[dropkickduffy]

Sad times at Head-fi. And to think, I was about to pull the trigger on a Headphonia amp. I think I might as well stick with my Pa2v2. Gary is definitely a stand-up guy.

 

[kevin gilmore]

A patent is nothing other than an expensive fishing license.
You can have the absolute best and most solid patent in the world
but if you can't hire a lawyer to pay to defend it what good is it.

Quick example: Nelson Pass super symetry thing. Texas instruments
actually ended up licensing nelson's patent, which is a very reasonable
thing to do, but if they had decided otherwise they could have easily
outspent nelson 10000:1 on lawyer fees. I very much doubt that nelson
would have taken things to the limit if TI decided to just borrow the thing.

 

[mrarroyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I recognize the difficulty an amp manufacturer might have (on a number of fronts) to seek such protection on all of his designs. And, as one of the administrators/moderators of this site, I do not allow the marketing of "clones" on Head-Fi (and, most of the time, without explicit permission of the designer(s), even the specific design discussion of them). In other words, in addition to the buying decisions of a rather close-knit community, there may be other means to afford some degree of protection for those who wish to introduce their products to the community without the disincentive to do so that might come from the experience of seeing one's product(s) "cloned." While this might be a mere pittance of protection in the big scheme of things, it matters here at least.

Jude, this is your site and at the end of the day we all live by your rules. However outside of this site a patent is what at the end of the day protects a person's idea. If I had a product of which I thought highly enough I would pursue obtaining a patent.

If I do not do so I open my self to another person being the first to "discover" whatever I had done earlier and obtain a patent before I do. That person would obtain the financial rewards that I for whatever reason(s) failed to secure by not obtaining a patent.

Worse still, if I go into production and somebody "copies" my design what leg do I have to stand on? Just my thoughts and I do not ask anyone to agree or disagree with them. I realize many are voting for the "home boy" (Dr. Meier) and it is commendable he receives said support. But IMO there is a big difference between "supporting the home boy" versus the cold hard business practices.

 

[guzziguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrarroyo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Jude, this is your site and at the end of the day we all live by your rules. However outside of this site a patent is what at the end of the day protects a person's idea. If I had a product of which I thought highly enough I would pursue obtaining a patent. If I do not do so I open my self to another person being the first to "discover" whatever I had done earlier and obtain a patent before I do. That person would obtain the financial rewards that I for whatever reason(s) failed to secure by not obtaining a patent. Worse still, if I go into production and somebody "copies" my design what leg do I have to stand on? Just my thoughts and I do not ask anyone to agree or disagree with them. I realize many are voting for the "home boy" (Dr. Meier) and it is commendable he receives said support. But IMO there is a big difference between "supporting the home boy" versus the cold hard business practices.

Hi Miguel,

Getting a patent is a long and very expensive process. I've received patents through work done for my company. The average time from application to issue has been over 4 years. The company pays for it but I'll bet the average cost is > $100K. Maybe there's a patent lawyer here who could comment better on the cost.

However, getting an issued patent is just the first step. Nobody checks to see if anybody is violating your patent and no government agency enforces patents. It's up to you to find violations and enforce them in civil court. This is usually a very time intensive and expensive process. Small businesses just can't afford to do it. And if you don't enforce your patent, you effectively lose it. In other words, you can't selectively enforce it.

As to your second argument, a patent is invalid if someone can show prior art. So if you've invented something and sold it, and then someone else comes along and patents it, it's easy to challenge it in court because you can clearly show prior art.

So a having a patent is really not the answer in this case IMO.

Regards,

-ken

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaska /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, why would anyone who's read this thread try to sell a Headphonia amp (for a loss) here on Head-Fi when Robert's already publicly offered to issue full refunds for them?

Well, I for one am glad that I'm not in that boat (trying to get a refund), judging by the previous 'ethical track record'..... in other words, good luck with receiving that refund, in a timely manner!

And it would really suck if I was the 2nd or even 3rd person to buy a 'used' headphonia, that's pretty much money down the drain.

 

[mrarroyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by guzziguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Miguel, Getting a patent is a long and very expensive process. I've received patents through work done for my company. The average time from application to issue has been over 4 years. The company pays for it but I'll bet the average cost is > $100K. Maybe there's a patent lawyer here who could comment better on the cost. However, getting an issued patent is just the first step. Nobody checks to see if anybody is violating your patent and no government agency enforces patents. It's up to you to find violations and enforce them in civil court. This is usually a very time intensive and expensive process. Small businesses just can't afford to do it. And if you don't enforce your patent, you effectively lose it. In other words, you can't selectively enforce it. As to your second argument, a patent is invalid if someone can show prior art. So if you've invented something and sold it, and then someone else comes along and patents it, it's easy to challenge it in court because you can clearly show prior art. So a having a patent is really not the answer in this case IMO. Regards, -ken

Ken, yes getting a patent is a very expensive process. Although much less than deffending it.

What you stated is also true, if I have a patent and a 3rd party demonstrates they had applied and received a patent earlier I would loose the patent I had received.

However the fact reminds that if I invent something and I do not have a patent and let a long time go by I risk seeing someone comming up with the same idea (or stealing, whichever) and selling a product with my idea in it for which I would not receive any compensation. Going to court w/o a patent is much more of an uphill battle.

So I still say a patents and copyrights do serve a purpose.

 

[mrarroyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morph201 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I for one am glad that I'm not in that boat (trying to get a refund), judging by the previous 'ethical track record'..... in other words, good luck with receiving that refund, in a timely manner! And it would really suck if I was the 2nd or even 3rd person to buy a 'used' headphonia, that's pretty much money down the drain.

Unless you like the sound, in which case just keep it and use it. The people who bought this amp are not guilty of anything. At the time they bought their amps none of this was out in the open.

 

[guzziguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrarroyo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ken, yes getting a patent is a very expensive process. Although much less than deffending it. What you stated is also true, if I have a patent and a 3rd party demonstrates they had applied and received a patent earlier I would loose the patent I had received. However the fact reminds that if I invent something and I do not have a patent and let a long time go by I risk seeing someone comming up with the same idea (or stealing, whichever) and selling a product with my idea in it for which I would not receive any compensation. Going to court w/o a patent is much more of an uphill battle. So I still say a patents and copyrights do serve a purpose.

Hi Miguel,

Copyrights are a different animal altogether so let's leave them out of the discussion.

The third party wouldn't have had to apply for a patent, just show their prior art and your patent is no longer valid. Not being a patent lawyer (or any other kind) I won't comment on how hard it is to win an intellectual property theft case without having a patent. I suspect that once the plaintiff can clearly show the prior art, it's not that difficult.

I agree that patents clearly serve a purpose, but the reality is that they are too expensive both timewise and cashwise to be of much use to a small businessman.

Regards,

-ken

 

[Hi-Finthen]

This issue has its Pros and Cons......

<fade to future> Rave reviews on Head-Fi of a Conopera and swear it sounds just as good as that other Opera , by that guy who went out of business foolishly defending himself and his creations in courts of law. <fade to black>

Have you no shame sir ~

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by guzziguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I agree that patents clearly serve a purpose, but the reality is that they are too expensive both timewise and cashwise to be of much use to a small businessman.

In case anyone is wondering what the actual costs involved in obtaining a patent are, this site gives an overview:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com...htm#PatentCost

Note that the prices reflected in the above schedule are the "small entity" prices, which are half of the ordinary filing fees.

 

[braillediver]

"judging by the previous 'ethical track record'..... in other words, good luck with receiving that refund, in a timely manner!"

Is this really called for? Why speculate on 1) something that doesn't concern you 2) you'll have to give the guy the chance to live up to his word.

The issue before us is very specific and defined. To speculate and extrapolate any further is not necessary.


Mitch

 

[guzziguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif In case anyone is wondering what the actual costs involved in obtaining a patent are, this site gives an overview: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com...htm#PatentCost Note that the prices reflected in the above schedule are the "small entity" prices, which are half of the ordinary filing fees.

That's what Uncle Sam gets. It doesn't talk about the money the patent lawyer that writes a defensible application and shepherds it through the process gets. I believe that it's a lot more.

 

[MaloS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif In case anyone is wondering what the actual costs involved in obtaining a patent are, this site gives an overview: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com...htm#PatentCost Note that the prices reflected in the above schedule are the "small entity" prices, which are half of the ordinary filing fees.

Given that this would be for an object with total cost of $200 and on a rather small market, this sounds painfully not worth it.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

"judging by the previous 'ethical track record'..... in other words, good luck with receiving that refund, in a timely manner!"

Why speculate on 1) something that doesn't concern you 2) you'll have to give the guy the chance to live up to his word.

The issue before us is very specific and defined.

-I DO believe this issue concerns us all . I do not believe the thread should be LOCKED , nor the issue to be brushed off as has been suggested eariler .

-The guy has been given the chance to live up to his word and has yet to produce the photos and schematics he said he would provide .

-I for one ,as do most here, give and take with the community doing our best to be well intentioned with the positions we take .

-When anyone comes along , benefits from the free exposure while copying established (if that is true as charged) designs with shorted out breadboards underselling Head-Fi sponsors , giving back nothing more than when pressed , a "thank you for providing your circuits".

I am rightfully outraged at the added insult to the injury. Of course , those ARE the words some would care to live up to because it benefits them.

 

[mrarroyo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif This issue has its Pros and Cons...... <fade to future> Rave reviews on Head-Fi of a Conopera and swear it sounds just as good as that other Opera , by that guy who went out of business foolishly defending himself and his creations in courts of law. <fade to black> Have you no shame sir ~

Being a non-native speaker of the english language gets in my way at times. Like for example in the above post.

So rather than assume I will ask. Is the comment "Have you no shame sir..." directed at me?