|
|
|
다음의 항목 rec.radio.amateur.homebrew |
새 항목 시작 - 이 그룹에 가입 - 그룹 정보 | 59개의 메시지 중 1 - 25개 최근 » |
|
Tayloe Mixer | ||
1 - 25의 메시지 토픽에서 59개의 메시지 중 - 트리로 보기 최근 » |
Dan Tayloe's (N7VE) commutating quadrature mixer has been issued US Patent
#6,230,000 (http://www.uspto.gov). This is an intriguing & simple circuit that offers direct-to-audio conversion, very high dynamic range, inherent high Q bandpass response, and quadriphase audio outputs...all with only a few parts! The circuit is just crying out for someone to build it up, evaluate it, and report on the results. Has anyone taken a look at this yet and tried it out? If so, I'd like to hear about your experience. Joe |
Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. I see
that the patent has been assigned to Motorola, Inc. Has Motorola given permission for anyone to make and use the circuit? If so, where has this permission been published? Roy Lewallen, W7EL W3JDR wrote: > Dan Tayloe's (N7VE) commutating quadrature mixer has been issued US Patent > Joe |
Roy Lewallen wrote: Amateurs have been experimenting with the Tayloe mixer for well over a >Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. I see >that the patent has been assigned to Motorola, Inc. Has Motorola given >permission for anyone to make and use the circuit? If so, where has this >permission been published? >Roy Lewallen, W7EL >W3JDR wrote: >> Dan Tayloe's (N7VE) commutating quadrature mixer has been issued US Patent >> Joe year now (for example, there have been many reports in 'Technical Topics', RadCom). It gives very good results in a direct-conversion SSB receiver with a Seems like that particular genie is already well out of the bottle... 73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book' |
In a recent article Joe W3JDR wrote:
> Dan Tayloe's (N7VE) commutating quadrature mixer has been issued US Patent I could be accused of blowing my own trumpet on this one (the link below > #6,230,000 (http://www.uspto.gov). This is an intriguing & simple circuit > that offers direct-to-audio conversion, very high dynamic range, inherent > high Q bandpass response, and quadriphase audio outputs...all with only a > few parts! The circuit is just crying out for someone to build it up, > evaluate it, and report on the results. Has anyone taken a look at this yet > and tried it out? If so, I'd like to hear about your experience. ;-), but here goes: Have a look at http://ironbark.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/~rice/ssb/ssb.html It makes nice SSB at frequencies up to about 5MHz using cheap LS and CMOS parts. This was originally published in February 1998 in "Amateur Radio", the I am amazed that the US patent office would patent this. As far as I know, A serious literature search in a real library, not the web, will turn up [1] Brownies - a youth organisation common in England, Australia and New Now, I think I will get a US patent on the resistive voltage divider. 73 & have fun. |
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:10:09 -0700, Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com>
wrote:
>Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. I do not know what the exact patent rules are in the US, but in other parts of the world you can build one for evaluating purposes, but not sell it. For this reason, patents are often written in a way that it is hard to duplicate, but the patent should still be able to limit the use of derived ideas as widely as possible. Paul OH3LWR |
Not so in the U.S. See for example
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:10:09 -0700, Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> > >Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. > I do not know what the exact patent rules are in the US, but in other > Paul OH3LWR |
I have to once again state clearly that I'm not a patent attorney. But
I'm certain that in the U.S., there is no protection until a patent has issued. That is, anyone has been free to publish or experiment with the circuit (unless it qualifies as a trade secret, which seems unlikely given the publicity it's apparently gotten) up until the time it's patented. But then it's no longer o.k. to make, use, or sell it in the U.S. without the patent holder's permission. The fact that people published, built, or even sold an item before a patent issues doesn't, as far as I know, cause any dilution of the patent holder's rights. A patent itself lets an invention "out of the bottle", since it's public and is required to provide detailed information about the patented item. Once a patent issues, anyone with the required skill has enough information to build it. But they're not allowed to. That's essentially the exchange between the government and the patent holder -- the patent holder has to provide complete and public information about the device in exchange for the excluse rights to it for a limited period. Of course, a U.S. patent has no force that I know of in the U.K., and in Roy Lewallen, W7EL "Ian White, G3SEK" wrote: > Roy Lewallen wrote: > >Roy Lewallen, W7EL > >W3JDR wrote: > >> Dan Tayloe's (N7VE) commutating quadrature mixer has been issued US Patent > >> Joe > Amateurs have been experimenting with the Tayloe mixer for well over a > It gives very good results in a direct-conversion SSB receiver with a > Seems like that particular genie is already well out of the bottle... > 73 from Ian G3SEK Editor, 'The VHF/UHF DX Book' |
"Roy Lewallen" wrote... Patents are protected from the date of APPLICATION, not from the date of > I have to once again state clearly that I'm not a > patent attorney. But I'm certain that in the U.S., > there is no protection until a patent has issued. PUBLICATION. "Patent Pending" is not put on millions of items every year for nothing! OTOH, copyright material is covered from the date of PUBLICATION.
> That is, anyone has been free to publish or experiment You can experiment all you want, but I wouldn't publish such material > with the circuit without advice of a real IP lawyer.
> ... up until the time it's patented. But then it's no longer o.k. The prohibition is on SELLING (or actually "exploiting") the IP. The law > to make, use, or sell it in the U.S. without the patent holder's > permission. says nothing about hobbyists building things for themselves. Why do you think they are published for everyone to read? If you look up any pattent (including mine) you will see that dozens to
> Of course, a U.S. patent has no force that I know Most IP of any value, particularly if owned by or assigned to multi-national > of in the U.K. corporations has protection in place (or pending) in most countries. And copyrighted IP is covered in most of the world by the Berne Convention. RC |
Roy Lewallen wrote: If the "you can't even build it" rule actually applies to me building > Not so in the U.S. See for example one (assuming I can come up with a working device from the material in the patent), and then using it (for no financial gain), then it is essentially an unenforceable and absurd law in any case. |
Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com>
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: ->Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. Roy, I respect your technical expertise and I really appreciate your willingness Now, as the original poster asked...has anybody played with this thing Jim |
I don't think anybody reading this newsgroup has such little intellectual
curiosity that a patent disclosure would stop him/her from experimenting. If anything, patents inspire experimentation. But thet assignee of the patent does have the I looked at the patent and noticed 2 things, 1. You still need the 90 degree phase shift at i.f. (audio) which is The convention these days is to digitize the input by sampling see http://www.graychip.com for some help if interested. It would be a good idea to build the circuit but not sell it. In article <3B282B11.B926F...@eznec.com>, Roy Lewallen says...
>Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. I see >Roy Lewallen, W7EL >W3JDR wrote: >> Dan Tayloe's (N7VE) commutating quadrature mixer has been issued US Patent >> Joe Mason, NH http://www.qsl.net/aa1ll |
I agree that it would be hard or impossible to enforce. But it's the
law. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Grant wrote: > Roy Lewallen wrote: > > Not so in the U.S. See for example > If the "you can't even build it" rule actually applies to me building |
I'm sure no one cares what I think is reasonable for people to do, so I
haven't made any statements on that topic. I've only commented on what the law says, for those who care. But I think Jim Weir is right that most people on this group don't really care to know more about patent law. So I won't comment further except to say that there are some really incorrect statements in this posting. Anyone who is interested can get correct information from http://uspto.gov, or when it really matters, from a patent attorney. Have fun! Roy Lewallen, W7EL Richard Crowley wrote: > "Roy Lewallen" wrote... > Patents are protected from the date of APPLICATION, not from the date of > OTOH, copyright material is covered from the date of PUBLICATION. > > That is, anyone has been free to publish or experiment > You can experiment all you want, but I wouldn't publish such material > > ... up until the time it's patented. But then it's no longer o.k. > The prohibition is on SELLING (or actually "exploiting") the IP. The law > If you look up any pattent (including mine) you will see that dozens to > > Of course, a U.S. patent has no force that I know > Most IP of any value, particularly if owned by or assigned to multi-national > RC |
My postings had nothing to do with my opinions on homebrewing, or for
that matter my opinions on whether patent laws are reasonable. They consisted only of statements of what the law is, in the apparently mistaken assumption that someone would be interested. I see that you're not interested in knowing what the law says, and So have fun, folks. Ignorance is bliss. I won't bother you further with Roy Lewallen, W7EL Jim Weir wrote: > Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> > ->Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. > Roy, I respect your technical expertise and I really appreciate your willingness > Now, as the original poster asked...has anybody played with this thing > Jim |
As usual, I find Roy's comments informative and useful. Roy documented However, on this subject, I believe that Roy's interpretation is too From the reference Roy mentioned -- My personal interpretation of this is that the patent holder has the Aloha, |
Phil Rice wrote: I'm not. The US patent office, as best as anyone can tell, is manned by > I am amazed that the US patent office would patent this. a gang of howling idiots. If there's a limit to what they will accept as a valid patent claim, nobody I know has been able to find it yet. Remember, these are the rocket scientists who brought us the Amazon It's rapidly becoming impossible to do any software development work in -- jm ------------------------------------------------------ |
I agree with Jim, I really respect your opinion on all things radio but I just got off
the phone with my brother who is a corporate lawyer. Although not a patent lawyer he has worked with companies on patent issues and according to him the part in the patent law that reads "make or use" only applies if you have commercial "intent". However the law is fairly (read, how a lawyer or judge wants to interpret it) clear on "experimental" use. As long as my intent is for experimental purposes I can build it and use it. It's kind of like having and using a satellite descrambler. I can use one as long as it is for experimental use only. There is a kind of fuzzy area here though. If my experimental unit has a commercially available equivalent then I am required to buy the commercial version. But in this case where the unit in question is a circuit that is part of larger whole how do you determine the commercial equivalent? The answer is. . . . . you can't without a lot of lawyers and courts. So unless the company that has the patent is Disney and as long as your intent is experimental the question of weather or not the law is being broken is going to remain in that fuzzy area. As I said my bother is not a patent lawyer and may not have the right angle on this so Rick KC0GIX Roy Lewallen wrote: > My postings had nothing to do with my opinions on homebrewing, or for > that matter my opinions on whether patent laws are reasonable. They > consisted only of statements of what the law is, in the apparently > mistaken assumption that someone would be interested. > I see that you're not interested in knowing what the law says, and > So have fun, folks. Ignorance is bliss. I won't bother you further with > Roy Lewallen, W7EL > Jim Weir wrote: > > Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> > > ->Anyone making, selling, or using a patented item is infringing. > > Roy, I respect your technical expertise and I really appreciate your willingness > > Now, as the original poster asked...has anybody played with this thing > > Jim |
Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> wrote: A question for Roy, W7EL: Does this mean that in the USA > The fact that people published, built, or even > sold an item before a patent issues doesn't, > as far as I know, bause any dilution of the > patent holder's rights. it does not matter who invented something, but who was the first to claim for the patent, even if he had stolen the idea? Bozidar, 9A2HL |
No, not at all.
In the U.S. only the inventor can apply for a patent. But he has to In the U.S., patent applications aren't public. So no one except the Evidence that the patented item (that is, the thing described in the This process and these rules are very different in many, maybe even Roy Lewallen, W7EL DISCLAIMER: I'm not an attorney, and this isn't legal advice. If you Bozidar Pasaric wrote: > Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> wrote: > > The fact that people published, built, or even > A question for Roy, W7EL: Does this mean that in the USA |
Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> wrote: Dear Roy,thanks for the info. The American system sounds quite fair. I > No, not at all. > In the U.S. only the inventor can apply for a patent. But he has to understood that Phil Rice, VK3BHR, had something to do with the Tayloe Mixer. I built his "Fourth Method SSB Exciter" in 1998 after his article in 'Amateur Radio' of Feb. 1998, and it works fine, exactly as he described it. The VFO must be four times the transmitting frequency, and I use a DDS 0-60 MHz with a 100 Hz step, which is 25 Hz in the transmitter. In his article Phil describes how to use the mixer also for an RX, but I have not tried it, yet. Instead, there was an article with the same mixer in the Hungarian ham magazine 'Radiotechnika' 1998/5, which I tried to make, but was not satisfied because here in Europe we have very strong broadcasting stations (Free Europe etc.) which penetrate through simple receivers, so we have a background concert when listening to the amateur bands. Superheterodynes are still a must here. Someone told me that electrical diagrams cannot be patented, only their |
Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> wrote: Speaking of publishing, I noticed the schematic diagram for the tayloe > No, not at all. > In the U.S. only the inventor can apply for a patent. But he has to mixer and a nice technical discussion about how it works in QEX Mar/Apr 2001 edition Page 61. This letter did not mention any patent, or any suggestion to not use the Jim Pennell |
Let me help clear some of this discussion up with som direct knowledge. I
have been in communication with Dan Tayloe, N7VE, since November of 2000. I have been developing a Software Defined Radio using Visual Basic and the PC sound card. I first ran across Dan's design through a Google search. I dropped him an email and he has been as helpful and open as anyone can be. He even sent me the schematic last year and I sent him several articles from QEX that were relevant to commutating mixers and commutating digial filters but none were identical to his design. An article in QEX even went into great detail about why 6 dB is the minimum noise figure for mixers that physics predicts. He subsequently sent a letter to the editor relating to some of those articles and published his schematic. This you will find on page 61 of the Mar/April 2001 issue of QEX. With regard to patent issues, Dan has given me permission to use his design I built the circuit earlier this year first on a breadboard and then in Let me clear up another misconception, this is NOT a mixer although it has In the real design implementation there are NO resistors (ignoring the 2.5 Phil Rice, VK3BHR, refers to a design of his in an earlier post. He states "This switching modulator should be capable of acting as a demodulator. This The problems Phil mentions are not an issue in Dan's invention. Also with If you are interested in experimenting with the Tayloe Detector (NOT mixer) I hope that this helps to clear the air on some of the questions in this Happy experimenting and 73, news:9gd5ce$o62$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net... > Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com> wrote: > > No, not at all. > > In the U.S. only the inventor can apply for a patent. But he has to > Speaking of publishing, I noticed the schematic diagram for the tayloe > This letter did not mention any patent, or any suggestion to not use > Jim Pennell |
Bozidar Pasaric wrote: It would be if it was implemented and run correctly. > Dear Roy,thanks for the info. The American system sounds quite fair. Now please excuse me. I have to finish my application. I'm patenting pants. -- |
Ok. I have now read all the threads. Quite colorful. :^)
Good defense in this note, Gerald! I don't think enough people I saw Phil Rice's article for the first time about a year ago. It is Now on the subject of permission: I do not own this patent. I surrendered my rights to Motorola, and I am However, I will offer my humble opinion. It seems like it all comes On the contrary, if experimenters use this circuit, find it useful, and People experiment, Motorola wins. I therefore see no business reason why Motorola would discourage the I have no idea what Motorola's interest threshold is here, but selling a - Dan Tayloe, N7VE Gerald Youngblood wrote: > Let me help clear some of this discussion up with som direct knowledge. I > With regard to patent issues, Dan has given me permission to use his design > I built the circuit earlier this year first on a breadboard and then in > Let me clear up another misconception, this is NOT a mixer although it has > In the real design implementation there are NO resistors (ignoring the 2.5 > Phil Rice, VK3BHR, refers to a design of his in an earlier post. He states > "This switching modulator should be capable of acting as a demodulator. This > The problems Phil mentions are not an issue in Dan's invention. Also with > If you are interested in experimenting with the Tayloe Detector (NOT mixer) > I hope that this helps to clear the air on some of the questions in this > Happy experimenting and 73, > "Jim Pennell" <me-nob...@killspam.com> wrote in message > > > No, not at all. > > > In the U.S. only the inventor can apply for a patent. But he has to > > Speaking of publishing, I noticed the schematic diagram for the tayloe > > This letter did not mention any patent, or any suggestion to not use > > Jim Pennell |
Roy Lewallen <w...@eznec.com>
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: ->I see that you're not interested in knowing what the law says, and No, Roy, that's not what I said. RTFM (and variants thereof). I said I Jim |
59 최근 » 개 중 1 - 25개의 메시지 |
« 신규 주제 - Cheap and easy interface to a Spectrum Analyzer | Down-verters 10M->20M - 이전 주제 » |
다음의 항목 rec.radio.amateur.homebrew |
|
Google 홈 - 서비스 약관 - 개인정보 보호정책 |
©2006 Google