Novice needs help with crazy project

[krw]

You are both quite lucky that we do not live in Old West Rules
society any more.

Otherwise, you'd both be perched on an NYPD broomstick handle, in
public, feeding the rats... The cannibals that they are...

OOooo, I'm getting him closer to the edge! That's two threats. Come
on Dimmie, you can hold on a little longer.

 

[Jim Thompson]

No, it is not.

Yeth it is ;-)

But you may not profit from the "personal use".

There are some special cases that have been handled by additional
law... for instance cable boxes, homemade, for "personal use", were
legal until "theft-of-service" laws were written.

Why do you think so many schematics are labeled "for educational
purposes only" ?

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

<snip>
My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

Jon

 

[MassiveProng]

OOooo, I'm getting him closer to the edge! That's two threats. Come
on Dimmie, you can hold on a little longer.

There was no threat, you retarded ****. Note the contingency that
the world be under "Old West Rules", dipshit. You are lucky we
aren't. That isn't a threat, that is a fact. Perhaps one day you will
know the difference, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[MassiveProng]

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

Jon

It can also be a personal honor and character thing in a civil
society. If you claim to be part of a civil society, and claim to be
honorable and of good character, you wouldn't do it.

Unless, of course, you are a characterless bastard. Like the
KeithTard is.

 

[Jack]

One reality that is being ignored here is that there are no "Patent Police"
and the word Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement.
Reality is that if the patent holder (and only the patent holder) feels that
you have infringed on his patent and he is willing to spend the money for
the lawyers, then he can file a law suit against you to recover damages.
Certainly in this case, the probability of this occurring is near enough to
zero to be dismissed.

 

[MassiveProng]

One reality that is being ignored here...

Is the fact that you are a top posting Usenet RETARD!

Bone up on the forums you interlope into, Chucko!

The reality should be that folks completely ignore twits like you
until you DO BONE UP.

Being a top posting, TOFU Usenet retard is just plain stupid. Learn
and obey, dork-o-flex!

If you have been on the planet long enough to be a "grandpa" you
should understand conventions.

You know, like stopping at a red light.

 

[MassiveProng]

Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement.

BULLSHIT.

Illegal as in AGAINST patent LAW. That most certainly DOES apply to
infringement of patent law. Get a clue, pops!

It does NOT require being a law that a LEO would pursue you for.
All that is required is that it be against a law.

 

[John Fields]

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

---
If by a "narrow view" you mean according to US law, then you're
right. I have no idea how infringement is defined in Europe, but my
personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in
order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I
have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more
than a common thief.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

Yes, that's what I meant.

I have no idea how infringement is defined in Europe,

In following up with your comments and references, I then found some
suggestions about what I mentioned regarding the EU. I'm no expert on
any of this, just vaguely interested.

but my
personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in
order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I
have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more
than a common thief.

And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length. The patent system wasn't created because of
some fundamental underlying idea that 'theft of ideas is wrong' and a
conclusion that inventors are under some attack by thieves demanding
social remedy, but instead because there is a value for the social
commons in encouraging inventors to disclose what novel things they
discover that might otherwise be lost as an art when they die.

If the EU constructs a patent system, which is also based upon the
commons idea, but designs it somewhat differently to serve different
exacting design purposes, I see no problem with that, at all.

Jon

 

[John Fields]

One reality that is being ignored here is that there are no "Patent Police"
and the word Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement.
Reality is that if the patent holder (and only the patent holder) feels that
you have infringed on his patent and he is willing to spend the money for
the lawyers, then he can file a law suit against you to recover damages.
Certainly in this case, the probability of this occurring is near enough to
zero to be dismissed.

---
Please bottom post.

While there are no "Patent Police", 35 U.S.C. 271:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_271.htm

clearly spells out what is permissible and what isn't with regard to
infringement. What is allowed is legal and what isn't is illegal,
and while there are no criminal penalties for breaking that law,
civil action in the form of a lawsuit may be taken against the
infringer in a Federal court, with possibly disastrous consequences
resulting to the infringer.

While the probability of the OP being sued for infringement in this
case may be vanishingly small, the point isn't whether he'll be
"caught" or not, it's that if he chooses to copy the patent without
the patent owner's permission he'll be infringing the patent, which
he shouldn't, because it's theft of intellectual property and isn't
the right thing to do.

 

[ehsjr]

Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound crazy? I did a Google search and found that someone has
patented the same idea...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week25/OG/html/1307-3/US07062796-20060620.html

The thing is, as far as I can tell it's never been built, and I need
your help to build it.

I took apart a digital camera and was able to power it up and get an
image on the LCD, but the LCD is connected to the camera by what looks
like a proprietary 24 wire ribbon cable and connector that I would
need to build an extension to. Any ideas if that is possible? It
would need to be about 15"-20" long to go from the back of my head to
the front of my goggles. The ribbon is about 1" now. Do you think
the picture quality would get much worse at 15"?

Another issue is that the camera has a lot of extra stuff on it that I
don't need. Do you think there is a way to trim it down to just the
ccd, lcd, a battery and a switch? Do you think a phone would be a
better starting point? I took apart a broken camera phone and I was
able to separate the pieces - but it has the same issue - a very thin
proprietary ribbon cable.

Any other ideas? Am I crazy?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

jerry <[email protected]>

p.s. please respond to my e-mail and the group.

Fun experiment, but it will slow you down a lot
due to the additional drag and to the time it will
cost as you try to get a good visual fix with it.

Most people would call me a strong distance swimmer,
but those who know - good swimmers - would correctly
call me a crappy swimmer. (~ 36 minutes per mile)
But even being crappy, I can look when I breath
during every fourth stroke, so you can, too, without
missing a stroke. You do have to modify the head
rotation when there's a lot of churn, so the fourth
stroke is marginally less effective than it is in the
pool. But heck - if there's enough churn, follow it.
The guys/gals making it are heading for the same buoy.

Ed

 

[Jim Thompson]

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?


...Jim Thompson

 

[John Fields]

.


And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length. The patent system wasn't created because of
some fundamental underlying idea that 'theft of ideas is wrong' and a
conclusion that inventors are under some attack by thieves demanding
social remedy, but instead because there is a value for the social
commons in encouraging inventors to disclose what novel things they
discover that might otherwise be lost as an art when they die.

---
Agreed, and the reward for the inventor is in the form of a monopoly
which generally prohibits the copying of the invention for the
lifetime of the patent.

I disagree slightly with your use of the word 'discovery' over
'invention', the implication being that the Venus de Milo was
already in the block of marble just waiting to be let out.
---

If the EU constructs a patent system, which is also based upon the
commons idea, but designs it somewhat differently to serve different
exacting design purposes, I see no problem with that, at all.

---
Depends.

If they design one where, say, copying for personal use is allowed
then it may well be that patented inventions imported from countries
with prohibitions against copying for personal use will be
infringed, with no relief available to the inventor.

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

---
Agreed, and the reward for the inventor is in the form of a monopoly
which generally prohibits the copying of the invention for the
lifetime of the patent.

I disagree slightly with your use of the word 'discovery' over
'invention', the implication being that the Venus de Milo was
already in the block of marble just waiting to be let out.
---

I don't have a precise enough mental model of my own. But I'd imagine
that patenting vs copyright might play in this example you gave, in
some fashion. I don't imagine that the 'good for social commons'
concept underlying patents needs to capture every conceivable idea
that anyone might come up with -- just something likely to capture
some of the more important inventions.

---
Depends.

If they design one where, say, copying for personal use is allowed
then it may well be that patented inventions imported from countries
with prohibitions against copying for personal use will be
infringed, with no relief available to the inventor.

Isn't that just life, though, in a world where countries claim any
sovereign power? It seems already the case that US patents will be
treated differently, elsewhere. And in particular, if I'm reading
correctly, in the case of personal use already as a matter of reality
we now live with. I think that's just the world that an inventor
anywhere must accept or reject on their own. We may lose some
inventions because some folks are riled by the treatment of patents
outside their own legal environment, or inside their own, but at least
the existing systems capture _some_ useful inventions that might be
otherwise lost. And that is all anyone can reasonably hope for.

I don't personally grant much commons value for inventions that would
otherwise be invented repeatedly and frequently and with variations of
little importance in difference, as who cares? We can just wait a
little longer. I've no problem with that and wouldn't want to
exchange much value back for getting it a few months or a year earlier
(except in VERY RARE hypothetical circumstances, which I wouldn't bend
over backwards to get.)

Jon

 

[krw]

Yeth it is ;-)

Only for educational use (where the education is the patent itself).

But you may not profit from the "personal use".

Avoiding a license is "profiting from personal use".

There are some special cases that have been handled by additional
law... for instance cable boxes, homemade, for "personal use", were
legal until "theft-of-service" laws were written.

They could nail them for patent infraction too. It's much easier to
prosecute a criminal violation than a tort. The only thing to win in
a tort would be a license fee, or perhaps the "value" of a box.
....hardly worth bothering with.

Why do you think so many schematics are labeled "for educational
purposes only" ?

Labeling it so doesn't make it so. Try selling that "educational use
only schematic" in the back of Popular Mechanics. ;-)

 

[Roger Dewhurst]

Gurus,

I need your help...

What about a small periscope?

R

 

[CJT]

Late at night, by candle light, John Fields



A one-off for personal use is allowed.

- YD.

In what country?

 

[CJT]

Yeth it is ;-)
cite?


But you may not profit from the "personal use".

There are some special cases that have been handled by additional
law... for instance cable boxes, homemade, for "personal use", were
legal until "theft-of-service" laws were written.

Why do you think so many schematics are labeled "for educational
purposes only" ?

...Jim Thompson

 

[CJT]

You are correct (as usual).

You _both_ need to check your facts (or specify in what country your
opinion applies, if other than the US).