Randall Smith at it again... Presence Control Patented

[tubesornothing]

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7412064/claims.html

[PRR]

Read the patent. Especially the I Claims.

He is not Claiming the presence control generally.

The schematic is not just the old 5F6A network.

He Claims a specific implementation, which to my eye is "not obvious", not clearly taken from Prior Art.

He may in fact have a new trick. Based on old tricks, sure: all audio is like that. If it is not totally new with him, he can fight that out with other claimants.

[Frankenamp]

Hmmm, is this going to be like Bob Carver patenting the Bass Reflex loudspeaker design (again)?

[jhadhar65]

I have a hard time making sense of those descriptions and they won't let me see the schematic.

Is it different from this?

[navdave]

Oh well have you seen the Mark V..........? Got more bells whistles and switches than the space shuttle.
He has done a lot with channel switching and high gain preamps.
I once had a dual rectifier could never get it to sound right... Simple is better.

[FYL]

Simple is better.

+1

[JayB]

It just the switches between vintage and modern. Switches between either side of the PI. I'm not quite sure that's anything new though. I have seen that before but can't for the life of me remember where.

[rzenc]

PATENT HERE 

[zach]

so, if i come up with a novel switch to go from UL to pentode/tetrode to triode on the power tubes, i can have a patent too?

[Merlin]

so, if i come up with a novel switch to go from UL to pentode/tetrode to triode on the power tubes, i can have a patent too?

I don't quite think you'd manage that, there's so much prior art that even the US patent service could hardly fail to spot it!

[Shrapnel]

You'd be surprised what they can "miss" then miraculously find when the big boys come to knock over the little guy, especially in an overworked, uneducated office. (Seems whoever is available does the work, even if they know jack squat about what the patent is on/for beyond what it says on the subject.)

[PRR]

USPO hardly cares about Prior Art anymore.... they don't have time to explore all ramifications. If there is no infringement, who cares? If there is any objection, and can't be negotiated away, it HAS to go to court, and recent court decisions on patent cases are SO erratic that nobody knows what will finally be upheld. Your Patent gives you a leg to stand on.

Perfecting a patent is thousands of dollars. Yes, you can have one for a trivial invention, but is it worth it?

Defending a patent will cost you much more.

Randall's patent is nominally valid. While it includes and credits prior art, the details of the switching are perhaps novel, and there is an I Claim which notes high-impedance at a specific point. If somebody tries something "like this", it is debatable. If someone tries something JUST like this, they are in a weak position and Randall can claim infringement.