental
work on this end ...

And, then, there is that nagging mention about some sort of loading
device in the center ... oh well, where is that hacksaw?

JS

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.html

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

This:
"Our Technical Coordinator, Rob, K1DFT was guest presenter at the April
5th meeting of the Dallas (Texas) Amateur Radio Club. He thrilled a
packed house with a multimedia presentation concerning his invention,
the Distributed Loaded Monopole or DLM.
Rob telephoned me after the event in addition to one of my Dallas
friends who was in the audience to tell me how well the presentation was
received. Congratulations Rob!! The Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC)
antenna testing range performed a full day of tests on a great many
different versions of the DLM just the week before he left for Texas and
validated every one of the DLM’s performance claims. That should quiet
the nay sayers out there who wanted proof of the antenna’s efficiency
and bandwidth."

If the NUWC range is like most other ranges, it's a facility that is
essentially for rent to anybody who wants to use it. The range provides
the site, the equipment, and the technicians. You tell them what tests
you want to run, operate your equipment if needed, and they make the
measurements and give you the data. As a rule, they'd make no
substantive evaluation of the worth of anything tested there. You could
hire them to make measurements on a 100ft spool of 20year old zipcord
sitting on a folding chair, and they'd happily fire up the signal
generator, measure the field strength, etc. It's not even all that
expensive.. It could be something like $1000 to do a day's testing, and
in comparison to what URI has already paid for their patent applications
and K1DFT's salary, that's not a big deal. It might even be cheaper,
since there's a variety of programs for government facilities to provide
services and such to universities. If the range wasn't otherwise being
used, all the equipment and staff is sitting around anyway, so the
differential cost to run the tests is small.

In other words, to say that "the range performed tests and validated
claims" is probably not technically true. The range performed the
tests, and presumably provided a report of the data they collected. The
validation of claims is up to the person who writes the analytical
report who takes the test data (presumably with it's measurement
uncertainties identified) and shows that test data matches expected
values within experimental error.



From he
http://www.arrlri.org/modules/news/a...php?storyid=12

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

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.

Guy from university physics ... Eureka! A picture!
 

John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.html

JS

Here is the URL of the actual .pdf document and is chock-full of pics,
details, and description:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7187335.pdf

Now there is no reason that anyone cannot confirm or deny the hype ...

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!
 

On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux wrote:
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 and have text that isn't likely to show up in a cursory search
(harder to do these days, since the PTO's search engine works quite
well). You'd have just enough detail in the disclosure to convince the
examiner to grant the patent, and have lots of claims that cover a lot
of various schemes. Then, if someone else builds something that covers
the same general application, there's a high probability that your
patent "might" be infringed, or, more importantly, that there's a
possibility. If they are already in manufacturing (i.e. have invested
significant dollars in the product), then it's easy to negotiate a
license and royalty, just to lay to rest the risk that you might file
suit and force them to stop mfr and distribution.

The LAST thing you want is enough detail to let someone figure out how
to design around your patent or to unambiguously determine that their
new product isn't infringing. You WANT vagueness, because from
vagueness comes liability uncertainty, and the elimination of that
uncertainty has definite business value.

The other reason to build a patent portfolio is that it allows you to
cross license other patents that you might need to infringe to build
your device. Imagine if A has a patent on female screw threads and B
has a patent on male screw threads. A could make nuts, but not bolts;
and B can make bolts, but not nuts. However, if A and B agree to
license each others patents, then between them, they can control the nut
and bolt market, without money needing to change hands. Again,
vagueness works to your advantage here.

Go look up "submarine patent" for more details on how this works.

Glad you wrote that Jim. A lot of people have no real idea of how
the patent idea is used in commerce or that the claims are the
most important part so at to protect in the event of new
advances in science.When competing for contracts it is
important to protect your designs even tho trivial incase
the contract is put out again.

I do have a question tho
and that is with respect to trade secrets/utility patents.
If a person decides not to patent and the idea is later
deciphered does that prevent a patent issued to either
party? With respect to submarines I thought the last
changes to patent law now prevents this.
Another posting stated that it is for the courts to determine
if a patent was authentic yet I read that the courts have now
stated that they are not in the game of overuling the
patent office any more.
Art

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

Jim Lux wrote:

[stuff]

I see!

So now, old Rob-boy has not only whamboozled a whole bunch of Phd's and
physics personnel at URI, he how as a "bunch" of hams from arrlri.org to
carve notches on his pistol grips for ... interesting, the only hams
able to see though his sham are here ... or else, the reverse is true!

As my buddy Arnie would say, "Enteresting, veeerrry enteresting ... "

JS

Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!
 

Jim Lux wrote:

[stuff]

A thought came to me when this all set the naysayers off, "Don't wait
for him/URI to come courting amateurs and attempting to sell 'em
antennas." The amount of profit to be had might not cover his dinner
and drinks ...

I'd imagine we need to search cell phones, wireless
routers/switches/etc., military, cell towers, gov't, etc. to find the
antennas--where profits are to be had ...

JS