On 9/26/12 7:11 PM, J. Forster wrote:
But if someone here designed and built a $100 receiver and offered it to
the group, that could well violate some of their IP.
As to building a home brew receiver and certifying a onsie so your lab's
cal is traceable, I'd certainly not trust a cal done that way.
Doing spacecraft communications is hardly the same thing.
Well..if you're trying to do NIST traceable cals in a legally acceptable
way, then it's very unlikely that any homebuilt receiver that infringed
the patent would be acceptable, from a patent standpoint. The general
exemption to practice the invention is for development of a new
invention, not to make use of it for other reasons (otherwise, the
patent wouldn't be particularly useful in terms of exclusivity).
OTOH, if you cobble up a (non-infringing) receiver and validate its
performance analytically, why wouldn't that be acceptable for a
traceable calibration. It's no different than using a homebuilt quartz
oscillator as a transfer standard, is it?
Now, if you're selling calibration services, it would be a tougher sell
to your customers: they'd have to believe in your analysis or oscillator
building. This is in the sense that if I use a HP 105, the long history
and tradition of HP is essentially standing behind the design and the
published performance standards; a homebuilt standard has a higher bar
for the great unwashed public.
If you want traceability for, say, a journal article, then I think the
bar is set differently. For state of the art stuff, the article usually
describes the calibration approach, and it's up to the reader to decide
if you did it adequately.
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
