|
These websites not only show
how to destroy the works, plans, visions and skills of a small private
inventor - they demonstrate the way efficient IPR-protection
of electronic hardware has been made impossible. FOR NOW
and for the FUTURE by so-called "Techno Bandits", drunken managers,
polit-idiots, criminals and frauds.
See:
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1979-en.html
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1980-en.html
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1981-en.html
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1982-en1.html
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1982-en2.html
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1983-en.html
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1984-1.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1985-1.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1985-2.htm ->
the tragedy of Rieder and Schwaiger
http://www.sensortime.com/SRCT1985-3.htm -> the amazing
patent of Udo Proksch and R. Wein
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1986-1.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1986-2.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1987-1.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1987-2.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1988.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1989-1.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1989-2.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1990.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1993.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_1996.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/SensorTiming_2000.htm
Note: Even 15 years later, some maniacs are trying
to break through the "time barriere" (i.e. they are trying
to overcome the impossibility of transcending time-data acquisition as
top-technology in digital sensor applications). In relation to
patent specifications, they behaving like a bull in a china
shop. More about this at the end.
I described
the background of the matter in the autobiographical novel "Eric`s
time machine". Visitors to my homepage were able to read this
book online between 2002 and 2005. It`s now offline. (Maybe
it will appear again in a modified version in the coming years).
Those who read this novel might have thought:
How the heck could this disaster happen?
Why is someone, who has invented new technologies, who has financed
and performed substantial research- and developement work
through private endeavours, not in position to enforce his
patent rights? Why does society not support his efforts, why does it
not appreciate his work?
Some people even may
ask: Is it delusion? Or merely a sign of weakness? Or - were
his patents invalid from the beginning?
Other
people may say: If it was impossible for an inventor during the
70s, 80s and 90s to succeed despite owning such enormously
important patents - how could it be possible for an inventor today!
When conditions are now so much more difficult?
Anyway. I will try to put all evidence and facts on the table.
There are no speculations or presumptions. There are written
vouchers, letters, photos, documents and witnesses.
The reader shall get an idea of the reality in the patent- and
inventors scene. (In general, not only related to the mentioned
inventor Erich B. (Austria, EU).
---------------------------------------------------------
1978 saw the launch of the
project "SENSOR TIMING
The inventor Erich B. now explains what happened
since then.
Before we get
into details, some basics.
What is a patent?
--
A patent is a sort of intellectual property right,
granted to an inventor, that protects monopoly on a technical novelty.
The monopoly period generally lasts 20 years. If a patent is
granted, the patent applicant receives the "patent document".
- A patent document consists of three parts:
description, patent claims and drawings.
- The wording
of the patent claims limits the scope of protection of the patent. The
claims indicate which sort of technology is now under patent
protection. In practice, this wording defines the worth of a patent in
the future, if the said invented technology is successful.
-
The patent holder can make, use all the technological features that
are within the scope of the patent claims; he can also exclude
others from making, using and selling those features.
-
Interpreting the scope of a patent is not only the concern of a patent
agent or expert - it is of course also the business of the patent
holder or inventor himself. However, first, an inventor has to obtain
sufficient professional knowledge on patent matters and text
interpretation, and should know something about
novelty-examination procedures, patent issuance, annulment- and
infringement action practice. --------------------------------------------------------
So far, so good.
Now
I had an important idea back in the early 70s: to measure and store the
elapsed
time
fora movement automatically and directly ON THE
MOVING OBJECT ITSELF;
rather
than distanced from the moving object (with photoelectric barriers etc.).
I was a skilled electronic engineer, and I found the way to
solve the technical
problem.
This idea was much more than "worthy a patent
application". No, this idea was
indeedsensational. Later, a great number of people attested
this fact. Any
creatively
talentedhuman being would have gone to a patent
agent, if he had had
that
idea..
So, in December 1977, I filed the patent
application "Zeitmess- und Anzeige-
vorrichtung"("time measuring and displaying device") to the
Austrian Patent Office
and
subsequently to the DP and the US-Patent Office ("device for measuring
and
indicating
the time between the reception of first and second airborne signals").
For description and drawings of the issued patent
documents see:
http://www.sensortime.com/US4245334.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/AT366834.htm
http://www.sensortime.com/AT397869B.htm
Now, let`s take a look
at the mentioned Patent US4245334 (Bieramperl).
Patent claim 1) reads: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A system mounted on a vehicle for measuring and
indicating the time required for a movement
from a first location to a second location spaced
from the first location, said system comprising:
- a first transmitter located at said first
location and adapted to transmit a first energy signal;
- a second transmitter located at said second
location and adapted to transmit a second energy signal;
- an electronic stopwatch for delivering clock
signals;
- a memory coupled to said
watch for receiving and storing said clock signals;
- display means coupled to said memory means for
providing a visual indication of the clocksignals stored
by said memory;
- an energy signal
receiver having a sensor for receiving said first and second energy
signals;
- a start switch for
coupling the output of said receiver to the input of said stopwatch
and responsive to said first energy signal, so as to turn on said
watch to provide clock signals; and
-
a stop switch for coupling the output of said receiver to the input of
said stopwatch and responsive to said second energy signal, so as
to turn off said watch and terminate the clock signals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Note: the original
claim in my initial filing read differently; it was even broader. (We
will talk about
later..)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What
do we see? Patent claim 1) shows clearly, that neither the distance, nor
the sort
of "transmitter", nor the sort of received
"energy signals", nor the sort of "electronic
stop watch" (= timer), nor the sort of "memory",
nor the sort of display, nor the sort
of "start switch" or "stop switch"
nor the sort of SENSORS are defined!
What
does that mean?
It
means: ALL sorts of technology, featuring the characteristics of patent
claim 1),
are
covered under the patent! Every patent expert knows this! Even if a
product
provides
no visual indication" at said memory, but uses a means of storage to
perform
various sorts of data processing, itis covered under said patent - perhaps
up
to 80% (not 100%).
Therefore,
many parts of industry had to pay a licence fee to the inventor i.e. the
patent holder from 1981, if there was no foul
play all the time. Do you understand?
Example: Look at a digital
CamCorder with a flash memory (semiconductor chip):
1) It is equipped with a
SENSOR. A so-called "CCD-sensor" (charge coupled display), or +
an "APS" (Active Pixel Sensor,
which detects the impinging light signals (electromagnetic
waves) and converts these into digital code.
Therefore: Feature 1 of Pat. US4245334 is
present.
2) There is also
a transmitter. You do not believe me? Oh yes,
there is... Every photons- emitting entity or structure,
where a camcorder is moving along when recording a video, is
a transmitter which sends "energy signals".
Therefore: Features 1 and 2 of Pat. US4245334 are
present.
3) Some people may argue now: Okay, tell me where is
the electronic stopwatch,
the memory and the
start/stop-switches to measure the elapsed times - ("time required for a
movement from a first location to a second location") ?
Simple explained:
Should all movements NOT be
exactly time-dependently detected und chrono- logically acquired,
there would be chaos in the chip data carrier (flash memory)!
Therefore: all elapsed times between arriving optical signals have to be
digitally measured and stored at the CCD-sensor!
When using a
magnetic tape cassette drive instead of a semiconductor flash memory
(e.g. a
SSD-drive), the drive mechanism performs the task of timing and
synchronisation of
video data
automatically. But if you have a flash memory, there is no way
around sequentialelapse time measurements and
chronological assignement of
acquired data. Finally: Said
"start-stop-switches" achieve their function via software, and
need notto be distinctive.
All in all,
nothing does change the fact, that a human viewer, who looks on a
LCD- monitor, sees actually visualized elapsed times, and nothing
else.. Therefore: Feature 4, 5 and 6 of Pat. US4245334
is present.
And that the "system" is placed on a
"vehicle", and is "moving", need not to be further elaborated
here...
------------------------------------ - Now
let`s take a look at my fundamental invention of 1977, which
was
the key for said patent claims, and to the first
FRAUD, which
happenedaround 1980
(the first of many irregularities in the context
to myinvention to the
present time):
Admittedly,
in 1977 it was not my intention to submit a patent for a multi-data chip
recorder (this happened later, in
1986), but I did know that my elapse time
measurement system had universal
applicability. It was obvious to me, that, if one
can measure and store elapse time
via an on-board sensor in a passive manner,
all other time-dependent physical
values may be derived too. I also knew, that
the mode of the patent claim 1)
allowed the interpretation of iterative and
recursive applications.
I asked a
personally known patent expert to helped me to file the patent description
at the Austrian Patent Office. He
formulated broad claims (usual in the patent
scene). The Austrian Patent Office
had no objection and finally granted said patent
in 1982 (patent Nr. AT
366834).
Unfortunately, 1979 (one year after filing the patent in Austria), this
expert was
unable to help me translate the
description and file the patent in the USA and
elsewhere. He recommended that I
consult an accredited patent attorney in
Linz/Austria, (Mr. H. Huebscher).
I mandated H. Huebscher to submit the
patent description with patent claim 1) to
the US- Patent Office:
(see also this
link:
original submission of patent claims to
US4245334).
The original patent document, which was granted on
January 13, 1981, contained the following claim 1):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What
is claimed is:
1) A device for measuring and indicating the time between
reception of first and second
airbornesignals,
comprising
- an electronic watch for
delivering clock signals
- indicating means adapted to receive said clock
signals and to give an indication
correspondingto the clock signals
thus received
- a sensor for receiving said first and second airborne
signals
- a start switch arranged to connect said indicating
means to said stop watch for
thereception ofsaid clock pulses from said stop watch by said
indicating means in
response to the reception of saidfirst airborne signal by said sensor,
and
- a stop switch arranged to disconnect
said indicating means from said stop watch
in responsetothe reception of said second airborne signal by said
sensor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The patent document I now possess, contains the modified claim you can
read at the
top
ofthis page (see above) !! Nobody knows the
point in time when this document
was
exchanged against a duplicate; nobody knows HOW this theft occurred - but
it
seems
it really did happen !
Moreover, said U.S. patent application
should include a drawing of the vehicle
(see
link). This not provided by my patent attorney (or he simply
"forgot"?) - , as a result,
an
inventornamed A. R. Hocken received a patent
three years later that was
almost 100% identical towith my invention (not
granted by the European Patent
Office). And this was not the only
case.
More in the next sites:
PATENT Theft Thread (1985
- 1987), see link The Hocken
Documentation Very important. Of great interest is: When and how came the time
recorder chip on the running shoe? The ARMSTRONG- DOCUMENTATION
and the
stunners The RIEDER &
SCHWAIGER - TRAGEDY The
unknown amazing patent of Udo Proksch & Rudi
Wein
--------------------------------------
As I have already said, a
patent document consists of three parts: description of the invention,
patent claims and drawings. You have read now, what technologies could
have been derived from my patent claims. Now you will hear, what the
mankind has been deprived of a result of destructive patent policy.
A video camcorder from 10
or 15 years ago, is worthless today because the mechanical drive is
outdated. It can be thrown away now. But
you would have already obtained a video camcorder with an electronic chip
drive (SSD) in the 90s, if the manufacturers had not been afraid of having
to pay a few dollars licence fee! For at
least 20 years, the manufacturers have utilized OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY
(mechanical drives with tapes or discs!) in various recorder, only to save
on license fees for inventors!
Just imagine: They used outdated technology, only to avoid
measuring and storing elapsed times on a semiconductor chip!
Only to avoid a patent dispute with a
small private inventor which would probably appear in the papers!
You do not believe me - you
think this is a conspiracy theory? NO! This is the absolute truth! In
global terms, the damage is in the hundred of billions of dollars!
If you believe, that now - where this technology is used everywhere
and where some patents have expired - no new damage is being caused, you
are wrong: there is no IPR protection anymore on such technology and it
can be cheaply imported from the Far East. For now and for ever. In the
USA it is just the same as in Europe. The innovation status of a
chip-based flash recorder has dwindled - its now near the level of junk.
Prices are meanwhile almost lower than for discarded mechanical drives.
Since 2000, the technology has destroyed millions of jobs, and has also
brought down the system of copyright in the music business.
The reason is simple: A strong
patent holder in all these elapse-time-capturing technologies (including
"streaming", "speech recognition" and so on..) had a good chance of
keeping progress in regulated channels. Instead, all that resulted was
arbitrariness and illegality.
But that`s not all. Listen: Measuring and
storing elapsed times is, indeed! - the key to real-time-identification
of all sorts of perceptions, auto-adaption, self-organization and,
finally, artificial intelligence. Even the brain works solely with
elapsed time measurements! There is no sort of data processing like in
personal computers. I elaborated the evidences in the new patent
application:
Patent
US 6172941
see:
http://www.sensortime.com/time-e.html
(Method to Generate Self-Organizing Processes in
Autonomous Mechanisms and Organisms)
If
you believe, there is no increase of cynism possible anymore, you are
mistaken!
The global scientific community knows since more
than 10 years about the facts and evidences, but they deny the facts,
and proceed in same way as before - only for the purpose to avoid
jeopardizing the system...!!
--------------------------------------
You now know what has become of my
patent claims. Now,
let`s take a look what happened with
my described invention
of 1978 itself, with my drawings, with my written words.
(See
sports and traffic
branches).
--------------------------------------
What happened to the sensor-activated elapse time measurement
system
(the so-called SRCT/Sensor Timing) ? The project I worked
on, for
which I made the greatest personal and financial sacrifices,
where I made the first steps in research and
developement ?
Purely and
simply said: IT HAS GOT STOLEN. I no longer earn a single cent,
while
copycats and product pirates make millions.
From the very beginning, my
intention was to set up as a mainstay in the sports branch,
before dealing with other applications of the
technology.
My aim was to establish
profitable
production with my own firm. The firm would eventually have granted
licences to other companies.
In 1978, the most obvious application (and the
easiest to realize) seemed to be
the
automatically operated lap timer for motorsports, with
magnetic sensors on the vehicle
and magnetic tape on the road. But this was too trivial for me.
I wanted to develop a
timing system, that could operate under severe environmental
conditions without a
need to tear open a track etc., To this end I undertook long,
expensive and difficult
research- and development work.
I
had decided to make the first sensor-operated parallel-running timer on an
alpine ski
real! Already in May 1978 I had completed a first prototype. There
exists,
however, no photo.
Here
are some SensorTiming configurations in sports (lap timer,
total
distance timer, intermediate timer
etc.):
Examples: Longarcre Timer, MyChron, Casio
etc.
Example: Freelap
Examples: Starlane, QStarz, RaceChrono, Runtastic, Garmin,
Memotec SOLO, Suunto etc.
|