Well Jan, I hope that you have learned something new and important. We all want to follow rules that will both protect us and others, yet the real world works somewhat differently. It is a lot like finishing high school and believing that our government is there to 'help' us, 100%. It is like the advertisement: 'Get a patent on your new idea, and protect yourself' when the company advertising this, will take your idea and run with it, if they can.
Well, they have a right to take you to court and try. There's a naive belief, which I run into constantly, that if you wave a patent at an infringer, you can make them stop. You're on the inside, so to speak, so know better, but I'm constantly surprised how many businessmen think that a patent is a talisman.
Unless you can afford to fund expensive litigation you might as well simply walk away.....; no matter what he (the infringer) may have signed. The simple way is to keep quiet until your item has become a properly released product. And even then keep quiet about any details.
I know for a fact that a new concept was explained to a well known audio researcher and later included in a learned paper without any reference to the source from which it was "taken", thereby giving the impression that it was a piece of the writer's (own) original work. A fool learns from his own mistakes, a wise man from those of others!
Last edited:
That gets interesting, in the non-disclosure agreement it just says what the issue is about not the details, so it is a bit more legal ammo but not perfect.
The issue of fraud in the submission vs real errors is why that is tough to enforce.
Of course the patent examiners no matter how skilled, often do not have all the information on the background of the issues and must rely to some extent on the applicant. So errors whether fraudulent or not are a big issue. The courts have assumed that if the prior art has been disclosed the examiner is an expert and therefore correct in determining the validity of the claim.
Of course in audio there seem to be every so often patents granted where there is prior art that was not known to the claimant or examiner. So you kind of have to wonder how complete the IP search was.
So there really can be bad patents and claims, then it is up to the possible party infringing on the patent to determine if it is worth the cost to overturn the patent.
Ed: That last point is key- there has to be money involved to make legal action worthwhile. And if there isn't money involved, who cares, really?
One case I was also involved in- we hired a subcontractor to make a material for us. Under NDA, we gave him the formula (a trade secret). He immediately patented that formula! Now, if he had tried to sue us for infringement, things would have gone badly for him- that probably crosses the sanctions threshold. In theory, we could have sued him for violation of the NDA, but he didn't sell enough of that material to make it worthwhile to risk not being awarded costs.
I really do wonder about how some people's brains work.
One case I was also involved in- we hired a subcontractor to make a material for us. Under NDA, we gave him the formula (a trade secret). He immediately patented that formula! Now, if he had tried to sue us for infringement, things would have gone badly for him- that probably crosses the sanctions threshold. In theory, we could have sued him for violation of the NDA, but he didn't sell enough of that material to make it worthwhile to risk not being awarded costs.
I really do wonder about how some people's brains work.
Patent price tag-
I do a lot of patent work. One of my clients has negotiated a base fee to get them started.
Simple Utility patent- $3,000 to file, probably $10,000 to issue. Lots more if there are problems.
Infringement lawsuit- $300,000 to $500,000 to file and do battle before you get to court. probably another $500,000 to $1,000,000 in court. And there will be an appeal since the lower courts rarely understand the issues. East Texas is better and worse for this. The court there has made a specialty of patent cases. No discounts however, just a little quicker.
Patent issues would bankrupt any specialty audio company unless you settle fast. Don't waste your time. For the most part I'm more of the open source persuasion. Its more direct, implementation means a lot more than raw technology in audio and there are no fortunes in high end audio. Secrets are hard to keep in circuits.
I do a lot of patent work. One of my clients has negotiated a base fee to get them started.
Simple Utility patent- $3,000 to file, probably $10,000 to issue. Lots more if there are problems.
Infringement lawsuit- $300,000 to $500,000 to file and do battle before you get to court. probably another $500,000 to $1,000,000 in court. And there will be an appeal since the lower courts rarely understand the issues. East Texas is better and worse for this. The court there has made a specialty of patent cases. No discounts however, just a little quicker.
Patent issues would bankrupt any specialty audio company unless you settle fast. Don't waste your time. For the most part I'm more of the open source persuasion. Its more direct, implementation means a lot more than raw technology in audio and there are no fortunes in high end audio. Secrets are hard to keep in circuits.
to avoid such thinks, the best way is creating a thickfilm integrated circuit like e. g. the versions from Apex (by higher pieces better an monolitic version like TDA (ST) or LME (NS)
go to post #4
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...ic-integrated-circuit-amplifier-overview.html
A very bad solution in this respect is the kind of the Mark Levinson's technique (RIAA head amp modules and line modules) and also the currently available CC-80 (CC80) modules (LEF = Load Effect Free) from Candeias Engineering (SANYO/CEC) - go to
http://www.marklev.com/JC2/img/_jc2l3.html
http://www.marklev.com/LNP2/img/_10.html
http://www.candeias.com/file/CC80-Datasheet.pdf (English)
Hifi Test Phono-Vorstufe Aqvox Phono 2 Ci, Holfi Vitalus, SAC gamma - Testbericht Phono, High End-Hifi-Magazin fairaudio (German)
Candeias Engineering (English)
http://www.candeias.com/file/CC80 Report-D.pdf (German)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/168185-how-does-lef-load-effect-free-amplifier-work.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/pass-labs/5808-cec-amp71.html
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/127182-lef-load-effect-free-amplifier-technology.html
http://www.hoer-wege.de/phono_ph53.htm (good CC80 pictures)
The performing of a clone is too easy - much more easy than by thickfilm or monolitic IC's (because its classical discrete design inside of sealing compound material)
Last edited:
Patent maintainance in the US is 5 or 10 years, I'm not sure which right now. Its not yearly.
Thick films are real easy to reverse engineer. But even really advanced semis are regularly reversed and counterfeited in China. Something to think (shudder) about the next time you get on an airplane. . .
Thick films are real easy to reverse engineer. But even really advanced semis are regularly reversed and counterfeited in China. Something to think (shudder) about the next time you get on an airplane. . .
The man behind these marvels did not reply to my email......
In German television (SWR-Fernsehen) was reported about Carlos Candeias some weeks ago. A 10-part series "Deutschland Ade" (bye bye Germany) Unfortunately I have only see the last 10 minutes. Some Informations about Carlos Candeias new projects and plans (in German) you will find by this URL:
Eine 10-teilige Serie: Deutschland ade - 1. Kein Weg zurück - SWR Fernsehen :: Dokuserie | SWR.de
(sroll down a bit)
yes, but it is more difficult than discrete design's inside of sealing compound material
Last edited:
Well, I'm glad that everyone has come around to understanding patent protection, and the near impossibility of keeping an idea really secret. Also, that business, in many ways, acts like gang of thieves, and finds it 'sport' to learn something they are not supposed to know, and perhaps even attempt to block the original source from utilizing their idea. Ask Scott Wurcer how to examine another IC chip that is fully packaged. I doubt that thick film would slow him much, either.
Many new ideas are easily understood, ONCE they become apparent. They might appear even obvious, YET they may not have been used by anyone in the past, because they are essentially slightly different than the usual. Think about the complementary differential input stage. It requires thinking symmetrically and upside down to come up with it. People used to tubes, did not think that way. Same with many early solid state designs, in fact, many early designs could have been improved by just flipping the circuit to an opposite power supply, BUT they just couldn't do it. Today it is obvious, 40+ years ago, it was not.
Many new ideas are easily understood, ONCE they become apparent. They might appear even obvious, YET they may not have been used by anyone in the past, because they are essentially slightly different than the usual. Think about the complementary differential input stage. It requires thinking symmetrically and upside down to come up with it. People used to tubes, did not think that way. Same with many early solid state designs, in fact, many early designs could have been improved by just flipping the circuit to an opposite power supply, BUT they just couldn't do it. Today it is obvious, 40+ years ago, it was not.
john:
i was having a discussion several months ago with some friends of mine in the business about this. One of them pointed me to this article, which was quite interesting and revealing (to me, anyways):
IC reverse engineering?a design team perspective - 2010-03-11 08:00:00 | EDN
I never knew this level of reverse engineering at the ic level was actually legal and was such big business. i guess i was being naive ...
mlloyd1
i was having a discussion several months ago with some friends of mine in the business about this. One of them pointed me to this article, which was quite interesting and revealing (to me, anyways):
IC reverse engineering?a design team perspective - 2010-03-11 08:00:00 | EDN
I never knew this level of reverse engineering at the ic level was actually legal and was such big business. i guess i was being naive ...
mlloyd1
- Status
- Not open for further replies.