Inventors, do not waste your time inventing things people don't want.

[Grumpycat]

This is my father's patent for broadcasting without sidebands. I do not pretend to know nearly as much about it as he did.

US264571A - Radio transmission and carrier wave modulation
- Google Patents

Thank-you. My understanding of your father's patent is that he designed a circuit, not a unique or improved modulation scheme. That the output is still AM.

The PDF scan of the original publication is easier to read than Google's OCR image-to-text rendering.

 

[tallyho8]

Thank-you. My understanding of your father's patent is that he designed a circuit, not a unique or improved modulation scheme. That the output is still AM.

The PDF scan of the original publication is easier to read than Google's OCR image-to-text rendering.

Since I am electronically challenged, I am not able to explain all the details. All I can say is that using his invention enabled broadcasters of radio or TV to use many more channels much closer together, without getting interference from neighboring channels. It took him over 10 years to prove this to all the naysayers, many who could not even understand what he was talking about and others who dis-believed until shown a working prototype. Then came the hard part, trying to find a broadcasting company who was willing to use it and not just buy the patent and lock it away to prevent others from using it.

Of course, years later, the digital age made it obsolete.

 

[fried1765]

Uh, was your father John Renshaw Carson?

Single-sideband modulation - Wikipedia says John Renshaw Carson was born 1886 and the first to patent SSB in 1915.

If you have ever used SSB it is a miserable minimalist mode. Everything sounds like Donald Duck and the slightest error in frequency makes it worse because SSB lacks a means of self-centering.

Quite often the situation with fundamental inventions such as SSB the concept can not be put into use fast enough to be useful. The patent serves as documentation which prevents anyone else from patenting it 20 years (formerly 17) in the future.

SSB took a long time to catch on because it is difficult to build mixers to transmit and demodulate. And as I said above, it is not pleasant to listen to.

SSB is "not pleasant to listen to".
That is definitely an understatement!
I spent many hundreds of hours listening to SSB while crossing oceans.

 

[k0ua]

SSB can be very pleasant to listen to. It all depends on the transmitter filters and how wide of the modulating signals you wish to pass and how wide the filtering you wish to use on the receiver.

As a proof, I might point out that many Short wave broadcast stations with remote transmitters all over the world often fed these AM full bandwidth transmitters with SSB links on different frequencies. There is nothing INHERENT in SSB transmission that is low fidelity.

However, SSB as it is often implemented in communications transmitters and receivers is often limited to a 2.8khz bandwidth or even lower. As an example AM broadcast transmissions are usually 10 khz wide, so therefore can be modulated with audio frequencies of much greater bandwidth thus sounding much better to the ear than the very narrow SSB transmissions that can't pass audio frequencies any lower than about 300hz or higher than 2800 hz, sometimes less.

Couple that with in the case of aircraft HF SSB transmitters that are using noise canceling microphone with an EXTREMELY by design narrow response and yes the resultant SSB audio sounds "pinched" and very "narrow".

When tuned in precisely (which requires stable transmitters and receivers), and running the proper bandwidth filters on each end SSB transmissions are indistinguishable from AM transmissions in audio quality AND still only use half the bandwidth and 1/4 the power for the same Effective Radiated Power. There is NOTHING gained by sending a second sideband nor the carrier of an AM transmitter. Of course making stable SSB transmitters and receivers is more costly and complicated.

For communications service we don't need high fidelity, so we make lots of compromises. We call this "communications quality". And we want to make our transmissions as narrow as possible to fit more communications into scarce and valuable radio spectrum.

 

[NorTracNY]

Since I am electronically challenged, I am not able to explain all the details. All I can say is that using his invention enabled broadcasters of radio or TV to use many more channels much closer together, without getting interference from neighboring channels. It took him over 10 years to prove this to all the naysayers, many who could not even understand what he was talking about and others who dis-believed until shown a working prototype. Then came the hard part, trying to find a broadcasting company who was willing to use it and not just buy the patent and lock it away to prevent others from using it.

Of course, years later, the digital age made it obsolete.

Correct, each of his 3 claims involve vacuum tubes. :laughing: As with most patents, they are further improvements of things others have done. I believe some of the best are the ones which pulls knowledge from other areas to a new area. The worse patents are the ones that exist only because a big company won't produce it if it isn't patented. I've learned several things over my career with patents.

Patents are not for a small guy anymore. They are very expensive to get and it's very tough to invent AND market.

Patents are a legal instrument to prevent others from doing something more than true discovery. I've sat through meetings where the two technical people on a project were silent as the lawyers and commercial folk came up with what to patent on an upcoming project.

Most patents are useless from a technical/invention standpoint. They do not represent something novel. They are just a barrier for someone to do something that is common sense.

That being said, I've been told that I can't be a good judge of a patent as I'm not someone "who is average skilled in my art." I'm told that something which is obvious to me, may not be obvious to someone who is only average. Maybe that's why my company pays me $2 each.

 

[Industrial Toys]

I believe SSB is used in microwave communictions as well for a very long time.

 

[dstig1]

Yeah patents are not as useful for the small guy as you might think. A better way of describing what a patent is is that it allows you to sue someone who is using your invention to either make them stop or pay you some licensing fee. You can't just say "STOP!" and they roll over. You need to bring them to court, or at least start the process with cease and desist type letters, escalating as needed. The farther it goes, the more expensive which is why it is hard to get good value from a patent as a small entity. Hard to spend all that money on the chance that you will win, plus you are small and that is a huge distraction from your normal operations. if you are dealing with an ethical party that did something inadvertently, then a letter may make them stop or agree to a license fee, but all too often the infringers are intentional (unscrupulous) and will try to bankrupt you in the process of defending the patent.

A patent is only as good as the wallet size behind defending it...

 

[Valveman]

Patents were not designed to protect the inventor. They were designed so the inventor has to explain how it works and draw out exactly how to build one, so that everyone else can benefit from the new device. The inventor just gets 20 years of protection for explaining it before anyone else can use it. Unfortunately, as in many cases, it takes about 20 years for a new idea to be pioneered into a profitable product. Just about the time the new product is accepted and takes off, the patent expires and the inventor gets nothing. There are actually many companies who sit and wait for patents to expire, the inventor to have spent 20 years and all his/her money pioneering the idea to the market, then they step in and steal the idea. You also can't just sue someone for stealing your patented idea. All you get is damages. So you have to wait until the thief has sold enough of your patented products to accumulate some damages. If they only sell a few of your products, there is not enough damages to go after them. It will take at least a half million dollars to file a suit against them. If you don't get awarded damages of more than 500K, you will lose money trying to protect your idea. Very few lawyers will take it on a contingency, so you have to come up with the money to file the law suit.

Even if you overcome these hurdles, a product that is extremely useful will most likely get shunned by the industry. I always thought if you built a better mousetrap, people would beat a path to your door. I found out if you make a mousetrap so good it would make mice extinct, people in the industry will do or say anything to discredit you and put you out of business. There is lots of money in mousetraps, and they don't want you to fix that problem. It is called a disruptive product, as it so useful it disrupts the industry. However, a disruptive product usually becomes the norm eventually, the inventor is just long dead before it happens.

I wish I had known more about marketing than inventing products. I have been told that I would have been better off without a patent. With a patent on a new idea, no one else tried to produce the same kind of product. As a matter of fact they spent 20 years designing and marketing several alternatives that didn't work as well, but also didn't shoot their planned obsolescence in the foot. As the inventor and owner of the patent the whole pie was mine for 20 years. However, my whole pie was smaller than my little piece of the big pie would have been, had I not got a patent and let many others copy my idea.

Marketing is the key. Products are made to sell, not to last. Everything is built with a planned fail date, so they get to sell another. If you fall for the hype paid for with huge advertisement budgets, you are falling in line to get fleeced. The things that are advertised the most, are the most profitable items. The most profitable items are best for the manufacturers, not best for the consumer. The Internet is a wonderful thing. We can research products and ideas that are not just the most advertised. As a matter of fact, looking for products the big manufacturers try to keep hidden or don't want you to believe work, can keep you from having to purchase products over and over as the manufacturers would like for you to do.

 

[NorTracNY]

Patents were not designed to protect the inventor. They were designed so the inventor has to explain how it works and draw out exactly how to build one, so that everyone else can benefit from the new device. The inventor just gets 20 years of protection for explaining it before anyone else can use it. Unfortunately, as in many cases, it takes about 20 years for a new idea to be pioneered into a profitable product. Just about the time the new product is accepted and takes off, the patent expires and the inventor gets nothing. There are actually many companies who sit and wait for patents to expire, the inventor to have spent 20 years and all his/her money pioneering the idea to the market, then they step in and steal the idea. You also can't just sue someone for stealing your patented idea. All you get is damages. So you have to wait until the thief has sold enough of your patented products to accumulate some damages. If they only sell a few of your products, there is not enough damages to go after them. It will take at least a half million dollars to file a suit against them. If you don't get awarded damages of more than 500K, you will lose money trying to protect your idea. Very few lawyers will take it on a contingency, so you have to come up with the money to file the law suit.

Even if you overcome these hurdles, a product that is extremely useful will most likely get shunned by the industry. I always thought if you built a better mousetrap, people would beat a path to your door. I found out if you make a mousetrap so good it would make mice extinct, people in the industry will do or say anything to discredit you and put you out of business. There is lots of money in mousetraps, and they don't want you to fix that problem. It is called a disruptive product, as it so useful it disrupts the industry. However, a disruptive product usually becomes the norm eventually, the inventor is just long dead before it happens.

I wish I had known more about marketing than inventing products. I have been told that I would have been better off without a patent. With a patent on a new idea, no one else tried to produce the same kind of product. As a matter of fact they spent 20 years designing and marketing several alternatives that didn't work as well, but also didn't shoot their planned obsolescence in the foot. As the inventor and owner of the patent the whole pie was mine for 20 years. However, my whole pie was smaller than my little piece of the big pie would have been, had I not got a patent and let many others copy my idea.

Marketing is the key. Products are made to sell, not to last. Everything is built with a planned fail date, so they get to sell another. If you fall for the hype paid for with huge advertisement budgets, you are falling in line to get fleeced. The things that are advertised the most, are the most profitable items. The most profitable items are best for the manufacturers, not best for the consumer. The Internet is a wonderful thing. We can research products and ideas that are not just the most advertised. As a matter of fact, looking for products the big manufacturers try to keep hidden or don't want you to believe work, can keep you from having to purchase products over and over as the manufacturers would like for you to do.

Most of what you say is correct, but I would add that many people (or people working for corporations) make small incremental improvements on their original patent. By doing this they are extending their protection longer and making their original patent obsolete. The patent office is a joke and you can patent anything (birthing table that rotates complete with a net to catch the baby, cleanroom suit for dogs, spinning Christmas tree stands, the method of sitting on a swing and going sideways...). I know one patent chain where the claims covered in the 11th patent are described, but not claimed in the 1st patent done 8 years earlier! The patent office has no incentive to not give you a patent. They made their money by granting patents.

 

[Valveman]

Most of what you say is correct, but I would add that many people (or people working for corporations) make small incremental improvements on their original patent. By doing this they are extending their protection longer and making their original patent obsolete. The patent office is a joke and you can patent anything (birthing table that rotates complete with a net to catch the baby, cleanroom suit for dogs, spinning Christmas tree stands, the method of sitting on a swing and going sideways...). I know one patent chain where the claims covered in the 11th patent are described, but not claimed in the 1st patent done 8 years earlier! The patent office has no incentive to not give you a patent. They made their money by granting patents.

That wasn't my experience 30 years ago. I had to prove everything several times over and it took years to get the first patent. But granted I believe it was because there was no one at the patent office who knew how things work.