From the United States Patent and Trademark Web site
Infringement of Patents
Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit, the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent, which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
Infringement of Patents
Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent. If a patent is infringed, the patentee may sue for relief in the appropriate federal court. The patentee may ask the court for an injunction to prevent the continuation of the infringement and may also ask the court for an award of damages because of the infringement. In such an infringement suit, the defendant may raise the question of the validity of the patent, which is then decided by the court. The defendant may also aver that what is being done does not constitute infringement. Infringement is determined primarily by the language of the claims of the patent and, if what the defendant is making does not fall within the language of any of the claims of the patent, there is no literal infringement.
The government disagrees with you. If you choose to try to sue people for legitimate experimentation based on your public disclosures (including your patent and the file wrapper), you'll get taken apart.
Also see this very clear explanation of the experimental use exception:
http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/2009/04/experimental-use-explained.html
Also see Hatch-Waxman. Sorry to rain on your parade. Still waiting for a public demonstration or some valid measurements.
Also see this very clear explanation of the experimental use exception:
http://ip-updates.blogspot.com/2009/04/experimental-use-explained.html
Also see Hatch-Waxman. Sorry to rain on your parade. Still waiting for a public demonstration or some valid measurements.
Until the administration removes Sy from administering this or any forum on this site and he is baned from participating on these forums I will no longer be contributing to this forum. It is unfortunate that such a rude and uncouth indiviual is allowed to bully and bate members of this or any discussion forum. He has show continued unprofessionalism and inapproiate behavior. He is symptomatic of the worst kind of anti-intellectualism.
I sincerely appreciate the free exchange of information I have seen and received on this forum. I appreciate the exchange of ideas with the membership.
I will be setting up my own forum on my site. Please check my site...
http://www.planotspeaker.com/
John
I sincerely appreciate the free exchange of information I have seen and received on this forum. I appreciate the exchange of ideas with the membership.
I will be setting up my own forum on my site. Please check my site...
http://www.planotspeaker.com/
John
Last edited:
Mr Gaudreault,
that pretty much describes me, not Mr Yaniger.
(He's one of those fancypants intellectual veggie inventor types. Drinks wine, for G sake)
Clearly many of the things said out of genuine curiosity and scientific investigation have been taken FAR too personally by one or more people on this thread. Many respected people have weighed in on this and gotten the wrong vibe, many times things that would not sound threatening in person come off wrong through text, a little benefit of the doubt for all parties would be great
It seems that we just need a little perspective. Here we have an aspiring inventor/entrepreneur type (like myself) who thinks that he has made something worthwhile, I am not making any statement onto whether or not this is a true statement because honestly I have no idea. And we have people who would like to see a new technology that was awesome, who wouldn't? Planot we are not trying to steal your invention, glory, or money. All we want is a little more information on the actual physics behind the device out of curiosity. The best way for us to get that is through descriptions and measurements.
There is no reason for any of us to get overly emotional about this. The way I see it one of two things can come of this.
1) A brand new technology that is amazing
2) We just continue on our path with cones, ribbons, ESLs
Neither of those strike me as terrible.
In my first post I requested some things that I feel would help our understanding of the technology and would be (hey hey!) constructive. Planot if you have a good reason for not giving that information just tell us, no need for secrets. Many people here (including Sy from the sounds of it) have gone through similar things trying to maintain privacy of innovations and whatnot
Sy has made some good points in previous posts, and so has Planot, but I don't feel that baseless conjecture is constructive.
I'm trying not to take sides here and point this discussion in a route that would be more friendly to good discussion and advancement. If anyone disagrees with that idea I'm sorry
It seems that we just need a little perspective. Here we have an aspiring inventor/entrepreneur type (like myself) who thinks that he has made something worthwhile, I am not making any statement onto whether or not this is a true statement because honestly I have no idea. And we have people who would like to see a new technology that was awesome, who wouldn't? Planot we are not trying to steal your invention, glory, or money. All we want is a little more information on the actual physics behind the device out of curiosity. The best way for us to get that is through descriptions and measurements.
There is no reason for any of us to get overly emotional about this. The way I see it one of two things can come of this.
1) A brand new technology that is amazing
2) We just continue on our path with cones, ribbons, ESLs
Neither of those strike me as terrible.
In my first post I requested some things that I feel would help our understanding of the technology and would be (hey hey!) constructive. Planot if you have a good reason for not giving that information just tell us, no need for secrets. Many people here (including Sy from the sounds of it) have gone through similar things trying to maintain privacy of innovations and whatnot
Sy has made some good points in previous posts, and so has Planot, but I don't feel that baseless conjecture is constructive.
I'm trying not to take sides here and point this discussion in a route that would be more friendly to good discussion and advancement. If anyone disagrees with that idea I'm sorry
Haven't read the whole thread, but if it is a patent application, it will be published anyways a year after filing and, yes, SY is right, anyone is free to experiment with it for personal use.
This rule is important for the working of the patent system, because otherwise technological development - improvements on existing or pending patents - would be hampered.
On the technology, it seems flawed to me, and my best advise to Planot would be to not bet the house on it. Unless, by this stage, he has made a working prototype that generates credible SPL, but that does not appear to be the case.
vac
This rule is important for the working of the patent system, because otherwise technological development - improvements on existing or pending patents - would be hampered.
On the technology, it seems flawed to me, and my best advise to Planot would be to not bet the house on it. Unless, by this stage, he has made a working prototype that generates credible SPL, but that does not appear to be the case.
vac
Regardless of the legality...
Since when is a bunch of DIYers experimenting with a technology bad?
I myself have posted a few designs on here in the hope that by some off chance someone likes the design and builds it. That would mean I could get tips, listening impressions, pictures, and measurements free of charge before I even decided to do it myself.
Planot: Think of people on here building prototypes as a good thing. There are already several people who have built them and posted measurements, pics, impressions, advice on construction and design, how to do it the best, etc...
There you have several things that you no longer have to try yourself and innovations that you can put into your own more expensive machined prototype. They are actually saving you money. And guess what, if one of them comes up with something brilliant, you own the patent! That means that yeah a few crafty people won't buy your plans, but you get to capitalize on their ideas commercially if it actually works.
The kind of people who would build it themselves are not the kind of people who would pay a couple $$$$ to buy it complete from some manufacturer. They are also not the kind of people who would pay you $500 for plans they don't need. So no matter how you look at it you are not going to be getting money from them by trying to force them to not build prototypes, but you could get the knowledge from their experiences. That I would say is just/more valuable than $500 to you.
Random side note:
I LOVE THAT SHOW! I actually watched an episode while making those last posts. Season 5
Since when is a bunch of DIYers experimenting with a technology bad?
I myself have posted a few designs on here in the hope that by some off chance someone likes the design and builds it. That would mean I could get tips, listening impressions, pictures, and measurements free of charge before I even decided to do it myself.
Planot: Think of people on here building prototypes as a good thing. There are already several people who have built them and posted measurements, pics, impressions, advice on construction and design, how to do it the best, etc...
There you have several things that you no longer have to try yourself and innovations that you can put into your own more expensive machined prototype. They are actually saving you money. And guess what, if one of them comes up with something brilliant, you own the patent! That means that yeah a few crafty people won't buy your plans, but you get to capitalize on their ideas commercially if it actually works.
The kind of people who would build it themselves are not the kind of people who would pay a couple $$$$ to buy it complete from some manufacturer. They are also not the kind of people who would pay you $500 for plans they don't need. So no matter how you look at it you are not going to be getting money from them by trying to force them to not build prototypes, but you could get the knowledge from their experiences. That I would say is just/more valuable than $500 to you.
Random side note:
I LOVE THAT SHOW! I actually watched an episode while making those last posts. Season 5
I think we have a confusion here. There are many people here on the forum that have extensive physics and/or electronics knowledge, and they are able to analyze an idea or design and come to a well-informed conclusion. That does not mean it is always absolutely correct, but at the very least it gives an excellent judgement as to the 'worth' of an idea.
This analysis method is always preferable, as it allows you to spend money, time and other resources on designs that are worth it, while avoiding wasting time and money and effort on designs that, after analysis, appear to be based on wrong understanding or wrong assumptions or whatever.
So if someone analyses an idea and finds it wanting, that's not an insult or whatever - the creator of the idea should be gratefull that someone else does his work for him! He can then decide to solve the problems that the analyses uncovered, thereby strengthening his idea, or decide that his idea is not so good after all and make another one.
Now I realize that there are also many here that do not have the required knowledge to do such an analysis, and their only option is to build a prototype. Of course, if the prototype doesn't work that doesn't mean the idea is bad; if the prototype does work it gives an indication that the idea is not wrong. But that's about all - you still don't understand the basics behind the idea that you would get from proper analysis.
Rather than cussing out those who can and do a proper analysis, it would be much smarter to ask them questions - why do they think an idea won't work, what should be changed to make it work, that sort of thing.
jan didden
Hm, if I created something novel and innovative (and protected by patent law), I would be proud enough to publish nice photos, measurements, frequency plots, etc. Magneplanars, Apogees and Quads have been dissected and their operation principle copied by DIYers many times, but none of these went bankrupt by such "illegal" activity... DIYers are neither a market nor a competition of commercial products in general.
Please don't take me wrong, I'm not saying this planot speaker doesn't work. I am sceptic from the admittedly limited knowledge I have, but I may be wrong one way or another.
I only take exception to those who say that you can't judge it unless you build it. That's a very simple and naive position.
Also, NOTHING is protected by patent law, again a very simple and naive position. What a patent gives you is the right to sue someone if you think he copies your design. First of all, to sue someone you need to start by putting a couple of 100k $ on the table. If you don't have those, tough luck.
Then IF you do, the outcome can be surprising - there have been cases where the patent holder ended up being sued because his idea was a 'copy' (at least according to the law) of someone else's idea. A booby trapped field if there ever was one, ask SY for some horror stories.
It's easy to get a patent. It's much harder to actually uphold it and even more difficult to make money from it.
jan
I only take exception to those who say that you can't judge it unless you build it. That's a very simple and naive position.
Also, NOTHING is protected by patent law, again a very simple and naive position. What a patent gives you is the right to sue someone if you think he copies your design. First of all, to sue someone you need to start by putting a couple of 100k $ on the table. If you don't have those, tough luck.
Then IF you do, the outcome can be surprising - there have been cases where the patent holder ended up being sued because his idea was a 'copy' (at least according to the law) of someone else's idea. A booby trapped field if there ever was one, ask SY for some horror stories.
It's easy to get a patent. It's much harder to actually uphold it and even more difficult to make money from it.
jan
Last edited:
Who is naive ? Those guys pretending that a new driver wouldn't work without any scientific argument or those who prefer to verify that the concept is or not viable ?
Nobody is 'pretending' - if you read the posts you'll see that they give reasons why they believe it doesn't work. Sometimes you need to read between the lines - those guys are not normally repeating all the basics when making a tech statement.
jan
Last edited:
An example: someone remarked, some pages back, that this speaker doesn't reproduce bass frequencies. Those 'in the know' don't need any explanation - anyone halfway into speaker design has knowledge of acoustic shorts in dipole or multipole speakers and the relation of that to wavelength.
So it would be pretty stupid to decide to build a prototype to verify that indeed it doesn't reproduce bass freqs.
jan
So it would be pretty stupid to decide to build a prototype to verify that indeed it doesn't reproduce bass freqs.
jan
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.