Why do companies try to take patents out on standard schematics? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Faringdon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 12:10:32 pm
content: Hi,Do you find that electronics company owners are doing themselves down?They waste time trying to patent bog standard electronics schematics.I mean, ive seen companies trying to patent bog standard flyback SMPS schematics, and bog standard linear regulators. Also, bog standard general analog circuitry…literally circuitry where a 12 yr old kid could have done it……its so basic that its not worth patenting it.Do you find this?Why do they do it?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 12:31:54 pm
content: Well, for one, the people doing the hiding, have no understanding of what they're hiding.More stuff to publish, is also more stuff to support, more stuff to answer questions about, etc. It probably costs more. I mean, even just to have a procedure in place, to allow requests of internal information, takes work, too. We're talking big corporations, ISO 9001 and the like, everything must be described, everyone responsible must be trained on it, etc. It's not trivial.Do you agree?Tim

author: Faringdon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 12:39:36 pm
content: Thanks, but i am not speaking of actually publishing the circuit diagrams....just not patenting them.

author: xrunner
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 12:46:45 pm
content: And they grind off part numbers from the chips on the real board too.

author: cortex_m0
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 12:57:56 pm
content: Seems pretty straightforward to me.Most engineers give pretty superficial reviews, because they have their own work to do, and really diving in can take a while.Almost nothing goes from engineer's conception to production without some tweaks, so aiming for perfection before building prototypes is probably aiming too high.There's not much in the way of IP concerns with the circuit boards I work on - it's just a calculation about the risk/reward of having 5 reviewers instead of 1 reviewer before building 25 units.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 01:03:26 pm
content: Oh you mean as an employee?Ahh, so this is just another in a carnival of terrible companies you've worked at? Par for the course I suppose.I don't get why "loads" of engineers would be seeing them. Or what's wrong with them not seeing them, per se.I can't think of any situation I've seen where there was such a problem; maybe between sister companies (under a common owner), in which case there's usually some "Technology Transfer" procedure, which may or may not be a Big Deal to engineering or management. There can be other (stronger) reasons for isolating (silo-ing) divisions/subsidiaries, in general relating to the power structure and politics of the company(ies).Tim

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 01:26:20 pm
content: Quote from: Faringdon on October 26, 2021, 12:39:36 pmI worked at a place like that!Their so-called" motherboard" was just an interface for a lot of stuff to connect to an ordinary PC.All the reasonable "design" was cribbed straight out of the "National Semiconductors Handbooks"----the dumb stuff was all theirs, although even there, it was "public domain" stuff!They wouldn't let us have a schematic "due to IP issues", so when, as often happened, a completed unit refused duty, fault finding was incredibly difficult.The only thing which might have merited "IP protection" was their software, which worked really well, but their physical security around that was appallingly lax-----they lost a laptop with the software on it, once!Everything about the place was horrific-----from construction quality to component supply.They did dumb things routinely, & woe betide you if you suggested improvements!The Boss would rave on about striving for ISO 9001 status.I assume the idea was to ensure they made the same old stuff-ups in the same dumb way in perpetuity!PS: If you are wondering how I know what was on the board, after many months, they finally gave in, & grudgingly gave us a schematic!

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 01:36:40 pm
content: Meanwhile everyone who has the product can trace out a schematic...

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 01:45:05 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on October 26, 2021, 01:36:40 pmThat really can take up a lot of time esp with multilayer pcb's. I just had to do this for my height gauge since the manufacturer won't give any schematics or help.They just say "out of support" .So yes I can feel for the TS, if you even inside a company get too much restrictions, all for being scared their knowledge will get stolen.Go back in time to the 80's / 90's, Philips, a dutch consumer electronics and TME manufacturer, for any of their devices they had service manuals you could order and buy for $15-30.In the end of the service manual there was the schematic, the pcb layout with quadrants and all the parts that you also could order.They did this for the repair dept. but also external companies that could repair their products.Go forward to 2021, Apple won't give any details, schematics, nor sell you any spare chip, etc.They call that progress

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 02:18:18 pm
content: This may be off topic... so shoot me!! (End it quicker!!)My BIGGEST qualm about 'Schematics', has always been about 'up-keep' of the bloody things!!!When/where many people/depts work on systems, they often fail to update the drawings/documentation...The only thing worse than tech info that is non-existent, is stuff that is out of date or wrong!! Worse than having nothing!

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 02:36:43 pm
content: Quote from: Faringdon on October 26, 2021, 12:10:32 pmThe four reasons for hiding/withholding a schematic are 1) to prevent anyone from copying or learning from a truly remarkable design 2) to prevent anyone from fixing or modifying the product 3) to hide the fact that the design was copied from somewhere or 4) to hide the fact the the design is a bag of crap and perhaps can't do what it claims it can (audiophoolery and other scam products).

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 02:36:56 pm
content: I worked for a year for a vendor of some interesting but low tech things for the military market. Our low life, least cost "competitor" hired multiple private investigators to trespass 150 meters onto the farm to get to our design center and raid the office trash. Being lonely and stuck 300 miles from home, I made it my winter project to create some interesting large schematics that were not shredded per procedure.I hope they enjoyed building the most ineffective, inefficient, expensive, failure prone hardware I could design. Leaked complete with data sheets and photoshopped invoices. Any part or demo board I did not like went out in the trash.For cars, audio for bands, lab equipment, I support right to repair. However, when the creepy competitor risks lives in the field by copy-pasta reverse engineering, there I draw the line.Steve

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 02:42:12 pm
content: I've never heard of any company doing this. They normally make their employees sign non disclosure agreements and lots of modern designs are also in software, rather than purely schematics. It sounds a bit silly to me. If I worked somewhere like that, I'd start to look elsewhere.

author: ferdieCX
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 02:57:38 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on October 26, 2021, 01:45:05 pmI remember a time when Philips used to put inside a copy of the schematics, even in a portable transistor radio.

author: Messtechniker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 03:25:34 pm
content: Yep. Those were the days.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 09:04:18 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 26, 2021, 02:42:12 pmEverywhere I've ever worked, the designs were on servers accessible to everyone in engineering. This included software, firmware and hardware. It was just easier this way. If you needed to see a schematic, you could just grab it, and you didn't have to bother the person who designed it. Lots of design pieces were shared among projects. Even though in general one person did the board design or firmware, there was always open discussion about how to do this or that among the engineering staff because really that's a good way to improve products. And this also made things easier for design reviews. Basically the bosses assumed everyone was an adult.The only exception was the time I spent working for a defense contractor. Then access to designs was limited because of security reasons. And that sucked, because there was a lot of interesting stuff going on.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 09:26:51 pm
content: There is an important contradiction built into version control for wiring diagrams:1. A printed copy from the computer server is no longer controlled (since you can't tell by reading it if it be the current version or not).2. However, troubleshooting or assembling a circuit from a computer screen rather than a paper copy is cumbersome, compared to working from a paper copy that one can mark up.Point 1 is not trivial: I sometimes found techs working from an obsolete copy, since they thought the one-off being built was the same as the previous one.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 09:39:06 pm
content: Definitely there is a mindset that uses secrecy as a way to signal importance. The line of thinking is basically: If the data is secret, people must want to take it. If they want to take it it must be important. If it is important I must be really smart to have made it"! This is especially common in the minds of management who don't actually understand the details of the documents they are setting policy for. People also tend to both over- and under-estimate the abilities of their competition: they think that nobody else could come up with the genius system that we have, but even a tiny hint and they could leapfrog us.Secrecy is often a veil for mediocrity.

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 09:40:05 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on October 26, 2021, 09:26:51 pmAdding a QR code with a link to the last version available (the link should not change when a new version is released to avoid having links pointing to old documents) could partially solve point 1. This is what many scientific journals like MDPI do (they add a QR with the doi code of the article in it), so, as long as the reader is willing to verify that the current version is the one that’s being used, it is always possible to know if there’s a newer version

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 09:42:33 pm
content: I've never experienced this, but your employer might have identified you as a special case/danger as it would appear from this thread:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-computing/electronics-companies-putting-viruss-onto-usb-sticks/

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 10:02:28 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on October 26, 2021, 09:04:18 pmI've also encountered that, but most projects were restricted, which everyone was cleared to work on. Only secret designs/projects had a small select number of people who were allowed access to. It was a pain sometimes, but it made sense.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 10:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 26, 2021, 01:03:26 pmWhat are the chances that every single company is that bad though, at some point you have to start reflecting on yourself. OP seems to work at companies for at most a few months (contractor?).If I knew he's going to be gone in a month I wouldn't want to bother setting up an account to access whatever protected folder or site contains the product schematic, unless they had some specific need to look at them. Not to mention accounts sometimes cost alotof money to add, if this is an online database.Quote from: Benta on October 26, 2021, 09:42:33 pmIT probably controls access then and has him on a watch list. Too much risk in ransomeware taking over important folders at that point.

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 26, 2021, 10:32:16 pm
content: At the other end of the scale, you have engineering companies that trust their employees completely and give them free hands. This only after a very thorough vetting, though.The legendary Lockheed Martin "Skunk Works" is a shining example that also delivered brilliant results (P-38, U-2, SR-71 etc.). But I doubt that the OP would even get to vetting.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2021, 12:30:00 am
content: Quote from: GlennSprigg on October 26, 2021, 02:18:18 pmMany years back, the old PMG Dept produced magnificent schematics for all their "in-house" stuff.One such, was of a Programme Fail Alarm.Some years later, after the Broadcast/Comms part became Telecom Aust, we were working after hours at an AM station in the WA Kimberley region, doing yearly checks.While we were doing this, the PFA failed, so we put it to one side to fix at the end of proceedings.Looking at it, early in the morning, the schematic "seemed to make sense", but after a "cuppa", we realised that one position showed a PNP transistor, where such a beast would clearly not work.Yep, the draughtsman had carefully drawn the wrong polarity of device!The actual (dead) transistor was an NPN type, & changing the drawing made the operation understandable.The down side was we didn't have the particular type, but luck was with us, & there were some MM1711 NPNs in the spares for the defunct HF comms stuff, which worked a treat, using the "about the same size, three legs, NPN---Yep! that'll do! school of engineering!"

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2021, 02:08:55 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on October 26, 2021, 10:09:33 pmIf he's a contractor, then surely it would be easier to simply not renew his contract, when it ends?If I had reason to suspect a colleague was up to no good, I'd report him/her to the IT/security manager and hope they investigate. If it turns out they're planning to put malware on the company network, they'd be fired very quickly.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2021, 04:54:41 pm
content: It all comes down to a given company's policy. I've seen both approaches and almost anything in between.Just realize that engineers "seeing" schematics is not the main issue there for companies having this kind of "restricted access" policy. The more major confidentiality issue is giving *access* to confidential files in general - because those files can then easily be copied and get out of the company where they should often not belong. And the more employees you give access to files, the higher the probability of file "leaks" - intentional or not!

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 27, 2021, 10:49:18 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on October 27, 2021, 02:08:55 pmYeah, which is probably what is happening. That or if UK has a probationary period.I'm not suggesting OP is up to no good intentionally at all, but has some personality problem. Could be along the lines of "everyone is out to get me", and "I know what is best" which is just going to create endless conflict.

author: basinstreetdesign
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2021, 01:11:12 am
content: Quote from: ferdieCX on October 26, 2021, 02:57:38 pmYes, the Sony TC-560 tape recorder I bought with my student loan in 1971 came with a full schematic. I used it to hack in a manual direction reverse switch.In the industry I worked in, broadcast video, full schematics and BOM in the service manual was SOP.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2021, 02:08:30 am
content: Quote from: basinstreetdesign on October 28, 2021, 01:11:12 amYep, same in the TV studio & TV/Radio transmitter sites I worked at.Being on the other side of the world to your supplier made it necessary to know everything you could about the product, so you could fix design stuff ups (and, to be fair, sometimes just unavoidable faults) in equipment, using those components common in Oz.With a later employer, a customer's piece of hearing test equipment had a failure in the CRT type display(no tech info, of course).The usual fix was to get a refurbed swap unit from the USA at $A1200, but the maker had decided to discontinue that service, so you had to buy a much more expensive, new monitor section.Of course, they had sanded the part number off the Scan IC, but a lot of the components around it looked familiar.I "reached out" to an old colleague, who loaned me an Electrohome BW monitor workshop manual.The schematic was exactly the same, down to component values, so I nominated the "usual suspect"---an apparently under specified diode.Sure enough, it was faulty, replaced it with a 10c diode from the parts store, & all was well!

author: GlennSprigg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 28, 2021, 11:37:47 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on October 27, 2021, 12:30:00 am(Re: the highlighted bit in Red).Haha!!!... That's absolutely true for many general applications!!!(Especially if it's just used as a 'Switch').My father was with the'P.M.G.' too, for many years. (The "Post Master General"'s Dept. back then), before the 'Telecom' days...'Off' topic again...but I remember a large installation once, where my 'Company' had been supposedly maintaining/calibrating/servicingfor Years... When I got there, not only were all the drawings wrong, but I found numerous pieces of field devices/equipment not even physicallyconnected!! And a few that 'were', were actually connected in Reverse!I fixed it all, (and the documentation!), but I was troubled about whatto report back to the 'Boss'. I decided to tell him everything, as 'my' reputation was at stake. Don't know what happened to others though !!

author: Faringdon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 11:47:35 am
content: Thanks for all replies.Long and short is (and concensus here seems to agree), that many electronics companies are overly patenting bog-standard electronic schematics.

author: Echo88
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 12:35:48 pm
content: Wasnt the artist formerly known as treez/ocset banned or is it okay to change names here ever so often?

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 01:08:21 pm
content: Quote from: Echo88 on October 29, 2021, 12:35:48 pmYes, you can request a name change. Also, exceptions have been made, and, as far as I know, none more will be given.Tim

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 04:29:20 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 29, 2021, 01:08:21 pmhttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/supporters-lounge/treez-how-many-more-accounts-are-acceptable/Quote from: Benta on October 26, 2021, 10:32:16 pmI used to work for Lockheed Martin, but wasn't involved with anything quite so interesting. Most of it was pretty mundane.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 04:35:57 pm
content: It looks like JPL has the most difficult/paranoid tenancies when it comes to information. From what I read enjoying red meat and loud music is a criterion for disqualification. Too many human traits detected.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 09:03:04 pm
content: Quote from: Faringdon on October 29, 2021, 11:47:35 amFrom my experience, no. High turnover results in the same mistakes being made over and over again.Other industries might benefit though.Quote from: Faringdon on October 29, 2021, 11:47:35 amSo was it failing or not?If it wasn't failing why would they care.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 10:18:08 pm
content: Quote from: Faringdon on October 29, 2021, 11:47:35 amThere's no evidence that a consensus has formed to that effect. Would you not agree?

author: Benta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 29, 2021, 10:24:55 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on October 29, 2021, 10:18:08 pmI've found no consensus either. Rather the opposite.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2021, 06:11:30 am
content: Quote from: Benta on October 29, 2021, 10:24:55 pmMany of the comments (mine among them) drifted a fair bit 'off topic", so may not be valid, but a rough count tends to give it to those who agree withFaringdon'scomment :-"Long and short is, that many electronics companies are overly paranoid about protecting bog-standard electronic schematics", if not the rest of them.It is, however, close.Most people actively involved in repair of Electronic equipment can tell the same stories about idiot "IP" restrictions.Even really basic stuff runs into this.I have recently been involved repairing my "Dick Smith D3800/Manson EP925" analog power supply.(slowly, because I am both old & lazy)A guy who has a Youtube video about repairing such devices was asked, in the comments section, if schematics were available.He answered that he got one from Manson "after signing an NDA!"This, for a power supply using a LM723 regulator & five 2n3055 pass transistors-------hardly innovative design, to say nothing of the fact that full schematics are all over the Internet!Back in the 1920s & '30s, big companies tried to rigidly protect their Patents & other stuff against hobbyists etc, but the "Genie was out of the bottle", with enthusiast magazines springing up around the planet, so their cherished "trade secrets' became "Public Domain" by default.It probably didn't help their argument, when component manufacturers openly published "suggested designs" using their stuff!In the present day, I have noticed that it is mainly smallish companies trying the "claiming IP for mainstream stuff" trick.Big ones just don't supply schematics, but don't really try to justify themselves.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2021, 12:10:39 pm
content: That's not however what Farringdon was claiming our consensus agreement to, which wascompanies keeping their schematics secret from the engineers who work for them. That's a far cry from keeping them out of he hands of the great unwashed, which is what you're talking about. One is paranoia, the other is normal, if unhelpful, commercial practice nowadays.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 30, 2021, 02:41:39 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on October 30, 2021, 12:10:39 pmIndeed, my last posting is more about their attitude to "the great unwashed" (formerly known as "customers"), but my first one on this thread (reply#6) referred to a similar situation as that the OP described.In both cases, it is silliness, rather than paranoia, where both "lay" people, & "half-baked" technical people have delusions of grandeur about their product.A major industry is not going to take it kindly if a manufacturer on the other side of the world, due to such a policy refuses technical details necessary for the repair of revenue producing equipment.I have seen this happen, and as a result, poor information availability has relegated a company to the "last choice" list when it comes to buying new equipment.

author: Faringdon
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 06, 2021, 09:41:52 pm
content: Thanks for all replies...So I must admit , British electronics co’s, (in fact, all Western Electronics companies) could massively benefit by not wasting time patenting bog standard schematics.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 01:48:56 am
content: When I worked at the world's largest POT CLUB the front office routinely shredded some bogus 'phone call records', full of useless crap (sounds a lot like a few posts back). Per Dennis (RIP), the CEO: No computers to be involved in vendor transactions.Some 5 story's, 25,000 SQ ft. retail nr downtown San Francisco.Front office doors had some 'Triple Pickproof' high end locks; whatever that is.Organizations do things, for reasons, basic instinct in presence of advesarys, I guess.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 02:13:24 am
content: Probably relevant:https://graphthinking.blogspot.com/2021/09/why-is-everything-so-hard-in-large.htmlTim

author: LaserSteve
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 02:29:37 pm
content: At the same place mentioned a few posts back, I sent a document to our partner company, a large defense contractor. I placed the words "Corporate Confidential" in the document's data block per company policy. Since I had the word "Confidential " in that block I created a security headache for them. Confidential at the time was one of three lower levels of the basic US Government Secrecy Program at the time. I had inadvertently created a classified document without proper nomenclature by merely emailing a schematic.Their Corporate VP of Security was on the phone to me in under thirty minutes. I received an ass chewing of inordinate magnitude until he realized I had not been briefed on such things. This triggered a trip to their plant for a serious lecture by the plant security officer. All of this over a civilian product. Finally they did the background checks so I could be an un-escourted visitor at the plant and bring documents over. Driving the documents over, 40 minutes each way, canceled the automated email screening and made things easier for them.They, being one of two major employers in a small town in the middle of nowhere, also asked the local PD to informally take a look at my lifestyle. Nothing there to find, anyways. What made me mad was small town PD asking my landlord to let them take a look at my apartment. The scary part was said landlord, also a corporate employee, was more then happy to let them in.After all I was an outsider in a little town in middle America whose major employers were two defense contractors surrounded by the Amish for miles.For some things such security is needed. But not for what I was working on at the time.I have to laugh about this, for afterwords I was working on actual government projects with a fraction of the hassle and harassment. With far more professional security folks.Steve

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 03:23:30 pm
content: Quote from: LaserSteve on November 07, 2021, 02:29:37 pmExcept you hadn't, no matter what some bonehead said. Unless you had actual formal authority to classify a document; I think you'd know if you had been "specifically authorized in writing by the President, the Agency Head, or the Senior Agency Official  classify documents originally" as the official rules provide. Any old person putting "confidential", "secret" or "top secret" onto something doesn't make it officially so (kind of obvious really) - otherwise the entire population of teachers in the US would be jail for unauthorised access to classified information, because what small boy hasn't written "top secret" on his school workbook at some point.You should probably sic some ambulance chaser onto that landlord and local PD, got to be worth a few thousand at least.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 03:23:44 pm
content: that sounds like a corrupt mining town from the 50'sthat's what I call an excuse to investigate something someone found suspicious under the lightest cause. more then likely it happens alot but there is no cross communication between employees (i.e. someone felt the background check is just not good enough for their claws)Until a document is fully authorized by at least he entire management chain of the department the whole explanation they gave you is a bunch ofgarbage. the comic book would be called fantastic horse shit vol 4

author: GopherT
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 03:28:42 pm
content: I don't think it is a question of paranoia, it is about efficiency and accountability. If two engineers are assigned to build a bog-simple circuit, the company doesn't need "loads of engineers" putting eyes on it. The two engineers should be given remedial training, and mentoring if they have trouble with "bog simple" circuits. The cost of putting a circuit on copper is dropping so low that a fast failure is cheaper than an an endless review and error check.Finally, when "loads of engineers" review a circuit, blame is diluted, root causes (or substandard employees) cannot be identified and the wasted time becomes a culture of mediocracy.If you are the one asking to see someone else's circuit, you need more projects of your own.If you want "loads of other engineers" to review your circuit, you may be the root cause of sub-par performance.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 09:01:17 pm
content: Quote from: Faringdon on November 06, 2021, 09:41:52 pmSo, this is an "interesting" shift here from your older position. It was all kind of how bad things were and how bad people subcontracting/buying from chinese companies were. And how it destroyed our industry. Now you seem to have become all enamored with what was once a threat. You're maybe looking for a job?

author: Jester
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 07, 2021, 09:27:42 pm
content: I guess it depends on what you are designing…..1) At the better companies that I worked for in the past we had a rigorous design review process. You can’t catch everything but if you design with quality engineers in the first place and then lean on the experienced staff to review we found it saved a lot of time and it was not uncommon to go to production with R1 boards. I don’t think there would be much to gain by having every Tom, Dick and Harry looking at our schematics.2) Before we put the first resistor down on the schematic, the design specifications were thoroughly thought out and reviewed initially with the sales and marketing group based on feedback from the actual users as to what they wanted or needed and then to the engineering support and then to the engineering design group to figure out the best way to implement. This was a circular process until everyone agreed on all the important aspects, then signed off on the specifications. Then the actual design would begin with a focus on proving the aspects that were new to us, especially if we were not sure we could actually do it. The firm specification was important to prevent having the "isolated" engineers go off on a tangent designing some feature creep aspect during the design phase that they might perceive as important.3) Again at the good companies I worked at the official engineering drawings including schematics were 100% accurate, if you pulled an official red binder it was correct, all revisions clearly identified.We did not share our design documents with anyone unless it was a requirement of the sale and then the copies distributed were identified so it would be obvious where they originated from with a nasty NDA. I think those companies that did get our schematics kept them under lock and key, at least that’s what they agreed to.Those good companies were really successful, made tons of money and were great to work for.At the companies that sucked that I spent little time at, they did none of the above and they all went broke floundered or got sold off eventually.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 01:05:27 am
content: Quote from: Jester on November 07, 2021, 09:27:42 pmThe problem is that, if you really had a "ground-breaking" new way of doing things in hardware, which is unlikely in the extreme, there is nothing stopping a competitor from buying the product through an intermediary, & "reverse-engineering" it.In a lot of cases they don't even need to do the latter, as the important thing is more in knowing "What the product does", & its specs, so they can produce an equivalent device, even if it does things totally differently.I would suggest that hardware devices should be at the very bottom of the list for secrecy----the important stuff is usually software, & financial records.As for customers "keeping schematics under lock & key"------- tell that to a harassed Tech tasked with getting the bloody thing going "in the middle of the bush" on the other side of the world."Sorry Boss, I have to wait till you or the security bloke can open the secure cupboard.Enjoy your 4 hour drive!"

author: Jester
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 01:20:51 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on November 08, 2021, 01:05:27 amWell the equipment we were selling was portable, and expensive and was not going to be fixed in the bush, everything came back for service if it was required. Like I said I guess it depends on what the system or device is your designing, sure if it's a video monitor or battery charger give them the schematic.The equipment we were producing was quite specialized (low volume) so the sales people were really plugged into their customers. We heard that there were attempts to purchase by unknown 3rd parties and as far as I know they were never successful. Our main competitor eventually simply purchased our company outright, transferred the technology and then shut down the Canadian operation.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 01:34:56 am
content: Quote from: Jester on November 08, 2021, 01:20:51 amThe stuff I was thinking about were quite some levels of complexity above "monitors or battery chargers", were large & immobile, & cost around the same as a decent sized house, so would they fit your criteria?

author: Jester
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 01:37:59 am
content: Portable as in carry in your hand and the cost of a modest bungalow. We were doing a show and tell in San Jose with our best client, and we brought quite a few units and they were helping us carry them into the conference hall and the guy that had just placed a large order said to his guy careful that costs more than a Ferarri!

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 02:23:31 am
content: Quote from: Jester on November 08, 2021, 01:37:59 amI once increased the value of my [almost new] Honda Prelude 4WS roughly twelvefold by putting 3 off 3U boxes into the back of it.(3 fully loaded Max4000s, the then industry standard termination device for trunks in the dial-up ISP days.)

author: AaronD
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 03:29:29 am
content: Just to add a relatively minor point about letting loads of engineers see stuff:I spent a year with an equipment supplier that had a revolving door of engineers. You might say that that was awesome for getting fresh eyes on things, but it was actually a massive liability. Each engineer, myself included, would build up some knowledge of how this company and these machines worked...and then take it all with them when they left.Combined with the "previous project with changes" mentality, this created an absolute mess of technical debt to the point that one of my major assignments during the year that I put up with, was to create an entirely new template from scratch that could be copied for each project *instead of* copying the previous one. The idea was to throw away the unusably brittle pile of band-aids that all of these transient engineers ended up with, in favor of this all-new thing that I did. I have my doubts that that actually happened though, despite it working perfectly as far as I could test on the bench and on one customer's site.The guy that they just happened to hire as my eventual boss, a handful of months before he hired me, turned out to be really good! They told him to "fix engineering", so he went into it with that mentality, and quickly figured out that it was really a management problem. Engineering was simply being ignored and then blamed for not delivering the moon that the salesmen promised. When I left, he decided to stand up to them...and they eliminated his position.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 02:23:23 pm
content: Quote from: GopherT on November 07, 2021, 03:28:42 pmI agree that a simple circuits shouldn't require peer review, but is it worth trying to keep basic designs secret?And even reasonably experienced people do occasionally make silly mistakes. The classic is using the wrong footprint, because the CAD library or data sheet contained an error, they missed.I disagree with you about diluting the blame. Ultimately the person who signs off a design bares the ultimate responsibility, but playing the blame game all the time, is counterproductive.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 04:41:57 pm
content: I shudder at the idea of having my products constantly under "design review" whenever a random fresh engineer walked in the door. We put together skilled engineering teams who designed complicated products. The projects had formal and informal reviews all throughout the design and prototype process, and feature feedback from the field after release. It would be a full-time job for a new-hire to review even a fraction of the designs in our products, not to mention the time required for the responsible design team to explain it all to the new-hire. And then the new-hires wouldn't have time to work on the project we needed them on.And what about the firmware, software, and the ASICs? These designs are probably more error-prone than the board and schematic-level design.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 08, 2021, 05:54:52 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on November 08, 2021, 04:41:57 pmI don't think anyone is talking about getting every engineer in the company, including graduates, to review every design. I just don't see the point in only allowing a small group of engineers to access the drawings/source code. Fair enough if it has a security classification such as restricted, or secret, but it's otherwise pointless. I see new engineers being able to access existing designs, as a good thing. If they do spot potential bugs and have suggestions about how something can be improved, then all the better.

author: Bassman59
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2021, 08:16:16 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 08, 2021, 05:54:52 pmMaking the designs available to the new hires is always a good idea. Most things in any company are not completely-new products, so it is worth seeing what was done before. Then the new person can look at the previous work and even ask the engineers who designed it to explainwhythings are done the way they are done.Why would a company not want to take advantage of this?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2021, 08:36:18 pm
content: Reviewing other people's, hopefully accomplished, designs is one ofthe bestways of educating yourself. Doing so with the expectation that one, as a fresh hire, is likely to find and fix faults with existing designs (as has been suggested as a benefit by some [OK, byoneperson]) is at best unrealistic, at worst driven by a huge overestimate of the skills one is bringing to the table.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2021, 08:38:07 pm
content: Quote from: Bassman59 on November 09, 2021, 08:16:16 pmI agree with this, and as a green engineer I certainly learned much by doing just that.In my experience, we didn't hide the design materials from anyone in the company. I was just uncomfortable with the thought of new-hires spending too much time on ad-hoc design review (and insisting that a stable design be "improved") and not enough time on doing what we hired them to do.

author: AaronD
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2021, 09:12:14 pm
content: Quote from: fourfathom on November 09, 2021, 08:38:07 pmMaybe I was too aggressive, but I had a more experienced engineer take offense at my attempts to try and get him to explain why he did something the way that he did. I knew he must have had a good reason, so I wanted him to bridge the gap between my inexperienced solution and his. ("Why not do it like 'this'?" with the emphasis on "why" instead of "do it", which I guess is how most people interpret that?) Did he think I was trying to make him change a working design to do it my way instead??? That was never my intent.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 09, 2021, 10:54:51 pm
content: Quote from: AaronD on November 09, 2021, 09:12:14 pmIn spite of my concerns here, I actually enjoyed explaining a design to a new hire. And on occasion they would make an observation that did lead to an improvement. But attitude is important, and in this thread I got the impression that some self-proclaimed hotshot engineer was planning to show the old guys how it's really done these days. That is a recipe for a huge waste of time and misspent energy.So ask smart questions, make reasonable suggestions, and don't be a jerk. I heartily endorse that policy. With that attitude I will open up the design files and gladly spend time with you. But don't forget, we've still got a job to do.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 10, 2021, 02:24:08 am
content: Another set of eyes can find a bug and that helps if its concrete like a component rating, impedance problem, etc. Easy to get a reliability increase or performance increase if you find some obvious easy to rectify flaw.but often there are so many minor compromises made and so many limitations put on a design by cost/logistics/culture problems/considerations that explaining what it is might require quite a bit of history, politics, etc.and offices are often understaffed or under high load so someone just knows its not whats going to get them ahead with bosses or evolve in the company. The person you are talking to about a design might have had to do the office equivalent of breaking through a brick wall with their bare hands to get whatever it is.

author: bson
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: November 11, 2021, 08:48:04 pm
content: Maybe it's due to an overzealous legal department that thinks their IP rights are forfeited if they don't restrict access to need-to-know.

author: floobydust
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 11, 2021, 09:25:33 pm
content: It's a big problem for regulatory like UL/CSA/Intertek etc. where certifiers see and review schematics everyday. Because of the IP you are looking at, the employment contract forbids you from building, well anything. You cannot build anything on the side. For this reason, no hobbyist or enthusiast would work in that kind of job, that completely owns your brain.The fear is you'll take the IP, the way some company did it, and go off and make your own product or aid a company towards doing that.I know I can glance at a schematic and see the IP if there's something unique in the design that distinguishes it.Once I toured a PC assembly house, and they had certain customers that forbid outsiders from looking at the stuffed circuit boards.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 06:39:48 am
content: IBM made a monumental miscalculation by publishing the entire schematic, the BIOS listing and other technical documentation to the personal computer, thinking manufacturers would use this to make peripheral cards to support the PC. Instead, a number of companies used this information to make PC clones.The rest, as they say, is history.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 08:48:59 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on November 13, 2021, 06:39:48 amMaybe, but would everyone have a PC now, if they hadn't done that?IBM clones only took off because they were cheap. At the time and for a good 10 or so years, they were well behind most other platforms and were generally poor value for money.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 13, 2021, 12:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on November 13, 2021, 08:48:59 amThe clones had a lots of issues. One being the ISA bus timing specs which they could not really meet because the limits were not properly defined. All users could hope for was "100% IBM Compatible" in the clone advertisements, and even then there were sometimes problems.Most of the early clone motherboards Hong Kong and Taiwan lacked signal quality testing in design, ICT, safe ESD practices and used poor quality components. So IBM did very well for quality until around the mid 90's when Taiwanese motherboard manufacturers in particular had improved greatly to the point where IBM started sourcing their Aptiva motherboards from these vendors. Also, Dell, HP, Compaq and Gateway were looming as strong competitors.I actually developed and implemented the electronics testing hardware and software for the first PC plant in China, as part of an IBM-China joint venture in Tianjin in 1989 through to 1991. At this time, I felt it was the beginning of the end for PC's being manufactured in the West.FOOTNOTE: I had to give the US ambassador James Lilley a tour of the Tianjin production line but the GPIB driven hipot tester had failed about two hours before his visit. I quickly put a jump in my code written in 8086 assembly language to ignore the error and act as if it were passing. As he did the tour, I told him the machine is designed to put 1760 VDC between active/neutral tied together and earth, to test for earth leakage. As I was "testing" it, he asked me "Is that what this is doing now?" Sweating like a pig, I answered, "That is what it isdesignedto do." As I said this, he was looking at the needle on the hipot tester meter that had not moved. I suspect he knew.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2021, 01:32:29 pm
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on November 13, 2021, 12:37:43 pmThere there were far superior computers to the IBM, in the late 80s and early 90s. Amiga, Atari, Acorn and Mac all had better graphics and sound. If the average user had the money to buy a real IBM, they would normally something superior, for that price. If it wasn't for cheap clones, it wouldn't have caught on.I didn't understand why IBM insisted on crappy graphics. They didn't even use all of the 256kiB on the VGA card properly. The highest resolution mode of 640x480 4-bit only used 150kiB. Fair enough, non-standard mode X could go up to 360x480 8-bit, but it didn't match the 4:3 aspect ratio of screens back then. It wouldn't have taken much to make a 600x400 8-bit mode, or use up some of the remaining 100kiB in the 640x480 mode for some sprites, to speed certain applications up. It would have made implementing a mouse cursor much easier. The lack of simple sprite support, meant it all had to be done in software, so the mouse cursor would often flicker, when placed over an area of the screen which was changing, or go jerky, when the processor was busy. It wasn't until the mid-90s when IBM clones overtook the other platforms in terms of bang for buck, with regards to graphics and sound.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2021, 10:25:12 pm
content: why? + ibm = normal

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2021, 10:26:11 pm
content: From the men's room wall at my university's computation center, ca. 1975:IBMUBMWe all BM4 IBM

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 15, 2021, 11:03:45 pm
content: QuoteThe mistakes that are the worst and most overlooked are the simple ones. Double checking someones power dissipation, loads, etc.. often finds problems when something 'easy' was pushed out the door that is running a part hot or bad. Those are the best bugs to find because the explanations are concrete, the correction is simpler, and the re-cert process is easier/cheaper... and such a change is usually regarded as a solid win, even from nontechnical managers since its easy to understand and is the engineering equivalent of leaving your fly unzipped. So they just say 'thanks for noticing that', make a board revision and you are on your way without debating voodoo.The simple mistakes are made by advanced people because either1) too many rules of thumb2) rush job3) too boring/simple to verify and you are sure of yourself4) overconfidence (LED are easy!!)and they often have the most catastrophic consequences because thats how you take out a power rail to a control system, have a 'dead' light, explode MOV and so forth.Would you rather1) explain to some board why you want a better power factor correction circuit for the 2nd stage boost circuit because "its a good idea based on industry trends" despite "expectations to substantially increase cost"2) tell the board "we need to replace a 0.04$ resistor with a 0.04$ resistor of a different size so we can get the temperature down from deep fryer to toasty, and it will slow down the telephone calls"

author: Just_another_Dave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2021, 01:39:23 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on November 15, 2021, 11:03:45 pmThe first PCB I designed when I started working as an electronic university was reviewed by two senior engineers and an additional experienced engineer to check that there were no mistakes (we were in a rush and they wanted to ensure that the first prototype was perfect). None of us realized that I had forgotten to add mounting holes to attach legs to it (which was important due to the amount of conductive rubbish embedded on the tables of the lab)

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 16, 2021, 10:26:39 pm
content: thats not exactly a game changer for a company (at least you caught it in the revision stage), try overheating parts hidden in power modules hidden in cabinets causing synchronized age related problems down the line.. but the point is the same. (at least the part was complex and the resistor was somewhat large, but there was a lack of thermal testing performed, so it was a little surprising that there was a problem given the circuit element size, if you had no idea about how power electronics behave. Like if a SMD fanatic guy sees a cement leaded power resistor they pretty much think Pmax=∞, rather then a reasonable watt number (compared to the 1/6 watt they are used to), so it was not investigated because it 'looked right' compared to the size of the capacitors and transistors as far as I can tell. The resistor specs are unfortunately not as impressive as their large size! a block of cement is not a heat sink. The part should have either been a even larger ceramic or a heat sink mounted resistor, and the module designer contracting company should have been scrutinized more despite their reputationI can imagine another 'screw up' being related to screws and ground clearance or connection. I.e. the screw head chosen is too big so it shorts out something. That will get you eventually if you mix up screws during disassembly, so i recommend a divider tray. or a screw mixup in the factory that makes sparks on first test because there were different head size screws used by accident.

author: AaronD
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: November 17, 2021, 07:42:01 pm
content: Quote from: coppercone2 on November 16, 2021, 10:26:39 pmI explained to a high school kid once, that he might have fried his exciting new computer build by putting the standoffs (weird screws?) on *top* of the main PCB, thus contacting the entire back of the board with the sheet metal case. He brought it to an after-school function so I could look at it...*after* he tried to power it on and it "didn't work". My diagnosis and his understanding of it were both immediate.He corrected his mistake and said it worked, but I'm not sure for how long. I lost track of him soon after.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: November 18, 2021, 06:04:40 am
content: I broke a power supply because I over tightened a heat sink screw that caused a earth ground contact in a circuit point that was non standard and when I had to earth reference the supply it discharged a capacitor bank into something (while it was hooked up in series to provide dual power rails!) and went into the trash because that supply had to be repaired way too many times.So the screws provided by the manufacturer were too long, and as a result the electrical clearance was dependent on screw torque! I think this was sloppy, considering that the torque was reasonable for the size of screw used. I just wanted to make sure the thermal grease was working well, the correct screw torque with the screws provided felt insufficient. I consider it a weird problem but I also think that "just another transistor replacement" mentality made me complacent with electrical checks, since I considered it to be a BS problem. I chose the PSu to repair from the repair pile because I was convinced I can make the easy stuff go away quick.. fat chanceI don't do motherboards much but I think this can easily happen on a weird case/mobo combination.