modern RS232 ports

r t=3D

all=3D

OUT=3D

think will happen?

protection,

ance connected to an output.

Even though the parts are powered from a low voltage, they have charge pumps or in a few cases switchers. In any event, you don't alter the spec to meet the technology. Rather, you have to make the technology work in a manner to meet the spec.

To a large degree, the output current limitation of these charge pump based chips is due to the charge pump crapping out. [How handy!] The voltage limits depend on breakdown voltages. In any event, you can't depend on the perturbation being "soft", so apps will tie the parts to a hard source.

You also need to realize that most of these nasty tests are not done in production, but only in bench testing the prototypes. In a sense, they are GBD. But breakdown voltage tests are part of the wafer qualification, so a well designed part should be able to take such abuse.

Needless to say, all this assumes a good design and decent quality control.

any

mit

Nobody says the driver can't be current limited. The driver has to meet spec at load, period.

Let's just say at Maxim, every competing part was purchased to inspect for patent violations and of course performance. I suspect if TI couldn't handle the voltage, the word would have spread quickly. TI is not a bunch of clowns selling chips. Thus I suspect your scenario is likely, i.e. a hell of a lot more voltage was applied.

John

Was it done under Maixm's name? I'm apparently arrogant enough that I'd be more than happy to sell chips to my competitors, knowing that of course if I didn't it's not like that'd stop them for long anyway. Yet, where I once worked I playfully e-mailed the engineering manager of a competitor asking for their product's data sheet -- attaching ours (that was publicly available on our web site anyway) for his reference, and got back a response from the competitor's legal department stating that I needed to cease and desist e-mailing their company and that if I didn't they'd pursue legal action. Sheesh! So much for "friendly competition!"

d be

f I

ce

g for

on

I really don't follow your argument. The competitor makes their own chips, but steals designs. Incidentally, I liked TI's receiver design and used the same scheme. There was no patent on their receiver.

On these 232 parts, the charge pumps were generally the area of patent violations.

I was just curious if, when you went to purchase their chips, it was done so under Maxim's own name vs. having to be done indirectly via a 3rd party of purchasing through a distributor or whatever.

If a competitor allows Maxim to purchase or sample its chips directly, I'd be tempted to think they're rather less likely to have actually stolen your design. But perhaps that's naive...

Are you able to say, of those who violated a patent, what percentages (1) just stopped making their part, (2) agreed to license the patent (if that was offered), or (3) chose to fight it legally?

---Joel

so

d be

just

I can neither confirm nor deny that Maxim and every company in the valley has fake companies to buy parts. ;-) Sometimes your vendors will give you a part from the competition, and I always assumed your vendors are giving away your parts as well. In the days of burner cell phones, it is pretty easy to set up a shell company. In the old days, you would have a phone in the building with the shell name. Another scheme is to take a company where you have some undisclosed interest (CEOs often have side businesses) and have them purchase the item. There is some nuance in the law about a sample chip is really only on loan, not that I every heard of a company wanting their chip back. There is some legal concern about decapping a part for inspection that you technically don't own.

I don't know the specific patent royalties, but Maxim got payments and probably made payments to other companies. As you probably know, patent rights are traded way more than they are enforced for royalties. The only real use of a patent is to keep start ups out of the game. There is no greater force against innovation than the USPTO. Of course there are patent troll companies that exist to collect money for violations. They are worse than the big boys that swap patents in that at least the big boy produce the goods, while the trolls just make lawyers even richer.

When ADI showed up at Maxim as part of a lawsuit regarding voltage references, Paul Brokaw himself was in the landing party.

From time to time I've been the hired gun to analyze chips for patent infringement. Probably the most satisfying took me nearly a year (and earned me LOTS of $)... ultimately showing NO infringement ;-) ...Jim Thompson

message

connectors still

data if it

talks

How about finding a EIA-232 to USB dongle that does what you want and = ship the gizmo with it? (As opposed to just putting USB on the thing.)

Cool, thanks for the information, Miso!

With over 100 patents in his name, he's probably one of the leading patent holders at ADI!

...or was; apparently IDT made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Given that he'd have already been over 70 when IDT hired him, I'd give IDT a lot of credit for recognizing the value of older workers!

---Joel

Haha that's ironic

Considering the number of fake companies that have been invented so as to get samples of their otherwise-unobtainium parts! :)

Charge pumps convert frequency to voltage, so they most likely use a vco, rather than pwm in the regulator...

Regards,

Chris

that

I'm not impressed by patents. However, I am impressed by Paul Brokaw designs since most are less with more.

IDT is totally fubar. I wonder if he is still there?

NOW I now even MORE that you are a total retard.

So, what? You are into that anarchy thing?

I hope so. When "anarchy" breaks out, I'll be sure that you learn the true definition of the term ASAP.

According to his LinkedIn profile, he is.

That could be news to the many people that use Cockroft-Walton stacks for the purpose.

VCO/Regulated charge pumps send a _fixed_ "slug" of energy per pulse. More load current provokes more pulses per second. ...Jim Thompson

..

tent

that

of

IDT was one of the more political places I worked. It was a good company until the founder died. Then it was run by the vacuum principle. Somebody left, and somebody got sucked into the position. The person sucked into the position, well, sucked, and more people left, and hence more sucking! Lots of turf wars.

The packaging people at IDT were easily the worst I ever dealt with. There isn't much glamor in packaging chips, so it tends to be a weak point in semiconductor companies for talent. But packaging is critical because if you have a moron running the group, you are destroying product very far down the production chain. I mean you are a step or two from putting the product out the door and all the really hard work (wafer fab) has been done.