Podcast:
Because he could. And there is clearly interest in what he reported.
It isn't logically that different from reporting on finding undocumented instructions on a CPU. Undocumented useful commands on a piece of kit.
In the "Land of the Free" with DMCA I expect that is also a criminal offence.
Regards, Martin Brown
They screwed up, they bear the cost.
Dave is an Australian, living in Australia. Why would (or should) he care about US law? Do you consider Australian law whilst going about your day to day business?
That's bullshit. How can you vandalise something you legally own?
Why not? He seems to not be breaking any Australian law. Why does he have to justify himself to you particularly regarding the laws of another country? Your questioning him demonstrates your arrogance towards a law abiding citizen of another country.
"Dyna Soar" " Farkin Larkin "
** His video presentation breaks no law in either place.** Precisely.
But FJ is alluding to the possible effect on Rigol's sales of their phoney
100MHz version. ** His video presentation breaks no law in either place.FJ claim to the contrary is entirely RIDICULOUS !!
** What is REALLY demonstrates is that FJ has done something with one of his designs that is close enough to the Rigol case for ** HIM ** to feel very confronted by Dave's video presentation.IOW - a clear case of guilty conscience induced paranoia.
IOW - the fool protesteth far too bloody much.
.... Phil
I would not mind betting that they make more revenue, not less as a result of this discussion.
It would probably be 100 scopes that they would not have sold normally to people who would not buy the 100MHz one anyway.
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:16:11 -0700) it happened John Larkin wrote in :
You need a brain scan, or check EMI and stay clear of those high Tesla fields :-) In a resent paper researchers at MIT magnetically stimulated the area behind the right ear, while asking people questions about subjects where morally right and wrong needed to be evaluated. They found that by interfering with just that one spot people would give very different evaluations of right and wrong: Researchers were able to alter people's perceptions of right and wrong by applying magnetic stimulation to the brain.
As to the scope: I sort of liked the step response. I also liked that bleak ugly looking BW tek display next to it. Compare prices.
Would do fine for me. Here that scope is 500 Euro, exactly 600 $, cannot make one for that that looks so nice.
The usual presumption for different prices is that different COSTS are involved. Is it worth it for Rigol to include the supposedly higher end parts in the lower end models? Would using the higher end parts in the "crippleware" versions pay dividends when it comes to service and repair, repair parts inventory and one test jig for both models? How many of the low end scopes do they sell for each low end one they sell?
Amazing and amusing. Nice to know. I think i will get a 1052. Though i= =20 probably will not mod it. There may be other less obvious differences,=20 like selected parts in the input attenuators, and selected diodes in the=20 sampler. Not all mod results may be so pleasing. Though it does make=20 me wonder about getting it to go even faster.
In US patent law, there's a strong presumption that any granted patent is valid. That's supposed to be what the USPTO does for a living. (I know, I know.)
Thus it's up to the alleged infringer to prove the patent invalid, and that's one of the forms the defense always takes. In a patent suit, each side has to provide a couple of reports to the other, containing the arguments they intend to present at trial and the evidence they intend to use. (It's actually a pretty good system in its way--otherwise more cases would be wrongly decided due to the good guys [whichever side that is] getting blindsided at the trial.)
I've done two expert witness gigs in the last year, one defending an alleged patent infringement and one defending an alleged trade secret misappropriation. It's pretty interesting, and it makes much more sense when you get into it.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
=20
news.
performance.
No, they haven't. The 20 MHz bandwidth limiter is common to both scopes=20 and is plainly documented; some find it useful. Using it to produce two=20 models differentiated by bandwidth was perhaps too clever.
This one is the real problem. A mere password could have stopped this.
He exercised his right of free speech. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hypothetically, what would happen if there were no patent or copyright laws?
John
If you mean that I sell products that have different firmware, or different features enabled, at different prices, yes I do. So does practically everybody who sells IP-intensive products. Firmware is expensive to develop and maintain, has value, so commands a price. More and more products are becoming cookbook uP or FPGA designs whose real value is the code.
Consider a PCB layout program that's limited as to layer or part count or functions. Send them lots of money and they email you a key to remove some of those limits. Their low-cost product is the same as their high-end, except that they have *added* code to disable features. Same thing.
John
Autodesk's lawyers did attack us for having illicit copies of Autocad, and we were obliged to prove that we didn't. It was a nuisance, but I bet it cost them much, much more than it cost us. We did have one copy of the student version on premises (left behind by an intern) and they demanded we do something or other about that. I offered to sell it back to them.
Of course we never bought another Autodesk product, and never will.
Not on my 11801, at 20 GHz!
John
Except with software you agree to a EULA prohibiting you from doing that yourself. No such agreement exists when purchasing a scope from eBay, hence it is "not illegal" to do so unless you were intending to defraud (you were the one who suggested not being illegal trumps the moral argument over over-clocking ADCs).
Mark.
Lawyers certainly do attack software users for misuse of their products, wherever they purchased them. Autodesk did it to us; fortunately we had done nothing wrong and their lawyer was stupid to boot. When instruments become software-driven, they may well be subject to the legal provisions that protect software.
As far as over-clocking or over-stressing parts goes, I do that all the time. I was just yesterday running some 1206 resistors at 60 watts, and some 150 mA SSRs at 2 amps.
John
China.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
"Discovery" as it's called in the US and Canada is an essential part of the civil law process. Typically there can't be a serious attempt to settle a lawsuit until all the actual evidence on both sides that could appear at trial has been seen by everyone. That's the theory anyhow-- it's rather gamed in practice, IME.
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?
My patent attorney, years ago, informed me that the strength of this presumption varies by patent court region. In some, it's almost a 50/50 push. In others, it is very much like you say here.
Jon
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required