>> For following, all rights reserved.
>> :-) - what rights those are vary with administration. NZ =3D none. US =
=3D
>> much AFAIK.

> Probably not.

If I had been super serious about it it wouldn't be on the list BUT I
suspect I'm closer to right than not. BUT that doesn't mean I'm right
about being right :-).

> I don't remember signing a non-disclosure or intellectual
> property agreement with you, so I believe I am free to use anything you s=
ay
> to me without any obligation to you. =A0You also can't prove that I didn't
> have some of those ideas independently before you listed them publicly,
> which I did by the way. =A0I'm reasonably sure that your chance of
> successfully getting a court to force me to give you compensation should I
> develop these ideas is very slim.

I THINK that the 3 above points are wrong - but I may well be wrong.
I understand that in the US I have one year to file a patent from
proven date of discovery or disclosure. This covers the whole lab book
record procedures which Intel and co take so seriously -and which are
unknown here.

So, AFAIK, if I were to file a patent I could use that post for
priority purposes.

As you note, there is little new under the sun in this sort of
technology but patent lawyers will probably try to tell you that
novelty can be demonstrated :-) - they may be right.

> I also think that many of your ideas are obvious, in
> the sense that many engineers given the basic problem statement would come
> up with them, although the patent office unfortunately seems unwilling to
> apply the obviousness criterion much.

Yes, more or less.
Seoul semiconductor recently got a Nichia patent overturned on the
grounds of lack of novelty (I think I got the 2 companies correct).
Much that is patented is not novel to an engineers brain. We seem to
live in an alternative reality :-).

> Fortunately, I have no current plans to develop a table saw safety device,
> but find the exercise of thinking about one interesting. =A0Keep in mind =
that
> ideas are cheap. =A0What's not cheap is the hard work to develop them into
> real usable and producable products, and to effectively market and sell
> those products.

That lesson I am extremely well aware of :-) :-(.

> One of the ideas I had I don't remember you mentioning (although I
> admittedly didn't read much of your original message) is in part using the
> blade's own momentum to move it out of the way. =A0Table saw blades always
> spin so that the top of the blade is moving towards the front of the saw
> (apposing the direction of feed). =A0Therefore a brake applied behind the
> rotation axis would simultaneously slow the blade down while also convert=
ing
> the blade's rotary momentum into downward translation.

The SawStop does this. I see the need for a limited rearwards motion
to counter the feed rate while a guard is interposed and / or  slower
braking takes place. It could be on an arc as long as the velocity
component away from the user was adequate..


  Russell

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist