Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale

On Oct 31, 12:40&#4294967295;am, Dude Whocares <ipisg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> US Patent 7,124,075 &#4294967295;Methods and apparatus for pitch determination&#4294967295;
> will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage
> Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San
> Francisco.
> The patent addresses a core problem of signal processing in general,
> and speech signal processing in particular: period (fundamental
> frequency) determination of a (quasi)-periodic signal, or pitch
> detection problem in speech/audio signal processing.
> Patented nonlinear signal processing techniques originate from chaos
> theory and address known limitations of traditional linear signal
> processing methods like FFT or correlation.
> Patented methods are amenable to efficient implementation in both
> software and hardware (FPGAs, ASICs).
> Forward citations include Microsoft, Mitsubishi Space Software,
> Broadcom, Sharp and Teradata.
> Visit ICAP&#4294967295;s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale

Ideas, it turns out, are a dime a dozen.  Committing to an idea and
putting massive energy into the idea , with the realization that the
work may not even pay off... that is where the money is (or not)

On Nov 3, 1:18&#4294967295;pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 12:40&#4294967295;am, Dude Whocares <ipisg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > US Patent 7,124,075 &#4294967295;Methods and apparatus for pitch determination&#4294967295;
> > will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage
> > Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San
> > Francisco.
> > The patent addresses a core problem of signal processing in general,
> > and speech signal processing in particular: period (fundamental
> > frequency) determination of a (quasi)-periodic signal, or pitch
> > detection problem in speech/audio signal processing.
> > Patented nonlinear signal processing techniques originate from chaos
> > theory and address known limitations of traditional linear signal
> > processing methods like FFT or correlation.
> > Patented methods are amenable to efficient implementation in both
> > software and hardware (FPGAs, ASICs).
> > Forward citations include Microsoft, Mitsubishi Space Software,
> > Broadcom, Sharp and Teradata.
> > Visit ICAP&#4294967295;s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale
>
> Ideas, it turns out, are a dime a dozen. &#4294967295;Committing to an idea and
> putting massive energy into the idea , with the realization that the
> work may not even pay off... that is where the money is (or not)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Ideas" are not patentable
novel and non-obvious workable solutions to long-standing industry
problems are.

As far as quitting your job and mortgaging your house to fully
"commit" to an "idea": you are more than welcome to do it yourself (if
your wife doesn't mind...)

thanks but no thanks

On Nov 3, 2:29&#4294967295;pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 1:18&#4294967295;pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 12:40&#4294967295;am, Dude Whocares <ipisg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > US Patent 7,124,075 &#4294967295;Methods and apparatus for pitch determination&#4294967295;
> > > will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage
> > > Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San
> > > Francisco.
> > > The patent addresses a core problem of signal processing in general,
> > > and speech signal processing in particular: period (fundamental
> > > frequency) determination of a (quasi)-periodic signal, or pitch
> > > detection problem in speech/audio signal processing.
> > > Patented nonlinear signal processing techniques originate from chaos
> > > theory and address known limitations of traditional linear signal
> > > processing methods like FFT or correlation.
> > > Patented methods are amenable to efficient implementation in both
> > > software and hardware (FPGAs, ASICs).
> > > Forward citations include Microsoft, Mitsubishi Space Software,
> > > Broadcom, Sharp and Teradata.
> > > Visit ICAP&#4294967295;s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale
>
> > Ideas, it turns out, are a dime a dozen. &#4294967295;Committing to an idea and
> > putting massive energy into the idea , with the realization that the
> > work may not even pay off... that is where the money is (or not)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "Ideas" are not patentable
> novel and non-obvious workable solutions to long-standing industry
> problems are.
>
> As far as quitting your job and mortgaging your house to fully
> "commit" to an "idea": you are more than welcome to do it yourself (if
> your wife doesn't mind...)
>
> thanks but no thanks

exactly

>>>> Visit ICAP�s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale

Have you looked at some of the "patents" this site has for sale !!!

Look at "AUC 003", this nut case was given a patent for an "Illuminated 
License Plate".

Google "Illuminated License Plate" and you get "About 3,310,000 results 
(0.30 seconds)" !!

But, if you Google "lighted license plates" you get "About 4,610,000 
results (0.22 seconds)" !!


WAIT !!

You get more hits in less time for a slight difference in search parameters.

What was the patent examiner thinking !!

He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license 
plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided 
there was no prior art.


Where is it all going......  SHS (Shacking Head Slowly)

hamilton

hamilton  <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
>He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license 
>plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided 
>there was no prior art.

That is the basic problem with the USPTO today.  There are huge numbers of
patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
examiners.

Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once
they get approved, they stay in the system.  We have now come to a time when
just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer
automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued.

>Where is it all going......  SHS (Shacking Head Slowly)

Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's
patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious.  The software patents are
really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about
the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software
examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are 
approving patents in.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hamilton  <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>> What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>>
>> He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
>> plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and
>> decided there was no prior art.
>
> That is the basic problem with the USPTO today.  There are huge
> numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire
> some pretty clueless examiners.
>
> Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but
> once they get approved, they stay in the system.  We have now come to
> a time when just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a
> patent is no longer automatically presumed to be valid just because
> it was issued.
>
I think this trend is representative of a fundamentally different view of
the role of the USPTO. In the general "deregulate everything and let the
private sector sort it out" approach of Tea Farty legislators, infringements
will get sorted out in the courts, providing job protections for lawyers and
magistrates, but the "99 percenters" gets screwed once again.

-- 
Neil

On 11/4/11 9:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hamilton<hamilton@nothere.com>  wrote:
>>
>> What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>>
>> He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
>> plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
>> there was no prior art.
>
> That is the basic problem with the USPTO today.  There are huge numbers of
> patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> examiners.

NPR planet money did some, recent, interesting investigation into the 
patent world.  In one segment they indicated that the patent office is 
one of the only government offices that operates at a net positive 
(bring in more money than they spend).

But they are not allowed to use that money for hiring etc.  They are 
given a fixed budget each year and the gross proceeds are used by 
congress for other pet projects.  They eluded this is one of the 
problems with patent reform, because it is a source of income.

.chris

>
> Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once
> they get approved, they stay in the system.  We have now come to a time when
> just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer
> automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued.
>
>> Where is it all going......  SHS (Shacking Head Slowly)
>
> Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's
> patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious.  The software patents are
> really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about
> the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software
> examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are
> approving patents in.
> --scott
>

On Nov 4, 7:58�am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> hamilton &#4294967295;<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
> >there was no prior art.
>
> That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. &#4294967295;There are huge numbers of
> patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> examiners.
<snip>

No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
it out in court using the patents as little more then official
documentation.

Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
US government.

Rick

On Nov 5, 12:21&#4294967295;am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:58&#4294967295;am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:> hamilton &#4294967295;<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> > >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> > >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
> > >there was no prior art.
>
> > That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. &#4294967295;There are huge numbers of
> > patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> > examiners.
>
> <snip>
>
> No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
> patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
> That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
> patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
> it out in court using the patents as little more then official
> documentation.
>
> Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
> it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
> makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
> cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
> everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
> US government.
>
> Rick

The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may
not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO
too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted
patents is generally recognised.
Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to
read the EPO search report beforehand...

On Nov 7, 5:03&#4294967295;am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 12:21&#4294967295;am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 7:58&#4294967295;am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:> hamilton &#4294967295;<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> > > >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> > > >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
> > > >there was no prior art.
>
> > > That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. &#4294967295;There are huge numbers of
> > > patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> > > examiners.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
> > patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
> > That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
> > patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
> > it out in court using the patents as little more then official
> > documentation.
>
> > Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
> > it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
> > makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
> > cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
> > everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
> > US government.
>
> > Rick
>
> The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may
> not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO
> too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted
> patents is generally recognised.
> Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to
> read the EPO search report beforehand...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
the internet: *lying is a bad thing*

All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
the US patent's front page

EPO hasn't cited any other references

The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone

EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
"nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
internet including EPO examiner)

Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
your posts can only add to this...

EPO is one big ripoff