On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:16:20 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

snip
My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

Jon

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:40:17 -0400, krw Gave us:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:28:23 -0500, Jamie
t Gave us:

krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 21:35:46 -0400, krw Gave us:


Not true. It can legally be built to learn what is being taught in
the patent and even extend the patent.


Not without permission dumbass.


You wouldn't know a patent if it got up and spanked you like you
mommy does, Dimbulb.

i thought it was his sister?

You are both quite lucky that we do not live in Old West Rules
society any more.

Otherwise, you'd both be perched on an NYPD broomstick handle, in
public, feeding the rats... The cannibals that they are...

OOooo, I'm getting him closer to the edge! That's two threats. Come
on Dimmie, you can hold on a little longer.


There was no threat, you retarded ****. Note the contingency that
the world be under "Old West Rules", dip****. You are lucky we
aren't. That isn't a threat, that is a fact. Perhaps one day you will
know the difference, but I seriously doubt it.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:23:20 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
Gave us:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:16:20 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

snip
My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

Jon


It can also be a personal honor and character thing in a civil
society. If you claim to be part of a civil society, and claim to be
honorable and of good character, you wouldn't do it.

Unless, of course, you are a characterless *******. Like the
KeithTard is.

One reality that is being ignored here is that there are no "Patent Police"
and the word Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement.
Reality is that if the patent holder (and only the patent holder) feels that
you have infringed on his patent and he is willing to spend the money for
the lawyers, then he can file a law suit against you to recover damages.
Certainly in this case, the probability of this occurring is near enough to
zero to be dismissed.


"CJT" wrote in message
...
Robert Baer wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:


On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

oups.com...






Gurus,


I need your help...


I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of
the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.


The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to
skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.


Sound


Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Not yet!



---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.


Absolutely *NOT* true.
It is OK for one to build a device for one's own use; what is protected
is *selling* the devices without a licence from the patent owner.

I think you should check your facts.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:52:21 GMT, "Jack" Gave
us:

One reality that is being ignored here...

Is the fact that you are a top posting Usenet RETARD!

Bone up on the forums you interlope into, Chucko!

The reality should be that folks completely ignore twits like you
until you DO BONE UP.

Being a top posting, TOFU Usenet retard is just plain stupid. Learn
and obey, dork-o-flex!

If you have been on the planet long enough to be a "grandpa" you
should understand conventions.

You know, like stopping at a red light.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:52:21 GMT, "Jack" Gave
us:

Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement.


BULL****.

Illegal as in AGAINST patent LAW. That most certainly DOES apply to
infringement of patent law. Get a clue, pops!

It does NOT require being a law that a LEO would pursue you for.
All that is required is that it be against a law.

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:23:20 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:16:20 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

snip
My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

---
If by a "narrow view" you mean according to US law, then you're
right. I have no idea how infringement is defined in Europe, but my
personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in
order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I
have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more
than a common thief.


--
JF

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:10:13 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:23:20 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:16:20 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

snip
My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.

I've been learning from reading these points. But I believe you are
taking a narrow view, here. In Europe, I gather any implementation of
a patent that's just for personal use is completely exempt. So this
may be a US-only thing.

---
If by a "narrow view" you mean according to US law, then you're
right.

Yes, that's what I meant.

I have no idea how infringement is defined in Europe,

In following up with your comments and references, I then found some
suggestions about what I mentioned regarding the EU. I'm no expert on
any of this, just vaguely interested.

but my
personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in
order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I
have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more
than a common thief.

And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length. The patent system wasn't created because of
some fundamental underlying idea that 'theft of ideas is wrong' and a
conclusion that inventors are under some attack by thieves demanding
social remedy, but instead because there is a value for the social
commons in encouraging inventors to disclose what novel things they
discover that might otherwise be lost as an art when they die.

If the EU constructs a patent system, which is also based upon the
commons idea, but designs it somewhat differently to serve different
exacting design purposes, I see no problem with that, at all.

Jon

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 16:52:21 GMT, "Jack"
wrote:

One reality that is being ignored here is that there are no "Patent Police"
and the word Illegal does not ever apply to patent infringement.
Reality is that if the patent holder (and only the patent holder) feels that
you have infringed on his patent and he is willing to spend the money for
the lawyers, then he can file a law suit against you to recover damages.
Certainly in this case, the probability of this occurring is near enough to
zero to be dismissed.

---
Please bottom post.

While there are no "Patent Police", 35 U.S.C. 271:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac..._U_S_C_271.htm

clearly spells out what is permissible and what isn't with regard to
infringement. What is allowed is legal and what isn't is illegal,
and while there are no criminal penalties for breaking that law,
civil action in the form of a lawsuit may be taken against the
infringer in a Federal court, with possibly disastrous consequences
resulting to the infringer.

While the probability of the OP being sued for infringement in this
case may be vanishingly small, the point isn't whether he'll be
"caught" or not, it's that if he chooses to copy the patent without
the patent owner's permission he'll be infringing the patent, which
he shouldn't, because it's theft of intellectual property and isn't
the right thing to do.


--
JF

jerry wrote:
Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound crazy? I did a Google search and found that someone has
patented the same idea...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/pat...-20060620.html

The thing is, as far as I can tell it's never been built, and I need
your help to build it.

I took apart a digital camera and was able to power it up and get an
image on the LCD, but the LCD is connected to the camera by what looks
like a proprietary 24 wire ribbon cable and connector that I would
need to build an extension to. Any ideas if that is possible? It
would need to be about 15"-20" long to go from the back of my head to
the front of my goggles. The ribbon is about 1" now. Do you think
the picture quality would get much worse at 15"?

Another issue is that the camera has a lot of extra stuff on it that I
don't need. Do you think there is a way to trim it down to just the
ccd, lcd, a battery and a switch? Do you think a phone would be a
better starting point? I took apart a broken camera phone and I was
able to separate the pieces - but it has the same issue - a very thin
proprietary ribbon cable.

Any other ideas? Am I crazy?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

jerry

p.s. please respond to my e-mail and the group.


Fun experiment, but it will slow you down a lot
due to the additional drag and to the time it will
cost as you try to get a good visual fix with it.

Most people would call me a strong distance swimmer,
but those who know - good swimmers - would correctly
call me a crappy swimmer. (~ 36 minutes per mile)
But even being crappy, I can look when I breath
during every fourth stroke, so you can, too, without
missing a stroke. You do have to modify the head
rotation when there's a lot of churn, so the fourth
stroke is marginally less effective than it is in the
pool. But heck - if there's enough churn, follow it.
The guys/gals making it are heading for the same buoy.

Ed

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:01:38 -0600, CJT wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?



But you may not profit from the "personal use".

There are some special cases that have been handled by additional
law... for instance cable boxes, homemade, for "personal use", were
legal until "theft-of-service" laws were written.

Why do you think so many schematics are labeled "for educational
purposes only" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson


...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:41:28 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:10:13 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

....

but my
personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in
order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I
have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more
than a common thief.

And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length. The patent system wasn't created because of
some fundamental underlying idea that 'theft of ideas is wrong' and a
conclusion that inventors are under some attack by thieves demanding
social remedy, but instead because there is a value for the social
commons in encouraging inventors to disclose what novel things they
discover that might otherwise be lost as an art when they die.

---
Agreed, and the reward for the inventor is in the form of a monopoly
which generally prohibits the copying of the invention for the
lifetime of the patent.

I disagree slightly with your use of the word 'discovery' over
'invention', the implication being that the Venus de Milo was
already in the block of marble just waiting to be let out.
---

If the EU constructs a patent system, which is also based upon the
commons idea, but designs it somewhat differently to serve different
exacting design purposes, I see no problem with that, at all.

---
Depends.

If they design one where, say, copying for personal use is allowed
then it may well be that patented inventions imported from countries
with prohibitions against copying for personal use will be
infringed, with no relief available to the inventor.


--
JF

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:08:19 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:41:28 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:10:13 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

...

but my
personal view is that if it's not my invention and I copy it in
order to keep from having to pay the inventor his just due then I
have stolen from him what he deserved to earn and am nothing more
than a common thief.

And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length. The patent system wasn't created because of
some fundamental underlying idea that 'theft of ideas is wrong' and a
conclusion that inventors are under some attack by thieves demanding
social remedy, but instead because there is a value for the social
commons in encouraging inventors to disclose what novel things they
discover that might otherwise be lost as an art when they die.

---
Agreed, and the reward for the inventor is in the form of a monopoly
which generally prohibits the copying of the invention for the
lifetime of the patent.

I disagree slightly with your use of the word 'discovery' over
'invention', the implication being that the Venus de Milo was
already in the block of marble just waiting to be let out.
---

I don't have a precise enough mental model of my own. But I'd imagine
that patenting vs copyright might play in this example you gave, in
some fashion. I don't imagine that the 'good for social commons'
concept underlying patents needs to capture every conceivable idea
that anyone might come up with -- just something likely to capture
some of the more important inventions.

If the EU constructs a patent system, which is also based upon the
commons idea, but designs it somewhat differently to serve different
exacting design purposes, I see no problem with that, at all.

---
Depends.

If they design one where, say, copying for personal use is allowed
then it may well be that patented inventions imported from countries
with prohibitions against copying for personal use will be
infringed, with no relief available to the inventor.

Isn't that just life, though, in a world where countries claim any
sovereign power? It seems already the case that US patents will be
treated differently, elsewhere. And in particular, if I'm reading
correctly, in the case of personal use already as a matter of reality
we now live with. I think that's just the world that an inventor
anywhere must accept or reject on their own. We may lose some
inventions because some folks are riled by the treatment of patents
outside their own legal environment, or inside their own, but at least
the existing systems capture _some_ useful inventions that might be
otherwise lost. And that is all anyone can reasonably hope for.

I don't personally grant much commons value for inventions that would
otherwise be invented repeatedly and frequently and with variations of
little importance in difference, as who cares? We can just wait a
little longer. I've no problem with that and wouldn't want to
exchange much value back for getting it a few months or a year earlier
(except in VERY RARE hypothetical circumstances, which I wouldn't bend
over backwards to get.)

Jon

In article , To-Email-
says...
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:

In article ,
says...
Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
penned this immortal opus:

On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:
"jerry" wrote in message

oups.com...





Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound

Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not yet!

---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.

Yeth it is ;-)

Only for educational use (where the education is the patent itself).

But you may not profit from the "personal use".

Avoiding a license is "profiting from personal use".

There are some special cases that have been handled by additional
law... for instance cable boxes, homemade, for "personal use", were
legal until "theft-of-service" laws were written.

They could nail them for patent infraction too. It's much easier to
prosecute a criminal violation than a tort. The only thing to win in
a tort would be a license fee, or perhaps the "value" of a box.
....hardly worth bothering with.

Why do you think so many schematics are labeled "for educational
purposes only" ?:-)

Labeling it so doesn't make it so. Try selling that "educational use
only schematic" in the back of Popular Mechanics. ;-)

--
Keith

"jerry" wrote in message
oups.com...
Gurus,

I need your help...

What about a small periscope?

R

YD wrote:

Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
penned this immortal opus:


On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:


On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

legroups.com...






Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound

Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not yet!

---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.


A one-off for personal use is allowed.

- YD.

In what country?

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:


In article ,
says...

Late at night, by candle light, John Fields
penned this immortal opus:


On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:


On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

oglegroups.com...






Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound

Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not yet!

---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?


But you may not profit from the "personal use".

There are some special cases that have been handled by additional
law... for instance cable boxes, homemade, for "personal use", were
legal until "theft-of-service" laws were written.

Why do you think so many schematics are labeled "for educational
purposes only" ?:-)

...Jim Thompson


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Robert Baer wrote:

Phil Hobbs wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:

On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

oups.com...





Gurus,
I need your help...
I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of
the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.
The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to
skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.
Sound


Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Not yet!



---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.


Illegal to sell it, or to profit by using it. But building one for
fun? Don't think so.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

You are correct (as usual).

You _both_ need to check your facts (or specify in what country your
opinion applies, if other than the US).

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the
impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of
patents.


I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.

Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because
YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to under
a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose WHICH policy
you decide to follow ...

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...

put up with top posting ...

some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page
to read the response .. !!





(ehsjr) wrote in Z7fLh.873$zN.646@trndny03:

jerry wrote:
Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound crazy? I did a Google search and found that someone has
patented the same idea...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/pat...7-3/US07062796
-20060620.html

The thing is, as far as I can tell it's never been built, and I need
your help to build it.

I took apart a digital camera and was able to power it up and get an
image on the LCD, but the LCD is connected to the camera by what looks
like a proprietary 24 wire ribbon cable and connector that I would
need to build an extension to. Any ideas if that is possible? It
would need to be about 15"-20" long to go from the back of my head to
the front of my goggles. The ribbon is about 1" now. Do you think
the picture quality would get much worse at 15"?

Another issue is that the camera has a lot of extra stuff on it that I
don't need. Do you think there is a way to trim it down to just the
ccd, lcd, a battery and a switch? Do you think a phone would be a
better starting point? I took apart a broken camera phone and I was
able to separate the pieces - but it has the same issue - a very thin
proprietary ribbon cable.

Any other ideas? Am I crazy?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

jerry

p.s. please respond to my e-mail and the group.


Fun experiment, but it will slow you down a lot
due to the additional drag and to the time it will
cost as you try to get a good visual fix with it.

Most people would call me a strong distance swimmer,
but those who know - good swimmers - would correctly
call me a crappy swimmer. (~ 36 minutes per mile)
But even being crappy, I can look when I breath
during every fourth stroke, so you can, too, without
missing a stroke. You do have to modify the head
rotation when there's a lot of churn, so the fourth
stroke is marginally less effective than it is in the
pool. But heck - if there's enough churn, follow it.
The guys/gals making it are heading for the same buoy.

Ed

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:17:40 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:



My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the
impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of
patents.

---
Then you were under the wrong impression.
---

I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.

---
Nor should you, but if you copy a patented invention for the sole
purpose of using it but not having to pay the inventor for its use
then you're stealing his intellectual property.



--
JF

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:20:42 GMT, (mojo)
wrote:

Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because
YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to under
a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose WHICH policy
you decide to follow ...

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...

put up with top posting ...

some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page
to read the response .. !!

---
LOL, you make up rules for us to follow and then you don't even
follow them yourself? That is, you didn't even trim the stuff
below, which has nothing to do with your post.

**** you and the horse you rode in on, hypocrite.
---


(ehsjr) wrote in Z7fLh.873$zN.646@trndny03:

jerry wrote:
Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound crazy? I did a Google search and found that someone has
patented the same idea...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/pat...7-3/US07062796
-20060620.html

The thing is, as far as I can tell it's never been built, and I need
your help to build it.

I took apart a digital camera and was able to power it up and get an
image on the LCD, but the LCD is connected to the camera by what looks
like a proprietary 24 wire ribbon cable and connector that I would
need to build an extension to. Any ideas if that is possible? It
would need to be about 15"-20" long to go from the back of my head to
the front of my goggles. The ribbon is about 1" now. Do you think
the picture quality would get much worse at 15"?

Another issue is that the camera has a lot of extra stuff on it that I
don't need. Do you think there is a way to trim it down to just the
ccd, lcd, a battery and a switch? Do you think a phone would be a
better starting point? I took apart a broken camera phone and I was
able to separate the pieces - but it has the same issue - a very thin
proprietary ribbon cable.

Any other ideas? Am I crazy?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

jerry

p.s. please respond to my e-mail and the group.


Fun experiment, but it will slow you down a lot
due to the additional drag and to the time it will
cost as you try to get a good visual fix with it.

Most people would call me a strong distance swimmer,
but those who know - good swimmers - would correctly
call me a crappy swimmer. (~ 36 minutes per mile)
But even being crappy, I can look when I breath
during every fourth stroke, so you can, too, without
missing a stroke. You do have to modify the head
rotation when there's a lot of churn, so the fourth
stroke is marginally less effective than it is in the
pool. But heck - if there's enough churn, follow it.
The guys/gals making it are heading for the same buoy.

Ed


--
JF

"jerry" wrote in news:1174227884.949335.233200
@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

And although there usually is someone in front of me - and drafting in
the swim is legal - I've found that most people go off course as often
as I do.

LOL! It doesn't pay to follow somebody who's lost!

Thanks for the ideas! Please keep them coming!

OK, a gyroscope mounted on your back. On the beach, you point yourself
in the right direction, switch on the gyro and wait for it to rev up to
full RPM. Then it will FORCE you to take the correct course, keeping you
pointed in exactly the right direction. This will get you to the first
marker. The rest... (anyone?)

Or how about this. The marker is hard to see because it's above water,
and your face is underwater. So you could dangle a waterproof strobe
light a few feet below the marker, something bright enough you can see at
a distance. (Of course, all your competitors will see it too, but then
you all have the same problem seeing the marker, right?)

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:17:40 GMT, James Sweet
wrote:


My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the
impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of
patents.


---
Then you were under the wrong impression.
---


I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.


---
Nor should you, but if you copy a patented invention for the sole
purpose of using it but not having to pay the inventor for its use
then you're stealing his intellectual property.



Which reminds me, a few years ago i remember a case where a company
create a product that some one else had a patent on. The product was for
a very small and specific market. The person that held the patent for
this, heard about it after 2 years of it being used then the legal
battle started.
In the end. the patent holder didn't get anything other than a large
bill from his lawyer.
It appears that this person had patents on a lot of different things
with no actual material(devices, paper work, documentation ect) etc..
In other words, they simply created patents on idea's only.
It was there for decided in court that the patent was invalid,
and soon after, the company got a patent for them self's on this product.

I remember a few years ago when i was in a small business of my own,
I was told to package a sample of the product we had and mail it to my
self but never open it. Do this once a year. and also get a legal patent
on record. Because cases like this happen all the time.


--
"I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken"
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

I remember a few years ago when i was in a small business of my own, I
was told to package a sample of the product we had and mail it to my self
but never open it. Do this once a year. and also get a legal patent
on record. Because cases like this happen all the time.

Bad advice. Write it up, get someone with understanding to read it and date
and sign the report.



--
..

--
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..

--

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 22:24:42 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
wrote:


"Jamie" t wrote in message
...

I remember a few years ago when i was in a small business of my own, I
was told to package a sample of the product we had and mail it to my self
but never open it. Do this once a year. and also get a legal patent
on record. Because cases like this happen all the time.

Bad advice. Write it up, get someone with understanding to read it and date
and sign the report.

---
Bad advice on top of bad advice, dumb****.

Read this:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/disdo.html



--
JF

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:01:38 -0600, CJT wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?


To prosecute people who tamper with the CATV physical plant, which
was happening LONG before there was any scrambling equipment. I've seen
photos were some dumbass hacksawed the shield off the .750" CATV
trunkline. Then he connected it directly to his TV set. The high RF
levels blew out the RF amp, and the 30 VAC 30 A power supply set the
input circuit on fire. Most of the system went down when he opened the
shield, so it wasn't very long before the damage was found. Then, the
stupid SOB tried to sue the CATV company for the damage to his TV, and
not having warning labels that the lines were carrying AC power.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

mojo wrote:

Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because
YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to under
a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose WHICH policy
you decide to follow ...

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...


Plonk!


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:51:28 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst"
wrote:


"jerry" wrote in message
roups.com...
Gurus,

I need your help...

What about a small periscope?

R


and a small submarine to go with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pKyRogjlfc

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 00:17:56 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:01:38 -0600, CJT wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 11:37:56 -0400, krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.


Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

If you were correct, why would theft-of-service laws be necessary?


To prosecute people who tamper with the CATV physical plant, which
was happening LONG before there was any scrambling equipment. I've seen
photos were some dumbass hacksawed the shield off the .750" CATV
trunkline. Then he connected it directly to his TV set. The high RF
levels blew out the RF amp, and the 30 VAC 30 A power supply set the
input circuit on fire. Most of the system went down when he opened the
shield, so it wasn't very long before the damage was found. Then, the
stupid SOB tried to sue the CATV company for the damage to his TV, and
not having warning labels that the lines were carrying AC power.

I did that to a neighbor's TV once... lit it off with a KW pumped into
a 50' long V-beam on 2-meters ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave

mojo wrote:
Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because
YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to under
a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose WHICH policy
you decide to follow ...

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...

put up with top posting ...

some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page
to read the response .. !!


Thanks - but somehow your post must've gotten
messed up. The helpful part seems to be missing.

Ed





(ehsjr) wrote in Z7fLh.873$zN.646@trndny03:


jerry wrote:

Gurus,

I need your help...

I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.

The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.

Sound crazy? I did a Google search and found that someone has
patented the same idea...

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/pat...7-3/US07062796
-20060620.html

The thing is, as far as I can tell it's never been built, and I need
your help to build it.

I took apart a digital camera and was able to power it up and get an
image on the LCD, but the LCD is connected to the camera by what looks
like a proprietary 24 wire ribbon cable and connector that I would
need to build an extension to. Any ideas if that is possible? It
would need to be about 15"-20" long to go from the back of my head to
the front of my goggles. The ribbon is about 1" now. Do you think
the picture quality would get much worse at 15"?

Another issue is that the camera has a lot of extra stuff on it that I
don't need. Do you think there is a way to trim it down to just the
ccd, lcd, a battery and a switch? Do you think a phone would be a
better starting point? I took apart a broken camera phone and I was
able to separate the pieces - but it has the same issue - a very thin
proprietary ribbon cable.

Any other ideas? Am I crazy?

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

jerry

p.s. please respond to my e-mail and the group.


Fun experiment, but it will slow you down a lot
due to the additional drag and to the time it will
cost as you try to get a good visual fix with it.

Most people would call me a strong distance swimmer,
but those who know - good swimmers - would correctly
call me a crappy swimmer. (~ 36 minutes per mile)
But even being crappy, I can look when I breath
during every fourth stroke, so you can, too, without
missing a stroke. You do have to modify the head
rotation when there's a lot of churn, so the fourth
stroke is marginally less effective than it is in the
pool. But heck - if there's enough churn, follow it.
The guys/gals making it are heading for the same buoy.

Ed

So is it written in stone somewhere that contributors to this group have to
post in some certain way??


"mojo" wrote in message
.. .
Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because
YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to under
a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose WHICH policy
you decide to follow ...

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...

put up with top posting ...

some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page
to read the response .. !!

CJT wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On 17 Mar 2007 11:57:20 -0700, "jerry"
wrote:


On Mar 17, 2:16 pm, "jim menning" wrote:

"jerry" wrote in message

oups.com...






Gurus,



I need your help...



I am an amateur triathlete and I'm getting ready for the start of
the
triathlon season and I had this problem last year that I'm trying to
solve.



The problem is that during an open-water triathlon swim I need to
skip
a stroke every so often to lift my head out of the water and site the
next turn buoy. I usually find myself off course by a few yards and
need to make corrections. This costs me time from being off course
and from skipping a stroke. So, I had this idea to take apart an old
digital camera or picture phone and mount the camera part to the back
of my head and attach the LCD part in front of my goggles.



Sound



Will such a device be illegal in competition?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Not yet!




---
But, if it's patented, it'll be illegal for you to build one.


Absolutely *NOT* true.
It is OK for one to build a device for one's own use; what is
protected is *selling* the devices without a licence from the patent
owner.


I think you should check your facts.

Sorry; it is you that needs to do the checking.

(Jack) wrote in REnLh.1550$zN.804@trndny03:

So is it written in stone somewhere that contributors to this group have
to post in some certain way??


"mojo" wrote in message
. ..
Just to let you guys know .. the reason people top post is because
YOU guys are tooooo lazy to cut the length of quoted text down to
under a page .. you bitch about following policy ... then choose
WHICH policy you decide to follow ...

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...

put up with top posting ...

some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second
page to read the response .. !!







you would think soooo .. the way these guys freak out when you top post.

btw .. John Fields, I didnt trim any of the message on purpose
just to show you how absurd it looks ... asshole...

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:41:28 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
Gave us:

And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length.


Most thieves aren't.

(dropping alt.electronics as my news server can't find it)

Jim Thompson wrote:
CJT wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
krw wrote:
[snip]

A one-off for personal use is allowed.

No, it is not.

Yeth it is ;-)

cite?

My personal patent attorney, over lunch, during a discussion of
cable-buster boxes. Many years ago, prior to the institution of
theft-of-service laws.

The "many years ago" could be the problem ... things have changed in the
last few years. Although I hate to use Wikipedia to support a point, the
"Research exemption" page does have some good references to read about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption
The relevant title can be grabbed from
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html
which makes it very clear that the construction of a patented device
infringes the patent: "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever
without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any
patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the
patent". There are no explicit exemptions in the title itself for research
except for specific pharmaceutical-related situations. The more general
research exemption (in the US) is originally from the Whittemore v. Cutter
case, but this has been significantly narrowed over the years, especially in
the last 5 or so.

[...]

--
Michael Brown
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 06:51:28 +1200, "Roger Dewhurst"
Gave us:


"jerry" wrote in message
roups.com...
Gurus,

I need your help...

What about a small periscope?

R

Place the mirror from a simple pair of bicyclist's glasses on his
swimming goggles. Done!

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 01:04:17 -0700, MassiveProng
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 17:41:28 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
Gave us:

And here we may need to disagree, though I'm not interested in
debating it at length.

Most thieves aren't.

You are just upset because not so many hours ago you showed your
complete ignorance about chemistry and through your refusal to face
the facts demonstrated yourself also to be an obdurate idiot.

Deal with it.

Jon

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:17:40 GMT, James Sweet
Gave us:



My point, though, was that if the OP copies the patent for practical
use he'll be infringing the patent unless he gets permission to copy
it from the owner of the patent.




Unless the person is selling this thing who cares? I was under the
impression someone could build something for personal use regardless of
patents.


I certainly wouldn't let a patent stop my own innovation.


Yeah, but you are a dishonorable, zero character thieving twit!

Goddamned gang boy mentality retards!

If you are copying, it has not a damned thing to do with
"innovation"

A. G. Bell did NOT invent the telephone. dip****. He stole it!

http://www.italianhistorical.org/MeucciStory.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:20:42 GMT, (mojo) Gave
us:

QUIT POSTING THE WHOLE ORIGINAL MESSAGE !!!!!!!!!!!

or ...

put up with top posting ...


**** you, jackass. Top post and be ignored, like your retarded ass
should be!