|
I have a dumb question about antenna building
I really like to build things. I can weld even small material with a
mig welder I have at home. You mentioned building a j pole. I thought of doing this myself. To be honest, I have always wanted to make something, (not necessarily an antenna) that I could sell for a few extra dollars on ebay or something. I wonder if a person could make any money building antennas and doing that? I am not wanting to get rich but I like building things and I could use some "pocket money". We just had our second shild born yesterday. It is my first son! I thought about making a j-pole out of stainless steel tubing. It seems this would be attractive because of it being rustproof and to me more "visably appealing" that a copper one after it become tarnished. But some people have told me there is more resistance in stainless than copper. SOmeone else told me it would not amount to much in ham use. Thought about building yagis too. The only problem would be figuring out how to ship an antenna where it would not cost much. |
Strioed wrote:
"Someone told me it would not amount to much in ham use." It`s how long te elements need to be that determines the loss stainless steel adds to an antenna. For VHF, stainless is fine. For HF, you may be creating a combination antenna and dummy load by using stainless in place of aluminum or copper. You can imitate what is usual commerciall practice for an amateur antenna at similar frequencies. There are gold-plated antennas, but this isn`t usual practice. It is extreme and certainly so for VHF. Some of the best antennas used at VHF have long been stainless steel. The big problem is stainless steel hardware which galls and binds. There is bound to be an anti-sieze preparation to mitigate this bind. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
I would suggest that you get someone to calculate the antenna with NEC or
similar to get the right lengths and resistive loss. Then build an prototype for 2m and 70cm and put it on eBay to check if there is any interest for the antenna. To reduce the size it might be an idea to think about using Parker tube fittings in some of the joints. 73 Geir wrote in message oups.com... I really like to build things. I can weld even small material with a mig welder I have at home. You mentioned building a j pole. I thought of doing this myself. To be honest, I have always wanted to make something, (not necessarily an antenna) that I could sell for a few extra dollars on ebay or something. I wonder if a person could make any money building antennas and doing that? I am not wanting to get rich but I like building things and I could use some "pocket money". We just had our second shild born yesterday. It is my first son! I thought about making a j-pole out of stainless steel tubing. It seems this would be attractive because of it being rustproof and to me more "visably appealing" that a copper one after it become tarnished. But some people have told me there is more resistance in stainless than copper. SOmeone else told me it would not amount to much in ham use. Thought about building yagis too. The only problem would be figuring out how to ship an antenna where it would not cost much. |
geir knutsen wrote: I would suggest that you get someone to calculate the antenna with NEC or similar to get the right lengths and resistive loss. Then build an prototype for 2m and 70cm and put it on eBay to check if there is any interest for the antenna. To reduce the size it might be an idea to think about using Parker tube fittings in some of the joints. 73 Geir I really appreciate the advice! What is "NEC"? I assume it is an antenna performance computer program? Are you saying build a dual band prototype of one for each band? What are "Parker tube fittings"? wrote in message oups.com... I really like to build things. I can weld even small material with a mig welder I have at home. You mentioned building a j pole. I thought of doing this myself. To be honest, I have always wanted to make something, (not necessarily an antenna) that I could sell for a few extra dollars on ebay or something. I wonder if a person could make any money building antennas and doing that? I am not wanting to get rich but I like building things and I could use some "pocket money". We just had our second shild born yesterday. It is my first son! I thought about making a j-pole out of stainless steel tubing. It seems this would be attractive because of it being rustproof and to me more "visably appealing" that a copper one after it become tarnished. But some people have told me there is more resistance in stainless than copper. SOmeone else told me it would not amount to much in ham use. Thought about building yagis too. The only problem would be figuring out how to ship an antenna where it would not cost much. |
Isnt it a copywrite problem if you copy someone else's antenna design?
|
Do they have these fititngs in stainless?
|
|
Yes NEC is a antenna calculation program.
Try the Parker website and you will find the fittings I'm thinking about ( there is a similar type called swage lock) Here is an example of an dual band j-pole http://www.durm-online.de/jpole.htm I have seen several variations of this design, but can't find any of the links. Geir wrote in message oups.com... geir knutsen wrote: I would suggest that you get someone to calculate the antenna with NEC or similar to get the right lengths and resistive loss. Then build an prototype for 2m and 70cm and put it on eBay to check if there is any interest for the antenna. To reduce the size it might be an idea to think about using Parker tube fittings in some of the joints. 73 Geir I really appreciate the advice! What is "NEC"? I assume it is an antenna performance computer program? Are you saying build a dual band prototype of one for each band? What are "Parker tube fittings"? wrote in message oups.com... I really like to build things. I can weld even small material with a mig welder I have at home. You mentioned building a j pole. I thought of doing this myself. To be honest, I have always wanted to make something, (not necessarily an antenna) that I could sell for a few extra dollars on ebay or something. I wonder if a person could make any money building antennas and doing that? I am not wanting to get rich but I like building things and I could use some "pocket money". We just had our second shild born yesterday. It is my first son! I thought about making a j-pole out of stainless steel tubing. It seems this would be attractive because of it being rustproof and to me more "visably appealing" that a copper one after it become tarnished. But some people have told me there is more resistance in stainless than copper. SOmeone else told me it would not amount to much in ham use. Thought about building yagis too. The only problem would be figuring out how to ship an antenna where it would not cost much. |
Patent covers claims to invention and trade of the inventor's product
- which in this case would be that antenna. Right. And, the invention claimed must be novel (new), useful, and non-obvious to a skilled practitioner of the art. In theory, it has to actually work (otherwise it isn't "useful") but in most cases the Patent Office seems to have stopped requiring any sort of actual evidence on this point. Antenna designs which were originally published decades ago (and that seems to be most of them) cannot now be patented. Neither, in principle, can slight or trivial or obvious variations on older antennas. In either case, the law provides the author or inventor a means to pursue his loss of profit if these works are duplicated without license or permission. With few exceptions, Common Law would suggest that the practice of duplication by an individual for their own use (and not to produce for sale or distribution) is allowed. My understanding is that this is true to some extent for copyright (the "fair use" principle). I've been told that it is _not_ true for patented inventions. You're allowed to re-create the patented invention yourself in order to study it, or to figure out a different way of achieving the same goal (that is, a similar device which doesn't actually infringe on the patent). However, re-creating the patented invention for actual personal use is not allowed. In practice, of course, this usually goes undetected and nobody gives a hoot. Some patentholders have a practice of offering anyone who asks a license to manufacture one (or a few) of the devices, for their own use, with no royalty fee... but patentholders are _not_ required to do so, or to license the patent to anyone at all. Some years ago, the Bose corporation earned itself some bad blood in the audiophile community, by sending a stern letter to Speaker Builder magazine stating that a homebrew speaker-building article published therein used a design which Bose felt infringed on one of their patents (a "birdhouse" multi-chamber resonator design, I believe). They accused Speaker Builder of "contributory infringement" of the patent (i.e. encouraging others to infringe). This action was viewed by many of the magazine's readers as an example of a big, monied corporation bullying individuals. As far as legal advice goes, caveat reader. As I pointed out above, the law provides a means, the courts, not a guarantee. Further, it should come as no surprise that even lacking this, you can always be taken to court - even if you don't get out of bed for fear of being sued. A very good point! -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Well, if you like to build things and are thinking about something along the lines of a J-Pole, I have something that I have made about 50 of for my friends who just love having them. It's a self-standing full sized J-Pole that fits into your pocket or backpack and does NOT need to be hung from something like the wire ribbon version. Construction is simple, but does require welding as the unit is made from arced spring steel and 1/2 of an 8 ounce paint can. The antenna and coax fit inside the can, which doubled as the Horizontal member of a J-Pole. I purposely used a specially manufactured 4 ounce can suited for this purpose, with an opening tab (like on the old tobacco cans), that the lid itself became the horizontal member and would fit snugly to the bottom of the can for extra weight and support. But the elements themselves are simple to come by. On 440 antenna's I used 3/4 inch tape measure spring steel and on 2-meter antenna's I used 1 inch tape measure spring steel. You can buy tape measures or order the painted or unpainted steel in rolls from a supplier. These are welded to the removable lid so that they roll inward and fit into the can when not in use. To use the antenna, you affix the lid to the base and unroll the vertical and stub completely. They will stay open by themselves. I also added 4 little arms about 2 inches long each on later antennas, that could be opened from the lid to give a larger 6 inch wide footprint to keep it from toppling over on the picnic table if it was a little windy to stay upright by itself. It was a fun project, and everyone that got one put them to good use, especially on Field Day and Fox Hunts. TTUL Gary |
Yuri Blanarovich wrote:
. . . Antenna designs can be protected by patent, design patent. But that does not prevent individual from building one. You just can't market stolen design. . . . The law does *forbid* you from making a patented item even for your own use. (From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#patent: "The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States." Notice the word "making".) But the law doesn't *prevent* anyone from doing anything they like, as long as they're not caught. This general attitude is also common among people who pirate software, music, and other copyrighted items, as well. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:42:41 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote: The law does *forbid* you from making a patented item even for your own use. (From http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac...x.html#patent: "The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States." Notice the word "making".) Hi Roy, Administrative offices are frequently the poorest source of legal information - especially when worded as vaguely as above. Instead, Court records show a vastly different interpretation: "Even though infringement is found, one factor that may negate willfulness is a bona fide attempt by the alleged infringer to design around the patent. ... The Federal Circuit reversed, stating: This court has indicated that the incentive to "design around" patents is a positive result of the patent system.... One of the benefits of a patent system is its so called "negative incentive" to "design around" a competitor's products, even when they are patented, thus bringing a steady flow of innovations to the marketplace. It should not be discouraged by punitive damage awards except in cases where conduct is so obnoxious as clearly to call for them." The obnoxious conduct, in this case, was the licensing of a technology to then develop patents that would then render the original useless as a commodity (the only value of a patent). In other words "bad faith" agreements. The ruling is from one of many (883) articles on the web specifically directed toward the State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc. case More on willful infringement: "Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement, particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See, Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110 (Fed. Cir. 1986). By-and-large, it is overwhelmingly clear that all such cases brought and LOST were against commercial interests and not lone individuals. It seems to me that the raison d'čtre of this body of amateur radio activity is to improve designs - at least Rhetorically. I suppose suit for slander or defamation stands a better chance. ;-) 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
Hi Roy, Administrative offices are frequently the poorest source of legal information - especially when worded as vaguely as above. I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who aren't lawyers. Instead, Court records show a vastly different interpretation: "Even though infringement is found, one factor that may negate willfulness is a bona fide attempt by the alleged infringer to design around the patent. ... The Federal Circuit reversed, stating: This court has indicated that the incentive to "design around" patents is a positive result of the patent system.... One of the benefits of a patent system is its so called "negative incentive" to "design around" a competitor's products, even when they are patented, thus bringing a steady flow of innovations to the marketplace. It should not be discouraged by punitive damage awards except in cases where conduct is so obnoxious as clearly to call for them." The obnoxious conduct, in this case, was the licensing of a technology to then develop patents that would then render the original useless as a commodity (the only value of a patent). In other words "bad faith" agreements. The ruling is from one of many (883) articles on the web specifically directed toward the State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc. case More on willful infringement: "Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement, particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See, Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110 (Fed. Cir. 1986). By-and-large, it is overwhelmingly clear that all such cases brought and LOST were against commercial interests and not lone individuals. . . . So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)? That's not obvious to me from the short quotes you gave, and I'm surprised in any case that you can draw such a sweeping conclusion from a couple of paragraphs. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:44:25 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote: I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who aren't lawyers. .... So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)? Whose making interpretations now? :-) The findings already answered the matter with sufficient emphasis as to intent. If you cannot distinguish intent, you should seek legal counsel. Your response reminds me of the satire in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where the planet Galafria suffered from serious continental erosion from too many tourists. They were warned that visitors had to weigh as much when they left as when they arrived, and were thus warned under penalty of surgical balance to take care to obtain a receipt each time they visited the 'loo. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard,
You have significantly misinterpreted the concept incorporated in "State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc". The issue in this case, and the others that reference it, is the question of "willful" infringement. The infringement by itself is not the issue. Willful infringement allows for punitive damages and other monetary claims. Non-willful infringement would generally carry only "cease and desist" type of remedies. "Willful" means that one knows about the existing patent, or should have known about it. The whole issue of "design-around" relates to the case where the infringer knew about the patent, attempted to design around it, and failed to sufficiently differentiate the new item, thereby infringing on the patent. The infringement stands, but since an effort was made to design around the original patent the infringement is deemed to be not "willful". The second party is not granted permission by the courts to continue to infringe on a valid patent. I believe Roy is completely correct in his statement of the wording of the patent law, and court interpretations to do not appear to change the basic concept. In a practical sense it is unlikely that anyone would want to sue an individual one-time infringer making an item for his own use. It is still a violation of the patent law to infringe, however. 73, Gene W4SZ Richard Clark wrote: On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 18:44:25 -0800, Roy Lewallen wrote: I submit that there's a poorer source of legal information than administrative offices -- interpretations of the law by people who aren't lawyers. ... So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)? Whose making interpretations now? :-) The findings already answered the matter with sufficient emphasis as to intent. If you cannot distinguish intent, you should seek legal counsel. Your response reminds me of the satire in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" where the planet Galafria suffered from serious continental erosion from too many tourists. They were warned that visitors had to weigh as much when they left as when they arrived, and were thus warned under penalty of surgical balance to take care to obtain a receipt each time they visited the 'loo. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 15:48:41 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote: Richard, You have significantly misinterpreted the concept incorporated in "State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc". The issue in this case, and the others that reference it, is the question of "willful" infringement. The infringement by itself is not the issue. Hi Gene, As I pointed out that very term, and it is included in every quote, it hardly constitutes my having missed the issue. I even commented on the distinction as it applies to the pursuit of Amateur Radio, in that our service is in improving design. These Cassandra appeals to the contrary rather misses the mandate of our privilege. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
In article ,
Richard Clark wrote: So by your interpretion of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of a patented item for personal use (which was the original statment)? Whose making interpretations now? :-) The findings already answered the matter with sufficient emphasis as to intent. If you cannot distinguish intent, you should seek legal counsel. As I read the findings, they seem to state that one cannot be held culpable of "willful infringement" of a patent if one builds a version of the patented invention *and* makes a good-faith effort to modify it so that it does not actually infringe on the patent claims. If the changes aren't actually sufficient to avoid infringement, the fact that you *tried* to avoid this is enough to keep your infringment from being "willful". I didn't see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented invention for personal use and does *not* make a good-faith effort to change it to avoid patent infringement. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
Dave,
With reference to your last sentence: Did you see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented invention for personal use and *does* make a good-faith effort to change it to avoid patent infringement? I found nothing that says infringement itself is somehow canceled. Only "willful" infringement is negated. Otherwise virtually all patents would be useless. One could always claim some good-faith attempt to change the patented item. Again, in practical terms for an individual radio amateur it is unlikely that there will be any *legal* consequence from making a single copy of a patented item for personal use. However, it is still an infringement. The morality is up to the individual. 73, Gene W4SZ Dave Platt wrote: As I read the findings, they seem to state that one cannot be held culpable of "willful infringement" of a patent if one builds a version of the patented invention *and* makes a good-faith effort to modify it so that it does not actually infringe on the patent claims. If the changes aren't actually sufficient to avoid infringement, the fact that you *tried* to avoid this is enough to keep your infringment from being "willful". I didn't see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented invention for personal use and does *not* make a good-faith effort to change it to avoid patent infringement. |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 20:12:17 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote: Did you see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented invention for personal use and *does* make a good-faith effort to change it to avoid patent infringement? Hi Gene, "Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement, particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See, Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110 (Fed. Cir. 1986). I found nothing that says infringement itself is somehow canceled. Only "willful" infringement is negated. Common infringement cases, as they occur, are ruled upon their merits. Otherwise virtually all patents would be useless. One could always claim some good-faith attempt to change the patented item. This marks the issue of protection offered, but NOT GUARANTEED. And again, if it goes to court, it will invariably be between manufacturers (or the patent holder and a manufacturer). The courts are quite competent to smoke out the rats. There is a special case whereby a manufacturer (or anyone for that matter) CAN build and SELL a patented item irrespective of the patent holder's wish IFF such a product was available before the issuance of the patent, and the manufacturer does not diverge from that prior issue design. This, in itself, proves the poor quality of bureaucratic interpretations of the law that tar the subject with a large brush. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Did you see anything in the findings which absolves anyone from
infringement (willful or otherwise) if one reproduces a patented invention for personal use and *does* make a good-faith effort to change it to avoid patent infringement? Hi Gene, "Patent law encourages competitors to design or invent around existing patents." See, WMS Gaming, Inc., 51 U.S.P.Q2d at 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, a good faith attempt to design around the patent will generally negate a charge of willful infringement, particularly if advice of counsel is sought during the design process. See, Braun, Inc. v. Dynamics Corp. of Am., 975 F.2d 815, 823 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Read, 970 F.2d at 828 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Indeed, even in the absence of advice of counsel, a sincere attempt to design around the patent may negate willfulness. See, Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp., 800 F.2d 1101, 1109-1110 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As I understand the situation from my reading (and I am by no means a lawyer, hence my understanding bears no legal weight at all), there are two issues involved: [1] Does it infringe? Are you, in fact, actually reproducing an invention which is patented? If you are, then you can be subject to penalties (e.g. the original manufacturer's loss of profits due to the infringement), and/or become the subject of a court judgement which forbids you to continue manufacturing the infringed invention. [2] Was the infringement "willful"? Was it a knowing and deliberate infringment? If so, the court can increase the amount of damages awarded to the inventor(s), up to the point of treble damages. As I read the rulings cited above, they have to do with the issue of whether an infringement is willful (and thus subject to increased damage awards) if the infringer had made a good-faith effort to "design around" the patent. The rulings above, as summarized, don't seem to deal with whether *infringement* itself occurred... only whether the infringement was *willful*. So - if you start out in an attempt to "design around" someone else's patent (creating a similar invention which does not actually infringe), and you use good faith in this attempt (which would probably mean a competent engineering approach, plus advice from competent counsel), and you think you've modified the invention enough to avoid infringing, and a court rules otherwise, then: - You'd still be infringing, and - The court would probably rule that your infringement was not willful, and would decline to levy any increased penalties. http://www.mmmlaw.com/articles/article_234.pdf describes one such case... Polaroid vs. Kodak. Otherwise virtually all patents would be useless. One could always claim some good-faith attempt to change the patented item. This marks the issue of protection offered, but NOT GUARANTEED. And again, if it goes to court, it will invariably be between manufacturers (or the patent holder and a manufacturer). The courts are quite competent to smoke out the rats. Very probably. Oh... back on the original question of "building for personal use." It appears that this question depends on where you are. The U.S. doesn't have a "for personal use" exemption, but it seems that most E.U. countries do, and that in these countries a patent infringement doesn't exist unless the infringing products are actually being offered for sale. Quite a sensible approach, I think. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
That is a good idea. How would I test them?
|
How wxpensive is it? WOuld anyone be able to do the calculations for me?
|
Dear Roy:
No, Mr. Clark is not a lawyer. As I recall, he is a long time grad student with an exceptional vocabulary and a dislike of some of the Constitution. I am a lawyer and a patent attorney (and I support every bit of the Constitution). No exception exists to make a copy of a patented item for personal use. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: "Roy Lewallen" wrote in message ... So by your interpretation of the law, it's ok for anyone to make a copy of a patented item for personal use (which was the original statement)? That's not obvious to me from the short quotes you gave, and I'm surprised in any case that you can draw such a sweeping conclusion from a couple of paragraphs. But then, I'm not a lawyer. Are you? Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com