The Value of Support?

[WM6]

I notice Robby_H has wimped out again when challenged to prove that:" the QED is just a cheap digitized copy of ML's IP" But when he can't grasp the significance of the Poole multi frequency patent what can you expect! ::38::

If we know that ML MF IP is only plagiarism of Poole multi frequency patent, than QED can be in worst case only new digitized improvement upgrade of Poole multi frequency patent, which was prior art and expired yet and in no way "digitized copy of ML IP".

But this can be discussed only after PO decision regarding BW patent aplication.

[bugwhiskers]

I notice Robby_H has wimped out again when challenged to prove that:" the QED is just a cheap digitized copy of ML's IP" But when he can't grasp the significance of the Poole multi frequency patent what can you expect! ::38::

If we know that ML MF IP is only plagiarism of Poole multi frequency patent, than QED can be in worst case only new digitized improvement upgrade of Poole multi frequency patent, which was prior art and expired yet and in no way "digitized copy of ML IP".

But this can be discussed only after PO decision regarding BW patent aplication.

Hi WM6,


I don't think the word plagiarism is applicable in this situation.
What people want to know is why Candy patented a multiple TX length GB method without citing any of the other prior art patents that used different TX lengths/frequencies to differentiate materials in the vicinity of the coil.

regards
bugwhiskers

[Doug]

I notice Robby_H has wimped out again when challenged to prove that:" the QED is just a cheap digitized copy of ML's IP" But when he can't grasp the significance of the Poole multi frequency patent what can you expect! ::38::

If we know that ML MF IP is only plagiarism of Poole multi frequency patent, than QED can be in worst case only new digitized improvement upgrade of Poole multi frequency patent, which was prior art and expired yet and in no way "digitized copy of ML IP".

But this can be discussed only after PO decision regarding BW patent aplication.

Hi WM6,


I don't think the word plagiarism is applicable in this situation.
What people want to know is why Candy patented a multiple TX length GB method without citing any of the other prior art patents that used different TX lengths/frequencies to differentiate materials in the vicinity of the coil.

regards
bugwhiskers

My opinion is that  this patent taken together with  Poole's TD  patent and Chapman and Howells multi length TD coin patent and you have the seeds or the nucleus of Candy's MPS patent!
doug

[WM6]

I don't think the word plagiarism is applicable in this situation.
What people want to know is why Candy patented a multiple TX length GB method without citing any of the other prior art patents that used different TX lengths/frequencies to differentiate materials in the vicinity of the coil.

Agree BW, but, at least for me, answer WHY is very clear.

This was evidently not "why" those prior art was not known to ML, because of existing ML citation of other patents of the same prior art authors, which was only poorely related to those ML "inventions".

We can easily conclude (out of ML patent aplications) that all work of prior art authors was very known to ML, years befor their own application, not cited prior art patents inclusive.

It is understandable that ML could not cite Prior art,  for which his own patent may be rejected by the Patent Office.

I am sory, plagiarism (I accept the possibility that there is a better English term - Hi Huego!) in my view.

[Huego]

We can easily conclude (out of ML patent aplications) that all work of prior art authors was very known to ML, years befor their own application, not cited prior art patents inclusive.

It is understandable that ML could not cite Prior art,  for which his own patent may be rejected by the Patent Office.

I am sory, plagiarism (I accept the possibility that there is a better English term - Hi Huego!) in my view.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."  (Wiki) - emphasis is mine

OK, accepting the above ...........

Was there a copying of ideas (from earlier inventors ie Poole, Chapman & Howell) by ML as evident in the ML MPS Patent(s)?

Or, were the earlier, recognised & related innovations by these same pioneers deliberately AVOIDED (ie not cited)?  Why? Because (as WM said) as it have may lead to rejection by patent examiners? Perhaps they thought ... "its up to examiners & objectors to find/expose this ommission if they think its important!

Huego

[Doug]

We can easily conclude (out of ML patent aplications) that all work of prior art authors was very known to ML, years befor their own application, not cited prior art patents inclusive.

It is understandable that ML could not cite Prior art,  for which his own patent may be rejected by the Patent Office.

I am sory, plagiarism (I accept the possibility that there is a better English term - Hi Huego!) in my view.

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."  (Wiki) - emphasis is mine

Or, were the earlier, recognised & related innovations by these same pioneers deliberately AVOIDED (ie not cited)?  Why? Because (as WM said) as it have may lead to rejection by patent examiners? Perhaps they thought ... "its up to examiners & objectors to find/expose this ommission if they think its important!

Huego

One may draw one's own conclusions!
doug

[WM6]

Worth to read carefully:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxr_1_56.htm

and much more regulations (regarding prior art):

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200.htm

[Huego]

Thats a good reference WM with much on the DUTY to DISCLOSE prior art etc!

Good find!

[dustyminer]

all this makes me wonder whether denigrators that are frustrated by the overdue (in their eyes).... (o.k. some supporters as well).... release of the QED will allow bugwhiskers some grace for the fact that procedures must be followed and met to protect not only the interests of the QED but also minelab, whites and whoever else has a vested interest in competition (or lack off ?) in the METAL detecting market.

the advantages that the potential release of this new detector (transferable warranty's, usb software upgrades, ergonomics, quality assurance testing, OVERALL COST TO THE END USER,etc) are going to remove the so far recognized level playing field and lead to a shake up to accepted deep held beliefs by the consumers so as such it must be tested through the appropriate body's to validate it's (the QED) existence.

another query from certain party's is whether the QED will actually (if all the lights are green) be a challenger to their favorite brand (whichever that may be) or remain forever a hobby project.... my thoughts are that some idea's, products, influences, etc, become a success inspite of themselves and given the groundswell of interest garnered by this project then i see a solid base for the advancement of this product.

given that it will be a consumable product if it meets all the criteria then another line of attack is what is an acceptable profit margin ?
bugwhiskers project has been compared to a socialist enterprise elsewhere and i can sympathize with those fears as i smell revolution in the air.... a revolution of expectations regarding price, support, branding without marketing, hands on advice from the developer and actual commentary from the same regarding the product instead of leaving it up to third party puppets who will be hung out to dry if there is a need for denial to suit the greater good.

I for one expect bugwhiskers to be able to sustain the project going forward and put food on the table without having to support a plethora of hangers on to justify the products existence and the truth is the quality of the rest of the market would be able to do the same if they had enough faith in their own product.

these thoughts are strictly my own and i have no fiscal interest or personal influence in what is developing here but i would like to thank bugwhiskers for exposing members to the difficulties of what it takes to get a concept of the ground. if there is any justice then the QED is going to seriously kick some arse!

cheer's- dusty!!    

[Fishrover]

all this makes me wonder whether denigrators that are frustrated by the overdue (in their eyes).... (o.k. some supporters as well).... release of the QED will allow bugwhiskers some grace for the fact that procedures must be followed and met to protect not only the interests of the QED but also minelab, whites and whoever else has a vested interest in competition (or lack off ?) in the METAL detecting market.

the advantages that the potential release of this new detector (transferable warranty's, usb software upgrades, ergonomics, quality assurance testing, OVERALL COST TO THE END USER,etc) are going to remove the so far recognized level playing field and lead to a shake up to accepted deep held beliefs by the consumers so as such it must be tested through the appropriate body's to validate it's (the QED) existence.

another query from certain party's is whether the QED will actually (if all the lights are green) be a challenger to their favorite brand (whichever that may be) or remain forever a hobby project.... my thoughts are that some idea's, products, influences, etc, become a success inspite of themselves and given the groundswell of interest garnered by this project then i see a solid base for the advancement of this product.

given that it will be a consumable product if it meets all the criteria then another line of attack is what is an acceptable profit margin ?
bugwhiskers project has been compared to a socialist enterprise elsewhere and i can sympathize with those fears as i smell revolution in the air.... a revolution of expectations regarding price, support, branding without marketing, hands on advice from the developer and actual commentary from the same regarding the product instead of leaving it up to third party puppets who will be hung out to dry if there is a need for denial to suit the greater good.

I for one expect bugwhiskers to be able to sustain the project going forward and put food on the table without having to support a plethora of hangers on to justify the products existence and the truth is the quality of the rest of the market would be able to do the same if they had enough faith in their own product.

these thoughts are strictly my own and i have no fiscal interest or personal influence in what is developing here but i would like to thank bugwhiskers for exposing members to the difficulties of what it takes to get a concept of the ground. if there is any justice then the QED is going to seriously kick some arse!

cheer's- dusty!!    

A well considered summary of the situation Dusty.

And all this from a bloke who Groundrush once said of : "Usually posts something that makes sense".

I believe this is the first time I've posted something that agrees with anything Mr Groundrush said ! 

Cheers,
F 

[Huego]

continued ...........

"Dugs and Hugs, ultimately will drop you (Bugs) like a hot potato when it suits them ……." (Coota)

Why would Doug & Hugs do that after investing so much into public support & loyalty for him & his QED? Duuuuh?     They would look very foolish if they did that. No way!

“direct answers would actually see you (Ryath) gather some support, rather than just annoy people and indicate a substantial lack of knowledge/common sense”... "and loss of credibility."  (Coota)

There is no such thing as a “genuine question” on Finders anymore! Nor such a thing as a (deserved) "direct answers" in my opinion. I doubt if Ryath has "rejoined" the flounders forum to answer their questions (as they think) but rather to make occasional commentary on subjects that matter to him. In my view he cares zilch about what the flounders & “ML fund-a-mentalist-with-gold-tax” think about his QED plans (or what they want to know), about about his credibility in their eyes, his accountability to denigrators, liars, abusers etc. Why would he care what they thought when they deserve no regard?? They are not prospective customers, certainly none that matter.

Huego