IR project ruined by patent? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: funfairEE
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 05:20:30 pm
content: A few days ago I got an android phone, and was playing around with it in the living room and was thinking it would be a grate place for a universal remote control. TV control on your phone using IR.After thinking it should be fairly simple, use the headphone jack and a IR emitting led, play the right frequencies and it should work. Right?Well after some searching on the web it has already been done. Fantastic. It works. But after more searching I find this patent -http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6931231.htmlamazing that something so simple has been patented!I was hoping that it would be a nice little project make a nice app and make it into a fairly nice little simple product to sell about. butbecause of this patient do I need to come up with a different method if I intend to sell it?I think its crazy that some one has been able to lock down on 2 LEDs and a headphone jack.What do you guys think? Thanks for your input in advance.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 05:31:35 pm
content: Quote from: funfairEE on January 17, 2014, 05:20:30 pmThe USPTO issued a bullshit patent for something that is incredibly obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together and not at all novel?Never!Next you'll tell me Apple patented ashiny, flat rectangle with a rectangular screen and two buttons.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 05:48:35 pm
content: So either:1. License it from the patent holder.2. Don't bother and risk the potential lawsuit, if you infringe the patent.3. Find another way round.4. Get the patent thrown out by proving it's been wrongly granted (good luck..)I think Griffin's patent is quite neat - like the frequency doubling.BTW: the patent doesn't stop you producing or selling the thing, it just gives the assignee of the patent the right to sue.

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 06:03:19 pm
content: If you ever waste your life searching the USPO nothing at all in the future of humanity will EVER be invented. I would just ignore the fucking trolls and go ahead with your idea. Believe me, I thought about this one YEARS ago, but when IRDA stopped being implemented I never bothered finishing it. My new phone didn't have an IR LED.Now I would have been happy enough to make it purely for myself and give it out opensource anyway. The OBVIOUS test on this is OBVIOUS!We really need to just nuke East Texas if their absurd legal system doesn't sort itself out. Meanwhile, the EU appear to be doing something about patent trolls.Maybe never sell to the USA? Explain why you reject the sales. Once the ignoramus Fox viewers in that federal police state realise they have less FREEDUMB than all other first world countries, they will finally elect politicians to deal with it instead of worrying about fucking socialised healthcare, abortion and gay marriage sideshows.Of course there is the top secret Trans-Pacific trade agreement being worked out behind closed doors that would fuck up the asia-pacific regions with dumb fuck 'murikan patent and copyright laws too.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 06:09:11 pm
content: It seems to me that this patent is trivial to evade: don't use stereo.

author: funfairEE
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 06:14:55 pm
content: Quote from: Maxlor on January 17, 2014, 06:09:11 pmI was thinking about this but then I may not have enough power to drive the LEDs directly.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 06:18:23 pm
content: Quote from: Macbeth on January 17, 2014, 06:03:19 pmI seriously say this. One patent lawsuit is enough for most companies to not worth it. And they can patent software source code. How fucked up is that?If you dont have a corporate lawyer, that means you dont need one, so just ignore them.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 07:23:26 pm
content: Quote from: fcb on January 17, 2014, 05:48:35 pmor wait 20 years till it expires .

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 07:43:00 pm
content: Waitaminute,Quote from: funfairEE on January 17, 2014, 05:20:30 pmWaitaminute, yes?You thought it was a nice idea. Apparently, so did that Griffin guy. Just 12 years earlier than you. You thought you could make some money from it. Apparently, so did that Griffin guy. Just 12 years earlier than you. So you are both trying the same thing.No, wait, did you actually have the idea to use both stereo channels? And if his idea is so worthless, why are you so annoyed by that patent? Could it be that you think that idea is not worthless, that it has some value for you, for a "nice little product"?Mr. Griffin had that idea many years ago when it was maybe not so obvious. He didn't even have an Android phone. But he had that idea, and he took some action. Shelled out for a patent, which surely had cost him a bundle or two, and he thought big. Now, why didn't you do that 12 years ago?

author: colotron
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 07:44:05 pm
content: What if someone does something similar, but with no commercial purposes like an open source project?.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 07:46:46 pm
content: Quote from: Macbeth on January 17, 2014, 06:03:19 pmThis reminds me, using the ADC of a microcontroller and resistive dividers connected to buttons to read more than 1 of them using a single input has also been patented... years after Microchip described how to do this with its PICs in application notes.

author: manticore00
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 07:56:23 pm
content: One point of note about patent law here in the US is that it can actually be a bad idea to go searching for patents regarding a specific idea because then it court you can be hit with willful infringement penalties if you get sued rather than just reasonable royalties or lost profits. I've even heard of companies explicitly banning engineers from checking on patents at all.Patent law is a mess

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 08:13:24 pm
content: Yes the patent system is crap and as it stands today the world would be better off without it.Revision of the system to produce the effect it was originally intended to in the modern world would be even better.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 09:55:05 pm
content: Quote from: funfairEE on January 17, 2014, 05:20:30 pmObviousness is determined at the time of the filing, not now. One option you may have is to find a workaround. Read the claims of the patent and work around it. For example, claim 1 talks about using two channels (e.g. stereo left and right) in a certain way. If you use only one channel or use two channels in a way not claimed in the patent you should be ok legally.(I am not a lawyer and this is not a legal advice).

author: electronics man
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 10:05:16 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on January 17, 2014, 07:46:46 pmWhat the hell that is almost a building block circuit close to being a DAC no that is just mad patents should not be issued for things like that. Patents are to protect a product. If a technology is not pivotal to the product they should not have a patent it's just wrong and discouraging innovation.

author: mark03
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 10:06:07 pm
content: Quote from: colotron on January 17, 2014, 07:44:05 pmMaybe a lawyer can comment on the finer points here, but if you design and build a project for yourself, then publish the design on the web, I don't think you can be held liable just for spreading the information. After all, that's one of the main purposes of a patent, so the information is *already* out there. Now, maybe they could decide to sue each home builder individually, but that is highly unlikely. As long as you aren't doing a production run and giving them away or selling them...

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 10:25:14 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on January 17, 2014, 07:43:00 pmBingo. Sorry bub, you are just 12 years too late…

author: funfairEE
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 17, 2014, 10:39:21 pm
content: Quote from: Bored@Work on January 17, 2014, 07:43:00 pmWas only 6 years old then.I shall simply have to come up with an alternative way to drive the LED I think. Its just doing it in a very small space to make it practical. I would love to release it as open hardware and focus more on making the app.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 04:44:48 am
content: Quote from: amyk on January 17, 2014, 07:46:46 pmIf it was publicly published earlier than this is a prior art and the patent will not stand in court.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 06:18:44 am
content: Quote from: zapta on January 17, 2014, 09:55:05 pmNot really, it's just rather hard to use it to defeat a patent. Especially since lawyers keep coming up with these bullshit methods to determine obviousness, which are in reality so such thing but just elaborate ways to redefine the word obvious.There is only one good method to determine obviousness, democratic vote among experts ... not a particularly scalable method though.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 06:52:17 am
content: Quote from: Marco on January 18, 2014, 06:18:44 amYou missed the point. What matters is not if it is obvious now, regardless of the determination method, but was it obvious at the time it was filed.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 09:46:48 am
content: Quote from: funfairEE on January 17, 2014, 10:39:21 pmBut we agree that is not Mr. Griffins fault?

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 10:40:24 am
content: For something as small and simple as this, set up a company with minimal assets to sell it. Worst case, you fold the company (and open-source the design as a "screw you" gesture) and there's nothing left to sue.(IANAL - just seems like a reasonable engineering solution)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 11:50:37 am
content: Quote from: fcb on January 17, 2014, 05:48:35 pmIf they have the money. A patent lawsuit costs in order of several million dollars.Usually it starts and ends with threats at this sort of level, if it goes anywhere at all.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 11:51:29 am
content: Which country are you from, and do they have patent coverage in that country?

author: bookaboo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 12:17:38 pm
content: I say push on with the project and ignore those who would have you sit on your hands.Firstly it's not really the sort of thing that's going to go mass market and induce patent litigation. I don't see people wanting to have dongles hanging out of their phone.If it ever took off to mass market appeal you will see competition from wunhunglow and the big players integrating it internally... so your patent friend wouldn't even come into it.That said, its still neat and a fun idea for a project and you might make some coin while you are at it.Edit:Just had a quick google and looks like this patent isn't stopping many people.http://wiki.samygo.tv/index.php5/Remote_Control_emulator:_send_custom_IR_codeshttp://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-Infrared-transmitter-for-iPhone-iPod/China already onboard this boat:http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/1063700073/z_wave_remote_control_IR_receiver.html*not a lawyer, not legal advice*

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 12:25:29 pm
content: So many people have done this already, that you would just be another.http://www.irdroid.com/https://thinkflood.com/products/redeye-mini/http://hackaday.com/2011/03/01/iphone-based-universal-ir-remote/(and of course countless companiesin Chinaare also selling these things...)As someone pointed out above, having a patent doesn't mean you're obligated to sue everyone who uses it.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 04:45:26 pm
content: My first "brilliant" idea for a patent now 15 years ago turned out to be patented in 1912It shows how many people come up with the same ideas even 88 years later.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 18, 2014, 08:04:17 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 18, 2014, 06:52:17 amAh, okay ... the language was a bit ambiguous.

author: linux-works
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 25, 2014, 10:47:20 pm
content: first, IANAL.that out of the way, one memory I have of a lawyer visit to my company about 20 yrs ago (not sure if things have changed since then; this was silicon valley and it was a top tier networking company I was at, at the time; one that used to be located in menlo park..)anyway, the purpose of his talk was to teach us engineers a little about patents (at least in terms of software).you may not believe his advice, but here it is: "do not even try to research before you design. design first, even ship, then if you get notified, THEN deal with it".I think the idea is that you can claim you didn't know about the patent and this lawyer felt that was the best way to move forward, else you'll never complete any coding, these days (everything is already locked up). take your chances that the patent holder may not notice your little product and if you are a small guy, chances are he won't notice or care about you.none of us could believe this advice, but he was a top corporate IP lawyer (again, a top tier networking company that mostly owns the world these days hired him to give this talk to us at one of our all-hands meetings) and I'll just have to believe he knew what he was talking about. also note that this is for a company with very big pockets. its very possible that he'd advise someone smaller NOT to take this approach.fwiw - and again, IANAL.

author: Maxlor
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2014, 12:53:12 am
content: Quote from: linux-works on January 25, 2014, 10:47:20 pmThis advice is given because you'll probably violate someone's patent no matter what you do. However, at least in the US it matters whether you do so willfully, or out of ignorance, the former carries a much higher penalty.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2014, 03:22:46 am
content: If it was patented 12 years ago,& they are not everywhere you look,does it maybe mean it was a pretty silly idea to start with?

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2014, 07:59:57 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 26, 2014, 03:22:46 amHindsight is 20/20.You do patents like this as an investment. Some things work out, others don't.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 26, 2014, 08:41:29 am
content: As an old Fart,the whole concept is silly to me---but then,I'm not joined at the hip to a mobile phone!I wasn't disparaging the original Patentee,I was really trying to point out to the OP that if it hadn't been Commercialised after 12 years,his angst might be misplaced.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 27, 2014, 06:21:11 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on January 26, 2014, 08:41:29 amA good friend of mine is a patent expert (not a laywer). He always says that a patent that was not litigated in court is not a good patent. The above patent is one example.

author: rfbroadband
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2014, 06:44:46 pm
content: it is very unlikely that you will change the patent law in the US, lets call it a 'game' for moment. You have two options:1) you don't like the game, ok get out of it2) you realize you need to participate (for whatever reason), learn the rules and play it better than the other party.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 08:54:06 am
content: The patent specifies two IR diodes in parallel, if you can use one diode or two diodes in one encapsulation or two diodes pointing in two directions,perhaps with a lens system, you get around the patent as the original patent is too tight on specifications it should be easy to get around.

author: mark03
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 03:51:25 pm
content: Quote from: rfbroadband on February 01, 2014, 06:44:46 pm3) realize that there is in fact a moral / ethical dimension to the issue, and act according to your convictions.or am I being hopelessly naive?

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 04:20:16 pm
content: Quote from: zapta on January 17, 2014, 09:55:05 pmWell, in most countries it is. Not in the US it isn't though!When you file for a patent, you just get is. No strings attached. When you're trying to enforce it, the "infringing" party can take you to court, and the court will decide whether your patent holds up against claims like obviousness, previous implementations, etc.

author: nuhamind2
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 07:28:12 pm
content: Kitkat gonna add IR blaster.

author: rfbroadband
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 09:24:47 pm
content: Quote from: mark03 on February 03, 2014, 03:51:25 pmwell, you need to realize that a patent lawsuit not only cost an insane amount of money, it will cost time as well, thus opportunity cost. Instead of dragging your key technical guys into the office of the attorneys and to court, you could have them design the next great product....Some companies win a patent lawsuit in court only to realize that it cost them so much time to get there, that it wasn't worth it...so in reality they lost, even though they won in court.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2014, 09:32:24 pm
content: QuoteI had a Palm Pilot + $15 software that does precisely that. Hopelessly useless however: it has no touch + feel of a real remote.QuoteYou don't have to - if so, you run the risk of being sued.

author: krenzo
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2014, 06:19:21 pm
content: If you look at Griffin Technology's website, they've abandoned their remote control products. Their last remote control product used bluetooth, not IR. I would be asking yourself why you want to use IR for your product when the rest of the industry uses some form of RF.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2014, 08:12:02 pm
content: Quote from: mark03 on February 03, 2014, 03:51:25 pmconsequence of 3 may be : live in cardboard box under railroad bridge....I like patents (real patents, not that design patent nonsense) . Provided they bring something new to the table. something nobody else has thought about. and provide something practical that solves a problem. Patents have a finite life and make sure the inventor reaps the rewards of his hard work.A patent on rounded corners of a tablet ( design patent) is bullshit in my point of view .

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 04, 2014, 08:48:11 pm
content: Quote from: Sigmoid on February 03, 2014, 04:20:16 pmMore than once I spent time and money appealing patent rejections.Quote from: Sigmoid on February 03, 2014, 04:20:16 pmEven then, the obviousness is determined as of the time of the filling, not the time of the determination.