"Am I being bamboozled?" |
Please note: This was written prior to September 11th 2002!
I actually invented something! A voltage level conversion circuit for a very specific application without using an integrated circuit. Kind of retro but there are good reasons. My very simple (simple now once you know) circuit consists of one transistor and one zener diode to connect very low power things, like handheld calculators and PDA's, to a COM port without using any power from the calculator. Other companies are using my circuit in the same application. One is Lynn Products. But they tell me the 3 pin part they use in their cable is not a transistor. They told me thier circuit does not infringe because that 3 pin part that looks and acts like a transistor is not actually a transistor but an IC (Integerated Circuit). If it is an integrated circuit, then of course it does not infringe on any of my rights. What rights? My intellectual property rights. The founding fathers of the United States of America decided a long time ago that a person (human) can have an idea that can be all his (or hers), like property, and not taken by the state or other people. Ah, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Back to the 3 pin IC. When I heard that the part they used, the one that looks and acts just like a regular transistor, was actually an IC, I said: "Argh what a bummer"! For a few months anyway. Then I got thinking that just maybe they could be trying to bamboozle me.
They won't tell me who the manufacture is or the part #. Why? Maybe the manufacture calls the part a transistor? Maybe the part is found only in transistor data books and not in any IC data books? Would every engineer in the world call it a transistor - well except engineers and attorneys paid by Lynn Products? Or maybe my patent isn't worth shit? Maybe my idea sucks. Most of my ideas suck. Maybe someone has done it before me in Bumbfock Egypt in 1932. Yeah, but maybe, just maybe an old fart living in the woods of Oregon actually accidentally bumped his head, had a LSD flash back and came up with a good idea. Impossible? Or maybe he is just trying to extort money from a honest hard working Chinese and Taiwanees multinational corporation.
"Invent with an eraser?" Is a great way, I've heard. Looking back, it's exactly what I did though I didn't know it at the time. I didn't know much. I was not trying to invent anything. I was just trying to find a better way to solve a set of problems. I had been working on finding a better way for years. Several years. Then almost by accident, I stumbled upon a circuit that's not integrated, uses low cost parts, and works! And it not just "works" but works better than any other solution I had ever seen. But it was too simple to work! Ridiculously simple. It was very spooky how less became more. How could less parts do more things? It makes no sence so it's not a normal thing to do. Like the normal way to address EMI problems is to add parts, not remove parts. It turned out to be less complex, have less parts, less expensive parts, but more performance and worked better for this very narrow specific application. I had to ask why no one was doing it this way. Hmmm, maybe they didn't think of it? Hah, how could that be? On the other hand. It's not a general purpose thing. It's only good for this very specific application. At the time, only Casio and Sharp PDA's (they called them digital diaries back then, back in the early 80'). But that's OK. It was the solution I was looking for for so many years. It's small, cheap, and works! AND --- It addresses EMI, ESD, and takes zero power from the Casio units. Casio bought about a million from us. An unknown number of others have copied it. The answer to why no one did it before could be that no one tried as hard as I did? Engineers are happy to use off-the-shelf "already engineered" parts,, ... IC's. It's embarrassing to go around and reinvent wheels and when you do, you are sure to receive criticism from everyone. No wonder the founding fathers of the USA wrote in the first article of the constitution that we will grant patent rights to individual inventors who tell us how the invention works! Because sharing the information and ideas is good for the country! Because they knew that one good idea leads to another. Just imagine what would happen if all the good ideas were distributed to everyone! Wow! An amazing world power could emerge! An individual citizen can own his idea! Own it! All his! The state (or others) can't use it without his permission. Woha, this is totally nuts! The thing is... it's America! And America might seem nuts to you, but it's not. Maybe you just don't understand it! Well, I can try to explain it to you. It goes like this. You are a human. You have rights. Many of your rights transend the rights of the state. It's the states job and duty to defend and promote your rights because together you are the people and the government is formed of/by/and for the people. How am I doing? So... the state will defend not only these rights but property of individual citizens (people). AND, here's the punch line, ... some IDEAS are property! Some ideas are of infinate value to the state and therefore the state grants a 20 year monopoly to an inventor in exchange for disclosing the idea. It costs the state very little to do this. The benifit to the good of the country and all it's people is awesome and the USA is a good example.
Casio Japan must also like the "invent with an eraser" way. Take a look at their very new patent # 6,191,634 where they took everything about my invention and simply erased the zener! Very cool. They'll have to supply power from the calculator, PDA, Camera... etc. I guess that's why they still buy my cables. Casio is cool. Their patent proves my point that ideas spawn more ideas. Disclosure of ideas is good for the world!
I never thought I could ever be the first to think of anything, let alone an electronic circuit, so I looked for prior art but couldn't find any. I've been looking for many years now. If you know of any, please let me know! Why do some people tell you that you've never had an original idea and never will? If you have "friends" like that, ... tell 'em to jump in a lake. Ha, this is old basic knowledge about life, like the song "That's life" by Frank Sinatra, "...some people get their kicks stompin' on a dream." I guess some people need to keep you down in-order to raise themselves up -- identify these types and stay far away from them!
If you're a patent attorney looking for something to do, this could be a super easy case. If you want to take it on, I'll get 10 years of documents and data together to support a great case. Lynn won't tell me how many cables we are talking about. Could be some big numbers. And I'm pretty sure we can prove willfulness and go for triple damages. And since I sell the cable myself, every copy cable they sell is one less I could have sold. I used to sell them for $19.95. And I'll bet a bunch of other companies have used the circuit in products.
I received this magazine today (3/14/01): It's really true. We are under attack!
But don't get me wrong, there are Taiwanese and Chinese companies that really
truly do
respect IP and I've worked with one for over 8 years and they are cool!
Many realize how much us Americans care about this issue and are looking to
the future where the internet will expose all! There will be no place to hide.
Stories and records will be on-line and last forever. Kind of scary.
From: "Dan Miller" (dmiller@lynnprod.com) To: "Lawrence Henry Berg" (larry@hotmail.com) Cc: "Ronald Goldman" (rmgoldman@mindspring.com); Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 9:01 AM Subject: Re: Lynn Products, TSI Patent, Purple > Dear Mr. Berg, > > 1) We have stated the position and continue to > hold the position that our product does not > infringe upon the 864 patent. > > 2) There will be no discussion of a settlement. > > 3) I believe the matter to be settled and wish > to have no further correspondence. > > Sincerely, > Dan Miller > Lynn Products >
News: Hey, they decided to tell me after all!!!! After I posted this web page. Strange. Lynn's attorney, Ronald Goldman, told me the 3 pin part is not a transistor but an IC, so it does not infringe! Wow! I didn't know they put IC's inside 3 pin parts that look like transistors.... oh, well, back to the books.
To be continued ...
Wait a cotton pickin' minute. If Q2 is an IC the cable does not infringe. Lynn says it's an IC. Could they be wrong? Who's to say? What if the manafucture of the part calls it a transistor, and everyone in the industry calls it a transistor? What if the only function it performs is the same function as a transistor? They said there is a "resistor ladder" inside. What if it's just 2 resistors used to bias a single transistor? Is that a "ladder"? What's in a name? What are words for? So... OK... I ask them who manufactures the part and what the part number is, and they say it's proprietary information and can't tell me.
Some companies (or employees in powerful positions) think that if you can get away with it then it's OK. For instance: If you can sell a cable that causes all your products to radiate RF to the extent of making them exceed FCC emissions limits and save $1, and get away with it, then it's OK. If the cable infringes on someone's patent rights but that person can't defend himself, then you win and it's OK.
Never mind that it could cause radio interference on police, fire, and emergency bands! I hope the guy down the block is not using the cable when the fire department is trying to find your house! Ever wonder why those big ferrite bead bumps are on each end of those cables? That's why. Some companies don't know, and/or don't care. No one knows that our PC-link cable has a ferrite bead hidden inside the molded DB9 housing! I don't think even Lynn knows! But I know. I pay a lot extra to have it put in. And it's been in every cable that uses my patented cirucit that we've ever made for Casio! Maybe we should put a label on it saying "Ferrite bead inside to address FCC part 15".
What are they thinking? Forget FCC, we saved $1 a cable, and besides we don't sell many, just a few tens of thousands, so it's not enough to draw fire? Besides by the time they shut us down we won't be using the cable anymore? Hey,... just business? If you can get away with it, then it's OK? Who's to know right from wrong? Who's to care?
They may not have read past the 9th word of claim 1 of my patent! “a voltage level conversion circuit without an integrated circuit,” They have decided to call the transistor in the cable an integrated circuit! Who cares if the manufacture of the part calls it a transistor? Never mind that it’s in many transistor data books and not in any integrated circuit data books. Never mind that every engineer in the world would call it a transistor, unless paid enough money by an attorney to say something else. They really think that all they need is any old reason to make what they do appear OK. Any reason will due. No matter how lame. Who’s to say? Who's to say a blow job is sexual relations? THEY think that THEY are to say, that’s who! That’s what this is all about. They, not you! You listen, they say. It’s about power. They think they have it and you don’t! And guess what, if you don't say or do anything about it, well then, they are right. It's not fair. Why does "right" have to fight! Is in not good enough to be right? Hmmmmm, just had a thought. You know, maybe it's not good enough! Without a fair fight, how could "right" be determined? We need the fight. I think public fighting is best. As long as it's fair. OK, that's cool. The fight should be about the issue, not who is more powerful or who has more money, or better spin agents... you think? So, how can I have a fair fight with a giant multinational multimillion dollar corporation? Ah, maybe that's what a US patent is suposed to do, help an individual fight for his ideas?
mybest,
larry,
pfranc.com