Another uCurrent... - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / testgear

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 03:29:23 pm
content: Could cause some confusion due to same name and similar function - I don't suppose Dave trademarked the name....http://www.cmicrotek.com/uCP.htm

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 03:52:43 pm
content: Interesting. A very similar concept but productized in a way to be used for oscilloscopes, including a higher bandwidth (550kHz, versus >300kHz of the uCurrent).

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:00:27 pm
content: Apparently the WHOLE thing (design), was *stolen*, a few years ago. Thread about it ..https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/stolen-microcurrent/EDIT:CORRECTION: Actually it seems that it was peacefully resolved. Sorry.Also uCurrent, sounds like too generic a name (to me), to be trademarkable etc.E.g. Calling a Volt meter, a milliVolt meter, should NOT really be trademarkable.Because milli and micro (u) are just standard SI unit terms.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:04:23 pm
content: $495.....starting to compare specs now.Sent from my horrible mobile....

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:12:05 pm
content: Actually, reading more on their website.They claim, they OWN the trademark to the name.QuoteIn all fairness to the company. Dave was at liberty to claim a trademark on the name. If he decided NOT to, that is up to him. But he can't later complain, if someone else DOES trademark the name, or something similar.

author: Neganur
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:24:46 pm
content: Unless I'm mistaken, there is a (TM) symbol on the uCurrent Gold website.https://www.eevblog.com/projects/ucurrent/

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:27:00 pm
content: Quote from: Neganur on March 21, 2016, 04:24:46 pmThen things could get very interesting...Or not.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 04:50:05 pm
content: With the distance and production volumes involved, it seems unlikely to justify a significant battle. I would guess the customer base is different enough that the overlap is modest.Sent from my horrible mobile....

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 05:11:50 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on March 21, 2016, 04:50:05 pmI agree.Apparently it is somewhat difficult, time consuming and rather expensive, to create world wide registered trade marks. (I'm NOT an expert on this, by any means, so happily stand corrected if necessary).So (presumably), the probe one was registered (probably), only in the US.Also I presume Dave's was only registered in Australia.Above is pure guesswork and speculation, and could easily be WRONG.Also my earlier post was a bit wrong. Apparently (after reading up on it), even if you don't register a name. You can still lay claim to it (if you have been using it), in at least the US, if not other counties.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 05:16:36 pm
content: http://www.ganssle.com/tem/tem301.htmlInteresting is that it is in Jack Ganssle's latest.

author: ChunkyPastaSauce
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 06:55:14 pm
content: Unregistered trademarks ™ are different from registered trademarks ®.™, there is much less protection, but typically you have some in the geographical region of business and you can stamp it on anything. You also get protections under the Lanham acthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Actbut don't have knowledge of it.® Federal level protection (maybe even some international, not sure), you can only stamp if you were actually granted. Geographical region doesn't matter (I believe). Also allows you to submit to customs, so they can stop stuff from overseas.CMicrotek has to know what they are doing, pretty crummy. It's unavoidable, search µCurrent in google. Might not be illegal though.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 07:41:29 pm
content: Nice looking product though, instrumentation amplifier input with 130dB CMRR.

author: jancumps
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 08:27:12 pm
content: Quote from: MK14 on March 21, 2016, 04:00:27 pmMmm, a microcurrent is not an existing thing. A microvolt and a milivolt is.And Microsoft got away with TMing something starting with micro...

author: MK14
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 08:54:44 pm
content: Quote from: jancumps on March 21, 2016, 08:27:12 pmYou're right!I've been a bit silly there.I've got microAmps and microCurrent mixed up.If I was Dave, I might say Doh now!Also I was saying uCurrent above, instead of µCurrent.

author: rx8pilot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2016, 09:05:06 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on March 21, 2016, 07:41:29 pmI have never attempted to design or build something like this. Anyone that has able to comment on the level of difficulty to achieve the spec they claim?

author: 3141592
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2016, 06:38:28 pm
content: Quote from: rx8pilot on March 21, 2016, 09:05:06 pmThe 130dB has to be a 'at DC' value, I think it's a bit unprofessional to leave this out.QuoteThat's just inexplicably bad.I see no noise specs.With two stages of amplification I see nothing special about this, gain, BW or DC CMRR wise.