Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The end of all legal DIY detector's?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The end of all legal DIY detector's?

    http://australianelectronicgoldprosp...9072/#msg19072
    Attached Files

  • #2
    DIY detectors will never go away

    The DIY detectors are here to stay. There are always new technologies as well as the old ones that will attract DIYers to build their own machine in hopes of saving money, learning some valuable technology, a perhaps coming up with a big breakthrough in metal detection.
    Goldfinder

    Comment


    • #3
      It looks confusingly written, but I don't think it claims all that much.

      for one, it only covers the transmission of FM+PAM. though the receiver postprocesing can use other filters (analog or digital) to affect the harmonics outside of the intended BW of the signal (as the output will have spurs to very high frequencies).

      line 40 is an extension of line 39 as a result. I'm assuming line 40 was the most offensive line.

      This all said, they actually open an entire well known and related method that would certainly miss several of the key points. I can only assume that is in a follow-up patent.

      Comment


      • #4
        Oh, actually I don't think they are even claiming all of what I said.

        Comment


        • #5
          Claiming a Patent on that Broad of Ideas would never stand up in court.

          There just blowing more Smoke.

          Comment


          • #6
            There is something called "fair use" and it encompasses education. So far as you are not making a perfect copy of their rig that they claim is made as per the patent - you are OK (heck, even a fan controller uses exactly the principle they put in patent).

            Comment


            • #7
              What's next? They going to Patent how they use a Transistor? LOL

              Comment


              • #8
                The end of of DIY for private use: NO

                Is Minelab in Financial Trouble or Grasping at Straws ?

                Looks to me like the woman in the photo is not from China or Malaysia ?

                Where a huge majority of the Pirate Metal Detectors are still being manufactured !!!

                HH...................Eugene

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by amtech2005 View Post
                  Is Minelab in Financial Trouble or Grasping at Straws ?

                  Looks to me like the woman in the photo is not from China or Malaysia ?

                  Where a huge majority of the Pirate Metal Detectors are still being manufactured !!!

                  HH...................Eugene
                  I think you'll find that WM6 doctored the original photo.
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Qiaozhi View Post

                    I think you'll find that WM6 doctored the original photo.
                    Indeed, what an amazing similarity.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I still don't see exactly what everyone thinks is particularly bad about the patent. The patent itself states some cases of prior art for many other classes of detectors. The patent also leaves out multiple obvious variations (perhaps they are in other patents?).

                      Abstract
                      A highly flexible real-time metal detector platform which has a detection capability for different targets and applications, where the operator is able to alter synchronous demodulation multiplication functions to select different types or mixtures of different types to be applied to different synchronous demodulators, and also different waveforms of the said synchronous demodulation multiplication functions; examples of the different types being time-domain, square-wave, sine-wave or receive signal weighted synchronous demodulation multiplication functions. The operator can alter the fundamental frequency of the repeating switched rectangular-wave voltage sequence, and an operator may alter the waveform of the repeating switched rectangular-wave voltage sequence and corresponding synchronous demodulation multiplication functions.
                      And the paraphrased version:
                      Abstract
                      A metal detector, where the operator is able to select filtering methods (for Rx). The operator can alter the alter the waveform of the repeating rectangular-wave voltage sequence (for Tx).
                      This specific patent doesn't cover PI or transmitted sine waves, or designs based on pulling an oscillator. It also admits fixed square waves, including the use of harmonics of said squares waves, as prior art. Likewise PWM is cited as prior art. Even the "multi-period" feature is cited as prior art. several variations of the filtering operations are also listed as prior art. Further, there are several ways to build a detector in a similar manner that would not violate this patent.

                      Really, I can only assume it is the specific combination of the filters and the multi-period function that make this into a patent that doesn't claim itself as 100% prior art.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by permute View Post
                        I still don't see exactly what everyone thinks is particularly bad about the patent.
                        It's been my observation that people who vigorously object to (particularly) Minelab patents (a) have an intense dislike for Minelab in the first place and (b) don't understand how to read a patent.

                        There is no question that ML has a tendency to try to patent "broadly," and that they often intentionally obfuscate. Nor is there any question that they have sometimes patented obvious methods (like the use of Litz wire in coils to minimize self-eddy currents, when that's the very reason Litz wire was created in the first place). But, quite often, the "loud protests" that arise over whatever latest ML patent pops out are way off the mark.

                        I haven't read this patent (since the early application), but I'll bet that there are legitimate objections to it. And I'll bet the "loud protesters" miss 'em completely, and end up complaining about things that the patent doesn't even claim.

                        - Carl

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Excellent point - it is prior art allover, and not a shred of actual concept that they use which is any different than any other device out there. You must be genuinely thick to 100% copy and sell their designs, because it is the only way to violate their patent.

                          Besides, DIY-ers are never in danger because DIY is well within fair use territory. In case you are making a reverse engineered design in affiliation with some competition company, well, whatever you do is considered something else so be very careful. Even such people can build a device to confirm patent claims, and even that is within fair use.

                          People! Don't get paralysed by some off patent. If you use the same concept for education purposes it is within fair use.

                          Personally - I'm sick of technically-challenged patents. They are supposed to represent a genuine idea, and if I can't decipher what is so genuine in 100% prior art and completely missing the AHA! moment, that's just a perversion of a whole idea of a patent.

                          On the upside, it is incredibly easy to bust such rubbish patents if you need to. Just screw in a golden plated 6mm left-turn screw, list the offending rubbish as a prior art and claim that because of that particular screw yours works better. Easy. (every similarity with "technical" description in this patent is highly coincidental ... the part where "ours is better because we say so")

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Is patenting a prior art (& science law effects) a theft? This is the question.

                            It's all about making (stealing) money.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I want to toss the term "demodulation function".
                              I hope you all know, that a lot of means could be a demodulation function.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X