Patent Restrictions?

[Carl-NC]

It's worth considering (for the price arguments) that these things are generally sold for a small enough market so the costs of development and manufacture, plus plain regular running expenses of managing a company and having its employees eat and live in a house, enjoying an engineer's salary to maintain their families etc. and making enough quarterly profit to meet the shareholders' expectations, do tally up to a rather fat looking price. I work in a company selling for a similarly narrow segment, and the markup is reasonable due to sales numbers.

Sure, cheaper detectors could be sold in larger numbers if they were actually bought in larger numbers, which isn't going to happen until metal detectors somehow become a daily consumer product. The cost isn't really the issue. Compared to other hobbies it's not really all that expensive especially if the person buying a detector expects to sell it later for at least a reasonable fraction of its initial cost. And not everyone buys ML, with lots of more affordable alternatives around.

This is the bottom line for detectors. Low volume = high prices, same economics that drives every other market. It's fun to believe that you can design, build, & sell a world-class detector for $500, but eventually reality smacks you in the face, whether it's with a price point that only supports slave labor, or it's getting to the "world class" level.

And, no UF, patents don't make the product, nor do they necessarily protect investments. If you want a cheap GPX, China will sell you one.

[Carl-NC]

Already been done!!!!
dougAEGPF

Well & good, but you deftly avoided the question. If I invent a new way to do GB that solves problems with current GB methods, is that new method patentable? Put another way, is it still possible to patent the wheel? Or the Tweel?

[Qiaozhi]

Two short words - I wasn't. Do a simple calculation. $4000au. - sales tax - agent/dealer markups - import duty - shipping = ex factory trade price.

Did you notice this secondhand GS5 that sold on ebay yesterday (6th Feb) for $2,225 (£1421.45) + shipping? ->

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GoldScan-5-PI-Metal-Detector-by-Eric-Foster-Two-Coils-A-1-/121059380217?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT&nma=true&si=4yRxgMpFS04Wqw4I4%252FH7g8%252FdnSY%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

[ODM]

It's worth considering (for the price arguments) that these things are generally sold for a small enough market so the costs of development and manufacture, plus plain regular running expenses of managing a company and having its employees eat and live in a house, enjoying an engineer's salary to maintain their families etc. and making enough quarterly profit to meet the shareholders' expectations, do tally up to a rather fat looking price. I work in a company selling for a similarly narrow segment, and the markup is reasonable due to sales numbers.

Sure, cheaper detectors could be sold in larger numbers if they were actually bought in larger numbers, which isn't going to happen until metal detectors somehow become a daily consumer product. The cost isn't really the issue. Compared to other hobbies it's not really all that expensive especially if the person buying a detector expects to sell it later for at least a reasonable fraction of its initial cost. And not everyone buys ML, with lots of more affordable alternatives around.

[Aziz]

Thanks Aziz.

One variant of it is already published in Geotech forums and no one is seeing the forest for the trees.
That is the nature of KISS designs. They are somewhat magic, simple and yet powerful.
It's soo simple, that even the smartest guys can't see the forest for the trees.
(Oh yes, it took me a long time to see it finally. )

But I like to tease the patent-trolls. As I have mentioned, the patent-trolls can't invent it. No way! Never!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Aziz

[Ferric Toes]

The price for the GS5 in Australia was just under $4,000. If the technology is not patented and anyone can reverse engineer the design, manufacture it, and sell it for under $1,000, then why am I expected to pay $4,000 for it. If Eric has innovative technology in the GS5 that makes it worth $4,000 in his eyes, then let him take out a patent or two to give some protection to my financial outlay. If it is not worth protecting then why is he charging $4,000 for it

Two short words - I wasn't. Do a simple calculation. $4000au. - sales tax - agent/dealer markups - import duty - shipping = ex factory trade price.

[vbeeeks]

What happened to Futaba (highest end expensive RC radio) - though the business model was not like ML, open models from china were hacked & reprogrammed (th9x, Er9x etc) to make it el cheapo the most wanted sophisticated 9 Ch radio on the market. If the chineese just develops & markets an el cheapo MD generic FPGA hardware with bare minimum firmware tech which can be reprogrammed with latest and the best of firmwares and also hardware addons, then it is win-win for chinese and the MD market. As of today all of the MD functionality remains in FPGA. So waiting for it to happen.

[UrbanFox]

Say I bought your GPX5000 detector for $toomuch, and a short time later there was a copy available for <$1,000

I would expect to see Minelab again take the copier to court. That would be one reason why Minelab take out patents on their innovations and inventions, don't you reckon??

IMHO the best way to capitalise your idea is to start production ASAP, and patenting it leads you to the opposite direction, away from production date, money, and time to do something really useful, like inventing something new. Or perfecting your design.

Davor then goes on regarding spending time and money on patents..."It is just a waste".

I agree with that philosophy. Better to spend the money in getting into production quickly and do further development, so that if the idea is copied then you bring out a Mk2 version which is ahead of the copy. That way you stay ahead.

...so, Eric is agreeing with Davor's attitude. Eric is therefore agreeing regarding spending time and money on patents..."It is just a waste"

The price for the GS5 in Australia was just under $4,000. If the technology is not patented and anyone can reverse engineer the design, manufacture it, and sell it for under $1,000, then why am I expected to pay $4,000 for it. If Eric has innovative technology in the GS5 that makes it worth $4,000 in his eyes, then let him take out a patent or two to give some protection to my financial outlay. If it is not worth protecting then why is he charging $4,000 for it????? If he only wants to play around in the back shed, then let that be known.

Now reread fully what I posted. http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...968#post165968

OK UF.... ...as you can see with minimal substitution of the pronoun "you .. your etc" in the UF rant ... he has published the ML business model.

The Minelab business model appears to be to stop copies entering the market, not to encourage it. Have another go!!

[moodz]

Eric was right, the patent does cover all those elements. But that does not prevent another patent on a different GB method that uses those elements.

Here's a question for ya... using the Poole method, subtracting the samples not only cancels ground, but also reduces target sensitivity and creates a target hole. What if I've figured out how to cancel ground without reducing target sensitivity or getting the target hole? Yep, it still uses subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking any number of samples.

and I'll raise you one ... What if I've figured out how to cancel ground without reducing target sensitivity or getting the target hole? Nope, it doesn't use subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking any number of samples. Actually it doesn't use sampling at all.

[moodz]

OK Eric, When did you last release a detector to the market? GS5? was it??

Say I bought your GS5b detector for $3,850, and a short time later there was a copy available for <$1,000

You finally bring out an upgraded Mk2 machine...

OK, Will you update my machine to a Mk2? Will I be charged for the update, and will I pay the freight both ways Great Britain - Australia?

How peed off will I be that I have paid $3,850 for something that I could now purchase for under $1,000, and your solution is that I pay you more money to buy your Mk2 version?

How many repeat customers do you expect to have?

Lets say your next detector is a world beater.....and your testing in Australia gave you a lot of confidence that you were going to sell quite a few....potentially a thousand plus in Australia alone.....

* You have commercialised your ideas....ideas which you have not placed in the public domain, but also not patented;
* You have spent reasonable money on production and assembly equipment, marketing, etc;
* A forum member states they will build a better detector than you, and it will be significantly cheaper;
* A forum member acquires and reverse engineers your first detector sold and therefore has access to the IP, your IP, your new detector contains;
* It appears your IP is being progressively introduced into the detector being built by the forum member; (the forum gloating)
* It is stated that if you try to stop this forum member from commercialising "their" detector, "their" design will be given to the Chinese;
* They further insinuate that the Chinese, as you know, will ignore patents, etc, and could flood the market and destroy your business;
* (Hi Aziz + others);
* They state they have a business person currently in China who can chase up a Chinese manufacturer for "their" detector;

How do you contend with this scenario?? I am keen to hear your view, both from the point of your business, but importantly for me, from the point of myself as a purchaser of your detector.

Will you be around to give me warranty. That detector I purchased from you is now worth zilch, because not only did the copy include the best of your design, if included the best of a couple of designs put out by Whites plus a few others, and it definitely outperforms your product.

Actually Eric, can I please have my money back and I will buy that cheapie that used your R&D + Whites R&D + the R&D of a few other companies, and I can save a couple of grand. Thinking about your situation, you might not sell many more detectors, and perhaps you should start looking for your income from another avenue. What do you reckon??

EDIT: OK Eric, I think I can see where you are coming from. In a market totally unencumbered by things like patents, etc, you then copy the copier and try to do it better. You just need to copy the best IP from a wider range of manufacturers, and the best copier wins.

EDIT again: Could you explain to me please Eric, what is the motivation to put money into R&D in this scenario?? Where do future advances come from?

OK UF, When did ML last release a detector to the market? GPX5000? was it??

Say I bought your GPX5000 detector for $toomuch, and a short time later there was a copy available for <$1,000

ML finally bring out an upgraded GPX6000 machine...

OK, Will ML update my machine to a GPX6000? Will I be charged for the update, and will I pay the freight both ways Asylum - Australia?

How peed off will I be that I have paid $toomuch for something that I could now purchase for under $1,000, and your solution is that I pay you more money to buy your GPX6000 version?

How many repeat customers do you expect to have?

Lets say ML's next detector is a world beater.....and ML's testing in Australia gave ML a lot of confidence that ML were going to sell quite a few....potentially a thousand plus in Australia alone.....

* ML have commercialised ML's ideas....ideas which ML have not placed in the public domain, but also not patented;
* ML have spent reasonable money on production and assembly equipment, marketing, etc;
* A forum member states they will build a better detector than ML, and it will be significantly cheaper;
* A forum member acquires and reverse engineers ML's first detector sold and therefore has access to the IP, ML's IP, ML's new detector contains;
* It appears ML's IP is being progressively introduced into the detector being built by the forum member; (the forum gloating)
* It is stated that if ML try to stop this forum member from commercialising "their" detector, "their" design will be given to the Chinese;
* They further insinuate that the Chinese, as ML know, will ignore patents, etc, and could flood the market and destroy ML's business;
* (Hi Aziz + others);
* They state they have a business person currently in China who can chase up a Chinese manufacturer for "their" detector;

How do you contend with this scenario?? I am keen to hear ML's view, both from the point of ML's business, but importantly for me, from the point of myself as a purchaser of ML's detector.

Will ML be around to give me warranty. That detector I purchased from ML is now worth zilch, because not only did the copy include the best of ML's design, if included the best of a couple of designs put out by Whites plus a few others, and it definitely outperforms ML's product.

Actually UF, can I please have my money back and I will buy that cheapie that used ML's R&D + Whites R&D + the R&D of a few other companies, and I can save a couple of grand. Thinking about ML's situation, ML might not sell many more detectors, and perhaps ML should start looking for ML's income from another avenue. What do ML reckon??

EDIT: OK UF, I think I can see where ML are coming from. In a market totally unencumbered by things like patents, etc, ML then copy the copier and try to do it better. ML just need to copy the best IP from a wider range of manufacturers, and the best copier wins.

EDIT again: Could ML explain to me please UF, what is the motivation to put money into R&D in this scenario?? Where do future advances come from?


...as you can see with minimal substitution of the pronoun "you .. your etc" in the UF rant ... he has published the ML business model.

[dougAEGPF]

What if I've figured out how to cancel ground without reducing target sensitivity or getting the target hole?

Already been done!!!!
dougAEGPF

[Carl-NC]

Eric Foster
“The Poole patent filed in 1979 (GB 2041532) covered just about everything, subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking "any number of samples".

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?17287-field-test-unit-no-001-quot-model-T-quot/page30&highlight=ferric+toes

dougAEGPF

Eric was right, the patent does cover all those elements. But that does not prevent another patent on a different GB method that uses those elements.

Here's a question for ya... using the Poole method, subtracting the samples not only cancels ground, but also reduces target sensitivity and creates a target hole. What if I've figured out how to cancel ground without reducing target sensitivity or getting the target hole? Yep, it still uses subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking any number of samples.

[UrbanFox]

Eric Foster
“The Poole patent filed in 1979 (GB 2041532) covered just about everything, subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking "any number of samples".

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?17287-field-test-unit-no-001-quot-model-T-quot/page30&highlight=ferric+toes

dougAEGPF

One of these days, Doug, you are going to realise that all your whinging and whining does not make one iota of difference to the patent status quo. What Eric Foster may say on the matter on Geotech is likewise irrelevant as far as causing change is concerned.

You need to seek professional help!

[dougAEGPF]

Al, I don't disagree that the state of patents is absurdly pathetic, mostly due to incompetence at the examination level. They should more strictly enforce the novelty/obviousness/usefulness requirements. I also agree that first-to-file exacerbates the problem. However, "skilled in the arts" is relative... I continue to see things posted on this forum that make me think, "Wow, what a cool way to do that!" Some of the ideas are patent-worthy.

Doug, I don't know.

Eric Foster
“The Poole patent filed in 1979 (GB 2041532) covered just about everything, subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking "any number of samples".

http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showthread.php?17287-field-test-unit-no-001-quot-model-T-quot/page30&highlight=ferric+toes

dougAEGPF

[Carl-NC]

Al, I don't disagree that the state of patents is absurdly pathetic, mostly due to incompetence at the examination level. They should more strictly enforce the novelty/obviousness/usefulness requirements. I also agree that first-to-file exacerbates the problem. However, "skilled in the arts" is relative... I continue to see things posted on this forum that make me think, "Wow, what a cool way to do that!" Some of the ideas are patent-worthy.

Doug, I don't know.