As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Small beginnings, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

So, to the point.

Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

What's next?

Patenting the more useful roughing and finishing techniques?

Patenting variable spindle speeds through a toolpath?

Patenting collision detection and gouging alerts?

Apparently, these days you can patent anything your assigned examiner
has never bought from The Sharper Image! I'm serious, it's just awful.
They hand patents out like candy now and let the lawyers figure it out
in court.

Doug

which leads to the question, do I buy another 3 CNC machines, or fight
this and spend the money on lawyers.

It's the old National Cash Register "sue everyone else out of business"
ploy all over again.

Which leaves you with two choices.

1/ go open source

2/ offshore to somewhere that sticks two fingers up at the (US) patent
office

Guy Fawkes wrote:
which leads to the question, do I buy another 3 CNC machines, or fight
this and spend the money on lawyers.

It's the old National Cash Register "sue everyone else out of
business" ploy all over again.

Which leaves you with two choices.

1/ go open source

2/ offshore to somewhere that sticks two fingers up at the (US) patent
office

I think the real problem here is one for open source community.
Prior works won't be affected but if something within this filing were
suddenly in the wild as open source, prior works wouldn't apply.
They have stuck a bone in your open source throat Guy. You will have to come
up with a better response than public sniveling.
I'm sure a strategy will evolve to deal with the issue among the open source
community and if the collective mind is as sharp as you are wont to
indicate, they will. This is an issue that will need addressing across many
markets so I am sure it will be dealt with seriously and thoughtfully.

That wasn't what came first to mind though. What occurred to me was that
Delcam was preparing for a public equity offering. Patents can add a lot of
value in that scenario and it makes more sense. The time to head off
minority shareholder litigation is before those actions can be filed. Maybe
we'll see them on the pink sheets or AIM shortly.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

John R. Carroll wrote:
Guy Fawkes wrote:

which leads to the question, do I buy another 3 CNC machines, or fight
this and spend the money on lawyers.

It's the old National Cash Register "sue everyone else out of
business" ploy all over again.

Which leaves you with two choices.

1/ go open source

2/ offshore to somewhere that sticks two fingers up at the (US) patent
office


I think the real problem here is one for open source community.
Prior works won't be affected but if something within this filing were
suddenly in the wild as open source, prior works wouldn't apply.
They have stuck a bone in your open source throat Guy. You will have to come
up with a better response than public sniveling.

Wrong. There's no monetary returns to gain hassling Open Source project
leaders.

The entire value of owning these patents lies in 1. "IP Boutiques"
collecting patents they then use to extort large corps. out of cash, and
2. Large Corps. collecting big portfolios they then use to bash any
competition too small or too stupid to do the same.

I'm sure a strategy will evolve to deal with the issue among the open source
community and if the collective mind is as sharp as you are wont to
indicate, they will. This is an issue that will need addressing across many
markets so I am sure it will be dealt with seriously and thoughtfully.

Now I'm going to contradict myself.

Microsoft, and other large slow giants, that have become reliant upon
their dominance of a market to perpetuate a cash flow, see threats to
that business model and will wage attacks against Open Standards and
Free Software if they perceive it as such.

That wasn't what came first to mind though. What occurred to me was that
Delcam was preparing for a public equity offering. Patents can add a lot of
value in that scenario and it makes more sense. The time to head off
minority shareholder litigation is before those actions can be filed. Maybe
we'll see them on the pink sheets or AIM shortly.

Oh yeah, the investor market. The patents are contestable if you have a
lot of money, but it's always easier (for large companies with
resources) to bend over and give, rather than fight. So the investor
perceives value, and supports it.

er
--
email not valid

On 7 Jan 2006 04:17:17 -0800, "Guy Fawkes"
wrote:

which leads to the question, do I buy another 3 CNC machines, or fight
this and spend the money on lawyers.

It's the old National Cash Register "sue everyone else out of business"
ploy all over again.
snip
Where's the call for tort reform? It seems it depends on whos'
ox is getting the little end of the horn.

Uncle George

wrote in message
oups.com...
Apparently, these days you can patent anything your assigned examiner
has never bought from The Sharper Image! I'm serious, it's just awful.
They hand patents out like candy now and let the lawyers figure it out
in court.

Doug

The reason why every one and their brother seems to have a patent on
something has to do with some recent changes in the patent law. Don't fool
yourself that all these are real patents because most of them are called
"provisional" patents. You can get a provisional patent on anything. All
it does is protects your claim by date, and a few other details like you can
try to market it without "patent pending". A provisional patent is not a
patent pending because you are only protected for 1 year, then you have to
go through the standard patent process. That's where the money pit starts.
The real cost of getting a patent is the search for "prior art" and the odds
are if it is anywhere near ( and what isn't?) something then the examiner
denies it ... then you go back with your lawyer and try to tell him why it's
different ..and on and on.
I have 5 patents and know a little about what you can patent and what you
can't. You can't patent something that is an "obvious" use of something
already patented. The idea must be unique, not a simple deviation of a
standard practice.

98% of all patents never make a dime for the inventor

"invntrr" wrote in message
news:_dswf.8217$Lh1.1666@trnddc01...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Apparently, these days you can patent anything your assigned examiner
has never bought from The Sharper Image! I'm serious, it's just awful.
They hand patents out like candy now and let the lawyers figure it out
in court.

Doug

The reason why every one and their brother seems to have a patent on
something has to do with some recent changes in the patent law. Don't fool
yourself that all these are real patents because most of them are called
"provisional" patents. You can get a provisional patent on anything. All
it does is protects your claim by date, and a few other details like you
can try to market it without "patent pending". A provisional patent is
not a patent pending because you are only protected for 1 year, then you
have to go through the standard patent process. That's where the money
pit starts. The real cost of getting a patent is the search for "prior
art" and the odds are if it is anywhere near ( and what isn't?) something
then the examiner denies it ... then you go back with your lawyer and try
to tell him why it's different ..and on and on.
I have 5 patents and know a little about what you can patent and what you
can't. You can't patent something that is an "obvious" use of something
already patented. The idea must be unique, not a simple deviation of a
standard practice.

98% of all patents never make a dime for the inventor
I have 4 patents. The best of them was initially turned down by the PTO.
Which was good, because they didn't understand it, thus making it
"non-obvious" We had to send photos to finally get them to understand it.
I used to show it actually working at trade shows. Some people would stand
there for half an hour watching it. Some of them would say "Okay I see it
works, now tell me how the hell it works!" At one point I had 3 companies
licensed to make it. Not big royalties, but they came to us because they
couldn't find a good work around. One patent I got royalties on for about
12 years. I think I got about $100K in total. The other two haven't made
me a dime, and one I lost because the renewal came at time when I was
unemployed and couldn't afford to pay it. Hence I lost my whole investment
of about $6K.

I could be wrong about this, but I think the provisional patent is sucker
bait for the little guys. You apply for the provisional and then find out
you don't have the bucks to apply for a real patent. The PTO then makes
your provisional patent public, so essentially you have given away your idea
without a fight. Good for big companies trolling for ideas they can use,
free.

Gary H. Lucas

"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

And who's profits are you worried about? Or is this a case of "from each
according to their abilities" type of thing? I'm sorry, but if a person
invents something then it is *their property*. If they wish to donate it to
the "creative commons" for the good of mankind then that is their choice.

--
jeff

jeff wrote:

"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
oups.com...
Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

And who's profits are you worried about? Or is this a case of "from each
according to their abilities" type of thing? I'm sorry, but if a person
invents something then it is *their property*. If they wish to donate it to
the "creative commons" for the good of mankind then that is their choice.

--
jeff

Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field. I've seen a good
number of patents that clearly would not pass that test if challenged.
The were, as far as I'm concerned, issued in error due to a lack of
proper scrutiny.

Pete C.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:34:19 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field.

In the arena of CAD/CAM & CNC programming there ARE some very
clever bits. Probably much as in any other field.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:34:19 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field.

In the arena of CAD/CAM & CNC programming there ARE some very
clever bits. Probably much as in any other field.
--
Cliff

That may be, but the point is that it seems patents are being granted
these days without sufficient review. There certainly are plenty of
valid patents, but these days there are quite a few that should not have
been granted and would likely not withstand a challenge.

Pete C.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 18:30:19 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:34:19 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:

Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field.

In the arena of CAD/CAM & CNC programming there ARE some very
clever bits. Probably much as in any other field.

That may be, but the point is that it seems patents are being granted
these days without sufficient review. There certainly are plenty of
valid patents, but these days there are quite a few that should not have
been granted and would likely not withstand a challenge.

As an expert in the field what do you find wrong with this one?
--
Cliff

Pete C. wrote:

Cliff wrote:


On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:34:19 GMT, "Pete C."
wrote:



Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field.


In the arena of CAD/CAM & CNC programming there ARE some very
clever bits. Probably much as in any other field.
--
Cliff



That may be, but the point is that it seems patents are being granted
these days without sufficient review. There certainly are plenty of
valid patents, but these days there are quite a few that should not have
been granted and would likely not withstand a challenge.

Pete C.


Exactly true. Currently, I battle several patents for which there is
both prior art AND obviousness. One example is a patent on a metal part
where the actual patent is is on adjusting the location of protrusions
to accommodate thermal expansion: IE if the part wll be at 500 degrees,
you cut it at a different location so that at the 500, it's where you
want it. Clearly, that's not patentable.

The problem comes in because a patent tends to be fairly expensive for
the "little guy". This allows those with deep pockets to patent their
grandmother's toenails, knowing that the patent is invalid and won't be
held up in a challenge. However, they also know that all they have to
do is threaten and the smaller companies don't have the $ 100k or so it
takes just to get an invalidation claim started. Basically, it skews
the system toward the larger established companies and pushes the small
guy out of the market (assuming that the patent is something you can
convince an inexperienced customer they can't live without).

Patents should be HARD to get...it should be true innovation. Patents
should also be cheap as dirt so that anyone with a truly novel idea has
a decent opportunity to afford it. Finally, the patent process should
be thorough enough that the process itself tends to prove patents
valid...fewer court cases that way.

The current system discourages individuals and small companies from
filing patents due to overall costs and hassle. Basically, the system
has become a self supporting circular system to keep the patent office
money flowing and a system to allow larger "patent hungry" companies to
get a second revenue stream by bleeding anyone that might need to make a
similar part (that should not have been patentable).

Koz

Are there not a bunch of "patent poaching" cases that have happend to
deter the checking of patenedted idea against members of the same or
similar fields where companies are filing faster through the middle
after ideas are posted for initial review?


Pete C. wrote:
jeff wrote:

"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
groups.com...

Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

And who's profits are you worried about? Or is this a case of "from each
according to their abilities" type of thing? I'm sorry, but if a person
invents something then it is *their property*. If they wish to donate it to
the "creative commons" for the good of mankind then that is their choice.

--
jeff


Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field. I've seen a good
number of patents that clearly would not pass that test if challenged.
The were, as far as I'm concerned, issued in error due to a lack of
proper scrutiny.

Pete C.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:24:02 -0500, Brent Philion
wrote:

Are there not a bunch of "patent poaching" cases that have happend to
deter the checking of patenedted idea against members of the same or
similar fields where companies are filing faster through the middle
after ideas are posted for initial review?


HUH?



Pete C. wrote:
jeff wrote:

"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
egroups.com...

Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

And who's profits are you worried about? Or is this a case of "from each
according to their abilities" type of thing? I'm sorry, but if a person
invents something then it is *their property*. If they wish to donate it to
the "creative commons" for the good of mankind then that is their choice.

--
jeff


Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field. I've seen a good
number of patents that clearly would not pass that test if challenged.
The were, as far as I'm concerned, issued in error due to a lack of
proper scrutiny.

Pete C.

I've ran into too many cases in electronics/audio where devices were
copied but packages in a different shape of box (Slight mod on the sheet
metal form) for the exact same circuitry on an electronic device and the
patent infringement case has been tossed

In audio there are a few makers of professional copycat equipment whose
proces are down because they have no product development and their
entire R&D department is reverse engineering

Description of patent poacking

Mackie Desidnge Vs. Behringer GMbH if memeory serves

I think the copycat won (Behringer)

Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:24:02 -0500, Brent Philion
wrote:


Are there not a bunch of "patent poaching" cases that have happend to
deter the checking of patenedted idea against members of the same or
similar fields where companies are filing faster through the middle
after ideas are posted for initial review?



HUH?




Pete C. wrote:

jeff wrote:


"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
legroups.com...


Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

And who's profits are you worried about? Or is this a case of "from each
according to their abilities" type of thing? I'm sorry, but if a person
invents something then it is *their property*. If they wish to donate it to
the "creative commons" for the good of mankind then that is their choice.

--
jeff


Remember that one of the tests for patentability is supposed to be that
it's not obvious to someone in the related field. I've seen a good
number of patents that clearly would not pass that test if challenged.
The were, as far as I'm concerned, issued in error due to a lack of
proper scrutiny.

Pete C.

What Pete said. The problem with the PTO is there are so many
specialties these days it's not obvious what would be obvious to a
specialist.

Doug

Guy Fawkes wrote:
As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on


Got a link?

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:04:52 +0000, John R. Carroll wrote:

Guy Fawkes wrote:
As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on


Got a link?

http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/dea/dea218.html

Rastus wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:04:52 +0000, John R. Carroll wrote:

Guy Fawkes wrote:
As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on


Got a link?

http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/dea/dea218.html

Thanks but that's a paid for advert. From the ad it looks like what might
have been patented is the way the calculation is done but these strategies
have been around in other products since before Delcam PLC existed. It would
really be interesting if Delcam went after someone for infringement. I'll
look on the US patent office site when I have a little free time and find
the patent. I'll post it when I do and we'll see what the deal is.
If nothing else it's effective marketing. There might be a lot of interest
in seeing what all the hub bub is about,

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/dea/dea218.html :

"Only available in the company's Powermill CAM software, it is claimed
to offer increased machining efficiency through higher material removal
rates and shorter toolpaths, while also reducing costs by protecting
cutting tools and machine tools from wear and breakages.

Delcam said it is well known that the main requirement for high-speed
machining, especially at the roughing stage, is to use toolpaths that
minimise any sudden changes in direction and keep the loading on the
cutter as consistent as possible."

In other words, Delcam admits this requirement is known. The patent
must be in the details of the coding. The mere idea "keep the cutter
uniformly and highly stressed" wouldn't be patentable. Actually keeping
it that way might. An alternative would be strain gages in the spindle
reporting loads. Keep the loads high but not too high. You have to know
the blank and roughed geometry to do that. You can't just close the
loop from the strain gages and tell the machine to hunt for high loads.

Doug

On 8 Jan 2006 02:32:56 -0800, wrote:

An alternative would be strain gages in the spindle
reporting loads.

Those would be total loads, not per-unit of cutting edge.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:04:52 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Guy Fawkes wrote:
As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on


Got a link?

United States Patent 6,832,876
December 21, 2004
Looks pretty spiffy from what I comprehend from a quick look.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:04:52 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Guy Fawkes wrote:
As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on


Got a link?

United States Patent 6,832,876
December 21, 2004
Looks pretty spiffy from what I comprehend from a quick look.


I'll get the entire thing Cliff but at a glance the abstact looks like it
would cover everything from an electric knife to a variable pitch metrotome.
I'd also add that the purpose and focus seems to be integrated technology.
Interesting.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Guy Fawkes wrote:

As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Small beginnings, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

So, to the point.

Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

What's next?

Patenting the more useful roughing and finishing techniques?

Patenting variable spindle speeds through a toolpath?

Patenting collision detection and gouging alerts?

How about patenting a story plot?

Process of relaying a story having a unique plot

Abstract

A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot
involving characters comprises: indicating a character’s desire at
a first time in the timeline for at least one of the following:
a) to remain asleep or unconscious until a particular event occurs;
and b) to forget or be substantially unable to recall substantially
all events during the time period from the first time until a
particular event occurs; indicating the character’s substantial
inability at a time after the occurrence of the particular event
to recall substantially all events during the time period from the
first time to the occurrence of the particular event; and indicating
that during the time period the character was an active participant
in a plurality of events.

Check out the website of a comic strip author http://eviscerati.org/?p=24 and
the Groklaw article http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051103183218268
he refers to. (The patent application link is outdated at both sites.)

ObMetal: Some lawyer needs to be hit with a BFH. Repeatedly.

Tove

Tove Momerathsson wrote:
Guy Fawkes wrote:

As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Small beginnings, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

So, to the point.

Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

What's next?

Patenting the more useful roughing and finishing techniques?

Patenting variable spindle speeds through a toolpath?

Patenting collision detection and gouging alerts?


How about patenting a story plot?


Process of relaying a story having a unique plot

Abstract

A process of relaying a story having a timeline and a unique plot
involving characters comprises: indicating a character’s desire at
a first time in the timeline for at least one of the following:
a) to remain asleep or unconscious until a particular event occurs;
and b) to forget or be substantially unable to recall substantially
all events during the time period from the first time until a
particular event occurs; indicating the character’s substantial
inability at a time after the occurrence of the particular event
to recall substantially all events during the time period from the
first time to the occurrence of the particular event; and indicating
that during the time period the character was an active participant
in a plurality of events.


Check out the website of a comic strip author http://eviscerati.org/?p=24 and
the Groklaw article http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051103183218268
he refers to. (The patent application link is outdated at both sites.)

ObMetal: Some lawyer needs to be hit with a BFH. Repeatedly.

Tove

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,832,876

What is claimed is:

1. A machine tool arranged to machine an object from material that is being processed and having a material-remover,

said material-remover having at least two degrees of freedom of movement and at an instant being arranged to move with a velocity and to remove an amount of material up to a depth of cut from the material that is being processed,

processing circuitry being provided and arranged to control the movement of said material-remover including being arranged to control said depth of cut,

the processing circuitry further comprising a track planner arranged to associate one or more tracks around the perimeter of the object to be machined,

the or each said track comprising a locus of paths bounded by the minimum and maximum depths of cut that the material-remover can be controlled along around the object in a single pass,

the processing circuitry being further arranged to determine the path also which the material-remover is caused to move from within the or each track, allowing said depth of cut to vary such that a predetermined speed is maintained as the material-remover moves along the determined path,

the processing circuitry further comprising a node associator arranged to associate nodes, each having a radius, with predetermined points of the or each track such that the determined path is tangent to the nodes.

2. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the machine tool is a milling machine.

3. The machine tool of claims 1 in which the material-remover of the machine tool is arranged to rotate about an axis.

4. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the processing circuitry is arranged to attempt to move the material-remover such that the magnitude of the velocity of the material-remover is roughly constant.

5. The machine tool of any of claim 1 in which the track planner is arranged to associate one or more contours around the perimeter of an object to be machined, the or each said contour comprising a line within the or each track.

6. The machine tool of claim 5 in which the node associator is arranged to associate a number of the nodes with predetermined points around the or each contour.

7. The machine tool of claim 6 in which the node associator is arranged to associate the nodes with corners of the or each contour.

8. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the track planner is capable of producing tracks that are of variable width.

9. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the node associator is arranged to associate the nodes with corners of the or each track.

10. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the or each track comprises an inside edge region and an outside edge region, said inside edge being shorter than said outside edge region and in which the node associator is arranged to associate at least some of the nodes with the inside edge region of the or each track.

11. The machine tool of claim 10 in which the node associator is arranged to associate other predetermined nodes with the outside edge region of the track.

12. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the processing circuitry further comprises a curve associator arranged to associate a curve with each of the nodes produced by the node associator.

13. The machine tool of claim 12 in which each curve associated with a node by the curve associator has a radius corresponding to the minimum radius of a path of the material-remover of the machine tool.

14. The machine tool of claim 12 in which the curve associator is arranged to reduce the radius of one or more of the or each curves if curves centered on opposite edge regions of the or each track intersect one another to block the or each track.

15. The machine tool of claim 12 in which the curve associator is arranged to associate more than one node with any one curve.

16. The machine tool of claim 12 in which the curve associator is arranged to associate circles, or portions of circles with each of the nodes.

17. The machine tool of claims 12 in which the processing circuitry further comprises a tangent generator arranged to generate tangents to form a path between each of the curves that the path contacts.

18. The machine tool of claim 17 in which the processing circuitry is arranged to convert the tangents generated by the tangent generator together with portions of the or each curve provided by the curve associator into a path for the material remover.

19. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the processing circuitry is arranged to generate paths that form a closed loop around the object to be fabricated.

20. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the processing circuitry is arranged to produce a series of paths such that the object can be machined from a block of material.

21. A computer readable medium coded with instructions that when loaded into a machine tool according to claim 1 cause the machine tool to be controlled such that the one or more tracks are associated around the perimeter of the object to be machined, the nodes are associated with the predetermined points of the track, and the path is determined such that the depth of cut thereof varies and such that the path is tangent to the nodes.

22. The machine tool of claim 1 in which the material-remover is arranged to rotate about an axis and in which the depth of cut is defined in a direction radial to the rotation axis.

23. A machine tool arranged to machine object from material that is being processed and having a material-remover,

said material-remover having at least two degrees of freedom of movement, and at an instant being arranged to remove an amount of material, up to a depth of cut, from material that is being processed,

processing circuitry being provided and arranged to control the movement of said material-remover, said processing circuitry determining a path along which said material-remover should move, and in determining said path, said processing circuitry allowing said depth of cut to be made by the material-remover to vary,

the processing circuitry further comprising a track planner arranged to associate one or more contours around the perimeter of an object to be machined, the or each said contour comprising a locus of the paths the material-remover can be controlled along around the object,

the processing circuitry further comprises a node associator arranged to associate a number of nodes, each having a radius, with predetermined points around the or each contour that has or have been associated,

the processing circuitry further comprising a curve associator arranged to associate a curve with at least a portion of the periphery of each of the nodes produced by the node associator,

the processing circuitry further comprises a tangent generator arranged to associate a path between each of the curves generated by the curve associator,

wherein the processing circuitry is arranged to convert the tangents generated by the tangent generator together with portions of the curves provided by the curve associator into a path for the material remover.

yourname wrote:


What is claimed is:

1. A machine tool arranged to machine an object from material that is
being processed and having a material-remover,

snip

looks like 3 main claims, 1, 23, and 21. 21 is not strictly based on
claim one but refers to it. . I am not a patent expert, but everything
that references to claim 1 would seem to have to be a machine tool,
would think they would start out with "software that..." but I never
read software patents.

Just because something is patented doesn't mean it can be enforced.
The rubber stamping of patent apps is in fact de facto--a matter of
policy--in Europe, where indeed the credo is to let the lawyers hash it out
later. IOW, *you* gotta be smart enough to do your own searching, thinking,
for an enforceable patent--with some luck.

Here, supposedly the examiners act as a kind of critic, if you will. In
fact, if you supply no claims whatsoever, the examiner is (or was) *req'd*
to write some (I think up to 3), for you. Of course, they may not be the
best formulated claims, either.

99 out of 100 patents are worthless, for a wide variety of reasons--usually
some inventor S'gHOD.
Or some large corPirate entity playing short-term exclusionary chess.

Patents are very often very easy to skirt--or ignore. Your toolpath just
needs to be a little bit different.
BUT, if the patent is for an *algorithm that calculates an "optimal
toolpath"* (as defined in a std mathematical sense), then *that* might be
strong and enforceable, ie, legit.--think fuknDolby.
--
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Guy Fawkes" wrote in message
oups.com...
As many of you will recall, I set up www.open-source-cnc.com about a
week ago.

Small beginnings, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

So, to the point.

Why is open source so good and closed source so evil?

Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

What's next?

Patenting the more useful roughing and finishing techniques?

Patenting variable spindle speeds through a toolpath?

Patenting collision detection and gouging alerts?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,832,876



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Very inneresting--sorta obvious, yet sorta subtle....
Here's why--

The concept of max/min comes from Newton--or, if you prefer, Liebnitz.
Ie, the maximizing sampling "rates", ie, dV/dw (delta mat'l Vol divided by
delta whatever). ie, take the derivative, set it to zero.

However, the "whatever" part is intriguing. With respect to *what* are we
maximizing volume removal? Time? Consumed Watts? Tool consumption?
Overall operating expense (which is proly mostly a time factor, but which in
principle is quite multi-factorial--including that of physically having to
change tools)? Some of this has sort of been discussed in previous threads.

It seems the patent is primarily concerned w/ tool depth, but in principle
there are a whole host of factors that could be measured/assessed fairly
straighforwardly, and compiled over time in a "learning mode": depth of
cut, diameter of cutter, "buriedness" of cutter, along w/ tool features
(flutes, spiral, angles, you name it), rpm, feed, temperature, coolant....
Then,
All the program has to do is calc the volume of material removed in a given
time interval (easy), and log this wrt the bevy of above parameters, and
hunt down the maximum achieved removal rate.

But how do you choose the time interval????
For ex.,
If you simply jack up the speed/feed, just to the point of tool failure,
*guarownteed* you will get *max. volume removal*.
BUTT...
For how long? 1 millisec? 1 sec? 2 secs?
Over how long a time period should we insist on a maximized *average* mat'l
removal? 1 sec, 1min., 10 mins, 1 hour, 1 day?
It starts getting subjective... unless you factor in *all* "expense
factors" to come up w/ a lowest cost/max profit "cutting scenario" for a
*given job/task*.

But, in a sense, the details don't matter, because the mathematics is really
the same: just more terms.

So altho he might be able to patent some electronic circuitry to do this,
the game plan itself originated in about 1700.

The Fadal is about halfway there, in that it will measure tool time. Gibbs
or sumpn that was bundled w/ fadal could likely be configured to calc out
the volume removal during that time period (based on toolpath), and voila,
you have the basis for compiling the stats for an optimized operation.
Still sorta tricky, tho, for that more complex "overall lowest cost-greatest
profit" category. Req's a lot of measurement for repeated tasks or jobs.

And then, volume removal is not the be-all/end-all to producing a part.
There's accuracy and finish and stuff to consider, which is not pure mat'l
removal rate, but rather *how* it is removed.

I guess what I've tried to say very longwindedly is that the "problem" is
more than just a toolpath measurement, altho that is certainly a part of it.
And, that measurement of toolpath-related stuff is itself perty
straightforward.
Nor for me, of course, but for those "skilled in that art".

Or so I think.

Oh, one more thought-let:
I personally think the maximum volume removal per kW-hr of energy is the
most *fundamentally* significant ratio, as this seems to indicate the
"natural" or preferred state of mat'l removal--a "sweet spot", if you will,
a notion repeated in nature.
Notions of time, overhead, and reality in general will likely swamp this
out, but I think Vol/kW-hr is the maximized number that "nature intended".
The rest is a contrivance of, well, human assholicness.

Or so I think.

Well, right now, my rate of material removal is perilously low....
--
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. com...
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S=PN/6,832,876



--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Very inneresting--sorta obvious, yet sorta subtle....
Here's why--


Well, right now, my rate of material removal is perilously low....

LOL
It's the part you are letting approach zero rather that delta T :)


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:12:19 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote:

The concept of max/min comes from Newton--or, if you prefer, Liebnitz.
Ie, the maximizing sampling "rates", ie, dV/dw (delta mat'l Vol divided by
delta whatever). ie, take the derivative, set it to zero.

Where's BB on this one?
We probably need some calculus ...
--
Cliff

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:12:19 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
wrote:

Oh, one more thought-let:

Perhaps the toolpath is optimized for machine speed
(few rapid changes in direction in X,Y or Z or few short such
linear changes made) when it's fairly far from the desired
finished surface but does a closer approximation as it nears
it while trying to maintain a fairly constant chipload ..

Someone here may use it IIRC. Steve? BD?
--
Cliff

Guy Fawkes wrote:
...
Well, to give just one example, Delcam have been awarded a patent on
tool paths, yes folks, if you generate a more efficient toolpath for
your work than say "30% cutter overlap all the way" then welcome to the
world of having your ass sued off by companies who aren't interested in
anything but THEIR profit.

Anyone can patent anything. You can patent the method for which you
pick the snot from your nose. Untill it's challenged, you can "own" the
patent. The reality is a metal removal patent is about as usefull as a
ditch digging patent. I can't wait to see what happens when Delcam
tries to enforce the patent. There is so little profit left in the
software biz (given the greed of the major players) that they could go
bankrupt trying to protect it. By the time they "won" the suit, we
would be using dylithium crystal powered laser beams to cut metal.

BTW, really the whole point of the patent was to draw attention to
their product. Nothing revolutionary about "raceline" machining. Now,
if they cut the price of their products in half - then they might have
something!

--
Bill

On 8 Jan 2006 07:34:07 -0800, "Bill" wrote:

The reality is a metal removal patent is about as usefull as a
ditch digging patent. I can't wait to see what happens when Delcam
tries to enforce the patent.

It seems to be a software matter ... I doubt that
banquercadcam has the nerve to try to steal it.
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/index.html
(3358 hits thus far)
Customer comments:
http://www.geocities.com/banquercadcam/beaver.html
--
Cliff

On 8 Jan 2006 07:34:07 -0800, "Bill" wrote:

Nothing revolutionary about "raceline" machining.

A bit hard to compute ... ?
--
Cliff