| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 20.06.00 01:53l 168 Lines 7347 Bytes #-9437 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_169B
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/169B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL
Sent: 000619/1703Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:53006 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_169B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 00 17:50:36 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_169B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
2nd world countries.
"Bob Lewis" <aa4pb@erols.com> wrote
> FCC Rules 97.309(a)(4) "An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data
> emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any
> techique whose technical characteristics have been documented
> publicly, such as CLOVER, G-TOR, or PacTOR, for the purpose of
> facilitating communications."
>
> So, FCC rules specifically authorize the PacTOR mode. Apparently the
> technique is documented sufficiently to satisfy the FCC.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:51:34 -0400
From: "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com>
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
Art,
I have written and read many patents. In most countries, in the disclosure
of a patent, you are SUPPOSED to disclose enough information that would
enable a person skilled in the art to build a working machine that will
implement the protocol.
But many patent do NOT do this! If the claims of a patent (where the
monopoly rights are defined) are not fully supported by a proper disclosure
of the invention, technically in many countries, a court can invalidate the
patent (or the patent office may not grant it in the first place).
But this is VERY RARE even if the patent disclosure is deficient. (Courts
tend to find other reasons to invalidate a patent).
In many countries, the granting a patent or a monopoly for an invention is
based on the notion that in return for disclosing the invention to the
public, the state will grant you a patent or a monopoly for a limited period
of time (typically 20 years from the date of filing). Some folks think of
it as some sort of contract between the inventor and the state to promote
innovation. The state wants inventions to be disclosed and not kept secret.
You may ask why are so many patents are poorly written. Well in the vast
majority of countries, you must file a patent application BEFORE you
disclose it to the public in any way. In many countries, if you disclose
the invention to the public in any way before filing a patent application,
either the patent will not be granted in the first place or a court will
invalidate it later (if someone challenges the validity of the patent).
Very few countries have a grace period.
In the fast paced world of high tech, there is typically a race to file a
patent application with the patent office(s) as soon as possible so you can
then tell the world all about it. The marketing folks are always chopping
at the bit. As a result, sometimes a patent application is filed BEFORE a
working version of the invention is even made! Under these circumstances,
it is hard to write a proper disclosure.
Furthermore, it is very common that after a patent application has been
filed (and even after a grant of a patent), the inventors fine tune or
change the details of the protocol (or working machine etc). (Sometimes
they even change the real invention that they want protection!)
It is important to note that in many countries you can change the protocol
without changing the invention and still obtain protection under the patent.
For example, if your patent is for memory ARQ, then any protocol that you
implement using the same memory ARQ should be covered by the patent.
Perhaps, SCS filed a patent application for a protocol similar to Pactor II
but contains the KEY invention. If so, SCS may never have fully disclosed
the real Pactor II protocol in a patent application.
I am not familiar with the patents for the Pactor II protocol filed by SCS.
But I suspect that even if the disclosure of the patent did disclose all the
details of the Pactor II protocol, it is likely that the inventors at SCS
have fine tuned it and changed it sufficiently that even if you reproduced
the protocol described in the disclosure it may not be compatible with the
current Pactor II protocol in the SCC PTC II or SCS PTC IIe.
I would also like to point out that intellectual property rights are
territorial in nature. For example, if SCS did NOT file a patent
application (or applications) in Australia that cover ANY aspect of its
Pactor II protocol, you might be able to legally make and sell modems in
Australia using the Pactor II protocol (depending on any other laws in
Australia which may be applicable). I am not familiar with Australian law.
I am just trying to show the territorial nature of patents.
It would be interesting to find out where SCS obtained intellectual property
rights for Pactor II. It would also be interesting to see what SCS claimed
as the REAL invention. Was it some sort of advanced memory ARQ?? Did the
patent claim broad protection?? Or is the patent protection very narrow so
that someone could make a similar protocol and not be caught under the
claims of the patent (or another patent)??
73's
Rob
"Art Clemons" <n8blk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000616153132.23154.00002113@nso-fx.aol.com...
> In article <TTl25.8602$DH3.24541@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au>,
> hamish@cloud.net.au (Hamish Moffatt VK3SB) writes:
>
> >Can you tell us where to find published information on
> >the protocol with enough detail to build a decoder?
> >
>
> Not to be a smartass, but since the silly thing is patented in several
> different countries, including I believe Australia, you could try
whichever
> Australian government agency handles patents.
> -art clemons-
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 14:20:34 -0400
From: "Rob" <Pse@NoEmail.Com>
Subject: Hottest and fastest HF mode
Bob,
I don't think it is very relevant that the FCC regulation MAY make a
distinction between the code and the technique used.
In my view, the FCC likely equates the term "technical characteristics" of a
code with 'PROTOCOL"
According to the regulation, the "technical characteristics" of the digital
code must be "documented publicly" before a HAM can use it legally. In
other words, it is my understanding that secret protocols cannot be used by
US Hams.
In my view, this makes sense. Then the FCC can theoretically decode any of
these new protocols (using any equipment they may wish to use or modify).
HAL has published documents on its CLOVER and CLOVER II protocols, etc.
(But I have heard some argue that HAL really has not published publicly all
of the details on its CLOVER and CLOVER II protocols). But since CLOVER is
specifically mentioned in the regulation, it may be a moot point.
The regulation does specially mention Pactor but does NOT specifically
mention Pactor II whose "technical characteristics" are quite different.
The issue remains. Has SCS documented publicly all of the "technical
characteristics" of its Pactor II protocol?? It would appear that a lot of
folks do not think so. If that is the truly the case, all the US Ham's
running Pactor II may be doing so illegally.
73's
Rob
"Bob Lewis" <aa4pb@erols.com> wrote in message
news:8ig9qm$d5n$1@bob.news.rcn.net...
> FCC Rules 97.309(a)(4) "An amateur station transmitting a RTTY or data
> emission using a digital code specified in this paragraph may use any
> techique whose technical characteristics have been documented
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_169C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
