Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: SDR Patent  (Read 5161 times)
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2125




Ignore
« on: October 11, 2012, 04:04:46 AM »

A patent has been filed under US Patent Office No 8,279,587 for a 'General-purpose software defined radio platform'' .
So finally SDR  has been invented.
Logged
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2012, 05:32:56 AM »

I may be reading too much into his patent claims but this Patent seems to cover every variation of any radio with almost any form of upgradeable software - from cellphones to SDR, including flashable bios type machines.

There is no way with 10+ years of the SDR "family" being in production that this chap "invented SDR."

Bad call by the patent office of a misplaced vanity application?

Or "patent troll" setup (where owners of dubious patents shake down existing manufacturers for small amounts threatening major patent enforncement if the existing producers don't pay a "license fee."  This firm has to decide which is cheaper and more effective.)?

Or something else all told?

73

Steve
K9ZW

BLOG - With Varying Frequency - Amateur Radio Ponderings http://k9zw.wordpress.com
Logged

KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2125




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2012, 06:06:50 AM »

As I see it, this means good business for attorneys  Grin
Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 13032




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2012, 11:04:25 AM »

As I recall, there was someone who filed and received a patent for transmitting GPS postions via radio. He tried suing a couple of other mfgs for a violation of his patent but it didn't get too far. Again, the lawyers were the ones who benefited.

I guess you can file and receive a patent for almost anything. The question is whether or not its enforceable in a court of law.
Logged
W5DQ
Member

Posts: 1209


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2012, 03:21:56 PM »

There is no way with 10+ years of the SDR "family" being in production that this chap "invented SDR."

Not sure if the SDR radio company(s) have actual patents (one would hope so) but any company or individual that would go to market with a non-patented 'invention' or discovery is probably just asking for legal issues and mucho lawyers fees. Sure the patent filer in the OP didn't invent SDR (since we all know it's been around for a while) but if he was the first to patent it, he will have some leverage in court. Look at the early discoveries in radio and technology and see examples of patents being filed on things that existed or was known to have existed, such as the regenerative receiver first done by Edwin Armstrong and then claimed (and won) by Lee DeForest 2 years later ....

from Wikipedia:

Many of Armstrong's inventions were ultimately claimed by others in patent lawsuits. In particular, the regenerative circuit, which Armstrong patented in 1914 as a "wireless receiving system," was subsequently patented by Lee De Forest in 1916; De Forest then sold the rights to his patent to AT&T. Between 1922 and 1934, Armstrong found himself embroiled in a patent war, between himself, RCA, and Westinghouse on one side, and De Forest and AT&T on the other. At the time, this action was the longest patent lawsuit ever litigated, at 12 years. Armstrong won the first round of the lawsuit, lost the second, and stalemated in a third. Before the Supreme Court of the United States, De Forest was granted the regeneration patent in what is today widely regarded as a misunderstanding of the technical facts by the Supreme Court justices.

---------
So it might appear that having a patent first on some item or idea doesn't always mean that you're protected from 'poachers'.

Gene W5DQ
Logged

Gene W5DQ
Ridgecrest, CA - DM15dp
www.radioroom.org
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2125




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2012, 11:07:52 PM »

In court and on the high seas you're in Gods hands.
I remember a tedious lawsuit between the telescope manufacturers Meade and Celestron. Meade had a patent to adjust a telescope in the North direction and then to automatically locate stars. Celestron was prohibited to use a similar procedure in their telescopes. Fortunately they didn't find out that I adjust my maps to North when hiking.
Logged
SV1XV
Member

Posts: 94


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2012, 01:42:21 AM »

In court and on the high seas you're in Gods hands.
Sorry to disapoint you, but in court you are in the hands of the Devil and of his advocates.

Logged
KA4POL
Member

Posts: 2125




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2012, 04:21:04 AM »

Different view, same result  Grin
Logged
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 989




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2012, 06:01:38 AM »

A totally ridiculous patent claim.

Its  ridiculous as the guy who first filed the patent for using a PC keyboard  that plugged into a ham transceiver.  This patent effectively blocked any transceiver from using a plug in keyboard.

This patent will prevent someone from releasing a SDR black box radio that will say for example use  IPAD for the interface.

This is like filing for patents on human genes and  DNA  in nature, totally  ridiculous when its been around for a million years. The patent system is well and truly broken.

Nobody minds the protection of genuine intellectual property but patenting a product  around the idea of  integrating concepts that already exists in the market is really beyond belief. We
see more and more manufacturers patenting things as ridiculous as a mounting bracket and the number of screws used.

Logged
K9ZW
Member

Posts: 180


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2012, 08:39:10 AM »

So it might appear that having a patent first on some item or idea doesn't always mean that you're protected from 'poachers'.

These poachers apparently have the nickname of "patent trolls."  I mentioned the general scenario to a friend in the patent business and he didn't bat an eye - said this stuff happens all the time.  Successful patent trolls go for small shakedowns of firms unlikely to seriously fight back.  They sometimes win.  Patent trolls tend to get smacked down if a large & able firm rebuffs them, so they avoid going head-to-head with the big boys. 

Established "prior art" does count, and patent trolls apparently are not above offering owners of prior art a cut of the booty they shake out of the weak.  Or they will offer the owner of prior art a no-cost "license" in the hope of keeping the prior art quiet.

Not a pretty game as it sounds, and seems a far cry from the lay person's expectations of patent law in practice.

73

Steve
K9ZW

Blog:  http://k9zw.wordpress.com
Logged

K0OD
Member

Posts: 2591




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2012, 09:49:05 AM »

Armstrong committed suicide in January 1954. No doubt the din of years of litigation played a role. There were other factors.

The Manhattan building he jumped from is a prestigious co-op or condo now with units going for $3-4 million. Armstrong was in the wrong business, I guess.

He was also a sartorial man of his time. Before heading off through his apartment window (on the 13th floor, no less) into Manhattan, he put on a coat, scarf, gloves and HAT!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!