XBL2 is an Adire brainchild, right? (XBL2 is where they split the voice coil gap in order to attain a more linear BL curve for a given excursion.) And it's patented, right?
I once heard about a voice coil technology that I think JBL patented--where two voice coils are wound on one former in opposite directions, and there are two VC gaps--one in the top plate and one in the bottom plate--so the inductance of the voice coils cancels each other out. Has anyone heard of this? Any linkage?
and of course, *I* have an idea that I think could be used to make a better suspension system that would allow for the same excursion and Cms, but much, much less lateral movement--and thus, a very small voice coil gap. AFAICT, no one has used my idea yet.
I'd really like to build a motor using all three of these ideas together, but I fear patent issues. If I just build the thing for my own amusement, and don't try to make any money off it, I'm okay, right?
Also, if I disclose my idea to the world, (on this forum), that means I can never try to patent it, right? This also means that no one else can ever patent it, right?
You guys are the best...
I once heard about a voice coil technology that I think JBL patented--where two voice coils are wound on one former in opposite directions, and there are two VC gaps--one in the top plate and one in the bottom plate--so the inductance of the voice coils cancels each other out. Has anyone heard of this? Any linkage?
and of course, *I* have an idea that I think could be used to make a better suspension system that would allow for the same excursion and Cms, but much, much less lateral movement--and thus, a very small voice coil gap. AFAICT, no one has used my idea yet.
I'd really like to build a motor using all three of these ideas together, but I fear patent issues. If I just build the thing for my own amusement, and don't try to make any money off it, I'm okay, right?
Also, if I disclose my idea to the world, (on this forum), that means I can never try to patent it, right? This also means that no one else can ever patent it, right?
You guys are the best...
If you disclose the idea here, you have one year to apply for the US patent. You give up the ability to patent in most other countries. You can disclose it to other individuals or companies for discussion or other purposes if you have a secrecy or other sort of non-disclosure agreement with them and that the disclosure is marked as "confidential" or can otherwise be shown to be a disclosure under the secrecy agreement.
JBL Differential Drive (or DD). Pic here.
No idea about the patent issue, but I personally have had many sleepless nights thinking of new ways to make a motor with superior properties. I think you need to be quite advanced with all this to come up with something that has better characteristics than the available stuff, so I wouldn't worry about patent issues just yet. But then again, may you have got something....but how will you know if you don't share
No idea about the patent issue, but I personally have had many sleepless nights thinking of new ways to make a motor with superior properties. I think you need to be quite advanced with all this to come up with something that has better characteristics than the available stuff, so I wouldn't worry about patent issues just yet. But then again, may you have got something....but how will you know if you don't share
Hi Vikash,
That looks like quite a nice idea, a bit like Ducati's desmodronic valve drive, one cam and rocker pushes the valve down, and another pulls it back up, meaning you can get away with weaker valve springs and therefore less friction and higher revs and therefore more power. Maybe it would work like that in a speaker....?
Steve
That looks like quite a nice idea, a bit like Ducati's desmodronic valve drive, one cam and rocker pushes the valve down, and another pulls it back up, meaning you can get away with weaker valve springs and therefore less friction and higher revs and therefore more power. Maybe it would work like that in a speaker....?
Steve
Nappylady posted:
Now, realistically people aren't sued for building one for personal use, but that is NOT guaranteed. Usually you fly under the RADAR and it's not a problem.
And we've explicitly stated on this forum that we'd waive our right to prosecute those who build personal/research versions of our technology.
And by publishing the idea, you do make it so that no one else can patent it. Basically you get 12 months of exclusive time to decide if you want to patent it. One day past 12 months, and it's public domain, regardless of what you want to do.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Our idea, and still patent pending. Getting a patent issued can take 2-5 years.
Not invented by JBL, but used by them. Invented by a company called Hyperdynamics. There's a few variants on it, too, related to how the voice coils are aligned with respect to the gaps. Inductance isn't cancelled, but it is lower, and linear.
Suspensions are really the only "big problem" left with drivers!
Now, I am NOT a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but in the US at least you cannot even build a patented item without infringing. The invention is to be fully described so that someone skilled in the art (loudspeakers, in this case) could read the patent and understand what is going on. But if you build one - even if for personal use or educational use - it is an infringement.
Now, realistically people aren't sued for building one for personal use, but that is NOT guaranteed. Usually you fly under the RADAR and it's not a problem.
And we've explicitly stated on this forum that we'd waive our right to prosecute those who build personal/research versions of our technology.
Again, the whole IANAL thing, but in the US you have 12 months to actually file from the first instance of publication/description of the invention. So you can still patent it, even after you describe it. You just have a very limited time to make that actually happen.
And by publishing the idea, you do make it so that no one else can patent it. Basically you get 12 months of exclusive time to decide if you want to patent it. One day past 12 months, and it's public domain, regardless of what you want to do.
Compared to what?
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Please see 35 U.S.C. 271 for the complete legal text about what is infringement. Specifically paragraphs a through c.SY said:
Paragraph e allows for research use without infringement for specific biomedical patents dealing with genetics.
You can find the full Title 35 text of the United States Code (Title 35 deals with patents) at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf .
In essence, in the US ANY implementation of a patented invention is infringement. Most companies/patent holders will waive the right to sue for research/personal use, but it's best to contact the patent holder first.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Patents are only valid in the country you apply for. A patent in the US is typically not enforcable abroad, and vice-versa. This is why you'll find the same invention patented in multiple countries.
Now, there is a move afoot to recognize patents between EU members (I don't think the full EU-wide patent exists yet), and between the EU and the US (and other first-world countries like Canada, Japan, Australia, etc). But TTBOMK, that's not currently the case.
For inventors, you typically just need to make the economic case to dissuade infringement. Getting patent protection on consumer-electronics related items in the US itself is usually all you need - VERY few companies would forgo selling their items in the US market. If you do want to cover Asia and Europe as well, then typically a Japanese and German patent is found as well, since those are the economic giants of their continents (who would sell in all the EU except Germany?).
It comes down to what you want to cover - if it's a mass-produced product with world-wide application, then covering the biggest market or two will give you effective coverage, because of the economics of the matter.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
Now, there is a move afoot to recognize patents between EU members (I don't think the full EU-wide patent exists yet), and between the EU and the US (and other first-world countries like Canada, Japan, Australia, etc). But TTBOMK, that's not currently the case.
For inventors, you typically just need to make the economic case to dissuade infringement. Getting patent protection on consumer-electronics related items in the US itself is usually all you need - VERY few companies would forgo selling their items in the US market. If you do want to cover Asia and Europe as well, then typically a Japanese and German patent is found as well, since those are the economic giants of their continents (who would sell in all the EU except Germany?).
It comes down to what you want to cover - if it's a mass-produced product with world-wide application, then covering the biggest market or two will give you effective coverage, because of the economics of the matter.
Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio
I am not a lawyer. Please consult your attorney for legal advice. That said, I also have some experience with intellectual property as the staff liaison to the patent lawyer.
Patents only have legal force in the countries they have been granted. If you are granted a US Patent, you are not protected in Canada so some unscrupulous entity, like me (just kidding) could build your stuff and sell it elsewhere but the US.
It is costly to apply for patents in multiple countries. I was recently granted a US patent that has been assigned to my employer. Applications are pending at the European Patent Office and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Once the EPO allows the patent, finalizing applications need to be completed for each of the member countries. These include the UK, France, Germany, etc.. and each has a different cost associated with it. So far the costs have been in excess of $50K (CAD) and I expect at least another $10K to be spent before it is over.
It has also taken over 4 years from first application to first granting. I expect it will take another year or so to get all the different offices to allow the patent(s).
Here are some links for your to research.
Canadian Intellectual Property Office
http://www.cipo.gc.ca/
European Patent Office
http://www.european-patent-office.org/index.en.php
US Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/
World Intellectual Property Organization
http://www.wipo.int/index.html.en
Patent Cooperation Treaty
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/index.htm
ensen.
Patents only have legal force in the countries they have been granted. If you are granted a US Patent, you are not protected in Canada so some unscrupulous entity, like me (just kidding) could build your stuff and sell it elsewhere but the US.
It is costly to apply for patents in multiple countries. I was recently granted a US patent that has been assigned to my employer. Applications are pending at the European Patent Office and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Once the EPO allows the patent, finalizing applications need to be completed for each of the member countries. These include the UK, France, Germany, etc.. and each has a different cost associated with it. So far the costs have been in excess of $50K (CAD) and I expect at least another $10K to be spent before it is over.
It has also taken over 4 years from first application to first granting. I expect it will take another year or so to get all the different offices to allow the patent(s).
Here are some links for your to research.
Canadian Intellectual Property Office
http://www.cipo.gc.ca/
European Patent Office
http://www.european-patent-office.org/index.en.php
US Patent and Trademark Office
http://www.uspto.gov/
World Intellectual Property Organization
http://www.wipo.int/index.html.en
Patent Cooperation Treaty
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/index.htm
ensen.
DanWiggins said:
Case law has long recognized the experimental exception to infringement, starting with Whitmore vs Cutter (29 Fed. Cas. 1120, CCD Mass. 1813) and made even clearer with Pepperhausen vs Falke (19 Fed. Cas. 1048, CCSDNY 1861). This is summarized quite succinctly in Robinson's "The Law of Patents for Useful Inventions", section 898 (1890).
There's a bit of mud being thrown around to try to prevent experimental use for commercial purposes (Madey vs Duke University, for example), but that's not the issue here.
DanWiggins said:
Good God! I had no idea. When did this happen? How did it happen? Why did it happen?
So you're thinking about building a step ladder for your garage? Careful there, mate. Better hire some lawyers to do a patent search first.
I find most everything about our current patent and trademark laws thoroughly disgusting, but this really takes the cake.
Yes, the terms are limited. In US law, they were 17 years after issuance; more recently, they've changed this to 20 years after publication of the application. The idea of this change was to harmonize US with international patent law and to prevent submarine patents (I'm a walking victim of that one).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.