Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Great breakthrough from TI...

J

Jan Panteltje

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.
 
M

MassiveProng

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.


Despite any brains you exhibit regarding electronics, this utter and
total tripe set you back 50 IQ points, dipshit.
 
J

Jon

Jan 1, 1970
0
tube to get a deflection based on the output of this new innovative TI
device :).

And then a ramping sweep circuit.
Sorry I don't have time to reply; I'm too busy inventing the Frisbee.
 
T

Tim Shoppa

Jan 1, 1970
0
tube to get a deflection based on the output of this new innovative TI
device :).
And then a ramping sweep circuit.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry I don't have time to reply; I'm too busy inventing the Frisbee.

Hey, someone had enough spare time to patent "method of swinging on a
swing", US number 6368227.

Tim.
 
J

jure

Jan 1, 1970
0
will compensated scope probes be covered by this patent ?

<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>

will my old compensated scope probes be covered by this
patent ?

Jure
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
Fred said:

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.
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Followup - I was going to write a congratulatory letter to TI about
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.
 
F

Fred Bartoli

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Thompson a écrit :
Sad, but scary.

I understand that Bill Gates is busily patenting all prior art.

And you WILL like Vista ;-)

Sure. I already like Vista: I know one of my competitor has already
dow... err upgraded to it.
 
L

LVMarc

Jan 1, 1970
0
Fred 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
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
will compensated scope probes be covered by this patent ?



will my old compensated scope probes be covered by this
patent ?

Jure
Maybe Tek can sue them?
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Has anyone patented 2 resistors in parallel yet ;-)?
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

That is too obvious, and I actually used that (var FET resistance),
long before that, in a variable filter.
It is so obvious you cannot possibly call it 'new'.
The problem is one for audio AGC with JFETS roll off at higher frequencies
an issue with mixers in the 1970 ties.

Once we have patents in obvious applications of components, we are all dead
in electronics design, because you cannot check for every 2 transistors
if 'somebody already did it that way and patented it'.
Same as all those trivial patents in software.
All such a load of crap, it will kill the industry, and only enrich lawyers,
make products more expensive, and kill the small companies.
Prior to this patetn CMOS designer did not use this technique,

Not so sure about that at all!
Maybe not in a chip, but discrete why not.


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.

That civilized free world leader killed 650000 people in Iraq.
So much for 'civilized'.

Why not create some, file a
patent, and create value by selling prodcuts or licensing technology?

Marc Popek

Why not post to alt suck lawyers
 
C

Chris Jones

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

Regarding your point 3) Claim 1 is an independent claim, and does not refer
to active devices. If active devices were an essential element of this
patent then that claim would not have been allowed. The patent explicitly
does cover the circuit without active devices, in claim 1.

Regarding your point 2) this just shows that the examiner didn't bother to
read the reference, or more likely could not understand it.

Chris
 
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...
 
R

Richard Henry

Jan 1, 1970
0
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...

Notice the word "Followup" above, apparently in the middle of the line?

That is the residue of posting through the new Google Groups - the
attribution marks are often fouled up. I have given up on googl;e groups
and I have gone back to posting through outlook express on another account
now.

Aside: I tried to send an complaint email, but Google apparently has no
such address. My email to [email protected] got a rejection response, so I
emailed [email protected] a warning that one of their employees was
sabotaging the new release. I wonder what response I will get from that.
 
Top