perceptol formula?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:04:47 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

Well, first of all I am searching to satisfy my
curiousity. Secondly, most of the patents I look at are very
old, long expired, and not useful for anyone trying to guess
what new, novel, and useful things I am inventing. I doubt
if anyone doing serious patent searches for the purpose of,
say, finding out if something is prior art, would use Google
and one can not use the USPTO site for that except for a
fee: the free searching has a limit.

Well, there are a few good search engines for searching patents. Given
international patent law, patent applications have to be made public
after a set period (normally 18 months). The best site for patent
searches I've found to date is

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/

By the way, have a look at their frivolous patent page

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

Anybody who has ever amused a cat using a laser pointer or even
thrown a stick for a dog should be afraid - very afraid ... ;-)

- The Horrible Helge
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please refer to my website.
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
...
They had a group of people reading the
results of the data mining and the best ideas were
presented to IBM managment for evaulation and possible
development as IBM products.

That doesn't happen. IBM is full of people promoting
their _own_ ideas, no one there is about to promote
someone else's.

Inspiration is worthless, it's the
perspiration that is worth something.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Well, considering the recent Los Angeles weather, I
ought to be getting rich.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Helge Nareid" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:04:47 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

Well, first of all I am searching to satisfy my
curiousity. Secondly, most of the patents I look at are
very
old, long expired, and not useful for anyone trying to
guess
what new, novel, and useful things I am inventing. I doubt
if anyone doing serious patent searches for the purpose of,
say, finding out if something is prior art, would use
Google
and one can not use the USPTO site for that except for a
fee: the free searching has a limit.

Well, there are a few good search engines for searching
patents. Given
international patent law, patent applications have to be
made public
after a set period (normally 18 months). The best site for
patent
searches I've found to date is

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/

By the way, have a look at their frivolous patent page

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

Anybody who has ever amused a cat using a laser pointer or
even
thrown a stick for a dog should be afraid - very afraid ...
;-)

- The Horrible Helge
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please refer to my website.
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

Its good to hear from you Helge and to know that you
still follow this group. Google Patents works only for US
patents. I will try the link you gave for others. Most of
the patents I look for are for historical research, the
sites I've tried for European and English patents do not go
back far enough.
At one time there was a patents column in the _Journal
of the Audio Engineering Society_ where the reviewer often
pointed up some frivolous patents. It is quite surprizing
what can get by the patent examiners. For a long time, and
maybe still, there was a racket in nuicance law suits
against large companies for patent infringment. May
companies chose to simply buy off the plaintiff since it was
cheaper than defending the case in court even if the case
had no merit.
Learning to read patentese is necessary since the
stilted legal language of patents is often very confusing.
Of course, patents are _legal_ not technical or scientific
documents and are often writen to be somewhat indefinite.
Kodak's patents are generally well written and explicit and
are very often useful to read. Its evident from them that
they possessed a lot more technology than they seem to have
applied although its very hard sometimes to know which
patents have been used commercially and which were applied
for on the general principle of patenting any patentable
development of a research facility.
Another example is the patents cited by Harry Olson,
RCA's top acoustic researcher, in his writings, all are
necessary to look up because a lot of "secrets" are in them.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard Knoppow wrote:
Well, first of all I am searching to satisfy my
curiousity. Secondly, most of the patents I look at are very
old, long expired, and not useful for anyone trying to guess
what new, novel, and useful things I am inventing. I doubt
if anyone doing serious patent searches for the purpose of,
say, finding out if something is prior art, would use Google
and one can not use the USPTO site for that except for a
fee: the free searching has a limit.

That depends upon your point of view. Just because something was patented
in 1945 does not mean that it's not still in use, or that it can not be
improved.

Let's say just for sake of discussion, you figure out that adding mango juice
to microdol X makes it work better. It actually might, it contains salt
and vitamin C, both have which have been mentioned here as improving film
developers.

If you could prove that the combination of two produces an improved product
and you might be able to sell it. If you sold it, or the idea, you would
want to patent it to prevent others selling it.

Personally I doubt that an improved developer formula would sell enough
to cover the cost of a patent, but you never know. :-)

As I said, I have no idea what Google does with their data mining, if they
data mine patent searchs at all, but since they data mine regular searches,
email, etc. it is quite likely.

People have postulated having a free prior art or patent search website and
have the results of data mining examined by a group of low paid PhD's in
India or China. The ideas that seemed marketable could be turned into
U.S. provisional patent applications in a mater of days and then sold,
possibly before the original searcher read all the results of their search.

IBM certainly did the data mining, but their focus was limited only to
items that fit their business. AFAIK, they have never claimed to have
succeded in data mining an idea and bringing the product to market, but
I'm not sure that is something they would admit.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:46:15 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:


"Helge Nareid" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:04:47 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

Well, first of all I am searching to satisfy my
curiousity. Secondly, most of the patents I look at are
very
old, long expired, and not useful for anyone trying to
guess
what new, novel, and useful things I am inventing. I doubt
if anyone doing serious patent searches for the purpose of,
say, finding out if something is prior art, would use
Google
and one can not use the USPTO site for that except for a
fee: the free searching has a limit.

[... big snip ...]

Its good to hear from you Helge and to know that you
still follow this group. Google Patents works only for US
patents. I will try the link you gave for others. Most of
the patents I look for are for historical research, the
sites I've tried for European and English patents do not go
back far enough.

Hi there Richard. I never really left this group, but since that I
don't do any darkroom work these days - for various reasons but mainly
because I don't have my own darkroom any longer, I've mainly been
lurking.

I should have paid more attention to your original remark. As you will
be well aware, there is a significant cost to scanning pre-digital
patent documents and converting them to searchable text.

Given that most patent search engines are focused on current
technology, the support for older patents can be somewhat sketchy.

However, just to test the facility I did a simple inventor test for
our old "friend" Charles E. K. Mees (head of research at Eastman Kodak
from 1912 to 1955, for those with less encyclopediac knowledge than
Richard). The oldest patent I found on freepatentsonline.com with him
listed as an inventor is United States Patent 1396770, dating back to
1921. I also checked out the best European search site I know of,
which is the semi-official site of the European patent offices -
http://gb.espacenet.com/. It came back with Canadian patent CA368787
from 1937.

I will admit that I am actually quite impressed, but I appreciate that
it may not suffice for some of the historical research that you do.

I have found that people working with patents share a trait that I
have long come to appreciate in librarians - they never query your
interest in an esoteric or outdated subject, but just do their best to
help you - and their best can be quite impressive (but it can also be
quite expensive).

My own experience with patent searches have been in relation to more
modern patents, but I have on occassions had the experience of working
with professionals in the patent field using the tools they have at
their disposal. These tools have incredible power, but also have a
significant cost - well beyond what amateur researchers can afford.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please refer to my website.
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

"Helge Nareid" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:46:15 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:


"Helge Nareid" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 07:04:47 -0700, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

Well, first of all I am searching to satisfy my
curiousity. Secondly, most of the patents I look at are
very
old, long expired, and not useful for anyone trying to
guess
what new, novel, and useful things I am inventing. I doubt
if anyone doing serious patent searches for the purpose
of,
say, finding out if something is prior art, would use
Google
and one can not use the USPTO site for that except for a
fee: the free searching has a limit.

[... big snip ...]

Its good to hear from you Helge and to know that you
still follow this group. Google Patents works only for US
patents. I will try the link you gave for others. Most of
the patents I look for are for historical research, the
sites I've tried for European and English patents do not go
back far enough.

Hi there Richard. I never really left this group, but since
that I
don't do any darkroom work these days - for various reasons
but mainly
because I don't have my own darkroom any longer, I've mainly
been
lurking.

I should have paid more attention to your original remark.
As you will
be well aware, there is a significant cost to scanning
pre-digital
patent documents and converting them to searchable text.

Given that most patent search engines are focused on current
technology, the support for older patents can be somewhat
sketchy.

However, just to test the facility I did a simple inventor
test for
our old "friend" Charles E. K. Mees (head of research at
Eastman Kodak
from 1912 to 1955, for those with less encyclopediac
knowledge than
Richard). The oldest patent I found on freepatentsonline.com
with him
listed as an inventor is United States Patent 1396770,
dating back to
1921. I also checked out the best European search site I
know of,
which is the semi-official site of the European patent
offices -
http://gb.espacenet.com/. It came back with Canadian patent
CA368787
from 1937.

I will admit that I am actually quite impressed, but I
appreciate that
it may not suffice for some of the historical research that
you do.

I have found that people working with patents share a trait
that I
have long come to appreciate in librarians - they never
query your
interest in an esoteric or outdated subject, but just do
their best to
help you - and their best can be quite impressive (but it
can also be
quite expensive).

My own experience with patent searches have been in relation
to more
modern patents, but I have on occassions had the experience
of working
with professionals in the patent field using the tools they
have at
their disposal. These tools have incredible power, but also
have a
significant cost - well beyond what amateur researchers can
afford.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please refer to my website.
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

I don't remember what I came up with searching for Mees
but searches for some other Kodak researchers like Richard
Henn, John Crabtree, etc, will get loads. Crabtree was head
of the chemical division and seems to have gotten his name
on a lot of patents from research done under his direction
but likely not by him personally. Names of Kodak optical
designers are familiar to you and any of them will come up
with numerous patents. Rudolf Kingslake does not seem to
have followed Crabtree's pattern of having his name on
patents from his department. Try George Aklin for example,
but there are others.
I search out of simple (or maybe not so simple)
curiousity. I am interested in the history of technology
generally and have found myself collecting patents for
photographic chemistry, optics, steam locomotives, several
areas of electronics, etc. Patents, of course, multiply even
as you watch so one can go on forever following up
citations: sometimes they are more interesting than the
patents.
A good, but expensive, resource for optical patents is a
computer program called Lensview, compiled by Brian
Caldwell. I was given it as a present and refer to it often.
It includes the Zeiss Index, which no doubt you are familiar
with.
This should really be personal e-mail but let it all
hang out as they said in my youth, its probably totally
boring to all but us anyway.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard Knoppow wrote:

Strange: your e-mailer seems to not understand the "-- " convention,
stripping everything after it as signature. But mine does, so when I tried
to reply, nothing was there.

I am interested in the history of technology
generally and have found myself collecting patents for
photographic chemistry, optics, steam locomotives,

I am interested in them too. There is a very old patent, undoubtedly from
the 19th century, for a means of clearing the track of livestock. It
consisted of a pipe from the steam dome to the front of the locomotive where
there was a nozzle. There was a valve in there too. When the cow would not
get off the track, the engineer opened the valve and motivated the cow to
get off the track.

Another one was to prevent collisions on single track lines. It consisted of
an inclined plane from the track up over the locomotive, tracks along the
tops of all the cars, and a plane down at the other end of the train. On
encountering one another, one train would pass over the other. You can
imagine the difficulties with this.

Both patents were granted. In those days, I do not believe you had to reduce
the patented idea to practice. The first one might have worked, sometimes,
maybe. The second is preposterous.


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 12:10:01 up 8 days, 16:58, 4 users, load average: 4.67, 4.24, 4.18

On 7/29/2008 9:19 AM Jean-David Beyer spake thus:

Strange: your e-mailer seems to not understand the "-- " convention,
stripping everything after it as signature. But mine does, so when I tried
to reply, nothing was there.

Yes, I noticed the same problem; Richard's reply ended up as part of the
previous poster's sig, which of course is supposed to be stripped out of
the reply.

Richard: you may have ended up typing after their sig, in which case you
should simply more your cursor elsewhere before you compose your reply.

In any case, for those who missed it, here's Richard's reply:

I don't remember what I came up with searching for Mees
but searches for some other Kodak researchers like Richard
Henn, John Crabtree, etc, will get loads. Crabtree was head
of the chemical division and seems to have gotten his name
on a lot of patents from research done under his direction
but likely not by him personally. Names of Kodak optical
designers are familiar to you and any of them will come up
with numerous patents. Rudolf Kingslake does not seem to
have followed Crabtree's pattern of having his name on
patents from his department. Try George Aklin for example,
but there are others.
I search out of simple (or maybe not so simple)
curiousity. I am interested in the history of technology
generally and have found myself collecting patents for
photographic chemistry, optics, steam locomotives, several
areas of electronics, etc. Patents, of course, multiply even
as you watch so one can go on forever following up
citations: sometimes they are more interesting than the
patents.
A good, but expensive, resource for optical patents is a
computer program called Lensview, compiled by Brian
Caldwell. I was given it as a present and refer to it often.
It includes the Zeiss Index, which no doubt you are familiar
with.
This should really be personal e-mail but let it all
hang out as they said in my youth, its probably totally
boring to all but us anyway.


--
"Wikipedia ... it reminds me ... of dogs barking idiotically through
endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it.
It drags itself out of the dark abyss of pish, and crawls insanely up
the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and
doodle. It is balder and dash."

- With apologies to H. L. Mencken

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:11:02 -0700, "Richard
Knoppow" wrote:

This should really be personal e-mail but let it all
hang out as they said in my youth, its probably totally
boring to all but us anyway.




July 31, 2008, from Lloyd Erlick,

It would be boring if you took it off-list.

I'm sure we all have various reasons for
hanging around on this particular discussion
forum. Part of mine is to give my mind a
break from the daily pressures (not that
they're so onerous, but wot th' 'ell ...).

I'm pleased you let the rest of us listen in
on your conversations.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--