More "not." I think highly of Mr. Lancaster (bought several of his books), but strongly disagree with a lot of what's at that link.
There's another aspect to it as well. A couple of patents look good on your resume, or hanging on the wall. For a business, it allows you to say things like "uses exclusive patented technology" in your advertising.
IMHO, if a patent can be obtained fairly inexpensively, it's well worth it for a lot of folks. It doesn't even have to be anything genuinely useful. In fact, in one sense, the more useless the better, as nobody will bother to contest or infringe it.
btw, as I write this, I'm thinking of one particular diyAudio forum member who is the proud owner of a delightfully useless USPTO patent. I'm sure he would deny the uselessness of it (and may actually believe it works), but that's not the point. What's important is the advertising mileage that can be gotten out of these things.
Today I went to the patent office in my city. They told me that in Italy there is not a provisional patent that you can turn in the final patent then.
It 's only expected to make corrections within 60 days of submission.
I believe this time not be enough to convince someone to buy the patent.
SY,
If he wants a patent the Italian patent is the way to go!
"From 1st January 2006 the filing and maintenance fees related to the Italian patents have been abolished, therefore the cost of a filing is tied down to the technical difficulty of the invention and to the documentation required to prepare the description."
It doesn't cost anything, takes three or four years and should have a value equal to the circuit design!
If he wants a patent the Italian patent is the way to go!
"From 1st January 2006 the filing and maintenance fees related to the Italian patents have been abolished, therefore the cost of a filing is tied down to the technical difficulty of the invention and to the documentation required to prepare the description."
It doesn't cost anything, takes three or four years and should have a value equal to the circuit design!
That may or may not give priority in other jurisdictions (I don't know that), but a US provisional will. The other issue is that a provisional can be drafted by a non-attorney and requires little fuss, no prior art analysis, and no claims. For a phase inverter, I could write one in less than a day, whereas a non-provisional would take weeks and some assistance from an expensive lawyer. Any European patent application will take a lot more lawyer time.
Provisionals are an independent inventor's best friend.
Provisional Application for Patent
Provisionals are an independent inventor's best friend.
Provisional Application for Patent
Thank you for the idea!
I will write, "Uses exclusive technology tested and praised by Worldwide DIY High-End Audio Community"
I once figured (and published here) an enhancement to the standard concertina
phase splitter. Having greater than unity gain, equal impeadance top and bottom.
The trick was returning only a fraction of the usual feedback to the cathode,
such that cathode feedback equaled Mu feedback seen from the plate. I think
it wanted just one high voltage PNP and a Triode. An AX7 with Mu gain of 100
would yield +50/-50 gain in this configuration. And the transistor is carrying
most of the current, leaving the triode at an almost constant current
Anyways, even with 20mA of concertina current, such a thing is USELESS
to drive output tubes into A2, or BJT transistors, or anything that presents
non-linear DC load. Because the coupling caps will pump! You still need some
unity follower to drive such outputs, a monster concertina splitter without
direct coupling offers no advantage. It just has lots of current to pump itself
off its ideal operating points and into trouble.
And to my dismay, the equal local impedances aspect proved equally useless.
When you close a global loop, both split impedance get forced equal anyway.
Big do about nothing....
Anyways, think this splitter through to what you will drive with it, and why.
Else find yourself chasing irrelevant improvements to no good purpose as I did.
phase splitter. Having greater than unity gain, equal impeadance top and bottom.
The trick was returning only a fraction of the usual feedback to the cathode,
such that cathode feedback equaled Mu feedback seen from the plate. I think
it wanted just one high voltage PNP and a Triode. An AX7 with Mu gain of 100
would yield +50/-50 gain in this configuration. And the transistor is carrying
most of the current, leaving the triode at an almost constant current
Anyways, even with 20mA of concertina current, such a thing is USELESS
to drive output tubes into A2, or BJT transistors, or anything that presents
non-linear DC load. Because the coupling caps will pump! You still need some
unity follower to drive such outputs, a monster concertina splitter without
direct coupling offers no advantage. It just has lots of current to pump itself
off its ideal operating points and into trouble.
And to my dismay, the equal local impedances aspect proved equally useless.
When you close a global loop, both split impedance get forced equal anyway.
Big do about nothing....
Anyways, think this splitter through to what you will drive with it, and why.
Else find yourself chasing irrelevant improvements to no good purpose as I did.
Last edited:
As I wrote previously, I figured that in Italy is not allowed to submit provisional documentation.
So, I should present it in the U.S., following your advice. Ok, but you will understand my difficulty to present the documentation in your language, not being a native english speaker.
Also, now you can see why we Italians are among the last for number of patent applications submitted: the rules that your administration sets are made to help you, our administration, instead, making the rules to get trouble
Yes, the European system in general is very biased against individual inventors. You may be right about the Italian one being particularly poor. That's why I'm recommending you take advantage of ours; if your idea turns out to be worth money, you can then navigate the European waters with the aid of a lawyer.
I've seen some applications and written patents with absolutely incomprehensible English. But that's OK, as long as you're clear about what you've invented, and for electronic devices, that's pretty easy with the help of schematics and graphs. Your English seems more than adequate for the task. And believe me, some of the US patent examiners have a great deal of trouble understanding English themselves!
I've seen some applications and written patents with absolutely incomprehensible English. But that's OK, as long as you're clear about what you've invented, and for electronic devices, that's pretty easy with the help of schematics and graphs. Your English seems more than adequate for the task. And believe me, some of the US patent examiners have a great deal of trouble understanding English themselves!
Hello,
on this page of my site the first brief introduction and description of this new electronic circuit:
AMPLIMOS one stage amplifiers amplificatori audio monostadio
on this page of my site the first brief introduction and description of this new electronic circuit:
AMPLIMOS one stage amplifiers amplificatori audio monostadio
Hi at all, after a year as promised i have published the work about this phase splitter on this forum .
This is the link:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/238405-fully-differential-phase-inverter.html
This is the link:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/238405-fully-differential-phase-inverter.html
I have 5 that generally useless and never commercially applied, yet are useful for one purpose that hasn't been mentioned yet. Large companies use patents like poker chips in a high stakes game of trade, M/A and littigation.
The first one I got was successfully obtained even though there was prior art. There are 3 nearly identical systems, each patented by a different entity and assigned to a major international corporation. Each is rather restrictive in its application, but none of them can be used without infringing the other two, so no one can use the idea without licensing. Todays technology makes it obsolete anyway.
The last two are now owned by Google, a company I have never worked for, and neither have the other two inventors. The patents were poker chips in a multi billion dollar game of trade.
4,955,075 5,564,094 7,259,446 7,801,246 7,864,882
and one that was filed, then abandoned.... WO2002047461
I don't know much about patent law but when it comes to patents granted per capita the USA comes 9th behind Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands and Austria.
I know a few individuals in Germany who patented something, exploited it for a few years and then retired when the patent run out or they decided that they made enough cash to live happily ever after.
One of the criterion of my performance review was number of patent disclosures submitted. Out of 13 submissions, 6 made it to the Attorneys and 3 patents were granted in the US. One patent was commercialized saving 4 million a year in warranty costs. I received 3 wall placs and $1,000.
Last year I was informed that 3 patents were issued through the European world intellectual patent system, but I do not know if they were ever commercialized. Just something to add to the Resume..... no real value.......
Last year I was informed that 3 patents were issued through the European world intellectual patent system, but I do not know if they were ever commercialized. Just something to add to the Resume..... no real value.......
So, you're not going to file a non-provisional?
There is no provisional in Europe (or Japan) because they are a first to file systems. It would not make sense to have a provisional application in those systems. The U.S. just recently switched from a first to invent to a first to file system. We are going to be struggling with the changes. (I've worked there as a patent examiner for over 30 years now)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.