Minelab sues Deus

[vferrari]

Yay. No matter what the Lawyers win! Everyone else loses. Lol.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Iron Buzz]

I don't get it. *IF* XP let us save and restore programs on our computer or phone, (as I'm sure we all wish we could) I could at least understand this. But we can't. Even in the case of an upgrade, we have to write everything down and then manually re-enter it afterward.

But that aside... what Minelab is claiming as their own is simply ordinary every day computer technology. No-brainer stuff. They never should have been issued a patent on that in the first place. Remove the words "metal detector" and replace it with "digital device" and the whole thing becomes ridiculous.

 

[vferrari]

Yup. That pretty much sums it up. As long as you have the idea and can write it down, even if you have not actually successfully implemented it, I guess you can lock it up for patent purposes. Seems pretty flawed.

 

[Gone Detectin]

Minelab cripples innovation in a hobby thats seriously in need.

Would Whites or Xp or any of the other major manufacturers do the same to protect something as simple as storing information on a metal detector? Writing information to a micro-controllers memory or any other type of memory storing device is utterly common place these days and I doubt Minelab invented a better wheel, I doubt they figured out some magical way to store code (settings made through variables in code) in a micro-controllers memory or onboard (pcb) memory. You probably have a coffee maker that stores basic settings and its micro-controller starts and stops the various components as needed. This is not rocket science.

All that being said... I'll never buy a new Minelab.

Minelab has been about locking down metal detecting innovations for years. And charging a true premium for it. Thats why you shouldn't support them.

Correct me if I'm wrong... Has Minelab ever offered reasonable licensing of their "technology" to other companies? I find it hard to believe Whites would have passed up the opportunity to pay for such licensing.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Every company protects their technology and their patents.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Gone Detectin]

Every company protects their technology and their patents.

Its not uncommon at all for a company that makes a break through in modern technology to share the technology through licensing.

The Blu-Ray player is a good example. Sony and Phillips created the technology and then licensed the technology out. You have probably 1000's of different Blu-Ray players on the market under many brand names all competing against Sony and Phillips just the same. I remember hearing that Sony had only licensed out the slower read speed format for the first year in order to gain market share for creating the technology. Kind of a - we get first dibs thing - . I'm not 100% sure that's true, but who could argue if they did, they created a new technology. But why didn't Sony just lock down Blu-Ray and not license it out? Because they knew brand loyalty goes beyond their brand name.

In the metal detector world there isn't going to be sales on the magnitude of Blu-Ray (duh), so there isn't going to be a whole lot of money to be made from licensing. But how is it in our small world (metal detector enthusiasts) when a company takes hold of a technology that could make our hobby in a very general sense (no amazing break through) better, and then lock out all competition and charge a premium for it, we back them as detectorists? We enable Minelab in their endeavor to do this by buying their products.


What major break through in technology did Minelab make? Its frivolous.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Just off the top of my head there is Full Band Spectrum (FBS), Broad Band Spectrum (BBS), and the newest is Zero Voltage Transmission (ZVT) on the GPZ 7000. They

Minelab has ever right in the world to protect their research, development, and technology which is the entire point of a patent, patent laws and the right to sue anyone who violates their patents which is why Whites was sued for violating their patent on multifreq detector (Whites Beach Hunter ID)

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[vferrari]

Just off the top of my head there is Full Band Spectrum (FBS), Broad Band Spectrum (BBS), and the newest is Zero Voltage Transmission (ZVT) on the GPZ 7000. They

Minelab has ever right in the world to protect their research, development, and technology which is the entire point of a patent, patent laws and the right to sue anyone who violates their patents which is why Whites was sued for violating their patent on multifreq detector (Whites Beach Hunter ID)

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

I did not want to wade into the fray, but while I agree with you in principle TH, none of those truly original Minelab innovations that you cite are what's at stake in this suit. I don't know if you have had the chance to read the lawsuit and the patent in question (I have) but as Gone Detectin' has stated, we are basically talking about suing another company simply because they are using a microprocessor and it's associated standard input/output capabilities. That is not original nor innovative technology that warrants being locked down by any MD equipment vendor. Now the problem actually lies with the patent process that enables Minelab to obtain an absurd patent on such commonly available technology, without even demonstrating implementation (it is not even clear to me whether Minelab has actually deployed the specific technological functionality for which they are suing XP). So I do not blame Minelab for the gratuitous money grab/stifling of competition so much as I blame the US Patent process that enables it to accomplished using the US Legal system. And the irony that has been pointed out before, an Australian company suing a French company in a US Federal District court in Pennsylvania, oh brother. I wonder why Minelab does not have a case in any other intellectual property protection venue outside of the United States, hmm. After all, the biggest XP market is in Europe not the US.

BTW - I own and use both Minelab and XP products and enjoy them. To me this is not about brand loyalty. I have no brand loyalty. I just want to be able to buy and use the best detector available to me without this baloney going on. Legitimate infringement, fine. Let the chips fall where they may. I have a problem with the basis for this specific suit. But it is in the hands of the litigators now. Yee haw!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

It doesn't matter, if it infringes on any aspect of ML's technology patent it is their right to sue for it, it was Minelab who spent the money and time to develops the technology and ML has the lawyers and deep pockets to fight it, I would do the same in their shoes. It is up to the judges now and my money is on Minelab.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

In the metal detector world there isn't going to be sales on the magnitude of Blu-Ray (duh), so there isn't going to be a whole lot of money to be made from licensing. But how is it in our small world (metal detector enthusiasts) when a company takes hold of a technology that could make our hobby in a very general sense (no amazing break through) better, and then lock out all competition and charge a premium for it, we back them as detectorists? We enable Minelab in their endeavor to do this by buying their products.

Minelab sales for 2016 was $99.2 million and was up 55% over 2015 according to Codan who owns Minelab annual report so there is a lot of money to be made in "our small world" of metal detecting.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[vferrari]

It doesn't matter, if it infringes on any aspect of ML's technology patent it is their right to sue for it, it was Minelab who spent the money and time to develops the technology and ML has the lawyers and deep pockets to fight it, I would do the same in their shoes. It is up to the judges now and my money is on Minelab.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

Like I said, I blame the US Patent Office for the absurdity of allowing such a patent to be issued, not Minelab for taking advantage of the absurdity. Why not take advantage of the fact that you pulled the wool over some patent reviewer. The US legal system has your back, Australia. Let freedom ring...the cash register. Does Joe Metal Detectorist win? I don't think so.

It will likely not affect my decision to buy a Minelab product in the future since I will make the decision based on what tool I need to get the job done. Does that make me part of the problem? Perhaps.

 

[Gone Detectin]

Minelab sales for 2016 was $99.2 million and was up 55% over 2015 according to Codan who owns Minelab annual report so there is a lot of money to be made in "our small world" of metal detecting.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

Well that just make Minelab all worse a company for not licensing the technology. Must be some secret technology though. People keep infringing on it and dont even know it.

 

[Iron Buzz]

Every company protects their technology and their patents.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

The key word there is "their". Minelab didn't invent storing data. Our outmoded patent system has no clue about technology today. "You want to patent the concept of storing data as ones and zeros? Sure, of course!"

This is not protecting technology that they worked hard to develop. This is hijacking technology that was already available and obvious.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

So who was the first detector company to come out with the ability to upload and down load files to metal detectors?

If it was already available why didn't Whites, Tesoro, First Texas, Fishers or the others come out with it before Minelab?

In the end it will be the judge not a detecting forum that decides if Minelab is right or wrong..

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[Iron Buzz]

So who was the first detector company to come out with the ability to upload and down load files to metal detectors?

If it was already available why didn't Whites, Tesoro, First Texas, Fishers or the others come out with it before Minelab?

In the end it will be the judge not a detecting forum that decides if Minelab is right or wrong..

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

Absolutely right that it will be a judge that decides, and in the end, that is all that matters.

My point, although surely not legally sound, is that uploading and downloading data to a device certainly precedes uploading/downloading data to a specific device (metal detector) and that it should be an obvious application of that technology. But that is simply the court of my opinion.

 

[Deft Tones]

[h=1]C'est la vie![/h]

 

[gwdigger]

Delaying tactic to gain (or preserve) market share. I love minelab detectors but they're prohibitively heavy to the point of ridiculousness. That CTX 3030 is one bad arse machine but my gawd its a ship anchor. I was forced to sell mine after just one year. Shoulder just couldnt take it.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Delaying tactic to gain (or preserve) market share. I love minelab detectors but they're prohibitively heavy to the point of ridiculousness. That CTX 3030 is one bad arse machine but my gawd its a ship anchor. I was forced to sell mine after just one year. Shoulder just couldnt take it.

I don't understand why hunters want use a harness, I have been using a harness for over 10 years, makes swinging a detector, any detector a piece of cake. I used harness on ever detector I have owned, from the Conquistador to my 3030.

Sent from my P008 using Tapatalk

 

[cudamark]

I agree, using a harness takes all the weight off the detector. You can swing all day with one. what? you look like a wimp using one?

 

[vferrari]

My problem with a harness is that it's just one more thing I have to deal with during target recovery (clip/unclip). That being said, the GPX is a great Minelab detector that does not require a harness (the go detect 60 doesn't need one either - lol).