audioholic
5,000+ posts
not a moderator
Patents have a time limit. Period.
audioholic
Since I'm chatting with folks south of 49, here is a snippet from the US patent office:
Patent Duration
Utility patents expire 20 years from the date of filing with the U. S. Patent & Trademark Office, if maintenance fees are paid. Plant and design patents do not require maintenance fees. Design patents expire 14 years from grant. A patent cannot be renewed. After a patent expires, anyone may use the invention without the inventor's permission.
It might have been copyrights that I was reading about...
Patent Duration
Utility patents expire 20 years from the date of filing with the U. S. Patent & Trademark Office, if maintenance fees are paid. Plant and design patents do not require maintenance fees. Design patents expire 14 years from grant. A patent cannot be renewed. After a patent expires, anyone may use the invention without the inventor's permission.
It might have been copyrights that I was reading about...
The new basket looks nothing like the W7 basket, in my opinion, whereas the old one did. And pictures of that old basket should never, ever have made it onto the internet. Even worse, they sent the prototype around to people with that potentially patent infringing basket on it.
It should be noted that eD does have a patent on that basket they copied! But, as Jeff pointed out on ECA:
1. Party A has a patent on a widget. Some time later, Party B also gets a patent on a similar widget. This in no way proves, suggests or implies that Party B does not infringe Party A's patent. Technology advances by incremental inprovements, and the patent office recognizes this. The primary purpose of patents is, in fact, to teach others how to practise what you have invented, in order to advance the art ... but to teach in a way that protects the inventor. Consequently, many, MANY patents are nothing but incremental improvements on existing, patented designs. I'm not taking sides, just stating the facts.
2. A decision about infringement can only be reached by interpreting and comparing the claims of the patent in question against the allegedly-infringing product. Claim interpretation is a long, often painful part of the patent litigation ... but it is a well-defined procedure. Claims must be well supported by the teaching within the patent, but can indeed encompass a much larger scope ... providing, obviously, that they do not read on any prior art.
3. As a patent holder, you are not allowed to "lay in wait" while a possibly-infringing design accumulates damages against you. If you suspect infringement, you are obligated to act quickly.
4. As a person filing for a patent, you are obligated by law to disclose all relevant "prior art" of which you are aware. The patent examiner reviews this art, together with prior art that he/she finds through independent investigations, in order to reach a conclusion about the inventiveness vs. obviousness of the technology filed. Failure to do so can not only invalidate a patent, but possibly subject the inventor to criminal charges.
It should be noted that eD does have a patent on that basket they copied! But, as Jeff pointed out on ECA:
1. Party A has a patent on a widget. Some time later, Party B also gets a patent on a similar widget. This in no way proves, suggests or implies that Party B does not infringe Party A's patent. Technology advances by incremental inprovements, and the patent office recognizes this. The primary purpose of patents is, in fact, to teach others how to practise what you have invented, in order to advance the art ... but to teach in a way that protects the inventor. Consequently, many, MANY patents are nothing but incremental improvements on existing, patented designs. I'm not taking sides, just stating the facts.
2. A decision about infringement can only be reached by interpreting and comparing the claims of the patent in question against the allegedly-infringing product. Claim interpretation is a long, often painful part of the patent litigation ... but it is a well-defined procedure. Claims must be well supported by the teaching within the patent, but can indeed encompass a much larger scope ... providing, obviously, that they do not read on any prior art.
3. As a patent holder, you are not allowed to "lay in wait" while a possibly-infringing design accumulates damages against you. If you suspect infringement, you are obligated to act quickly.
4. As a person filing for a patent, you are obligated by law to disclose all relevant "prior art" of which you are aware. The patent examiner reviews this art, together with prior art that he/she finds through independent investigations, in order to reach a conclusion about the inventiveness vs. obviousness of the technology filed. Failure to do so can not only invalidate a patent, but possibly subject the inventor to criminal charges.
And to speak on this topic, yeah, it has low efficiency...it's underhung. Low flux utilization but higher BL linearity...expensive, though, because of the top plate. The sub itself looks terribly built, but perhaps the production drivers will be done with more care.
spark plugs.
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
it's quite hilarious that so many of you are quick to denounce this sub when i doubt any of you have heard it. i've used eD's products and, while i would never say they're the best, i can't really complain about any of them.
oh, and any of you that are over 18 and think that saying "eDuh" is funny really should reexamine your sense of humor. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
oh, and any of you that are over 18 and think that saying "eDuh" is funny really should reexamine your sense of humor. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Wow, enough already about ED. How many of you even had their products and were lied to. Well i was, i had the e15a flat cone and two 16ov2's. I will probably not buy their products anymore but i've moved on. You guys need to get over what Ben did in the past and just ignore the company period. Their products look cheaply made to me but to keep beating a dead horse with a stick is foolish. Get over it and move on, theres better companys out their to focus your energy on, stop focusing your energy on Ed whether its positive energy or negative energy. If you don't like someones business practices than don't do business with them, its really simple. Maybe Ed is better now and Ben learned from his mistakes(which we all make sometimes). Either way this is getting old. Again i had a e15a that broke at the t-joint, i'm a victim and i got over it. I guess young people hold grudges longer than mature people.
na_rsx
10+ year member
Incriminator Audio FTW
Nicely put, imaginary +rep lol
Randy Savage
5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
eDuh.
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
We where asking too much with a 15" flatcone. I don't think anyone makes one.
iagrdshaka
5,000+ posts
Down with jimmy hats
Read my sig man, this guy is claiming eD's new sub is going to destroy the W7, but yet he hasn't seen or heard one. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
na_rsx
10+ year member
Incriminator Audio FTW
//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/escape.gif.52b661afb17bde1db0e0c7da97e75b38.gif
btw, i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico!!!
mine actually lasted a year and a few months before it broke.
spark plugs.
10+ year member
Senior VIP Member
i guess that those quick to give them praises are equally guilty
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Similar threads
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 307
- Views
- 14,920
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- audioholic
