Class D patents
I found this site the other week, thought someone might find it usefull or at least get a kick out of it.
TI has a rather interesting patent for example, I've seen it mentioned before but now I understand the joke :)
I hate to admit it, but........
I actually know of the guys who has a patent listed there. Won't say who or which one, but not sure why it is patentable. Guess it proves what many of us have always felt..........
(Yeah, the fact that I live in Texas might be a clue.)
Thanks Chris for this VERY useful link,
Taking a very brief look at the listing, the first Patent would seem to proceed Brunos UCD patent!!! I believe it would be very hard to enforce UCD when this Patent exists!
Yes, I nearly fell of my chair when I first heard about TI trying to Patent Tri level (BD) modulation!!!
Once again this just reinforces how pointless Class D patents are – I’m sure you would 100% agree with me Jocko? :D
My pleasure :)
Good to see you around again as well, I guess you've been busy?
TI has a number of wacky patents there:
Patent No: 5,994,954
"WOW In 1997, using a ramp and a comparator, TI patents the pulse width modulatorŠ"
I guess you can't blame them for trying, why they get awarded seems to be the real issue at hand, more money in their pockets huh, crooked sob's.
I'm guessing TI lives in some kind of Time Warp!
I understand companies see Patents a method to improve the IP value of a company – you know its all just one big game, bankers now run our world – sell your stock options while you can!
Philips is just one example of a company which positively encourages its employees to apply for Patents with Cash rewards – not by accident then that it’s now the second biggest applier for Patents.
Yes, been designing away - starting my new Hi-Fi brand, lots of time spent in China, where Internet access to the outside world is very limited (read censured).
Here is the link to the Bruno`s very first post on this forum. He explains what is different in his patent.
I am also interested if you intend to patent your own output stage. I hope the question is not to indiscreet.
But no matter what might be said, I believe it would be near impossible to defend the differences in court – the diagrams say all – what is the difference between the two (at least from a diagram perspective) – ok maybe fight the clams, but then a patent must also be novel!
I believe many here share the same feelings towards patents, as I do – especially in the field of Class D.
When I first started working on my output stage error correction design more then 15 years ago, I worked pretty much in a vacuum, and even when I can across papers such as AES preprints – not being use to there terminology (why are scientific papers always published in such a complicated manner) I didn’t understand there significant.
Recently I was shown a patent from about 2002 that seem to show a similar method as I had developed - I was completely thrown – however soon afterwards I also found patents that had lapsed (due to age) that showed / claimed the same method!!! Yes a re-patent of a much older patent – which seems typical in the field of class D. So now at least the 2002 patent was void – and I could still use my designs without fear of IP issues. But even without the earlier patent I would not have had a hard time proving prior art – many of my designs float about Labs around the world…
Also after spending so long developing and understanding the Class D & OPS FB topologies, I have many different methods to “Crack the Egg”, if I run into Patent issues – I will just do it in another way.
To cut a long story short – no I will not be applying for a Patent for my technology; rather design into IC’s or under potted boards – only lawyers make money from patents. If you don’t have the funds to fight and protect a patent – then there’s no point in wasting your money in the first place.
Case in point, how many poor lawyers do you know, and try and balance this with how many poor engineers you know!
Likewise, how many engineers could become lawyers – and how many lawyers could become engineers!
Does this mean I will publish the circuit diagrams – maybe in due course, but only after my design and products have been released into the market place first.
I have been thinking of offering small potted modules for DIY / OEM use, but my battle with time is always lost…
I don't know of any lawyers who became engineers, though.
You're right about the cost of defending a patent. It makes it really difficult for the little guy.
100% agreement, John.
A buddy from university has a job to review all the patent applications that the jet aircraft engine company where he works files. Mainly with an eye towards competition from European competitors.
Asked him once what his job qualifies him for when his job is downsized. Answer:
"Sell hardware at Home Depot."
Too bad he will find that they don't want guys like that there.............trust me.....a lot of us have already tried.
Back to the subject at hand............
Only TI could patent some silly marketing feature and be proud of it.
OK...........M$ probably would too, but they don't count.
Contrary to popular belief, to become a patent agent, you don't need to have gone to law school. Admittance to the patent bar requires an engineering or science background.
Once he's been an agent for a number of years, most law firms will offer to pay to send a person to law school, which just enables them to offer legal opinions and litigate, but it's his choice. I know a couple very senior patent agents who have stuck to writing patents, because it's more satisfying for the engineering mind.
If your buddy isn't getting paid well, tell him to shop his resume around to IP firms.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36 AM.|
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio