evolv patents variable wattage!
- Thread starter MrPlink
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
In order to infringe a patent, you have to have every component of at least one claim of the patent in your own product. In the case of the e-cig, because the technology has moved on, that is unlikely. In the case of a VW mod, it is almost certain. I believe that every VW mod on the market will need to pay royalty to Evolv. I don't believe that will be a problem.
There are multiple ways to skin a cat. There is not just one board/chip design capable of calculating wattage and I have no idea what you mean by "not something close." They are all close enough (though some could use better calibration) and at some point further accuracy is pointless. None are capable of being 100% completely accurate. I would love to buy American too, but when American PVs are either behind the curve or cost three to four times what they should I'm not going to hand over my money to line someone's pocket who doesn't deserve it.
Last edited:
You don't think anyone will have a problem with that , i do lol. I think any mod made Variable from the patents inception onward should have to pay but those that have already been out , not so sure. I am certainly far from a legal mind though.
We are still using a battery to heat a coil that vaporizes e-juice. The only difference is most of us now have volume controls on our PVs. Being able to patent a volume control is ridiculous.
The priority date on the patent is 28th Oct 2011. Any device on the market before that date gets a free pass, all others must pay or pay to argue. If there was a device on the market before that date, it could invalidate the patent.
Since the priority date is exactly a year before the filing date, I imagine that is what happened.
I note that the publication date is May 2013. That is very fast work and Evolv are to be congratulated for filing a good, clear application and not dragging their feet. Less conscientious companies try to keep pending patents under wraps for upto ten years before surprising the world with them.
--- Support Center » Filing Dates vs Priority Dates
Since the priority date is exactly a year before the filing date, I imagine that is what happened.
I note that the publication date is May 2013. That is very fast work and Evolv are to be congratulated for filing a good, clear application and not dragging their feet. Less conscientious companies try to keep pending patents under wraps for upto ten years before surprising the world with them.
Last edited:
A volume control is at best voltage control. You can have voltage control free.
A standard volume control is a potentiometer with a logarithmic characteristic across the line-level audio. It therefore amounts to dividing the voltage of the audio signal by a configurable amount. The user interface arranges that the position of the knob has a linear relationship with the perceived volume. Even then, it is not controlling the power supply, so it is only distantly related to VV mods.
Or maybe you think that all such knobs are the same invention. In that case a person who invents a volume control for a small child -- or a jet airplane or a busy road -- would not deserve a patent.
I don't call spending more money to a company which has 1000's of hours of research and has spent plenty on quality and workmanship a waste of money. I'm not found of sending my money to a company who does nothing but manufacture a cheap imitation and markets it as being innovative.
I don't claim to be an expert in patents but to me this is pretty simple. Evolv is doing what anyone else would do if they thought they had come up with something that was marketable that they wanted to protect. The truth is there are probably millions of patents by millions of individuals and companies that we live with on a daily basis from toothpaste to the shingles on our roofs. I don't believe the consumer will experience anything different from what we have in the past. Only time and or litigation will tell in the end.
Evolv's patent has not issued yet, it is still in the application phase. Patent US20130104916 - Electronic vaporizer that simulates smoking with power control - Google Patents
Notcigs patent issued 7-15-2014 Patent US8781307 - Variable voltage portable vaporizer - Google Patents
Caged, what makes you think that Notcigs is planning to sell his patent to BT?
Notcigs patent issued 7-15-2014 Patent US8781307 - Variable voltage portable vaporizer - Google Patents
Caged, what makes you think that Notcigs is planning to sell his patent to BT?
Cloning and infringing on a patent are two potentially different things, and both are not kosher.
Also, jurisdictional issues apply. Hon Lik was a Chinese inventor and Chinese patents don't apply in the US. He has filed the patent in Europe and is trying to sue companies there. I don't believe he has a US patent and there are other previous US patents that may conflict.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2014/03/e-cigarette-patent-wars
You seem to either not have read the patent, not understand the patent, and/or not understand patents in general. Sure there are multiple ways to do things and a patent may cover any or all of them. As long as the method employed is similar enough to the patented method, it infringes. Right now all implementations infringe and would need to be licensed to legitimately sell in the US. There's absolutely nothing morally wrong about that. And while newer vapers may not know it, in fact VW did spread in the industry in the wake of Evolv's original innovation.
First, it's not true at all that "American PVs are either behind the curve or cost three to four times what they should." Second, exactly who do you think deserves the money, if not those who actually invented the technology and those legitimately using the patented technology?
Do you think the infringers deserve your money? That's a completely screwed up way of thinking.
Well the point of this thread and similar recent ones is that the patent has been awarded and will be official soon. As for the notcigs one, the inventor himself discussed his intentions and the likely future here: Variable Voltage Ecig Patent - it's been issued and is enforceable
Last edited:
This is totally the point of a open market... We as consumers get the final decision on whether we buy something or not. You get to decide who is behind the curve, or in front of it, and how much those products are worth to you. However, I would disagree with the notion that buying American is just lining someone's pocket who doesn't deserve it - actually, I feel it is an insulting and sad statement - we aren't talking GM vs Honda here, where there is an actual (or at least perceived) quality difference in favor of a foreign company - we are talking regulated PVs, and I have yet to handle a non-counterfeit Chinese device that even comes close to the quality of a comparable American made device (and as far as I'm concerned that is worth three times the price). Seriously, what are you talking about here? A seven-22 compared to a provari, or maybe an ipv compared to a vaporshark? In each of those instances, I'd say the American device is three times better (and not three times the price)! Additionally, since your perceived value is in foreign made goods and you worry about lining someone's pockets, I would venture that the profit margin on your average American made PV is less than whatever Chinese device you feel is a good deal.
Could not have said it better myself.
Paid $40.00 for my MVP2 and $159.00 for my ProVari and both were excellent purchases.....
Which is the exception that proves the rule. That is a very specific patent; it even claims the transistor types. It has nothing to do with the volume control on your home HiFi.
Wouldn't be surprised if a version of that type of volume control ISN'T what is in my amplifier...since it was designed as an attempt at distortion free volume selector.....and who's to say that the different methods of volume control aren't patented....we as consumers don't always know that info.
Volume controls have been around in their standard form for around a hundred years. The maximum lifetime of a patent is twenty years. Any patents issued before 1994 are now expired and any devices existing before 1994 would invalidate a later patent. Since I built a volume control in 1980, following a published circuit diagram, there can be no such patent.
When used in this way, held in small numbers by companies that are actively practising the technologies contained in them, patents tend to work well.
They work much less well when held in large numbers by incumbent or non-practising companies, for the sole purpose of preventing market access or making money fromextortion royalties.
They also work less well when held by individuals who can not afford to prosecute them.
While both of these deficiencies are serious and (IMHO) need urgent and extensive redesign of the patent system, they do not appear to affect the present case.
When used in this way, held in small numbers by companies that are actively practising the technologies contained in them, patents tend to work well.
They work much less well when held in large numbers by incumbent or non-practising companies, for the sole purpose of preventing market access or making money from
They also work less well when held by individuals who can not afford to prosecute them.
While both of these deficiencies are serious and (IMHO) need urgent and extensive redesign of the patent system, they do not appear to affect the present case.
A post Buzz (can't remember his exact name) made in another forum where he said BT would likely end up owning it.
- Status
Similar threads
