Why won't Arizona answer this question?

[Doug]

Arizona how do  you personally read or interpret claim 1 in this ML patent?
doug

[bugwhiskers]

In the early days before PC's, there were dedicated word processors that used microprocessors.
A natural progression was to then make the "machine" accept and run other programs, like spreadsheets.
In those days, each program needed to have it's own screen driver routine, printer driver routine etc.
The next logical progression was to have an "overseer" type program that had all the required drivers, the concept of "windows" was born.
The use of  program running inside a micro inside a device with the ability to load in via floppy disc, serial comms etc and "process" this program or different data could hardly be considered novel or unique even back in 2004.
Was the patent in question an advancement of the art or a means to stifle competition, this is the real question.

The way around this patent is to provide users with the ability to entirely reprogram the firmware (open source) or provide front panel devices such as encoders to allow new operating parameters to be entered and stored.

regards
bugwhiskers

[Doug]

In the early days before PC's, there were dedicated word processors that used microprocessors.
A natural progression was to then make the "machine" accept and run other programs, like spreadsheets.
In those days, each program needed to have it's own screen driver routine, printer driver routine etc.
The next logical progression was to have an "overseer" type program that had all the required drivers, the concept of "windows" was born.
The use of  program running inside a micro inside a device with the ability to load in via floppy disc, serial comms etc and "process" this program or different data could hardly be considered novel or unique even back in 2004.
Was the patent in question an advancement of the art or a means to stifle competition, this is the real question.

The way around this patent is to provide users with the ability to entirely reprogram the firmware (open source) or provide front panel devices such as encoders to allow new operating parameters to be entered and stored.

regards
bugwhiskers

We are still waiting for Arizona to give us his own personal interpretation of these patent claims,I wonder why he is so frightened to do so?
doug

[Huego]

I suspect he is "consulting with his superiors" on what he should say on this matter. (It is likely directed from elsewhere, where screenshots are kept. GR said he had heaps.)  Don't expect any clarity or truth though, expect diversion.

We've explained, rewritten, simplified & condensed our views again and again on various matters. To the point it annoys reasonable members.  "Their" response is playing DUMB, MUTE or SIMPLY RESPOND with NONSENSE. They play this game to provoke & waste time, or maybe to provoke a ban.  Seems he believes that others should respond to him, but he responds to no one.  He believes he is not accountable for what he does or says or what he does not say.  He cannot acknowledge or respond or even apologise for his many errors.

A change of tactics in dealing with guys like this is required. Read only?

[Aziz]

Hi guys,

what is better?

Registering a patent, which cost's a fortune, or
using grinder, white paint, black resin (tar)?
    

[Huego]

We are still waiting for Arizona to give us his own personal interpretation of these patent claims, I wonder why he is so frightened to do so?  doug

Why? Same reason he doesn’t answer the many other questions put to him! He is focussed on another agenda (like a jihadist) to sabotage, to bait & provoke & try to fault (without valid substantiantion). Looking over his posts you can see that. Ask yourself what has he added personally or positively to discussions or comments here. Zilch. 

He is in diplomatic terms .......... PERSONA NON GRATA

"Contrary opinions are fine but unsubstantiated allegations or even worse lies or actions or posts whose intent is purely to flame, be disruptive or cause the maximum amount of trouble on a forum in my opinion are not acceptable and won't be tolerated on this forum. Respect also has to be earned and not taken for granted!" (Doug, Aug 8)

Aziz, I  know which is cheaper!!  

[Doug]

In the early days before PC's, there were dedicated word processors that used microprocessors.
A natural progression was to then make the "machine" accept and run other programs, like spreadsheets.
In those days, each program needed to have it's own screen driver routine, printer driver routine etc.
The next logical progression was to have an "overseer" type program that had all the required drivers, the concept of "windows" was born.
The use of  program running inside a micro inside a device with the ability to load in via floppy disc, serial comms etc and "process" this program or different data could hardly be considered novel or unique even back in 2004.
Was the patent in question an advancement of the art or a means to stifle competition, this is the real question.

The way around this patent is to provide users with the ability to entirely reprogram the firmware (open source) or provide front panel devices such as encoders to allow new operating parameters to be entered and stored.

regards
bugwhiskers

“Was the patent in question an advancement of the art or a means to stifle competition, this is the real question. “
 In my opinion the patent and its claims are merely an attempt by ML to stop anybody using programmable or pre programmed MC's  in ANY detector or using  a MC to  acquire / process/upload/modify any  new data  in ANY metal detector. No doubt Arizona would agree with this which is why he does not have the courage ::54:: to give his own personal views/reading of the patent claims!
doug

[Aziz]

The latter choices are definitely the poor man's IP protection methods.
The final product should be cheeper.


On the software part, I have a bunch of another poor man's IP protection solutions. So the spies get's confused for many decades of reverse engineering.

     

[Doug]

The latter choices are definitely the poor man's IP protection methods.
The final product should be cheeper.


On the software part, I have a bunch of another poor man's IP protection solutions. So the spies get's confused for many decades of reverse engineering.

     

What's the use of software if you cannot use it in any metal detector micro for fear of patent infringement!!!!
doug

[Aziz]

Who the ******* is stating, that I cannot use a software in a micro controller?
Mindlab?

 

[Huego]

In the early days before PC's, there were dedicated word processors that used microprocessors.
A natural progression was to then make the "machine" accept and run other programs, like spreadsheets.
In those days, each program needed to have it's own screen driver routine, printer driver routine etc.
The next logical progression was to have an "overseer" type program that had all the required drivers, the concept of "windows" was born.
The use of  program running inside a micro inside a device with the ability to load in via floppy disc, serial comms etc and "process" this program or different data could hardly be considered novel or unique even back in 2004.
Was the patent in question an advancement of the art or a means to stifle competition, this is the real question.

The way around this patent is to provide users with the ability to entirely reprogram the firmware (open source) or provide front panel devices such as encoders to allow new operating parameters to be entered and stored.

regards
bugwhiskers

The answer from your outline Bugs is clear to me.
THERE is NO novelty in this patent. It is clearly designed to stifle competition.

There is a conflict of interests between patents designed to reward innovation & share such knowledge to progress the art, as against the use of trivial patents like this to confuse and attempt to block competition. Shame on ML, its not a good look, but its business ......... at its worst.  

 An ACCC opinion would be great to get.

Huego

[ARIZONA]

  You guys are a trip.  I explained that my view of your #1 is exactly the same as written in previous post by Doug from Minelab.  Do I need to copy&paste it 100 times so you won't miss it.


  And Doug are you saying that screen shot I posted is a fake?  You did not post that?

I hope you all have a good weekend and stay out of trouble, OK?

[Doug]

 You guys are a trip.  I explained that my view of your #1 is exactly the same as written in previous post by Doug from Minelab.  Do I need to copy&paste it 100 times so you won't miss it.


  And Doug are you saying that screen shot I posted is a fake?  You did not post that?

I hope you all have a good weekend and stay out of trouble, OK?

The ONLY definitive evidence is that contained in admin log files! Can you prove that I actually carried out what I posted? Can you show such a record in the admin log files? This matter or case is now dismissed and closed OK. The topic is only about your interpretation of ML's patent claims.
 Now please answer this:
Arizona how do  you personally read or interpret claim 1 in this ML patent?
doug

[Doug]

Who the ******* is stating, that I cannot use a software in a micro controller?
Mindlab?

 

The answer appears to be YES! ::54::
Arizona has not provided any information to the contrary!
doug

[Aziz]

Who the ******* is stating, that I cannot use a software in a micro controller?
Mindlab?

 

The answer appears to be YES! ::54::
Arizona has not provided any information to the contrary!
doug

This bullshit reminds me to the following patent:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4709213.html
    

[Doug]

The whole point about this thread is this:whats the point of anybody trying to bring new MC detectors to market when they could be taken to court by ML because of alleged patent infringement? Who is going to take risk of this happening?
 For those that don't know this is already happening with ML , who have a patent infringement law suite currently against Whites based on this very patent!!
doug

[Aziz]

What about a MD, which requires an user password?
    

I saw it already. But it was looking like a rotary knob of a safe.

I won't lodge a patent. But I will hide the technology very very tricky.
This will make the spies busy all the time.

[Aziz]

This one is also interesting:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4868910.html

[Doug]

In the early days before PC's, there were dedicated word processors that used microprocessors.
A natural progression was to then make the "machine" accept and run other programs, like spreadsheets.
In those days, each program needed to have it's own screen driver routine, printer driver routine etc.
The next logical progression was to have an "overseer" type program that had all the required drivers, the concept of "windows" was born.
The use of  program running inside a micro inside a device with the ability to load in via floppy disc, serial comms etc and "process" this program or different data could hardly be considered novel or unique even back in 2004.
Was the patent in question an advancement of the art or a means to stifle competition, this is the real question.

The way around this patent is to provide users with the ability to entirely reprogram the firmware (open source) or provide front panel devices such as encoders to allow new operating parameters to be entered and stored.

regards
bugwhiskers

The answer from your outline Bugs is clear to me.
THERE is NO novelty in this patent. It is clearly designed to stifle competition.

There is a conflict of interests between patents designed to reward innovation & share such knowledge to progress the art, as against the use of trivial patents like this to confuse and attempt to block competition. Shame on ML, its not a good look, but its business ......... at its worst.  

 An ACCC opinion would be great to get.

Huego

 Rather than going to the ACCC  a better approach might be to have the patent ( or at least some of the claims) overturned by an Amicus Curiae brief on the basis that it not only restricts competition but that is not in the best interests of consumers and would also have potential adverse implications for those that manufacture micro controllers or MC software. The fact is that claim 1 should never have been allowed by the patent examiners! If claim 1 was declared unenforceable by the patent court following an  Amicus Curiae brief then the whole patent will fall over because all subsequent claims depend or follow on from claim 1!
doug

[bugwhiskers]

Or alternatively, find a microcontrolled detector patent prior to 2004 that used any means to load data as seperate from the main program.

So much for demining being a humanitarian endeavour. It's about making $ with no "team effort" by exchanging new UXO signatures etc between competitive detector manufacturers.

regards
bugwhiskers