Royalties????who Mr.Sabish

[wheelbubble]

Mr. Sabish which one of the major manufacturers is paying royalties to minelab to use their technology?I would like to know as most of the people detecting probably would also...thank you...

 

[Ralph Bryant]

I believe that would be White's, for the use of some of Minelab's patented processes in the DFX (dual frequency function).

 

[Cody]

You are correct Ralph. Whites purchased the rights to use A three frequencies process developed by Candy for Minelab. The patents tied it up so tight that the process had to be sold to Whites by Minelab to market the DFX. The catch was they had to implement and market the three frequency process in a specified period of time. The DFX is based on a two frequency process which is why it will stay that way unless their is wiggle room for more.

I refrained from saying anything when I see a post that suggest the DFX is the leading technology copied by Minelab since in reality is is the other way around. It really makes no difference as they are both outstanding detector and manufactures of fine detectors.

I will make one other comment and that is Andy is a great credit to our hobby with some great books. It takes a lot of effort to write a book and they are excellent. I doubt that the manufactures pay him anything other than thanks. He may get to test a new detector but the manufactures have had test teams for years.

 

[wheelbubble]

thank you cody that is a good bit of trivia...

 

[Collins]

I have also heard that Fisher was the first multifrequency machine but they did not patent it. Minelab came along and patented it. But they cannot make Fisher pay royalties because they are the first, but any other manufacturer has to pay it to Minelab.

 

[Ralph Bryant]

Fisher's CZ process is known as "fourier domain" which is quite different than the multi period sensing used by Minelab. I believe Dave Johnson, a former Fisher engineer, holds patent to the process as applied to metal detectors, US Patent 4868504.

Ralph

 

[Steve(MS)]

I guess I am playing the devil's advocate but I have heard for years that Minelab sold to Whites the rights to build the double frequency.Also I have heard for years that Minelab had to help Whites Eng. because they could not get it to work on their own. I am curious and have wondered a long time how much of that is true and how much is urban legend. Regardless whether it is true or not I still have respect for Whites as I started in this hobby in the early seventies my first machine was a Whites and they still make some good detectors.
Steve(MS)

 

[Ralph Bryant]

There are still many old-timers who have been here on the forums since inception with close contacts to various engineers and manufacturers in the industry where much of this kind of information originated. Much of this kind of "industry information" is not really "provable" per se, since any actual documentation beyond word of mouth would be all but impossible to track down. Sometimes you can "read between the lines" doing patent research, sometimes moreso by what has never been patented at all, but talking directly to the source sometimes results in more information than some are prepared to believe at face value. There is alot of "scuttlebutt" within the industry, political, practical, unfathomable, to outright hype. Sometimes it's hard to wade through the thorns to find the occasional rose......

 

[Cody]

I was told the same general story by distributors of both manufactures over the phone and when picking up some detectors. I have seen that on the forums and Internet for years and really don't pay much attention to it. An interesting story for a cold day.

I do not at all think Minelab has to "boss" Whites engineers around. I too have used Whites detectors since the late sixties and think very highly of them. I have used Minelab detector for years but not nearly as long and they also seem to have great people. They are two of the top dogs on the block and both turn out some good machines.

I don't recall a time when stories of this sort have not floated around about this or that manufacture. I don't pay them much attention since it really does not have anything to do with me and the detectors I use or the quality of the product. Just some more PR stuff that someone got started.

 

[Cody]

Well stated. If there is any truth to the story then the facts would only be known by a few. I worked in management long enough to know how the grapevine works in spreading rumors. A grain becomes a bushel and by the time it gets around there is nothing that remotely resembles the actual facts.

That was partly the point in that on one forum it was the engineers of their detector that invented this or that and on the other forums it was the engineers of their machine that invented this or that. The free market at work is a beautiful site to behold.

We tend to be very brand loyal and will defend our machine even if deep down we may think we made the wrong decision and should have purchased the other one. Fuel for the economy! It is time for the rumors of a new super detector to start the rounds.

 

[Ralph Bryant]

Agreed, hype can be very expensive. We all have to take everything with a grain of salt these days, as none of the manufacturers seem to be above letting the potential buyer think whatever he or she wants to without "running interferrence" on the truth. I've always found the best route is understanding the basics first, listening to the opinions of others rather than rushing right out and buying, taking the time to investigate and study while noting which features may or may not be right for your needs, and then determining what works best for your individual style and usage. I guess we all go through our share of different machines, picking out a few here and there that work best "for us", and sometimes it is hard to realize that they may not necessarily be "best" for someone else. I can't imagine recommending a DFX, Explorer, or a IIb to a "newbie", but on the same scale, can see how one of those could easily be the last on the plate if we had to give up all but one of our machines. On the other end are some of the guys I hunt with who have been at this for 30 or 40 years and who would not trade their simple Tesoro Compadre for any machine on the market because of the "fun factor" and the fact that they do nothing but coinshoot schools, parks, and churches and the like. It's unbelievable watching the number of coins these guys can suck out of an area with that little machine, so much so that I have been using one myself alot the last couple of years. I think it was Mr. Bill who said an experienced hunter with a very basic machine will clean the clock of a novice with even the best unit on the market. Hard to argue with that.

Ralph

 

[Cody]

I knew FD was frequency domain and also Fourier Domain but did not know who had the patent. Interesting indeed!

Have a good one Ralph,