[time-nuts] WWVB Now a Monopoly

Jim Lux jimlux at earthlink.net
Thu Sep 27 22:52:08 UTC 2012


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.






More information about the time-nuts mailing list