Open Metal Detector Project Charter

[dougAEGPF]

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81EGusQGJDI

If you had not been banned twice from my forum then you could carry out this task yourself!
We are still waiting for you to tell the world what patents you allege that the QED infringes! Obviously you are unable too and it seems that you are not alone!
dougAEGPF

[chudster]

But how does one overcome it when a detector company says that the detector may not infringe any of their patents but infringes (ie indirect infringement?) because it may be used or "adapted and arranged" (eg by reprogramming a MC for example) to infringe the companies patents?
dougAEGPF

I am not a lawyer, but I'd need to look at the legal case where patent infringement was found on a manufacturer when the user modified it to infringe. I suppose its possible if the instructions and encouragement came from the manufacturer it might be found under inducement or incitement to infringe. In that case the judgement might be to remove the instructions from the product saying how to infringe and damages for the units that were sold with the infringing instructions.

Even for a manufacturer it is common practice in products to produce one design and turn off features for different markets for patent or other legal or marketing reasons through firmware. Communications products do this because of the telecommunications laws. That is an economic and compliance decision.

Our design is to be open and international. Its not possible to collaborate, experiment and improve without all options being possible. But we respect IP and our situation is not that one and so I would imagine there would only be instructions telling people how to not infringe. I can't imagine a judge ordering to remove instructions not to infringe or ordering our code and designs to become closed and not available in that jurisdiction. Especially when there is the right to experiment with people's patents in most, if not all, jurisdictions.

Chudster

[UrbanFox]

Taken literally ANY MC detector has the potential to infringe another patent if it has the capability for the MC to be reprogrammed,or the MC or circuit be "adapted and arranged"!
Now can you show us any patent claims that you allege the QED infringes?
We are all waiting!Go for it!
dougAEGPF

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81EGusQGJDI

[dougAEGPF]

I suppose this gets back to the fact that if a detector is sold with certain capabilities, and it is stated that code can be modified so that it will do better but it will infringe another's IP, but that is not our responsibility because we have sold the detector, then does a manufacturer has the right to look at intent?

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

Taken literally ANY MC detector has the potential to infringe another patent if it has the capability for the MC to be reprogrammed,or the MC or circuit be "adapted and arranged"!
Now can you show us any patent claims that you allege the QED infringes?
We are all waiting!Go for it!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

But how does one overcome it when a detector company says that the detector may not infringe any of their patents but infringes (ie indirect infringement?) because it may be used or "adapted and arranged" (eg by reprogramming a MC for example) to infringe the companies patents?
dougAEGPF

I suppose this gets back to the fact that if a detector is sold with certain capabilities, and it is stated that code can be modified so that it will do better but it will infringe another's IP, but that is not our responsibility because we have sold the detector, then does a manufacturer has the right to look at intent?

Doug, would you like to reproduce here any posts that have been made on your forum from which a bloke like me, in reading these posts, could get the impression that there was intent to infringe?

[dougAEGPF]

A good example of the above is the Hammerhead III PI: An advanced and scalable PI design using a PIC micro for timing control and signal processing. This could have the MC reprogrammed or "adapted and arranged" with a GB system and to save the settings at switch off. Then in the strictest sense it could be seen to be used to infringe some existing patents and then be jumped on by a certain detector company!
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

It is a problem, but that will not stop us examining on an issue by issue basis valid strategies that we wish to put in the Open design. It is important that we consider it and if we cannot be definite then we modularise any third party IP so it can be swapped in and out as needed.

For example, I understand there is IP about saving settings at turn off. Seems obvious and sensible for a detector to save its settings to me. Do we do it because its obvious and there is prior art or is there a line of code that says:

If NOT PATENTNUMBER
SAVE SETTINGS ON TURNOFF
ENDIF

In the ideal, for the code, all that one needs to do is define the patent numbers to avoid. Hardware is a little more tricky but as hardware can actually be disabled by software not to infringe, software itself might modularise much.

Folks could compile a version for when they are experimenting and have a different one if they are seriously detecting. A version could be compiled and used in a detector in say Indonesia where there are (probably) no patents, provided that was not manufactured in Australia.

In short, I don't want to stop the Open Project doing what we can because we think its too hard. You can eat an elephant a bite at a time.

Linux takes this approach and keeps all third party (not free) software out, but users can add it if they choose. In that way there will be a non-infringing design.

Its a little harder with patents, but not impossible. Its time to start and not time to give up.

Chudster

But how does one overcome it when a detector company says that the detector may not infringe any of their patents but infringes (ie indirect infringement?) because it may be used or "adapted and arranged" (eg by reprogramming a MC for example) to infringe the companies patents?
dougAEGPF

[chudster]

Firstly thank you Chudster you for all the work you have put into this. But the problem with patents is this: a certain company has over 80 patents or applications. Take any one of these to a variety of experts for their opinion or interpretation and its likely that you will get more opinions than I have had dinners! Many are a nightmare to understand, are poorly written,filled with Phd level maths and hence subject to wide interpretation. Then who has the resources to take on a well funded company who can employ the services of the best patent attorneys that money can buy and the best technical consultants or expert witnesses that money can buy?

The other problem is that the US patent examiners are overwhelmed and in my view lack the skills or resources to adequately evaluate patent applications and have a strong financial incentive to grant the patent. Few patents are objected to it seems and the patent examiners are in most cases totally unaware of forum posts that would negate the patent because of prior art or prior public disclosure like the one I was alerted too!
dougAEGPF

It is a problem, but that will not stop us examining on an issue by issue basis valid strategies that we wish to put in the Open design. It is important that we consider it and if we cannot be definite then we modularise any third party IP so it can be swapped in and out as needed.

For example, I understand there is IP about saving settings at turn off. Seems obvious and sensible for a detector to save its settings to me. Do we do it because its obvious and there is prior art or is there a line of code that says:

If NOT PATENTNUMBER
SAVE SETTINGS ON TURNOFF
ENDIF

In the ideal, for the code, all that one needs to do is define the patent numbers to avoid. Hardware is a little more tricky but as hardware can actually be disabled by software not to infringe, software itself might modularise much.

Folks could compile a version for when they are experimenting and have a different one if they are seriously detecting. A version could be compiled and used in a detector in say Indonesia where there are (probably) no patents, provided that was not manufactured in Australia.

In short, I don't want to stop the Open Project doing what we can because we think its too hard. You can eat an elephant a bite at a time.

Linux takes this approach and keeps all third party (not free) software out, but users can add it if they choose. In that way there will be a non-infringing design.

Its a little harder with patents, but not impossible. Its time to start and not time to give up.

Chudster

[dougAEGPF]

You are slow, aren't you. Just sit back, ask Aziz can you have some of his popcorn and coke, and wait to see how good the fireworks are. They might be very spectacular, they might just fizz.

As I have said elsewhere, it's a real pity that you are not the one in Minelab's sights.

So as an “expert” you cannot produce a single shred of technically sound and credible evidence to show any patent infringement?
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

Can you produce any evidence of patent infringement?Here is your opportunity go for it!
dougAEGPF

You are slow, aren't you. Just sit back, ask Aziz can you have some of his popcorn and coke, and wait to see how good the fireworks are. They might be very spectacular, they might just fizz.

As I have said elsewhere, it's a real pity that you are not the one in Minelab's sights.

[dougAEGPF]

And you, the proverbial "Boil on the Butt of Humanity", conveniently forget about all the statements made on your forum that gave Minelab good reason to suspect the QED was infringing their IP.

Can you produce any evidence of patent infringement?Here is your opportunity go for it!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

Few patents are objected to it seems and the patent examiners are in most cases totally unaware of forum posts that would negate the patent because of prior art or prior public disclosure like the one I was alerted too!
dougAEGPF

If you believe you have a case then request re-examination of the patent and submit the info that should have negated the patent being granted. Pretty simple really. However, you prefer to go on with your usual waffle and garbage with the perception that you will achieve some form of notoriety. Lets see you actually do something for a change instead of the usual urine and flatulence.

You also haven't answered my question....Would you say that what your post on your forum is designed to achieve is Blackmail or Extortion??

What do you hope to achieve by your stupidity in posting the drivel you have posted on your forum??

I am sure Bugs really appreciates your input, after all, what are mates for ;-) ;-)

[dougAEGPF]

Firstly:
I would like to bring to your attention that by the grace of the administrators on there being sufficient interest. These threads now command their own project space in the projects section. Thanks admins.

Secondly:
I don't know about blackmail or extortion but it is vital that the open detector project understands the IP that is out there so that its designs do not infringe.

I have opened a thread giving an overview for the analysis of patents and IP so that we do this in an organised way. The idea is that people could take the information about patent numbers and possible prior art to an IP lawyer for an opinion if they wish to use aspects of the open design that might infringe third party patents beyond an experimental setting. Of course any discussion will not be legal advice.

You can find those instructions here.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...lysis&p=160532

Chudster

Firstly thank you Chudster you for all the work you have put into this. But the problem with patents is this: a certain company has over 80 patents or applications. Take any one of these to a variety of experts for their opinion or interpretation and its likely that you will get more opinions than I have had dinners! Many are a nightmare to understand, are poorly written,filled with Phd level maths and hence subject to wide interpretation. Then who has the resources to take on a well funded company who can employ the services of the best patent attorneys that money can buy and the best technical consultants or expert witnesses that money can buy?

The other problem is that the US patent examiners are overwhelmed and in my view lack the skills or resources to adequately evaluate patent applications and have a strong financial incentive to grant the patent. Few patents are objected to it seems and the patent examiners are in most cases totally unaware of forum posts that would negate the patent because of prior art or prior public disclosure like the one I was alerted too!
dougAEGPF

[UrbanFox]

You conveniently forget why the open detector charter thread came about!

And you, the proverbial "Boil on the Butt of Humanity", conveniently forget about all the statements made on your forum that gave Minelab good reason to suspect the QED was infringing their IP. The shame is that Minelab do not have you in court and in their sights.

[chudster]

Doug, I notice that in a part of your forum you made a post (yesterday, was it) .....

"This is a portion(a screen shot) of very long post (describing saving detector settings for a particular location and then recalling them at the same location at another time) that was on my first forum a long time before a WIPO patent application to protect the technology used in the latest detector by a well known company
I am advised that its quite sufficient to invalidate the patent! I will sit on it and see if this well known company now decides to behave fairly and reasonably.If so then the post will stay with me otherwise it will go to the patent examiners!
doug "

Can I ask you Doug, would you describe your post as an attempt at Blackmail or Extortion...which one do you think?? You are wanting a certain outcome from certain legal action currently occurring with a certain company. Could I suggest that if you have reason to believe that a patent will not stand up to scrutiny then act on it instead of going on like the grandstanding but impotent "Official Minelab Basher" you are known to be.

http://www.finders.com.au/forum/view...dered&start=26

Firstly:
I would like to bring to your attention that by the grace of the administrators on there being sufficient interest. These threads now command their own project space in the projects section. Thanks admins.

Secondly:
I don't know about blackmail or extortion but it is vital that the open detector project understands the IP that is out there so that its designs do not infringe.

I have opened a thread giving an overview for the analysis of patents and IP so that we do this in an organised way. The idea is that people could take the information about patent numbers and possible prior art to an IP lawyer for an opinion if they wish to use aspects of the open design that might infringe third party patents beyond an experimental setting. Of course any discussion will not be legal advice.

You can find those instructions here.
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...lysis&p=160532

Chudster