Find's Treasure Forums

Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!

You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.

Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.

Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.

Click here to register!



Need Support Help?

Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you

Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.

NOKTA MAKRO (LEGEND) GETTING SUED - PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Status
Not open for further replies.

JimmyCT

Well-known member
After three pages…. I need a drink 🥃 😂
 

tvr

Well-known member
Minelab sued First Texas and lost
It was when the CZ platform came out. Minelab claimed their patent covered all multi-frequency metal detector technologies (which it did not) but the CZ uses a completely different technique to compare the signals received from the two frequencies. Fisher won because they proved they used different mathematical techniques than what Minelab patented.

I've looked for what patent Minelab is claiming is infringed. It appears I need to create an account to view supporting documents and I am not going to do that. The court system seems to use a monitored sign in platform to be able to find what should be public information and readily available.

Does anyone know what patent Minelab claims is infringed? It appears, with relegating the case to the Alternative Resolution Program, that this is most likely about getting a cut of money from Nokta-Makro and not about stopping use of a technology ... meaning it appears to be a weak case.
Would like to know what the actual patent claim is.
 

Res Ipsa

New member
Agree. If it is my understanding ML either lost or dropped their patents for "multi frequency" technology. If so, how can you "sue" over infringements? If someone finds a $20 bill on the sidewalk and picks it up, did he steal it? I have been a loyal ML owner for years. They invented and developed the technology for multi frequency and incorporated it into their machines for years. Now they are doing the same for multi IQ technology. It seems to me that Makro, doing their best to compete with todays market took technology that was either no longer owned by ML due to the issue of not renewing their patents or losing them, and built a comparable machine for a much lower price. That is capitalism at its finest. If suing Makro is in fact being done, is there also a lawsuit opened with Deus, because they have done the same thing only priced it much higher than Makro? I applaud Makro for their design and updatable software and keeping their prices lower so that the public has an opportunity to own and use a machine that can hold its own with the big boys. I don't think anything will come of this except trying to slow down production and development of Makro's technology. If it does continue, there will be counter suits over ML's incorporation of new additions to its line. And again.....Deus?
It was when the CZ platform came out. Minelab claimed their patent covered all multi-frequency metal detector technologies (which it did not) but the CZ uses a completely different technique to compare the signals received from the two frequencies. Fisher won because they proved they used different mathematical techniques than what Minelab patented.

I've looked for what patent Minelab is claiming is infringed. It appears I need to create an account to view supporting documents and I am not going to do that. The court system seems to use a monitored sign in platform to be able to find what should be public information and readily available.

Does anyone know what patent Minelab claims is infringed? It appears, with relegating the case to the Alternative Resolution Program, that this is most likely about getting a cut of money from Nokta-Makro and not about stopping use of a technology ... meaning it appears to be a weak case.
Would like to know what the actual patent claim is.
The patent Minelab claims is infringed is US Patent No. 7,579,839 entitled “Metal Detector”. The patent date is Aug. 25, 2009. It appears to be a SMF design, but I am no electronics engineer.
 

tvr

Well-known member
The patent Minelab claims is infringed is US Patent No. 7,579,839 entitled “Metal Detector”. The patent date is Aug. 25, 2009. It appears to be a SMF design, but I am no electronics engineer.
Thank you! If that is the one they are using ... LOL ... pretty standard explanation of windowing with Fourier transforms that has been explained in text books for a well over a century. The patent expires in 2026 and there is not much unique in it ... square pulse windowing.

I like the cheeky part of the patent application: "Although the invention has been herein shown and described in what is conceived to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it is recognised that departures can be made within the scope of the invention, which is not to be limited to the details described herein but is to be accorded the full scope of the appended claims so as to embrace any and all equivalent devices and apparatus."
I read that as an attempt to broaden the patent beyond the "unique" claims in it. It is really not unique. I first ran into that technique (non-metal detecting) to solve an issue in signal identification back in 1979 ... ended up applying a different windowing to better maximize signal to noise ratio. The resulting processor was in a box that weighed about 60 pounds and used about 50 amps at 5 volts to do the near real-time processing. Not something that you would put on a stick with a coil at the other end to go walk the gold fields.

Sounds like Minelab is feeling a hurt on their sales volume and wants to try to limit it. Since the actual math is so old and the modern microprocessors are so fast and energy efficient and there are a lot of people who can code, it would not take much of a look into code to see if code was stolen or was developed in house by a manufacturer. If code was stolen, pay up; if not ... counter sue for costs and damage to reputation. Just my two cents.
 

Res Ipsa

New member
Thank you! If that is the one they are using ... LOL ... pretty standard explanation of windowing with Fourier transforms that has been explained in text books for a well over a century. The patent expires in 2026 and there is not much unique in it ... square pulse windowing.

I like the cheeky part of the patent application: "Although the invention has been herein shown and described in what is conceived to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it is recognised that departures can be made within the scope of the invention, which is not to be limited to the details described herein but is to be accorded the full scope of the appended claims so as to embrace any and all equivalent devices and apparatus."
I read that as an attempt to broaden the patent beyond the "unique" claims in it. It is really not unique. I first ran into that technique (non-metal detecting) to solve an issue in signal identification back in 1979 ... ended up applying a different windowing to better maximize signal to noise ratio. The resulting processor was in a box that weighed about 60 pounds and used about 50 amps at 5 volts to do the near real-time processing. Not something that you would put on a stick with a coil at the other end to go walk the gold fields.

Sounds like Minelab is feeling a hurt on their sales volume and wants to try to limit it. Since the actual math is so old and the modern microprocessors are so fast and energy efficient and there are a lot of people who can code, it would not take much of a look into code to see if code was stolen or was developed in house by a manufacturer. If code was stolen, pay up; if not ... counter sue for costs and damage to reputation. Just my two cents.
Yes, that is the one they are using. It’s attached as Exhibit A to Minelab’s complaint.
 

CoinShooter01

Well-known member
Sounds like simply opening up, and examing the circuit board for Fourier transformers, might be telling.
There once was a famous guitar amplifier builder ( RIP Alex Dumble), whos amplifiers were very unique sounding, played by the pros, sold for $20,000 each, and there was a year long waiting list.
He was very concerned about people stealing his simple circuit, as a result.

To prevent theft, he would build a circuit board, then completely cover the built board with hot, molten, liquid plastic glue.
The only way a person could reverse engineer his simple circuit, was to completly destroy the circuit board.
It didnt work.
He was latter quoted as "Not investing in a patent, was a huge mistake".
 
Last edited:

tvr

Well-known member
Sounds like simply opening up, and examing the circuit board for Fourier transformers, might be telling.
LOL ... mathematical analysis ... today it all gets done with software after running the received signal through an analog to digital converter. That is why you can readily update the detector to new versions at home.
 

TC-NM

Active member
And it goes on and on and on!
 

#1Leatherneck

Well-known member
For quite a while I anticipated this happening. How many similar filings have there been? Who is the dominate Plaintiff in these filings? Has any been brought to fruition?
And, if so, what was the result?
 

DigDog

Well-known member
For quite a while I anticipated this happening. How many similar filings have there been? Who is the dominate Plaintiff in these filings? Has any been brought to fruition?
And, if so, what was the result?
Usually ML suing all the competition and lost most of the time
 

hodr

Active member
Something is fishy. Minelab didn’t file in the state where their US headquarters is at.
They didn't file in the COUNTRY where they are headquartered nor the one where the "infringing" party is from. The US doesn't provide the bulk of their sales, or their competitors. The only reason to sue in the US is that it has the easiest laws to sue under and the easiest to shop around for a sympathetic court.
 

DigDog

Well-known member
Yep, they apparently sued Whites, XP and now NM. The only other big player they didn’t that I am aware is Garrett/Fisher.
3 out of 4 of their competitors.everyone else wasn’t really competition. If they were they probably would have gotten sued as well.
 

tvr

Well-known member
Yep, they apparently sued Whites, XP and now NM. The only other big player they didn’t that I am aware is Garrett/Fisher.
3 out of 4 of their competitors.everyone else wasn’t really competition. If they were they probably would have gotten sued as well.
ML sued Fisher when the CZ platform came out. ML lost that one.
 

TC-NM

Active member
Oh yea, they have a good product, but on flipside, there prices are up there, right? A third of there sales goes to their attorney's ...hee hee

TC-NM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top