Has anyone looked at this patent?

See http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO0245210

for details.

It's basically a coil wrapped around a ferrite rod/tube
that sensitive to the magnetic part of the electromagnetic
field.

The author claims it can be built small, handle high
power, and is mostly omni-directional.

They also went to the trouble of patenting it
in Canada, number CA2427575, but I can find no US patent.

"PagCal" wrote in message
...
Has anyone looked at this patent?

See http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO0245210

for details.

It's basically a coil wrapped around a ferrite rod/tube
that sensitive to the magnetic part of the electromagnetic
field.

The author claims it can be built small, handle high
power, and is mostly omni-directional.

They also went to the trouble of patenting it
in Canada, number CA2427575, but I can find no US patent.



doesn't look like anything special, but then again you don't have to have
anything really special to get a patent... heck, the device doesn't even
have to work. someone has patented an antenna that sends signals faster
than light, if i remember right it was basically a halogen floodlight tube
with a coil around it and a bunch of other junk... as an additional claim
they claimed it helped plants grow, which is probably the only claim they
could prove if they were ever asked to.

The antenna was first patented in Norway this summer, and I have just read
that patent. I think the innovative aspect of it is the ferrite and its
properties which makes it feasible for a transmitter at VHF/UHF at
reasonable power levels and
with a size of only a few cms.

Of course, the patent says very little about the ferrite - I guess that's
how a good patent is
supposed to be written. The antenna is in use for tracking of sheep and it
is being evaluated by the Royal Air Force (UK), so I think there must be
something to it, see
http://www.hard-core-dx.com/index.php?topic=antennas

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...ticleID=609108

http://www.ancom.no/presentation01.htm

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/schr...t/3038763.html (in
Norwegian)

Sverre, LA3ZA
---------------------------------
www.qsl.net/la3za



"PagCal" wrote in message
...
Has anyone looked at this patent?

See http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO0245210
It's basically a coil wrapped around a ferrite rod/tube
that sensitive to the magnetic part of the electromagnetic
field.

The author claims it can be built small, handle high
power, and is mostly omni-directional.

I understand that patents do not always tell the whole story either:
many, many years ago I worked in a pharmaceutical laboratory where we
were trying to come up with a product that circumvented a German patent,
but we could not even get the process described in the patent to work --
they may have omitted mention of a catalyst.

-=-
Alan


On 11/08/03 11:32 am Sverre Holm put fingers to keyboard and launched
the following message into cyberspace:

The antenna was first patented in Norway this summer, and I have just read
that patent. I think the innovative aspect of it is the ferrite and its
properties which makes it feasible for a transmitter at VHF/UHF at
reasonable power levels and
with a size of only a few cms.

Of course, the patent says very little about the ferrite - I guess that's
how a good patent is
supposed to be written.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:35:50 -0500, Alan Beagley
wrote:

I understand that patents do not always tell the whole story either:
many, many years ago I worked in a pharmaceutical laboratory where we
were trying to come up with a product that circumvented a German patent,
but we could not even get the process described in the patent to work --
they may have omitted mention of a catalyst.

-=-
Alan

Hi Alan,

More their problem. By law, a patent is FULL disclosure. Failure to
that end is sufficient to nullify it. If you simply copied their work
and added that "catalyst," then you have just nudged their patent into
the dust bin.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"David Robbins" wrote in message ...
"PagCal" wrote in message
...
Has anyone looked at this patent?

See http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO0245210

for details.

It's basically a coil wrapped around a ferrite rod/tube
that sensitive to the magnetic part of the electromagnetic
field.

The author claims it can be built small, handle high
power, and is mostly omni-directional.

They also went to the trouble of patenting it
in Canada, number CA2427575, but I can find no US patent.



doesn't look like anything special, but then
again you don't have to have
anything really special to get a patent...


Absolutely correct since every thing is now known !
We have a lot of very educated experts in the antenna
field that can attest to that. If it is not already
printed in a book or was not presented as something
new found by an expert then it most certainly a case of snake
oil or something that was obvious but useless.
Sounds like you have been succesful in the patent field
and thus can talk from personal experience, care to share
some of these 'useles' patents that you have to illustrate
your point?
Regards
Art





heck, the device doesn't even
have to work. someone has patented an antenna that sends signals faster
than light, if i remember right it was basically a halogen floodlight tube
with a coil around it and a bunch of other junk... as an additional claim
they claimed it helped plants grow, which is probably the only claim they
could prove if they were ever asked to.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:59:02 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:35:50 -0500, Alan Beagley
wrote:

I understand that patents do not always tell the whole story either:
many, many years ago I worked in a pharmaceutical laboratory where we
were trying to come up with a product that circumvented a German patent,
but we could not even get the process described in the patent to work --
they may have omitted mention of a catalyst.

-=-
Alan

Hi Alan,

More their problem. By law, a patent is FULL disclosure. Failure to
that end is sufficient to nullify it. If you simply copied their work
and added that "catalyst," then you have just nudged their patent into
the dust bin.

Not necessarily.

Some years back I worked for a company that had a series of products
that it had been producing for years. Long enough that some patents
would have run out, but they never patented any of the work. They had
chosen to keep the process proprietary.

A competitor, after something like 30 years finally figured out how to
make the stuff and applied for a patent. They served notice that we
were in violation of "their" patent applied for and would have to pay
royalties on 30 years of production. It only took a few days with
the company lawyers showing that we had been producing and selling the
stuff for years. That was the end of their patent attempt. OTOH they
were able to go ahead and produce their own "brand" of the products
although they were not able to use the trade name which was
copyrighted.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:49:03 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 19:59:02 GMT, Richard Clark
wrote:

More their problem. By law, a patent is FULL disclosure. Failure to
that end is sufficient to nullify it. \

Not necessarily.

Necessarily. Failure to provide full disclosure is FRAUD.

Some years back I worked for a company that had a series of products
that it had been producing for years. Long enough that some patents
would have run out, but they never patented any of the work. They had
chosen to keep the process proprietary.

A competitor, after something like 30 years finally figured out how to
make the stuff and applied for a patent. They served notice that we
were in violation of "their" patent applied for and would have to pay
royalties on 30 years of production. It only took a few days with
the company lawyers showing that we had been producing and selling the
stuff for years. That was the end of their patent attempt. OTOH they
were able to go ahead and produce their own "brand" of the products
although they were not able to use the trade name which was
copyrighted.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)

Hi Roger,

All you've done is provide an anecdote that shows how companies use
the legal system for intimidation.

There is no such thing as protection for
were in violation of "their" patent applied for
(legal baloney). Anyone can sue anyone else for anything. Bringing
suit, like patent pending, has no basis in law until the judge smacks
the gavel. No basis, that is, except putting a cloud on a title (the
intimidation factor). If you can wait it out and have no asset sale
in the works, there's no problem and you can counter-sue if the
original suit is found be a nuisance. If you can't wait it out
(because you are selling assets) you settle; thus the intimidation
becomes extortion.

The only protections allowed in your story would have been your old
company would have been allowed to continue production to their old
standard and could not be held in violation of the patent to the
second company. This has a special legal term within patent law(which
I cannot currently recall) that recognizes an established product
could be brought to market before a patent for basically the same
thing is published (there are no issues of prior art for the patent
holder and no issues of violation for the prior manufacturer).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Art,
Your same old 'song and dance' is really getting tiresome.
Instead of making a vocation of being a martyr, find something
else to beat your breast over for a while.
'Doc

"Art Unwin KB9MZ" wrote in message
m...
"David Robbins" wrote in message
...
"PagCal" wrote in message
...
Has anyone looked at this patent?

See http://l2.espacenet.com/espacenet/viewer?PN=WO0245210

for details.

It's basically a coil wrapped around a ferrite rod/tube
that sensitive to the magnetic part of the electromagnetic
field.

The author claims it can be built small, handle high
power, and is mostly omni-directional.

They also went to the trouble of patenting it
in Canada, number CA2427575, but I can find no US patent.



doesn't look like anything special, but then
again you don't have to have
anything really special to get a patent...


Absolutely correct since every thing is now known !
We have a lot of very educated experts in the antenna
field that can attest to that. If it is not already
printed in a book or was not presented as something
new found by an expert then it most certainly a case of snake
oil or something that was obvious but useless.
Sounds like you have been succesful in the patent field
and thus can talk from personal experience, care to share
some of these 'useles' patents that you have to illustrate
your point?
Regards
Art


not me, I work mostly in intellectual property... software, for those of you
in Rio Linda. while I believe there are some software patents, I am mostly
an application engineer... that is, I take ideas and research that is
already done and make something useful out of them. at my paying job I
implement research that has been done on lightning hitting high voltage
power lines. I also do various data collection and monitoring systems on
substations and power lines. some of that work may be patentable by the
company even though it is just basically plugging together off the shelf
parts to do a new function. but since I hate having to be held to providing
support and stuff that you have to do for paying customers, anything I have
written for ham use is available free on my web site. (www.k1ttt.net)