Sometimes It Is Easier To Invent Than To Google

[Bret Cahill]

Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel. I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought. For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades. Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.

The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP. (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.) This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders. The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.

I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.

Eventually the smarter posts appear. I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible. This
really enraged the dunces. Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology. I got indignant. I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
they could shove their $%#@! terminology. I posted, "Excel
understands me just fine."

At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.

Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages. I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years. _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.

Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_. "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."

This was complete vindication on more than the filter. I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.

A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology. Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.

Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.

The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.

Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.


Bret Cahill

[NT]

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

NT

[Bret Cahill]

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.


Bret Cahill

[NT]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.
Bret Cahill

Ok...

Lets say I would need a large amount of money for patents, due to the
nature of the beast it wouldn't work with cheap protection. The catch
22 is inability to raise enough finance to pay for it, plus I would
presume others' unwilingness to invest significant money in sometihng
not yet patented. Question is, where to go from there?


NT

[Bret Cahill]

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.
Bret Cahill

Ok...
Lets say I would need a large amount of money for patents,

Why do you think you need a lot of money? It's only $125 for a
provisional. If you can't get anyone interested in a year then no one
is interested and you are only out of $125.

Post by NT
due to the
nature of the beast it wouldn't work with cheap protection. The catch
22 is inability to raise enough finance to pay for it, plus I would
presume others' unwilingness to invest significant money in sometihng
not yet patented. Question is, where to go from there?

Try something that only requires a copyright. Nothing is guaranteed
in life generally. Why do you think IP would be any different?

Actually I was talking about getting a flood of ideas out of the
general public.

Just concentrate on the ideas and the money will follow. This is
guaranteed by cheap communications and the info age.


Bret Cahill

[NT]

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.
Bret Cahill

Ok...
Lets say I would need a large amount of money for patents,

Why do you think you need a lot of money?  It's only $125 for a
provisional.  If you can't get anyone interested in a year then no one
is interested and you are only out of $125.

Its a game changer in its sector. It would need a thoroughly drawn up
patent to work, plus ability to access to funds to enforce it.

Post by NT
due to the
nature of the beast it wouldn't work with cheap protection. The catch
22 is inability to raise enough finance to pay for it, plus I would
presume others' unwilingness to invest significant money in sometihng
not yet patented. Question is, where to go from there?

Try something that only requires a copyright.  Nothing is guaranteed
in life generally.  Why do you think IP would be any different?

I don't see how I could license technology that wasn't patented.

Actually I was talking about getting a flood of ideas out of the
general public.
Just concentrate on the ideas and the money will follow.  This is
guaranteed by cheap communications and the info age.
Bret Cahill

If only


NT

[Bret Cahill]

Post by NT

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.
Bret Cahill

Ok...
Lets say I would need a large amount of money for patents,

Why do you think you need a lot of money?  It's only $125 for a
provisional.  If you can't get anyone interested in a year then no one
is interested and you are only out of $125.

Its a game changer in its sector.

That's what everyone always says about the 99.9% of patents that never
make one cent.

Post by NT
It would need a thoroughly drawn up
patent to work,

What's keeping you from drawing it up yourself? David Pressman has an
excellent book, _Patent It Yourself_.

Post by NT
plus ability to access to funds to enforce it.

Funding shouldn't be a problem if you are able to communicate in the
patent that it really is a "game changer." The $125 provisional fee
will protect it for the deep pocket investor. An ex patent examiner
once said to include the claims in the PPA "or they'll never believe
it.".

Claims writing is a vital part of the creative process as well as the
patent process. You ask yourself, "how are they going to get around
that?" and then you start looking at all the alternatives.

Post by NT

Post by NT
due to the
nature of the beast it wouldn't work with cheap protection. The catch
22 is inability to raise enough finance to pay for it, plus I would
presume others' unwilingness to invest significant money in sometihng
not yet patented. Question is, where to go from there?

Try something that only requires a copyright.  Nothing is guaranteed
in life generally.  Why do you think IP would be any different?

I don't see how I could license technology that wasn't patented.

Software is generally protected by copyrights.

Post by NT

Actually I was talking about getting a flood of ideas out of the
general public.
Just concentrate on the ideas and the money will follow.  This is
guaranteed by cheap communications and the info age.
Bret Cahill

If only

Any inventor will need to generate nine hundred and ninety nine ideas
that aren't money makers for every idea that is a money maker worth
patenting.

Since these 999 ideas don't need patent protection then you should
have been posting them on the Internet. This promotes the "useful
arts" without wasting any time or money on patent lawyers, Pressman's
book or litigation. It also provides a trail of evidence that you are
in fact an inventor and not a blow hard. As they say, "no one ever
invents just one thing."

Where have you posted your nine hundred and ninety nine ideas that
weren't money makers?

Of course you can try to claim the money maker idea "just happened" to
come first but anyone with any money to invest nowadays will be
something of an actuarial. He'll calculate that the odds of anyone
actually getting a hole in one are 0.1%. That doesn't mean he won't
invest, just that his rate of return will need to be over 100,000% in
a few years -- angel funding on steroids. Don't expect to see Warren
Buffet beating a path to your door in such a situation.

I'm encouraging people to make inventing part of their lifestyle.
That includes discouraging quick buck fantasies.


Bret Cahill

[NT]

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match \filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.
Bret Cahill

Ok...
Lets say I would need a large amount of money for patents,

Why do you think you need a lot of money?  It's only $125 for a
provisional.  If you can't get anyone interested in a year then no one
is interested and you are only out of $125.

Its a game changer in its sector.

That's what everyone always says about the 99.9% of patents that never
make one cent.

It obsoletes existing products, it makes them nearly twice as useful
at minimal extra cost.

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT
It would need a thoroughly drawn up
patent to work,

What's keeping you from drawing it up yourself?  David Pressman has an
excellent book, _Patent It Yourself_.

are you really saying that's sensible for something there's a good
chance most companies in the sector are likely to want to crack? I
don't think so, imho. And that's the problem. I understand the core
principles of patents, but that's all. I'd do it happily with a minor
one.

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT
plus ability to access to funds to enforce it.

Funding shouldn't be a problem if you are able to communicate in the
patent that it really is a "game changer."  The $125 provisional fee
will protect it for the deep pocket investor.

ok, good point, but it would need provisional patenting in more than
one country or wont be patentable there. Then its not possible to add
more claims later, I'd be stuck with my amateur hour claims.

Post by Bret Cahill
An ex patent examiner
once said to include the claims in the PPA "or they'll never believe
it.".

I'll remember that

Post by Bret Cahill
Claims writing is a vital part of the creative process as well as the
patent process.  You ask yourself, "how are they going to get around
that?" and then you start looking at all the alternatives.

yes

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by NT
due to the
nature of the beast it wouldn't work with cheap protection. The catch
22 is inability to raise enough finance to pay for it, plus I would
presume others' unwilingness to invest significant money in sometihng
not yet patented. Question is, where to go from there?

Try something that only requires a copyright.  Nothing is guaranteed
in life generally.  Why do you think IP would be any different?

I don't see how I could license technology that wasn't patented.

Software is generally protected by copyrights.

my skill area is analogue electronics

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Actually I was talking about getting a flood of ideas out of the
general public.
Just concentrate on the ideas and the money will follow.  This is
guaranteed by cheap communications and the info age.
Bret Cahill

If only

Any inventor will need to generate nine hundred and ninety nine ideas
that aren't money makers for every idea that is a money maker worth
patenting.

of course.

Post by Bret Cahill
Since these 999 ideas don't need patent protection then you should
have been posting them on the Internet.  This promotes the "useful
arts"

OK, for one of no commercial value, here goes:

A filament lamp has its filaments supported on several metal support
wires. Lamp failure occurs when a break occurs in any one of these
filament sections. We therefore add an insulated wire wrap from end
connection 1 to support wire 2, another from end support wire 2 to
support wire 3, another from 3-4, one from 4-5, and one from 5 to end
connection 6. Now whenever a filament break occurs, the insulation on
the wire wrap experiences 6x the voltage and breaks down, and arcs.
The arcing welds the wire wrap to the filament supports, shorting the
bad filament section, and the lamp immediately relights on all but one
section. This process continues as the lamp wears out, with failure
only occurring when all filament sections are dead.

To enable it to function this way, the lamp requires a current
limiting ballast. This costs money - more money than a replacement
lamp. It also means the light output goes all the way down to 1/6th
the original output before it fails. Its still a usable lamp, but few
domestic users would keep moving lamps around to deal with this
changing light output, and few commercial users want to use filament
lamps in significant number. So although it can extend lamp life (or
give greater efficacy instead), its not worth doing.

Post by Bret Cahill
without wasting any time or money on patent lawyers, Pressman's
book or litigation.  It also provides a trail of evidence that you are
in fact an inventor and not a blow hard.  As they say, "no one ever
invents just one thing."
Where have you posted your nine hundred and ninety nine ideas that
weren't money makers?
Of course you can try to claim the money maker idea "just happened" to
come first but anyone with any money to invest nowadays will be
something of an actuarial.  He'll calculate that the odds of anyone
actually getting a hole in one are 0.1%.  That doesn't mean he won't
invest, just that his rate of return will need to be over 100,000% in
a few years -- angel funding on steroids.  Don't expect to see Warren
Buffet beating a path to your door in such a situation.
I'm encouraging people to make inventing part of their lifestyle.
That includes discouraging quick buck fantasies.
Bret Cahill

I've never made such a claim. I really want to learn how to make this
one work, and am rather jaded from not seeing how to.

I appreciate your time here.


NT

[Bret Cahill]

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
Last month I wanted to demonstrate my new reference with match
filtering on Excel.  I never made any claims about filters or signal
processing and never gave that aspect a second thought.  For at least
2 years I just assumed "they" had been using matched filtering for
signal recovery, not just signal detection, for decades.  Computers
have been fast and cheap for quite sometime and North or his Russian
counterpart most likely considered it all the way back in 1943 when
the radar filter was invented.
The first to respond were the dunces who immediately formed a
confederacy to oppose the OP.  (Now, right away you know they can't
have much of a life if they get _that_ upset over a post about a
filter.)  This is partly statistical as there are more dumb people
than smart people so the dumb tend to be the first responders.  The
dunces were saying that the deconvolution of the match \filter output
was impossible.
I gave them plenty of time, plenty of rope so the idiots' necks would
really snap good and clean when I finally showed them it had _already_
been done and the results had been on my web page for months.
Eventually the smarter posts appear.  I had cross posted to the math
groups and one said that linear deconvolutions were possible.   This
really enraged the dunces.  Others more familiar with matched
filtering didn't say anything about the method, only that I was using
the wrong terminology.  I got indignant.  I never made any claim to be
a scholarly expert on signal processing and as far as I was concerned
understands me just fine."
At this point it was slowly starting to dawn on me that I had in fact
invented a new filter without even knowing it.
Then the discussion [among the intelligent] shifted to the
advantages.  I explained "matched filtering" was a misnomer and they
had been doing it wrong for 70 years.  _I_ was the one with the right
terminology.
Finally someone said something like the first paragraph of _Common
Sense_.  "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a
superficial appearance of being right."
This was complete vindication on more than the filter.  I had been
wondering for years if it was possible to convert a political
incendiary to a technology incendiary.
A long time math prof friend started thinking, screw technology.  Get
back into politics and finish off the GOP.
Anyway the entire duration of what was an historical if somewhat
comical event the dunces were changing headers and making comments as
moronic as anything you'll find from any looneytarian or teabagger.
The only way to get the economy working for everyone including the
tire biters is through innovation, technological innovation as well as
innovation on exposing GOP scams.
Yet tire biters get upset at _any_ innovation.
Bret Cahill

Its a shame this group isnt busier

There's a remedy for that.
Bret Cahill

Ok...
Lets say I would need a large amount of money for patents,

Why do you think you need a lot of money?  It's only $125 for a
provisional.  If you can't get anyone interested in a year then no one
is interested and you are only out of $125.

Its a game changer in its sector.

That's what everyone always says about the 99.9% of patents that never
make one cent.

It obsoletes existing products, it makes them nearly twice as useful
at minimal extra cost.

If you can't say anything then you need to spend the $125 for the PPA.

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT
It would need a thoroughly drawn up
patent to work,

What's keeping you from drawing it up yourself?  David Pressman has an
excellent book, _Patent It Yourself_.

are you really saying that's sensible for something there's a good
chance most companies in the sector are likely to want to crack?

What are your alternatives?

You can publish but you only have a year before you can file the
patent.

Post by NT
I
don't think so, imho. And that's the problem. I understand the core
principles of patents,  but that's all. I'd do it happily with a minor
one.

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT
plus ability to access to funds to enforce it.

Funding shouldn't be a problem if you are able to communicate in the
patent that it really is a "game changer."  The $125 provisional fee
will protect it for the deep pocket investor.

ok, good point, but it would need provisional patenting in more than
one country or wont be patentable there.

Look up PCT rules.

Post by NT
Then its not possible to add
more claims later, I'd be stuck with my amateur hour claims.

Post by Bret Cahill
An ex patent examiner
once said to include the claims in the PPA "or they'll never believe
it.".

I'll remember that

Post by Bret Cahill
Claims writing is a vital part of the creative process as well as the
patent process.  You ask yourself, "how are they going to get around
that?" and then you start looking at all the alternatives.

yes

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Post by NT
due to the
nature of the beast it wouldn't work with cheap protection. The catch
22 is inability to raise enough finance to pay for it, plus I would
presume others' unwilingness to invest significant money in sometihng
not yet patented. Question is, where to go from there?

Try something that only requires a copyright.  Nothing is guaranteed
in life generally.  Why do you think IP would be any different?

I don't see how I could license technology that wasn't patented.

Software is generally protected by copyrights.

my skill area is analogue electronics

Sounds like you need a PPA.

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill

Post by NT

Actually I was talking about getting a flood of ideas out of the
general public.
Just concentrate on the ideas and the money will follow.  This is
guaranteed by cheap communications and the info age.
Bret Cahill

If only

Any inventor will need to generate nine hundred and ninety nine ideas
that aren't money makers for every idea that is a money maker worth
patenting.

of course.

Post by Bret Cahill
Since these 999 ideas don't need patent protection then you should
have been posting them on the Internet.  This promotes the "useful
arts"

A filament lamp has its filaments supported on several metal support
wires. Lamp failure occurs when a break occurs in any one of these
filament sections. We therefore add an insulated wire wrap from end
connection 1 to support wire 2, another  from end support wire 2 to
support wire 3, another from 3-4, one from 4-5, and one from 5 to end
connection 6. Now whenever a filament break occurs, the insulation on
the wire wrap experiences 6x the voltage and breaks down, and arcs.
The arcing welds the wire wrap to the filament supports, shorting the
bad filament section, and the lamp immediately relights on all but one
section. This process continues as the lamp wears out, with failure
only occurring when all filament sections are dead.
To enable it to function this way, the lamp requires a current
limiting ballast. This costs money - more money than a replacement
lamp. It also means the light output goes all the way down to 1/6th
the original output before it fails. Its still a usable lamp, but few
domestic users would keep moving lamps around to deal with this
changing light output, and few commercial users want to use filament
lamps in significant number. So although it can extend lamp life (or
give greater efficacy instead), its not worth doing.

You'll need 3 orders of magnitude more than 1 to get anyone's
attention.

Post by NT

Post by Bret Cahill
without wasting any time or money on patent lawyers, Pressman's
book or litigation.  It also provides a trail of evidence that you are
in fact an inventor and not a blow hard.  As they say, "no one ever
invents just one thing."
Where have you posted your nine hundred and ninety nine ideas that
weren't money makers?
Of course you can try to claim the money maker idea "just happened" to
come first but anyone with any money to invest nowadays will be
something of an actuarial.  He'll calculate that the odds of anyone
actually getting a hole in one are 0.1%.  That doesn't mean he won't
invest, just that his rate of return will need to be over 100,000% in
a few years -- angel funding on steroids.  Don't expect to see Warren
Buffet beating a path to your door in such a situation.
I'm encouraging people to make inventing part of their lifestyle.
That includes discouraging quick buck fantasies.
Bret Cahill

I've never made such a claim. I really want to learn how to make this
one work, and am rather jaded from not seeing how to.

Read Pressman's book.


Bret Cahill