Just curoius: Why did you go all the way for applying a patent? Was it the possibility to earn money or was it just because it felt good?janneman said:
I'll believe it costs money, quite a lot, even in Luxenburg/Belgium.
Edmond Stuart said:
Hello Edmond,
Someone might like to correct me on this but I don't think you can patent a concept without having demonstrated a practical way of implementing or using the concept. It is the implementation of the concept that you are patenting rather than the concept itself.
Also different countries have different patent laws which makes things more complicated.
Jan, that's right, getting a patent and defending a patent are two different things. The former is pretty easy. The latter is not and it's unbelievably expensive.
Sort of. You have to reveal the best way you know of implementing, but it is not required for the invention to actually have been built and tested.
As always, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has been through that meat grinder several dozen times.
Sort of. You have to reveal the best way you know of implementing, but it is not required for the invention to actually have been built and tested.
As always, I am not a lawyer, just someone who has been through that meat grinder several dozen times.
SY said:
If that's the case couldn't you for example patent a low distortion amplifier that produces less than X amount of distortion, where the patent just describes a block diagram with no detail. Then anyone who does produce a practical working amplifier with less than X amount of distortion opens themselves up to be challenged in court 🙁
farts
Hi Snoopy,
As you said: "different countries have different patent laws"
As for the fart rocket, I was slightly wrong. It was a missile launcher and fueled by animal farts.
Look here: http://www.patentlysilly.com/patent.php?patID=6982161
and here: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/10/patent-for-fartpower.html
and here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6982161.PN.&OS=PN/6982161&RS=PN/6982161
Cheers,
Edmond.
PS: My apologies for being "slightly" off topic.
snoopy said:
Hi Snoopy,
As you said: "different countries have different patent laws"
As for the fart rocket, I was slightly wrong. It was a missile launcher and fueled by animal farts.
Look here: http://www.patentlysilly.com/patent.php?patID=6982161
and here: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/10/patent-for-fartpower.html
and here: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6982161.PN.&OS=PN/6982161&RS=PN/6982161
Cheers,
Edmond.
PS: My apologies for being "slightly" off topic.
snoopy said:
Well, you must convince the patent office that your method is new. So typically, you explain the problem, you explain how it is usually solved ('prior art') and what makes your solution new. So you need to show *some* detail of your invention. Indeed, the balance between showing enough detail so convince the office that it is new, and not enough to let someone else exploit a loop hole, is most of the effort of writing a patent.
Jan Didden
peranders said:
At the time (12 years ago) I thought it was new. I spend a lot of days at the patent bureau doing research. I had the patent office do their own research (for which I had to pay of course). Their conclusion was also that it was new.
I thought it would bring me a lot of money 😀
You really have to be very well aware of all what is going on in your field and what has been done to know if your stuff is new. In electronics, unless you have at least 20+ years deep experience in your field, and do a lot of studying, and read all you can get your hands on, and you come up with something you think is new, you are almost always wrong. That's the harsh reality.
In my case, eventually Ed Cherry, in a private communication, came up with the name of Mr. Llewellyn who described my 'invention' years before Harold Black invented nfb. That was around 1928. I had never heard of the man. Go figure.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Hi Jan,
In the seventies, when I was rather naive, I had a similar experience. I invented a loudspeaker with motional feedback, based on an electro-static transducer. At the patent office (Patentlaan 2 🙂), I discovered that someone else had filed such patent fifty years earlier.
Cheers,
Edmond.
janneman said:
It sounds like it would be better to keep it under wraps and then advertise that you have a particular invention that would be of interest to a keen investor. Then just wait for the highest bidder 😉
snoopy said:
Yes. Make your money before they find out how it works. By the time they start to copy you, make sure you have a new 'invention'. Easy 😀 .
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Yes unless you have big dollars to defend it in court then you are just broadcasting it to everyone else who has deeper pockets than yourself and essentially giving away all of your hard work 🙁
snoopy said:
I'm afraid that doesn't work either. At the Philips company, for example, you can only sell your ideas if you hold a patent.
That why you need to go digital to do something really new and ingenious...janneman said:
USPTO really does strange things, indeed. I recently saw a new patent application on a fast fullwave rectifier which used a circuit shown in the AD843 datasheet for a decade or so 😕
- Klaus
KSTR said:
But it may be genuine. The USPTO doesn't make a business of reading AD843 data sheets 😉 .
And the guy asking for the patent may honestly think he found something new...
Jan Didden
janneman said:
No patent office on this planet is reading datasheets. All they do is checking the patent databases against keywords and perhaps raise some questions regarding previous work found there. Usually what they come up with is BS with very little to do with the proposed patent.
The real search is usually done by a patent consultant or attorney, hired by the asignee(s). Of course, this search follows only after developing a strong business case regarding the patent application(s).
Now I found that patent application again, http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20070030033.pdf
Compare Fig.1 with Fig.29 in the AD843 spec sheet 😉
"Fast Peak Detector" (not fullwave rectifier, sorry), that also was what I had googled for when I found that striking similarity by accident, as both pop up in the search results. And I suspect any researcher/inventor would google quite a bit and then that old and known circuit would have popped up, as established prior art. Especially when he's talking suitable opamps, where ADI sure has some candidates.
Probably the application won't make it anyway... and it's no big deal at all. At first I was thinking about making an objection, but then again... why should I care?
- Klaus
Compare Fig.1 with Fig.29 in the AD843 spec sheet 😉
"Fast Peak Detector" (not fullwave rectifier, sorry), that also was what I had googled for when I found that striking similarity by accident, as both pop up in the search results. And I suspect any researcher/inventor would google quite a bit and then that old and known circuit would have popped up, as established prior art. Especially when he's talking suitable opamps, where ADI sure has some candidates.
Probably the application won't make it anyway... and it's no big deal at all. At first I was thinking about making an objection, but then again... why should I care?
- Klaus
Re: ODNF in plain old English...
Hmmm, I was in a hurry and just gave that link without actually trying to read the content carefully. Often automatic translations still provide enough information to get at least have a clue what it is all about, even from Japanese or Chinese pages. This particular line of text is a real challenge, especially the money part. So, I tried another machine (for this line only). Just for fun, with my apologies for being off-topic.
Google Translate:
Negation strain in the best state vice-amp current drain is minimized signal components should be measured in this circuit, so print money, VR1 strain adjustment of the minimum rate set point.
Babel Fish / Systran:
In optimum strain hitting turning off state it is the expectation where the signal component of drain electric current of the secondary amplifier becomes smallest, but in this circuit it will measure, but because it is not, the adjustment of VR1 set to the smallest point of distortion factor.
I think Babel Fish and Systran (both give the same translation) do a better job than Google Translate in this context. At least the money is gone.
I believe this site does indeed describe the ODNF from Luxman. I have great respect for Mr Shinichi Kamijo, a very innovative amplifier designer.
Steven
Edmond Stuart said:
Hmmm, I was in a hurry and just gave that link without actually trying to read the content carefully. Often automatic translations still provide enough information to get at least have a clue what it is all about, even from Japanese or Chinese pages. This particular line of text is a real challenge, especially the money part. So, I tried another machine (for this line only). Just for fun, with my apologies for being off-topic.
Google Translate:
Negation strain in the best state vice-amp current drain is minimized signal components should be measured in this circuit, so print money, VR1 strain adjustment of the minimum rate set point.
Babel Fish / Systran:
In optimum strain hitting turning off state it is the expectation where the signal component of drain electric current of the secondary amplifier becomes smallest, but in this circuit it will measure, but because it is not, the adjustment of VR1 set to the smallest point of distortion factor.
I think Babel Fish and Systran (both give the same translation) do a better job than Google Translate in this context. At least the money is gone.
I believe this site does indeed describe the ODNF from Luxman. I have great respect for Mr Shinichi Kamijo, a very innovative amplifier designer.
Steven
Re: Re: ODNF in plain old English...
Hi Steven,
First, thanks for the links for a better translation.
But still I have a problem: according to the Luxman brochure, no global NFB is applied (see also the picture below), while your link describes two amplifiers, both with global NFB.
Also patent #4785257 (courtesy of David) was of little help, as this one is unstable or in an attempt to make it stable, The EC mechanism gets ineffective.
So, for a better understanding of ODNF and to make a fair judgment about the merits of the Luxman B1000f, we need a complete schematic.
Does anyone have one? Please enlighten us.
Cheers,
Edmond.
Steven said:
Hi Steven,
First, thanks for the links for a better translation.
But still I have a problem: according to the Luxman brochure, no global NFB is applied (see also the picture below), while your link describes two amplifiers, both with global NFB.
Also patent #4785257 (courtesy of David) was of little help, as this one is unstable or in an attempt to make it stable, The EC mechanism gets ineffective.
So, for a better understanding of ODNF and to make a fair judgment about the merits of the Luxman B1000f, we need a complete schematic.
Does anyone have one? Please enlighten us.
Cheers,
Edmond.
Attachments
Re: Re: Re: ODNF in plain old English...
For this to be error correction Rb needs to be in series with the base emitter voltage error rather than across it as implemented in the patent. As it is the gm stage is just bootstrapping Rb which effectively makes the impedance since by A1 much higher and hence the gain is higher and feedback factor is greater thus reducing distortion. But still no error correction and also the possibility of instability.
Edmond Stuart said:
For this to be error correction Rb needs to be in series with the base emitter voltage error rather than across it as implemented in the patent. As it is the gm stage is just bootstrapping Rb which effectively makes the impedance since by A1 much higher and hence the gain is higher and feedback factor is greater thus reducing distortion. But still no error correction and also the possibility of instability.
Attachments
