Transfrmer problam !

[carlmart]

MIT is a cable manufacturer. They are correcting a defect in an amplifier. You wouldn't consider it 'Ridiculous!' if your amplifier blew up time after time when driving an electrostatic speaker, and the MIT cables fixed this.

Of course I know MIT is a cable manufacturer. And that problem wasn't present on such speakers only, but when using highly capacitive cables on some amps. Using a series inductor at the output and/or a zobel would correct that problem. Naims were famous for that.

Ridiculous is the fact that they issued a patent for such cable. Making a product to solve that problem is alright, it is not being able to patent it. Even more when from what I read at the time MIT patented all cable filters that might come by. That's a good one!

You can be excused for your ignorance of US law as you are not a US resident, a patent runs for 17 years. You are confusing it with a copyright, a different matter.

Technology obsoletes most patents long before they expire.

If I'm not wrong they can be renewed. Or they know the trick on how to do it. My ignorance of the US law, particularly on that aspect, was my choice too. But I had to find out on patent's most important aspects when I released my products in the US market.

From I could find out back then, the 17 years period could be updated. Patent lawyers took care of that.

Copyright is certainly worst.


Carlos

 

[djk]

"From I could find out back then, the 17 years period could be updated."

In practice, no.

The only way to get an extension is to show that it took a major portion of the 17 years to get the product to market. Drug testing, animal genetics, things of this nature.

Old patents ran 17 years from issue and took about three years from application to issue.

New patents run 20 years from application.

There are reasons this is very, very, bad.

But that is another story.