So what just happened here? Scott posted a patent number and a real person, Nathan, behind this brain child. PMA designs and sells audio gear, and as most in this position would not turn away a hit in the market...john curl said:
I wouldn't think plagiarism is what Scott had in mind when he posted, but then I do experience the world differently.
Maybe one of the real contributors here might weigh in on what really happened and how one should perceive this.
syn08 said:
, so much about the respect for IP. But when some taiwanese guys are copying our designs, it's a different story, isn't it?
They are called 'pyrates'.
But I see nothing wrong in showing of interesting circuit ideas on forum, be they patented, or PD.
I'm personally not afraid of showing my ideas, because:
1. Fools won't understand how good they are,
2. Smart people who can understand their value can make something own, instead of stealing.
I don't like posting en mass from copyrighted matierial, patents are public record and freely copyable (as documents) and intended to teach, that is actually the legal term in this case. Learning what has happened in the last 40 yrs is a good exercise, one can then go forward. Lets not read anymore into it.
scott wurcer said:
I'm not trying to start a fire storm or make more of this than it is, but honestly I read the response and it struck me as odd so I responded.
I'm all for DIY, been doing it for years. But I also know a thing or two about patents, good ideas, and that a large percentage of what is discussed here has the flavor of needing to be built with the end user in mind.
enuff said, move on.
Scott is absolutely right to put this design up. It is patented, protected from gross commercial abuse. Yet, an amateur might try it, and learn something new. This is progress, and I am glad to see it. Just because I did most of what people here think of as modern design 30-40 years ago, doesn't mean that we all can't see and learn new techniques that were right under our noses, all the time.
Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but here is a review of a book that may be worth getting (see cascomp, page 3):
http://www.analogzone.com/book0306.pdf
http://www.analogzone.com/book0306.pdf
US6963244
Inventors/Applicants
CARTER, Nathan R. [US], Santa Clara CA (US)
Assignees
Analog Devices, Inc., Norwood MA (US)
Filing Date
2003-12-12
Publication Date
2005-11-08
Predicted Expiry Date
2023-12-12
Everything is already in the public domain since 2005, as it is meant to be for patents.
Patrick
Inventors/Applicants
CARTER, Nathan R. [US], Santa Clara CA (US)
Assignees
Analog Devices, Inc., Norwood MA (US)
Filing Date
2003-12-12
Publication Date
2005-11-08
Predicted Expiry Date
2023-12-12
Everything is already in the public domain since 2005, as it is meant to be for patents.
Patrick
What Scott has put up is an example of creative engineering. It is beyond, obvious. However, mark my words, 20 years from now, it will appear 'obvious' to new engineers, and Nathan will have to patiently point out that he patented it 25 years before. And so it goes.
At the same time, someone else will 'invent' this approach and take credit for it.
I don't know whether I have ever met Nathan, I only had lunch with the West Coast AD designers once, when Walt Jung gave a talk, here, years ago. However, as audio 'quality' is considered 'quirky' by many engineers, I may never get the chance.
At the same time, someone else will 'invent' this approach and take credit for it.
I don't know whether I have ever met Nathan, I only had lunch with the West Coast AD designers once, when Walt Jung gave a talk, here, years ago. However, as audio 'quality' is considered 'quirky' by many engineers, I may never get the chance.
john curl said:What Scott has put up is an example of creative engineering. It is beyond, obvious. However, mark my words, 20 years from now, it will appear 'obvious' to new engineers, and Nathan will have to patiently point out that he patented it 25 years before. And so it goes.
At the same time, someone else will 'invent' this approach and take credit for it.
I don't know whether I have ever met Nathan, I only had lunch with the West Coast AD designers once, when Walt Jung gave a talk, here, years ago. However, as audio 'quality' is considered 'quirky' by many engineers, I may never get the chance.
John,
Could you, with your own words, explain to the understanding of the pitchfork wielding villagers around how this input stage is working? Like, what is the role of Q5 and Q6 in Scott's schematic?
I have my own understanding (which I'm pretty sure it matches Scott's) and I am really curious on how a discrete, high end audio, designer sees this circuit in terms of functionality and benefits.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.