If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
"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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
"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 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
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 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/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
"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 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
perceptol formula?
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: ________________________________ -- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
formula | soky | In The Darkroom | 1 | November 20th 06 06:57 AM |
?Formula for Sistan? | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 4 | December 1st 05 08:15 AM |
I NEED a formula!!! | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | April 20th 05 10:02 AM |
A forgotten formula | Terry Davis | In The Darkroom | 29 | April 1st 05 05:11 AM |
To Richard K - Perceptol x Microdol | Jorge Omar | In The Darkroom | 15 | March 23rd 05 02:47 PM |