Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 20th 07, 09:02 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 801
Default Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!

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.

  #2   Report Post  
Old June 20th 07, 10:22 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 287
Default 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.


  #3   Report Post  
Old June 20th 07, 11:19 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 801
Default 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.


  #4   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 12:38 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,154
Default 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
  #5   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 12:30 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
art art is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,188
Default 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



  #6   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 06:58 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 801
Default Patent realities was Guy from university physics dept.

art wrote:
On 20 Jun, 13:02, Jim Lux wrote:



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?


Nope.. he who discovers first gets the potential ability to patent,
regardless of what you've done in the past. "first to discover vs first
to disclose". (US vs EU) If you've disclosed it, you have a year to get
the app filed (in the US.. everywhere else, you have to file before
first public disclosure) "disclosure" is kind of a tricky thing too.

That's why that evidence of date of invention (the classic bound
notebook with the signature on the page of someone who "read and
understood") is handy. That establishes "priority"


From a strategic point, it used to be (before the started publishing
apps) that you'd have a trade secret AND file an application. You'd mark
your thing "Patent Pending". You'd make little changes (possibly in
response to an examiner's questions, or possibly as a "Continuation in
Part" CIP) in the application to extend the time before the patent gets
granted and published. If someone looked like they had independently
discovered what your secret is (or they acquired it by espionage), you'd
let the application start running, and then you'd go to the competitor
and say, "Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU
don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it.
When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business.
Feel Lucky?" Then, negotiations for a license ensue.


This is all changing though, so don't take what I write as gospel.

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.


There is that, too...

However, you still have to go to court to enforce your patent. The
alleged infringer has to say why your patent is invalid or why they
don't infringe. This isn't cheap. If the infringer is an off-shore
mfr, then you might get a customs order to stop importation, but that's
like playing whack-a-mole, because each and every container load will
likely be from a (ostensibly)different infringer.
  #7   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 08:40 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,951
Default Patent realities was Guy from university physics dept.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:

"Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU
don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it.
When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business.
Feel Lucky?"


In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can
continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if
the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC
  #8   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 11:42 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 801
Default Patent realities was Guy from university physics dept.

Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:58:13 -0700, Jim Lux
wrote:


"Hey, we've got this patent application in the works, and YOU
don't know what's in it, and we're NOT going to tell you what's in it.
When the patent issues, we might be able to put you out of business.
Feel Lucky?"



In fact, the manufacturer is completely lucky. Their product line can
continue forever based on the design preceeding publication - even if
the design and the publication are the same. They just can't change
it.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC


It's the second mfr that's got the decision to make, and decide if
they're lucky. Here's the speculative scenario:

1) Mfr A invents something, files ap, keeps it secret
2) Mfr B invents same thing, but later
3) Mfr B starts making the thing
4) Mfr A gets their patent
5) Mfr B is instantly infringing, and can't continue mfr, distribution,
sale, etc., without a license from A.

If B knows that A has filed a patent in an area of B's interest
(potentially indicated by mfr A selling a product labelled Pat.Pend.),
they've got a real gamble when they invest in step #3.

B can negotiate in advance of patent issuance before step #4
OR
B can tell A to go away, gambling that
a)they won't infringe the unknown patent when it does issue
or b)that the patent won't issue
or c) A won't have the resources to take B on for infringement.

OR
B can wait for the patent to issue, then negotiate with A for a license.

The last strategy is particularly effective if, meanwhile B has filed
for or patented something that happens to be infringed by A's existing
mfr operation. They can cross license their patents. (happens all the
time in the semiconductor business)
  #9   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 03:09 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 172
Default Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provoke amateurs!

Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a
patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue).
Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing.
Can not hide.
73, Mac N8TT

--
J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A.
Home:
"Jim Lux" wrote in message


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



  #10   Report Post  
Old June 21st 07, 07:01 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.antenna
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 801
Default Guy from university physics dept. makes claims to incite/provokeamateurs!

J. Mc Laughlin wrote:
Submarine patents have gone away with a change in the maximum duration of a
patent being measured from the date of filing (and not the date of issue).
Additionally, almost all applications are published 1.5 years after filing.
Can not hide.
73, Mac N8TT


Gone mostly away, I'd say...
There is an "art" in the writing of disclosures and claims that cause
the patent to not look applicable. I knew someone who patented
everything using the word "Catalyst" in the title, etc. There are
thousands and thousands of catalyst patents issued all the time, so
yours would be lost in the morass, and nobody has the time to read ALL
the patents.

Modern search engines help a lot to fight this.

There's also the fact that standards bodies are much better about making
participants in a standards setting process disclose their "patents in
waiting" so you don't get submarined by adopting a standard, only to
find the next year that it requires a license from some patent holder.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
KB9RQZ Makes One Post After Another Then Claims Others Are LYING When His Own Words Are Quoted VERBATIM [email protected] Policy 3 September 26th 06 01:57 PM
the 'language' of physics GOSPELS FAR FROM THE TRUTH --Mor... [email protected] Shortwave 18 August 7th 05 02:59 AM
Physics according to toad Cmd Buzz Corey Policy 5 May 28th 05 04:57 PM
NY TIMES says new super-small Hammie Antenna defies physics Nicolai Carpathia CB 16 June 12th 04 08:08 PM
Ye canna change the lars o' physics Dave VanHorn CB 5 August 2nd 03 08:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017