Richard,
I think it is very bad what Penn State has done
and they say they are going to
apply for a patent no less.
They do have E mail contacts on their page
so if you send them a copy of your posting
then they will have to declare it to the
Patent Office with their initial request.
If what you are saying is what they are repeating
then congrats and kudo's to you. It would also
be interesting how the initial patent on Fractals was written
i.e was it a 'method' for producing a new series of designs
or limited to specific designs as it could make quite a difference
as far as the PTO is concerned. I would imagine they took the
first tack as to patent all forms in the family would
make it one very huge patent request

Art






Richard Clark wrote in message . ..
On 3 Nov 2003 09:19:07 -0800, (John Bartley I
solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux) wrote:

FRACTAL-SHAPED TILES DEVELOPED FOR NEW BROADBAND ANTENNA CLASS
Penn State engineers have developed innovative design methods for a
new class of antennas composed of an array of fractal-shaped tiles
that offer anywhere from a 4:1 to 8:1 improvement in bandwidth
compared to their conventional counterparts. Douglas H. Werner,
professor of electrical engineering and senior scientist in Penn
State's Applied Research Laboratory, recently described the new
antennas at a conference on wireless communication technology in
Hawaii. While fractal concepts have been used previously in antenna
design, Werner and his research team are the first to introduce a
design approach for broadband phased array antenna systems that
combines aspects of tiling theory with fractal geometry.
Read the full story at http://live.psu.edu/story/4373

Hi John,

Excuse my reaction: BFD!

I described this style a year and a half ago:
"The innovation, called a Penrose TileTenna Circuit(TM) (PTC),
uses Penrose Tile conductor paths to replace low efficiency
fractal circuits. In doing so, the company has a proprietary
position on a harmonic and ubiquitous reach into electronics, RF,
and pulley technology.

"Virtually every electronic device using fractals or pulleys to
form RLC circuits has been eclipsed by the new Penrose TileTenna
Circuit(TM). Those low efficiency fractal components were arranged
by superstition and ruse to get the pulley to perform as needed.
What we've done is ask: can a Penrose Tile pattern, with its
smug-awareness and self-indulgance, be used to eliminate
fractals and still get the equivalent RLC circuit? We've found
that the answer is yes; and in most uses, especially at milliHertz
frequencies, all fractals can be replaced by conductive Penrose
TileTenna structures. In 110% of cases, the PTCs can substantially
reduce the fractal population from their high tide mark of 0.001%
market penetration...

"Looking at the Penrose TileTenna Circuit(TM) one sees, for
example, a beautiful etched copper pattern replacing the ugly
fractal traces for a circuit without kinks, plunging the cost and
dramatically increasing the reliability of use...

"A key part of using PTCs in a practical way was to find a method
to identify a fractal arrangement that fails to meet the design
specifications for performance and form factor. This, in effect
opens the market to all fractal applications being susceptible to
replacement by the superior technology offered by PTCs. Other
recent and independent research reports take a given Penrose
TileTenna and then see how it works as an RLC circuit, such as a
filter or resonator...

"The CTO of PILES, Inc. (Penrose tILES' new business name,
formerly designers of EH/CFA's, marine pulleys and other fractals)
scoffs at competitors' slow-to-patent IP security by noting PTC
technology has protections of pending patent pending status. 'We
thought of it first and that is sufficient to take anyone to
court!' goes the logic of this source. PILES' CTO warns that
they have an 'announced' pending patent pending status (offering
greater protection than simple pending patent pending status)
against all antennas designed using an inclined plane. 'We are
committed,' offers the CTO, 'to future possibilities.' 'If you
think about it, a wrapped incline describes a screw, and we do not
want to be the outdone by fraudtenna in the ability to give
customers a screw when they seek a novel antenna design.'"

For those interested in the prospects of PILES and their ability to
irritate fraudtenna in the end, stay tuned for future breakthroughs in
pulley research. ;-)

repeated for your edutainment.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 3 Nov 2003 18:31:43 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:

Richard,
I think it is very bad what Penn State has done

In this case, ignorance is allowed as an excuse. After-all, we are
talking about academics who have no concept of the real world.

and they say they are going to
apply for a patent no less.

Let them, I certainly don't care.

They do have E mail contacts on their page
so if you send them a copy of your posting
then they will have to declare it to the
Patent Office with their initial request.
If what you are saying is what they are repeating
then congrats and kudo's to you.

Read it again, Art. The invention is in the humor and the
"obviousness" of it to a practitioner of the art. It is the patent
office that needs to be dope-slapped. No one has to do any "proving"
of claims to get a patent so in the end real work has no merit (and
what makes that comedy sketch a future liability to whoever ponies up
the bucks to buy a license to a technology built on shifting sand).

It would also
be interesting how the initial patent on Fractals was written
i.e was it a 'method' for producing a new series of designs
or limited to specific designs as it could make quite a difference
as far as the PTO is concerned. I would imagine they took the
first tack as to patent all forms in the family would
make it one very huge patent request

Art

Hi Art,

Fraudtenna's original application is apparent in the description part
of the submission. Equally obvious is that the brunt of the claims
were brutally clipped and they were left with a castrati so light in
its loafers as to carry only carping weight.

The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard wrote:

SNIP

The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!!

Deacon Dave, W1MCE

Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04...
Richard wrote:

SNIP

The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!!

Deacon Dave, W1MCE

I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave.
It is not a question of who is right or wrong with
respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest
pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation
so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so
a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields
wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even
tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who
violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas
as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award
since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance
fees.
My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction.
By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can
retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with
little money.
McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their
opponents
had little money and were able to reap huge rewards.
Art

On 4 Nov 2003 08:51:13 -0800, (Art Unwin KB9MZ)
wrote:
I could never stop any violation

Hi Art,

Au contraire. That is the simplest, easiest thing to do. Discover
the violator, find his competition, offer the competition license
rights in return for their prosecutorial aggression. ;-)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:


SNIP


I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave.
It is not a question of who is right or wrong with
respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest
pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation
so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so
a ruling is never made.

SNIP

My point exactly. Patents assure Lawsuits!!

I didn't say the patent holder wins.

Deacon Dave

Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did
win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the
patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still
have my original one and love it.
The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue
each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every
suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage.
He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still
winning.

Dave Nagel


Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04...

Richard wrote:

SNIP


The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!!

Deacon Dave, W1MCE


I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave.
It is not a question of who is right or wrong with
respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest
pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation
so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so
a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields
wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even
tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who
violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas
as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award
since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance
fees.
My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction.
By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can
retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with
little money.
McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their
opponents
had little money and were able to reap huge rewards.
Art

As I recall, the interval wiper case was begun in the '60s and only
settled recently. So it took the inventor thirty years to win the suit.
And I believe that was only against one auto manufacturer. I seriously
doubt that he's collected a nickel yet. The only reason he prevailed is
that there was such a huge amount of money involved, lawyers were
willing to spend years working on it for a contingency fee.
(Consequently, the inventor will only get a portion of the settlement if
he's still alive when the money actually changes hands.) For something
of more modest value, the inventor will simply be run out of money long
before the case reaches court.

As far as I can tell, patents are of use only for companies large enough
and with enough resources to defend them. They're often used just to
shut out the little guy. For example, Big Company A patents its widget.
Big Company B incorporates the widget into its own products. Big Company
A threatens to sue Big Company B. Big Company B comes up with some prior
art that might void the patent, and threatens to countersue to make the
patent void. (This can be done for a huge number of patents. There are
surprisingly few truly new ideas, and prior art can very often be found
if you've got the resources to look hard enough for it.) Big Company A
backs off, and gives Big Company B a royalty-free license to use the
widget. That way, they both benefit. If the patent had been voided
(which it probably deserved to be), then any old body could use the
widget. By letting the patent stand, either company can sue any little
guy who tries it. Patents are now awarded with hardly any scrutiny at
all, which I'm sure makes this scheme increasingly common. Actually,
what I've seen is big companies freely stealing others' patented ideas,
and not bothering with the formal process I just described. They don't
mess with each other, and that way all the patents stand and the little
guys are effectively locked out.

In my humble and decidedly non-legal opinion, a patent is pretty useless
to a small inventor, unless it's worth so much that the lawyers are
willing to spend millions and years defending it, like in the interval
wiper case. I guess it strokes some egos. But I always think about the
Hyper-Light-Speed Antenna (U.S. patent #6,025,810) when someone brags
about how many patents he's got, just to keep the accomplishment in
perspective.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

David G. Nagel wrote:
Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did
win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the
patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still
have my original one and love it.
The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue
each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every
suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage.
He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still
winning.

Dave Nagel

David.
I chose those three cases deliberately
because they were people who pursued their case
since money was more important than life.
I also stated the McDonalds case in the U.K.
where justice came without total ruination.
Look at cases where the "giants" take on
"giants" as in the phamacutical industry
where appeals upon appeals and other
manipulations of the court drag on for years.
Yes, the courts allow the little man to
challenge the big man but he never "wins",
he always loses the most valuable thing
that he has, a major part of his life
in exchange for following his "rights".
In these particular cases quoted it emphasised
the difference in "rights" between the U.K. and the U.S.
which supposedly follow the same system but where one follows the
"intent" of the law where the other follows the
" actual wording" of the law. This places the U.S. descisions
in the same bracket of many threads seen at this site.
Art





"David G. Nagel" wrote in message ...
Actually the man that invented the pushbutton release socket wrench did
win his lawsuit against Sears and won big. Sears then licensed the
patent and are selling pushbutton release socket wrenches again. I still
have my original one and love it.
The intermitent cycle automotobile wondow wiper inventer has has to sue
each and every autombile manufacturer for infringement. He has won every
suit but the lawyers got most of the money. He also lost his marriage.
He is now going without legal assistance in his court cases but is still
winning.

Dave Nagel


Art Unwin KB9MZ wrote:
Dave Shrader wrote in message news:tiMpb.102695$Fm2.88131@attbi_s04...

Richard wrote:

SNIP


The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!!

Deacon Dave, W1MCE


I would question that statement in the U.S. Dave.
It is not a question of who is right or wrong with
respect to patents, its just a case who has the deepest
pockets and who can make enough money thru a violation
so they may hire a lawyer to manipulate the court so
a ruling is never made. Two cases I remember one the windshields
wiper case and the Sears and Roabucks wrench casewhere even
tho the plaintifs went bankrupt pursing justice those who
violated the law profited imensely. My patents on antennas
as well as the one I am claiming now will be abandond after award
since I could never stop any violation let alone pay the maintenance
fees.
My patent attempt are purely for my own satisfaction.
By the way, in some countries the loser picks up the costs which can
retard deep pocket violators in any court actions over those with
little money.
McDonalds found this out to their cost in the U.K. where their
opponents
had little money and were able to reap huge rewards.
Art

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:44:25 GMT, Dave Shrader
wrote:

Richard wrote:

SNIP

The only value of patents is in their being a depreciable asset. In
other words, valuable only to the bean counters to include in their
prospectus.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

There is a second value in Patents: they assure lawsuits!!

Deacon Dave, W1MCE

Hi Dave,

For the lawyer side of the aisle, that is the same asset. There is
certainly nothing about patents that "give" the inventor ANYTHING.
America's first, greatest inventor, Ben Franklin declared such things
as patents as an abomination to freedom.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC