Peter has a point. I put some rocks in one of those nice mason jars that they showed in the photo. I put it over the output stage of my Bryston. No difference. I'm hurt and disappointed.
Problem is, rocks aren't generally the crystals talked about on the website, they're conglomerates of crystal, semicrystal, and amorphous regions. And I can't seem to get them down to absolute zero where those cool looking triatomic vibrations happen.
For a scientist that supposedly worked for NASA (on the shuttle o-ring project?) and FAA (I didn't know the the FAA employed scientists), he seems to not understand what zero-point energy is, at least if you're to believe the website.
BTW, John, you're too negative about the value of patents. I've spent most of my career working for small companies and sole proprietorships, and we found patents to be accessible and useful. Except for the first five (assigned to Lockheed, where I was working in those days), all of my patents were filed with the assignee being a small business entity.
Don't cheat my monkey.
Problem is, rocks aren't generally the crystals talked about on the website, they're conglomerates of crystal, semicrystal, and amorphous regions. And I can't seem to get them down to absolute zero where those cool looking triatomic vibrations happen.
For a scientist that supposedly worked for NASA (on the shuttle o-ring project?) and FAA (I didn't know the the FAA employed scientists), he seems to not understand what zero-point energy is, at least if you're to believe the website.
BTW, John, you're too negative about the value of patents. I've spent most of my career working for small companies and sole proprietorships, and we found patents to be accessible and useful. Except for the first five (assigned to Lockheed, where I was working in those days), all of my patents were filed with the assignee being a small business entity.
Don't cheat my monkey.
Another thing that gets the goat is 'break in'.
one such example is found here.
http://www.odysseyaudio.com/setup_tweak.html
I find this one unique because they categorize
'break in' into four periods.
On other forums, people who promote this product
claim as much as 3 months of amplifier break in
is needed to make it sound good.
one such example is found here.
http://www.odysseyaudio.com/setup_tweak.html
I find this one unique because they categorize
'break in' into four periods.
On other forums, people who promote this product
claim as much as 3 months of amplifier break in
is needed to make it sound good.
thylantyr said:
Hehehe.
But you missed the biggest one of all:
We offer our customers a no questions asked 30 day return policy. Audition our products in your home system for 1 month to make sure you will love it.
Gee, you've only got 30 days to try it and "make sure you love it," but it takes "6 weeks +" before it's fully broken in and performing "to it's full sonic potential."
And I try so hard not to be too cynical. *sigh*
se
SY:
>absence of patents indicates (doesn't prove, but indicates) that the person has not done significant work in technology or product development.<
A major problem with a patent is that it forces you to disclose, but unless you can afford an expensive lawyer to defend against infringements, doesn't give you any concrete protection. Having a patent gives you the right to _take_ patent infringers to court, but no guarantee that you will _win_, so unless you are well-funded (and or the patent is *very* commercially important one, what is the point? Besides, it can get fairly costly to even take out multi-year patents in a number of key markets.
If you are employed at a big company, or personally have deep pockets, patents are fine. But if not (and your market is small, as is the case with specialty audio), simply not disclosing anything is another way.
Just my opinion.
jonathan carr
>absence of patents indicates (doesn't prove, but indicates) that the person has not done significant work in technology or product development.<
A major problem with a patent is that it forces you to disclose, but unless you can afford an expensive lawyer to defend against infringements, doesn't give you any concrete protection. Having a patent gives you the right to _take_ patent infringers to court, but no guarantee that you will _win_, so unless you are well-funded (and or the patent is *very* commercially important one, what is the point? Besides, it can get fairly costly to even take out multi-year patents in a number of key markets.
If you are employed at a big company, or personally have deep pockets, patents are fine. But if not (and your market is small, as is the case with specialty audio), simply not disclosing anything is another way.
Just my opinion.
jonathan carr
Jonathan, as I said, I've mostly not been employed at large companies and my pockets are exceedingly shallow. So I can't accept the "patents are only for big guys" argument.
Trade secrets versus patents have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, if you have a cool circuit topology that's novel, trade secret protection is not going to help you- your competitors will have that thing disassembled and spec'd out within hours after the first units go on sale. And you've got no recourse. Same with things (like magic rocks) that can be easily deformulated.
Let's take an example of a small inventor who patents a technology, then is ripped off by a major corporation. That would be me, circa 1987. The case is discussed in the Clyde Prestowitz book, "Trading Places," by the way. What you find is that if the infringement is clear and there's some real commercial usage (else why would you care?), law firms will take the case on a contingency basis. In our case, that's what happened, we beat them, the lawyers collected their not-inconsiderable fees, and we got some nice royalty payments from the infringer (this was a Japanese mega-company).
Now let's take the other extreme: you're a small guy, you invent and bring to market something useful that a big guy wants to copy. No patent. The big guy can just copy, then put you away. Or if he's got staff attorneys and no morals, he can go file a patent on what you're doing, see it through to issuance, then sue you. He probably can't win, since the patent won't be found to be valid at trial. But guess what? It will never get to trial, since he'll drain your resources with depositions, discovery, batteries of expert witnesses... you'll be flat broke long before you ever see a judge. And under current US law, you can't prevent the patent from issuing and until it's overturned, it's presumed valid. I was on the nasty end of THAT one, too.
No, little guys need patents, too, even if just for self defense. And they're not that horribly expensive. If you do the grunt work yourself and just use a lawyer as a consultant, a US patent can be gotten for $1K or so. Anyone who likes to invent should be familiar with Nolo Press.
But all that is secondary to my main point: top audio designers, material scientists, and other technologists have patents. It's part of the game.* Peter Walker, Jim Strickland, Jim Winey, Dave Berning, David Hafler, Scott Wurcer, Walt Jung, DTN Williamson, Nelson Pass, even John Curl... they can all be found in the PTO record. And presumably, someone with a distinguished career in as many technical fields as this particular charlatan claims (and working for big guys and government, mind you!) would have left a trail of patents if he had any distinction or creativity.
*I reiterate the point of logic that has escaped some of the posters- distinction and creativity in technology leads to patents. The inverse is not true- presence of patents doesn't mean distinction or creativity.
And Jonathan, if you're the same Jonathan Carr who was at Motorola, I notice that you've got one yourself.
Trade secrets versus patents have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, if you have a cool circuit topology that's novel, trade secret protection is not going to help you- your competitors will have that thing disassembled and spec'd out within hours after the first units go on sale. And you've got no recourse. Same with things (like magic rocks) that can be easily deformulated.
Let's take an example of a small inventor who patents a technology, then is ripped off by a major corporation. That would be me, circa 1987. The case is discussed in the Clyde Prestowitz book, "Trading Places," by the way. What you find is that if the infringement is clear and there's some real commercial usage (else why would you care?), law firms will take the case on a contingency basis. In our case, that's what happened, we beat them, the lawyers collected their not-inconsiderable fees, and we got some nice royalty payments from the infringer (this was a Japanese mega-company).
Now let's take the other extreme: you're a small guy, you invent and bring to market something useful that a big guy wants to copy. No patent. The big guy can just copy, then put you away. Or if he's got staff attorneys and no morals, he can go file a patent on what you're doing, see it through to issuance, then sue you. He probably can't win, since the patent won't be found to be valid at trial. But guess what? It will never get to trial, since he'll drain your resources with depositions, discovery, batteries of expert witnesses... you'll be flat broke long before you ever see a judge. And under current US law, you can't prevent the patent from issuing and until it's overturned, it's presumed valid. I was on the nasty end of THAT one, too.
No, little guys need patents, too, even if just for self defense. And they're not that horribly expensive. If you do the grunt work yourself and just use a lawyer as a consultant, a US patent can be gotten for $1K or so. Anyone who likes to invent should be familiar with Nolo Press.
But all that is secondary to my main point: top audio designers, material scientists, and other technologists have patents. It's part of the game.* Peter Walker, Jim Strickland, Jim Winey, Dave Berning, David Hafler, Scott Wurcer, Walt Jung, DTN Williamson, Nelson Pass, even John Curl... they can all be found in the PTO record. And presumably, someone with a distinguished career in as many technical fields as this particular charlatan claims (and working for big guys and government, mind you!) would have left a trail of patents if he had any distinction or creativity.
*I reiterate the point of logic that has escaped some of the posters- distinction and creativity in technology leads to patents. The inverse is not true- presence of patents doesn't mean distinction or creativity.
And Jonathan, if you're the same Jonathan Carr who was at Motorola, I notice that you've got one yourself.
John (Curl):
Hi John!
>If you are small, don't waste your time, BECAUSE the big boys will steal it from you, like taking candy from a baby.<
With the sharks, absolutely.
The nicer ones will ask you first, and may even ask you to consult/manage the project for them. At least, that's been my experience in Japan, and some OK and US companies have also been super.
OTOH, some of the companies that I have been to elsewhere in Asia give me the creeps in this regard. When I went to inquire about possible OEM deals, I got the impression that they looked at such deals not only as job and income, but also as a technological/commercial advantage that they were free to use for their own stuff. The uncpoken attitude seemed to be "We do your manufacturing for you (at a price), and you do our R&D for us (for free)."
>Many of you think that you are OWED an explanation of how something works. Well, it works this way: We don't give you details about our best stuff. It would only hurt us to do so, because invariably, it would be copied by someone.<
Completely agree. And if something is cool and unique and important to your livelihood/commercial advantage, it shouldn't be mentioned to others (even in your immediate work-team), unless there is a clear need-to-know.
regards, jonathan carr
Hi John!
>If you are small, don't waste your time, BECAUSE the big boys will steal it from you, like taking candy from a baby.<
With the sharks, absolutely.
The nicer ones will ask you first, and may even ask you to consult/manage the project for them. At least, that's been my experience in Japan, and some OK and US companies have also been super.
OTOH, some of the companies that I have been to elsewhere in Asia give me the creeps in this regard. When I went to inquire about possible OEM deals, I got the impression that they looked at such deals not only as job and income, but also as a technological/commercial advantage that they were free to use for their own stuff. The uncpoken attitude seemed to be "We do your manufacturing for you (at a price), and you do our R&D for us (for free)."
>Many of you think that you are OWED an explanation of how something works. Well, it works this way: We don't give you details about our best stuff. It would only hurt us to do so, because invariably, it would be copied by someone.<
Completely agree. And if something is cool and unique and important to your livelihood/commercial advantage, it shouldn't be mentioned to others (even in your immediate work-team), unless there is a clear need-to-know.
regards, jonathan carr
I must say I agree emphatically with both Jonathon and SY.
Patent process obliges complete disclosure; this was the original thinking behind issuing a patent, so that the invention could be disseminated around the world, and its manufacture licensed.
The legal aspect, enforcement, is up to the holder, who needs a war chest of funds to finance the protection of that patent.
Ergo, unless there are considerable funds, and the invention has huge mass market appeal, forget it.
I once approached Audi with a cool idea for an auto engine. Their first question was 'Is it patented'? When the response was no, they declined to even continue the dialogue. This, I think, demonstrates that these large corporations want the screening benefit of a patent, and need the protection it affords legally as they have so much to lose if sued.
In audio, I agree with Jonathan, why bother. Merely encapsulate to protect the idea for a few more weeks, and market swiftly and effectively.
It is very true that audiophiles expect explanations of good ideas. In the climate we live in, this is legally unwise. Only the public domain stuff should be discussed; the clever stuff should be kept from view, and not even good customers should be given complete explanation.
Incidentally there are companies in the Far East whose sole income is derived from reverse engineering, mostly chips. This would indicate that patent protection is not really practical, even for larger companies, the more so since changing a couple of component values in a given topology will avoid infringement in the law.
The Law has ultimate flexibility. Just how much flexibility depends entirely on the skill of your lawyer and the depth of you pockets....
Cheers,
Hugh
Patent process obliges complete disclosure; this was the original thinking behind issuing a patent, so that the invention could be disseminated around the world, and its manufacture licensed.
The legal aspect, enforcement, is up to the holder, who needs a war chest of funds to finance the protection of that patent.
Ergo, unless there are considerable funds, and the invention has huge mass market appeal, forget it.
I once approached Audi with a cool idea for an auto engine. Their first question was 'Is it patented'? When the response was no, they declined to even continue the dialogue. This, I think, demonstrates that these large corporations want the screening benefit of a patent, and need the protection it affords legally as they have so much to lose if sued.
In audio, I agree with Jonathan, why bother. Merely encapsulate to protect the idea for a few more weeks, and market swiftly and effectively.
It is very true that audiophiles expect explanations of good ideas. In the climate we live in, this is legally unwise. Only the public domain stuff should be discussed; the clever stuff should be kept from view, and not even good customers should be given complete explanation.
Incidentally there are companies in the Far East whose sole income is derived from reverse engineering, mostly chips. This would indicate that patent protection is not really practical, even for larger companies, the more so since changing a couple of component values in a given topology will avoid infringement in the law.
The Law has ultimate flexibility. Just how much flexibility depends entirely on the skill of your lawyer and the depth of you pockets....
Cheers,
Hugh
Sy:
I have discussed the patent issue with lawyers and also with other designers who have numerous patents to their name (Masao Noro, Shin Nakagawa, Mircea Naiu), and have concluded that in my own case, it doesn't make enough sense. At least, not quite now.
OTOH, I fully understand the points that you are making (and they are good ones), and I will continue to think about the pros and cons.
Thank you for the thoughtful advice.
best regards, jonathan carr
I have discussed the patent issue with lawyers and also with other designers who have numerous patents to their name (Masao Noro, Shin Nakagawa, Mircea Naiu), and have concluded that in my own case, it doesn't make enough sense. At least, not quite now.
OTOH, I fully understand the points that you are making (and they are good ones), and I will continue to think about the pros and cons.
Thank you for the thoughtful advice.
best regards, jonathan carr
While we're on the topic of patents...
It should also be noted that intellectual property law varies from country to country. For instance, at the USPTO, patents are issued to the first to invent. It is possible to create something independently from another entity, but if that other did it the day before, they get the patent. At the CIPO, the first to file gets the patent. I'm not sure about the EPO so check if needed.
Also, copyright is not even close to the same thing. If you publish a schematic with a little "c" on it, the diagram is protected by copyright, but not any actual circuit that's been wired up. Even putting a clause that reads "cannot be used for commercial purposes without permission..." only protects the diagram. Don't forget that the web is merely a communication medium. Utility patents are for inventions. The distinction is made so that ideas can be attributed to their originator but widely disseminated while inventiveness is encouraged by providing a time-limited monopoly to the creator.
Finally, even if you are a medium-sized entity with resources, getting into a patent fight is serious business. One of the best ways to prevent a patent fight is to leave a trail of dated documents like non-disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements and this is in addition to your dated lab notes and other verifiable documentation. That way, if someone infringes on your patent, you can just drop 2 copies of everything on their lawyer's desk with a cover letter saying "stop or else" and an invoice for the costs of all the copying and couriering. If you've logged everything well, the paperwork should be inches thick and sufficiently expensive for their own lawyer to evaluate that the legal fees become part of the cost of ripping you off.
ensen.
It should also be noted that intellectual property law varies from country to country. For instance, at the USPTO, patents are issued to the first to invent. It is possible to create something independently from another entity, but if that other did it the day before, they get the patent. At the CIPO, the first to file gets the patent. I'm not sure about the EPO so check if needed.
Also, copyright is not even close to the same thing. If you publish a schematic with a little "c" on it, the diagram is protected by copyright, but not any actual circuit that's been wired up. Even putting a clause that reads "cannot be used for commercial purposes without permission..." only protects the diagram. Don't forget that the web is merely a communication medium. Utility patents are for inventions. The distinction is made so that ideas can be attributed to their originator but widely disseminated while inventiveness is encouraged by providing a time-limited monopoly to the creator.
Finally, even if you are a medium-sized entity with resources, getting into a patent fight is serious business. One of the best ways to prevent a patent fight is to leave a trail of dated documents like non-disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements and this is in addition to your dated lab notes and other verifiable documentation. That way, if someone infringes on your patent, you can just drop 2 copies of everything on their lawyer's desk with a cover letter saying "stop or else" and an invoice for the costs of all the copying and couriering. If you've logged everything well, the paperwork should be inches thick and sufficiently expensive for their own lawyer to evaluate that the legal fees become part of the cost of ripping you off.
ensen.
that intellectual property law varies from country to country
It is getting really nasty and stupid in China so I heard. That people are getting the names of dishes or food patented. So in the near future resturants may have to pay loyalty to the patent holder for selling Singapore fried noodle or Peking Duck...
Chris
It is getting really nasty and stupid in China so I heard. That people are getting the names of dishes or food patented. So in the near future resturants may have to pay loyalty to the patent holder for selling Singapore fried noodle or Peking Duck...
Chris
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.