F
Fred Bartoli
- Jan 1, 1970
- 0
A sad day, that day that was issued.
I think I have seen all of that as prior art way back in the sixties or
seventies.
The fact that there is a rush by these companies to patent _anything_
shows it is time do do away with the patent system as it is now.
Fig 3 is prior art as I learned it in school R1.C1 = R2.C2 for flat frequency
slope.
Boycotting TI will likely not help and not be possible.
Maybe WW3 will also clear patent offices.
War _do_ have a purpose.
Sorry I don't have time to reply; I'm too busy inventing the Frisbee.tube to get a deflection based on the output of this new innovative TI
device .
And then a ramping sweep circuit.
tube to get a deflection based on the output of this new innovative TI
device .
[/QUOTE]And then a ramping sweep circuit.
Sorry I don't have time to reply; I'm too busy inventing the Frisbee.
<snip>
sad day, that day that was issued.
I think I have seen all of that as prior art way back in the sixties or
seventies.
The fact that there is a rush by these companies to patent _anything_
shows it is time do do away with the patent system as it is now.
Fig 3 is prior art as I learned it in school R1.C1 = R2.C2 for flat frequency
slope.
<snip>
Fred said:
circuit, but with FETs installed, and novel but useless ideas like
grounding the output.
I wonder if this was a techno-guerrilla action by TI showing that
patents in general are useless, since even this common circuit element
can be patented.
That reminds me - I have a novel device around here I call a "switch"
that might be worth patenting.
Sad, but scary.
I understand that Bill Gates is busily patenting all prior art.
And you WILL like Vista ;-)
Fred said:
Maybe Tek can sue them?will compensated scope probes be covered by this patent ?
will my old compensated scope probes be covered by this
patent ?
Jure
It appears from their list of claims that they also claim the same
circuit, but with FETs installed, and novel but useless ideas like
grounding the output.
I wonder if this was a techno-guerrilla action by TI showing that
patents in general are useless, since even this common circuit element
can be patented.
That reminds me - I have a novel device around here I call a "switch"
that might be worth patenting.
1) The patent is not new it was written in 1996!
2) the prior art invovling probe compensation was noted.
3) the variation is to use the active devcies AND the scope probe method
to provide frequency compensation.
Prior to this patetn CMOS designer did not use this technique,
so as
obvious as this patent appears, now it was not in 1996 in the RFIC cmos
world.
THe USPO is the envy of the Free World and protects intellectual
property, in the civilized free world.
Why not create some, file a
patent, and create value by selling prodcuts or licensing technology?
Marc Popek
LVMarc said:1) The patent is not new it was written in 1996!
2) the prior art invovling probe compensation was noted.
3) the variation is to use the active devcies AND the scope probe method
to provide frequency compensation.
Prior to this patetn CMOS designer did not use this technique, so as
obvious as this patent appears, now it was not in 1996 in the RFIC cmos
world.
THe USPO is the envy of the Free World and protects intellectual
property, in the civilized free world. Why not create some, file a
patent, and create value by selling prodcuts or licensing technology?
Marc Popek
this technical breakthrough, but after looking at the mini-biographies
for the current members of the TI board of directors, I'm not sure
anyone there would get the joke. It appears that the most common
traits to become a member of the TI board are not engineering or
scientific excellence, but rather past history as a university
president or state governor.
If you want to get a rise out of them email the BOD asking them for
permission to use their patent and who do I make the royalty check out
to...