Actually, why was the WWVB modulation format changed, before a
functioning new transmission system was at least demonstrated? Since the
new --supposed to be superior --system exist on paper, if at all only,
but not available to replace a more or less usable usable one.
73
Alex
On 8/10/2014 8:14 AM, Dale J. Robertson wrote:
Hi,
How does patent infringement litigation get started anyway?
I would think that the infringement claim would have to be specific
i.e. "you are infringing on our patent number blah, claims blah, blah,
blah & blah. not just "you are infringing on our patent. you need to
halt production immediately and can't resume until you have properly
guessed how you are infringing and stop, or, pay us a crapload of money".
AFAICT, the patent includes no claims regarding conventional BPSK
detection and demodulation. The patent seems to be about arranging the
bits in a 'more efficient' way that, when taken advantage of by the
receiver described in the patent, makes possible a 20dB process gain
over a conventional AM envelope receiver.
I am having a difficult time imagining a conventional receiver design
(even one implemented in DSP) that would infringe on this patent.
In at least one of their papers they even contrasted their receiver
architecture to a "conventional BPSK receiver".
All that being said, I suspect that there is no real market for a WWVB
based timing product. Even before the modulation change there were no
commercial WWVB based timing products, and there hadn't been in
several years.
So, If you want to buck the trend and make such a product, You can
probably do so without much fear of someone coming after you.
I suspect though that 5 years hence you will be able to hold your
equipment users group meetings in a room the size of a broom closet.
And that’s assuming you are still using yours!
Dale
-----Original Message----- From: Bob Camp
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 8:41 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] WWVB for Time Nuts
Hi
Keep in mind that it’s relatively cheap (big company wise) to get a
patent. It’s only got major value once the courts uphold it as valid.
That process costs real money. I’ve seen a variety of estimates on how
many patents get issued that would never stand up to challenge. None
of the estimates I’ve seen have been below 50%, some are a lot higher.
Since the patents for "sunscreen that’s only useful on the moon" also
get tossed into some of the estimates, who knows what the real numbers
are.
Often the protection process becomes a “we have 689 patents on this
gizmo” sort of thing. Even if 99% of them are bunk, it will cost you a
lot to prove that. You still would have to pay based on the 1% that
turn out to be valid. The net result is a system that never challenges
(and clears out) the junk.
Bob
On Aug 10, 2014, at 4:24 AM, Dr. David Kirkby (Kirkby Microwave Ltd)
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10 Aug 2014 05:39, "Jim Lux" <[email protected]> wrote:
(but, I gotta say that a lot of the patents that get published in the
back of things like IEEE Ant and Prop Magazine seem, to me, to be pretty
obvious..)
I have not looked at patents recently, but most I have looked in the
past
are fairly obvious to someone skilled in that area. Another large group
appears to be useless things.
Perhaps time-nuts should stick on a web site a list of 100 obvious
things
that they believe someone might just try to patent. Once an idea is
disclosed like that, it should stop a patent being issued. Perhaps a
braille clock with an internal atomic frequency reference. I don't
suppose
anyone has made one, as the demand would be low, but it is in my a
opinion
fairly obvious approach for a skilled person.
I assume there is some time delay (probably in the range 100 us to 10s)
between one observing a clock and one's brain decoding it. So for a
person
to believe that they know the time, the clock actually has to display
it a
bit fast.
But more seriously, one could probably have some impact on time nut
related patents by documenting semi obvious things on a web site in
advance.
I recall being at the patent office in London and see someone had a
patent
on a screen built into a microwave oven hooked upto a video camera so
you
could check on the security of your premises while cooking.
I guess with China pretty much ignoring patents, it might become more
attractive to keep something a trade secret rather than patent it.
I believe Samsung and Apple have recently agreed to drop patent
infringement cases against each other outside the USA
http://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2014/08/06/apple-and-samsung-drop-patent-disputes-against-each-other-outside-of-the-u-s/
I know BT and Marconi did a similar thing, as I guess that they realised
that they were spending an excessive amount of money fighting each other
over patent infringement.
Dave.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to
https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
