Patent Restrictions?

[Carl-NC]

Cheers Carl, right you are. Just me being lazy. I found the whole patent with all the diagrams and its more about using long and short TX cycles to help with GB, nothing like the TDI. But it baffles me how the claims are allowed to be written in such vague all inclusive terms when as you say its where the real legal meat of a patent is supposed to be. Incidentally I reckon this is probably the patent that has Bugs in spot of bother.

No, the patent has nothing to do with long/short TX cycles to help with GB. Again, read the whole patent. The example given in the preferred embodiment happens to have 2 TX pulse widths, but the method being patented has nothing to do with multiple pulse widths. From what I know of the QED, it is nowhere close to this patent.

- Carl

[satdaveuk]

You will only be "nailed" by a corporate if your detector looks like it could be mass produced, lower price and has good performance characteristics that will challenge the value equation of current market leaders.

If you are a competent tech its very easy to make a hobby detector that works reasonably well ( see carl's projects and others in this forum and the book ).

It is somewhat harder to make a detector that works extremely well and achieves the goals of ground balance, EF cancel, discrim, power saving, EMI reject and all the other UD ( ultimate detector ) goals.

It is even harder to then take your UD design and ready it for market ( manufacturing , logistics, marketing, support etc etc )

Then having done all that you will receive a "discovery" order and injunction from selling from a corporate to see if you have infringed their IP .... and it could be over something really "trivial" ... like storing data in NV ram or having a data port. This activity alone will delay you for months and cost you plenty. ( not just money ).

See Carl's laws ( i dont have the ref at the moment ) for good support on my comments.

Oh .. I and did I mention a serious amount of cash on hand ??

My advice is just make stuff for yourself and few friends and dont tell anyone about it


moodz

Hi
Interesting topic
Ive sold quite a few DIY detector coils for various brands and models that are known to us, no serious money involved but has proved theres money to be made if I wasnt doing anything else
The fact that I invented my own type of faraday shielding mix, which is brilliant may I add, should protect me from copyrights up to a point
Or I say hopefully because its a dog eats dog world out there, if I started advertising and got big they probly have my guts for garters.
In my humble opinion if people like us and indeed established manufactures didnt bend the patent rules just a tad they wouldnt get anywhere and end up frightened of there own shadow.
Them who dares often wins, a very true to life saying in allot of aspects of life not just MDs.
Note... If you dont hear from me again its because one of the big boys has offered me mega money to join there company and willing to buy my business from me because of my wonderful potion.
Id jump at the chance without hesitation, I could actually relax for once and a while and still come on here under another name, and be able to spend quality time with my family.
Pipe dreaming I know but sure feel better.
Kind
Regards

[Midas]

No, TDI works differently. If you look only at the claims and nothing else, the patent makes no sense. Read the whole patent. What is it that Minelab is really claiming? When you deal with patents, you have to take it as a whole even though, legally, the claims are where the rubber hits the road (where you can get sued). The body of the patent is supporting evidence. BTW, I've never looked into the method described in this patent, and likely never will.



Patents are often written with seemingly duplicate claims, differing only by the word "method". You not only want to patent the idea, but also the method of implementing the idea. This is standard course for patents, nothing unusual.

- Carl

Cheers Carl, right you are. Just me being lazy. I found the whole patent with all the diagrams and its more about using long and short TX cycles to help with GB, nothing like the TDI. But it baffles me how the claims are allowed to be written in such vague all inclusive terms when as you say its where the real legal meat of a patent is supposed to be. Incidentally I reckon this is probably the patent that has Bugs in spot of bother.

[Ferric Toes]

UF. I have no inclination or need to reply to your post no.35, whose purpose appears to be to stir the pot. I have been involved with PI detectors for 47 years, and I hope a few more yet. I have seen how the business works, who to avoid and who to work with; who has copied and who has asked permission. My business model has worked for me. Now, I have some constructive work to get on with, so cheerio.

Eric.

[ODM]

Straw men and endlessly rephrasing questions on/off topic do sound like trolling (#35).

On another note, honest statistics* about detector sales/users and finds per location would be an interesting read, especially if compiled from several regions and brands.
*possible oxymoron

[UrbanFox]

Gosh the diagram looks pretty simple to me,putting aside "S2" ..... to null out the ground response samples S3 and S5 are the same sign so you combine them to equal the ground signal in sample S4 using an integrator and then you have a null summation,S1 can be used to help remove static fields such as earth fields and remnant magnetism that`s associated with some ground types.
A good starting point would be "if the diagram is scaled correctly" is to have S4 the same width as the TX period as shown in the patent diagram and S3 appears to be between 10 to 20 percent of the TX period and S5 i imagine is adjusted to achieve a null summation with S1 adjusted to cancel static fields.I think this interpretation of the diagram would actually work.

Zed

That's good, Zed. Many thanks.

[ZED]

Davor said "Lada is the best car in the world because 99% Russians drive it."


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!!

That was cool Davor .....so cool and so true mate.



Zed

[Davor]

@Zed, don't give sucker an even break. We can discuss why QED is better than the rest of the crowd in a separate and more technical topic. You can't seriously expect to gain anything by discussing technical matters with the help.

@UF, what you said here is a fine example of an ecological inference fallacy. Same as implying that Lada is the best car in the world because 99% Russians drive it.

Is that your goal in life also?

switching the argument, are you? Brilliant attempt ... for a troll.

[ZED]

Gosh the diagram looks pretty simple to me,putting aside "S2" ..... to null out the ground response samples S3 and S5 are the same sign so you combine them to equal the ground signal in sample S4 using an integrator and then you have a null summation,S1 can be used to help remove static fields such as earth fields and remnant magnetism that`s associated with some ground types.
A good starting point would be "if the diagram is scaled correctly" is to have S4 the same width as the TX period as shown in the patent diagram and S3 appears to be between 10 to 20 percent of the TX period and S5 i imagine is adjusted to achieve a null summation with S1 adjusted to cancel static fields.I think this interpretation of the diagram would actually work.

Zed

[UrbanFox]

It looks like UF bought 100s of pricy minelab equipment to sell through this forum and ended up with confronting innovators. End game here.

Where did you get a silly idea like that from?? The Minelab SD, GP and GPX machines are used by 99% of serious gold detectorists in Australia, and an expensive Minelab detector can pay for it's self in a reasonably short time period if you know what you are doing. The latest GPX machines often have to be ordered through a dealer because stocks can be limited.

If I had brought 100s of pricey Minelab equipment to this forum to sell to the blokes on this forum who live in Australia, I would have been doing them a big favour. They could have had something in their hands tomorrow that works very effectively in the mineralised Australian goldfield soils, and they could have been out finding gold tomorrow.

As is said here though, many Geotech members are here for the journey, ie to learn or gain a more diverse range of experience, and I am not here to sell anybody anything.

__________________________________________________ _____

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

[vbeeeks]

It looks like UF bought 100s of pricy minelab equipment to sell through this forum and ended up with confronting innovators. End game here.

[Aziz]

Thats good news Aziz .

This little "invention" is somewhat trivial, that it isn't even worth to patent it (I know, the patent-trolls would patent every bit of it ).
I have seen the forest for the trees finally.

I will share this KISS-masterpiece with you of course.

Cheers,
Aziz

[Aziz]

Hey Urbi,

http://golddetecting.4umer.net/t12942-minelab-i-want-more-depth#121351

how many times should the customers pay for the R&D? Australian tax payers did pay them too.
Why ML isn't giving the profit margin to the customer back (making it cheaper) when producing in the cheap countries?
Why ML isn't listeting to the prospectors/detectorists need?

You know, if ML can't do it, others will be able.

Aziz

[6666]

Goldscan 1,This will be posted in detail on the PI History and Theory thread in due course.

Thanks for the heads up Eric.

[6666]

I got it!!!! I have "invented" something today. Yeeeaaaaaaaaah!!!

Thats good news Aziz .