Turn your Rigol DS1052E Oscilloscope into a 100MHz DS1102E
in [Design]
|
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 4 Apr 2010 11:40 Andrew wrote: > "Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote in message > news:4BB520B9.2010101(a)electrooptical.net... > >>On 4/1/2010 1:34 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:31:32 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >>>>laws? > > > World would be a better place. They would have to send bandits or use whatever other non-economic means of competition. Problem is not in the patents, problem is with the people. >>The idea of patents is to make it attractive for people to disclose their >>trade secrets, and that makes the art advance. > > The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > 17 years in US, for starters, is way too long. Patents often used to lock > competitors out, thus artificially decresing efficiency. Write a complaint to the World League for sexual reforms? VLV
From: krw on 4 Apr 2010 12:14 On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 21:44:12 +0800, "Andrew" <anbyvbel(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Phil Hobbs" <pcdhSpamMeSenseless(a)electrooptical.net> wrote in message >news:4BB520B9.2010101(a)electrooptical.net... >> On 4/1/2010 1:34 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: >>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:31:32 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright >>>> laws? > >World would be a better place. > >>>> John >>> >>> A lot of people would be employed differently. It might be better, all >>> told, if monopolies of arbitrary duration were not imposed by >>> governments. Consumer labeling laws (much as we have now) could deal >>> with a lot of the confusion that would arise. Software companies would >>> have to sell service and/or lock their software so it called home or >>> used a dongle if they wanted to get paid for it. Would open-source >>> software be more available or less available under those conditions? >>> >> >> The idea of patents is to make it attractive for people to disclose their >> trade secrets, and that makes the art advance. >> > > >The road to hell is paved with good intentions. > >17 years in US, for starters, is way too long. Your opinion. BTW, you're 20 years out of date. Patents run for twenty years from the time of application but must be renewed several times during that period (or they expire before the twenty years). >Patents often used to lock competitors out, thus artificially decresing efficiency. That's their *purpose*. For a legal monopoly the inventor trades education in the art. Without something to gain there would be no reason to publish details, rather keep them as trade secrets. This approach didn't work out so well in the early industrial revolution. It's a good idea to research the alternatives before condemning the existing.
From: markp on 4 Apr 2010 16:18 "Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.03.17.41.20.820536(a)invalid.invalid... > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> Once a scope is in my posession, converting it to 100 MHz does Rigol no >> economic harm. Dave's posting detailed hacking directions to the world >> does them real harm, and they may have legal recourse. > > That's the crux of the issue. > But what they get if they modify it is *not* the same as the 100MHz 'scope that they could buy. At best it is something that may be OK, without any guarantees. They may also void their warranty on the 50MHz version they bought as well. I don't think Rigol sell a 'it might be 100MHz but we won't guarantee it and you have no warranty at all' 'scope, so exactly what economic harm is done? Thay *can't buy* what they are modifying this to be. Information itself is not dangerous, it's what people do with it that might be. Mark.
From: krw on 4 Apr 2010 16:58 On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 12:26:43 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:08:13 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > >> What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture? > >Development costs, amortized over the quantity of product sold, plus >overhead and profit. Ok, you've defined profit, but I'll ask Larkin's question again. What's a fair price for IP that costs nothing to manufacture?
From: markp on 4 Apr 2010 17:13
"Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2010.04.04.20.49.12.768703(a)invalid.invalid... > On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 21:18:01 +0100, markp wrote: > >> >> "Fred Abse" <excretatauris(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:pan.2010.04.03.17.41.20.820536(a)invalid.invalid... >>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:05:18 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>>> Once a scope is in my posession, converting it to 100 MHz does Rigol no >>>> economic harm. Dave's posting detailed hacking directions to the world >>>> does them real harm, and they may have legal recourse. >>> >>> That's the crux of the issue. >>> >> >> But what they get if they modify it is *not* the same as the 100MHz >> 'scope >> that they could buy. At best it is something that may be OK, without any >> guarantees. They may also void their warranty on the 50MHz version they >> bought as well. I don't think Rigol sell a 'it might be 100MHz but we >> won't >> guarantee it and you have no warranty at all' 'scope, so exactly what >> economic harm is done? Thay *can't buy* what they are modifying this to >> be. >> >> Information itself is not dangerous, it's what people do with it that >> might >> be. >> > > Read John's post again. The economic harm is done when someone buys the > 50MHz version, intending to modify it, when in the absence of the > disseminated information, they would have bought the more expensive > instrument. Again, what they get when modifying it is *not* a guaranteed 100MHz scope. What they may have bought instead of the 50MHz version is not the same, they would need to pay for a guaranteed scope. They are quite entitled to buy a 50MHz scope and run it out of scec. > > The moral thing would be to have announced that "We have discovered that > the two instruments are electrically identical, and it is possible to > modify the 50MHz version, in firmware, to behave identically to the 100MHz > version. We are not disclosing how to do this. We invite comments from the > manufacturer." > But at no point does anyone say that this mod equals the real thing, only that it 'appears' to be the same thing. If you're saying that it is OK for someone to discover how to modify their own equipment and then run out of spec but not OK to tell others how to do it, then surely all those websites that provide financial information as to how to move their money around with credit cards and hence pay less interest are also wrong, after all you could discover how to do that yourself. In either case the results are legal. Mark. |