Prior RG art?

[johngreene]

Hey RG, looks like someone patented your design 2 years after you put it on your website!



http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat6081100.pdf

--john

[mcasey1]

Sue.

[The Tone God]

From what I remember that patent was done by someone who did it as a assignment or experiment to see if they could get the idea patented. The person stated there was no serious intention behind it and was not going to let it go all the way through and enforce it.

There should be something about it in the archives.

Andrew

[R.G.]

Yeah. Amazing isn't it?

I can't quite remember if this is the only one, there may actually be another. I didn't bother to memorize the stuff very well.

What floors me is that the patent was issued. In the claims, he even talks about an earlier patent which had the same results, but says that his approach is different and thus patentable because the earlier patent thought that the impedance was a bad thing. Not only that, but the Thevenin form of model for **every** voltage source is a perfect voltage in series with an impedance. It's what we used to have to do for homework problems back in our first circuits course. The idea that voltage source imperfections, desirable or not, can be modelled with an added impedance, was old back when there were no transistors.

I've been tempted to call up the patent office and see if I couldn't get this invalidated, but I figure that someday he'll sue someone and I'll have to testify about it anyway.

The other thing that I think is odd is that he uses literally my circuit - not that it's that great, it's right out of the National app notes - but it's clear that the patent examiner didn't know where to look.

You know, maybe I ought to put a link to the patent on my web site and point out the dates. Should be good for a laugh.

[johngreene]

Yeah. Amazing isn't it?

I can't quite remember if this is the only one, there may actually be another. I didn't bother to memorize the stuff very well.

What floors me is that the patent was issued. In the claims, he even talks about an earlier patent which had the same results, but says that his approach is different and thus patentable because the earlier patent thought that the impedance was a bad thing. Not only that, but the Thevenin form of model for **every** voltage source is a perfect voltage in series with an impedance. It's what we used to have to do for homework problems back in our first circuits course. The idea that voltage source imperfections, desirable or not, can be modelled with an added impedance, was old back when there were no transistors.

I've been tempted to call up the patent office and see if I couldn't get this invalidated, but I figure that someday he'll sue someone and I'll have to testify about it anyway.

The other thing that I think is odd is that he uses literally my circuit - not that it's that great, it's right out of the National app notes - but it's clear that the patent examiner didn't know where to look.

You know, maybe I ought to put a link to the patent on my web site and point out the dates. Should be good for a laugh.

http://www.pedalgear.net/page2/page7/page7.html

Is advertising their 'patented' design and this is the patent they claim is theirs.

--john

[R.G.]

Just for giggles, I looked up Dennis Guthrie in Duluth Ga on Switchboard, and found a phone number.

I just called him up.

Answered by a machine, playing a fax squeal over "This is Dennis Guthie... leave a message after you hear the tone." or the equivalent.

Ah, well. 

[The Tone God]

This was the patent issue I was thinking of:

http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=16174.0

It was for digital switching. My mistake.

Andrew

[Barcode80]

you know, if we wanted to be really petty, we could all take a collection and buy a juicebox, then someone could copy the circuit and we could all clone and repackage them and claim the design to be patented. but that would be petty.

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

There was a time when the Patent office - here in Australia and in the US & I expect elsewhere - did a reasonable job of checking prior art.
Noew they do nothing at all, which is why Don Lancaster says that a patent is nothing but a ticket entiitling you to fight someone in court.
And as we all know, it is as important to have expensive lawyers on your side as it is to be 'right'.
One Australian has patented the wheel.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2178
Worth readign that to the end.

[amz-fx]

Hey RG, looks like someone patented your design 2 years after you put it on your website!

John,

A similar design to that patent was previously published in Boscorelli's Stompbox Cookbook.  Check it out:

http://www.muzique.com/lab/patent2.htm

regards, Jack

[R.G.]

That approach to a power supply was old long before I drew up the schemo at GEO. It is the classic way to explain Thevenin-Norton source transformations in EE circuits courses.

It's funny - someone gets a patent on that, but the use of a reverse biased diode as a low value constant current source as in the Millenium Bypass is truly novel as best I can find out - and I've looked - but that didn't get picked up by the after-patenters. In any case, by publishing that, no one can make a patent on it stick - although as we can see, that won't necessarily keep them from getting one granted.

[johngreene]

Hey RG, looks like someone patented your design 2 years after you put it on your website!

John,

A similar design to that patent was previously published in Boscorelli's Stompbox Cookbook.  Check it out:

http://www.muzique.com/lab/patent2.htm

regards, Jack

Now that I see your article I recall reading it before! When I came across Pedalgear.net and saw they were advertising a 'patented' old battery simulator it didn't ring familiar to me. I asked them for the patent number and was told 6081100. I wonder how much they paid for the Patent?

--john

[slacker]

I wonder how much they paid for the Patent?

not much I hope, it doesn't appear to be worth the virtual paper it's written on.

[aron]

just incredible. Very sad.

[amz-fx]

When I came across Pedalgear.net and saw they were advertising a 'patented' old battery simulator it didn't ring familiar to me. I asked them for the patent number and was told 6081100. I wonder how much they paid for the Patent?

I wonder if they've read my article?  Maybe I should send the link to them...   

[R.G.]

I wonder if they've read my article?  Maybe I should send the link to them...

Send 'em a link to my circuit as well.

But I'm pretty sure it would not help. The validity of the patent has little to do with the ability to use it as a club to intimidate the uninformed. In the low end of the legal feeding zone, just the threat of a lawsuit is usually enough to make people back down. And that's realistic, since most people don't have a spare $10K to toss into the pot to defend themselves against anything.

I did try calling up the inventor at home. No answer as I mentioned.