A generous soul (un-named benefactor) donated it to me...as a currently un-employed vet, there was NO way I was going to afford itI was gonna say, if it has a fixed voltage regulator, that's all i need. Then i saw the $ 400 price tag
Evolv sues Joyetech over VW technology !
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
meh, the regularly scheduled programming might have run it's course, absent new info. I kinda like the segues and tangential discussions !now back to the regularly scheduled programming
(IMO) I don't know how much of it is the market doesn't mind as opposed to the mfr doesn't care. Some business decisions may save a company money yet end up costing the customer more.
!!! G*NOTE FIVE !!!
If I'd seen your post before replying with my own I would've quoted you & said DITTO!!!!
!!! G*NOTE FIVE !!!
a bit off topic I know (but no where near as off topic as that automobile question earlier)
That was the most hilarious post i had read in months ! I was loling for 30 seconds non-stop, and i mean a literal lol, not an internet lol ... it was brilliant.
OK. When the '330 patent was first published, I argued that it would not withstand a proper validity challenge because what Evolv did was too dang obvious.now back to the regularly scheduled programming
Why do I think it was too obvious? Because I personally designed power supplies for industrial furnaces more than 20 years ago that did variable wattage. They used a (then common in industrial controls) 4-20 mA loop to control their output power, and displayed output power as a percentage of rated power rather than actual watts, but they did exactly what a DNA does: Monitor both voltage and current, calculate resistance, and adjust voltage to produce the power level required, regardless of changes in the heating elements' resistance. This was desirable because the resistance of the heating elements changed, both as a function of temperature and over time, with use. The company I worked for at the time didn't patent it because we thought it was too dang obvious even back then. But the prior art exists, and I still have the schematics and source code in my archives to prove it.
I couldn't agree more. That is why I found it odd to grant a patent on preexisting technology applied to a new product.
Of course I don't pretend to fully understand the 330 patent, it's just the way I see it.
This reminds me of what RCA did to the guy (Farnsworth) who created the electronic TV, RCA hired the engineer who had patented a similar idea to create a working prototype so they could claim they were first. RCA then released the product, the poor guy from Utah had a long battle ahead but due to a drawing he drew for his science teacher when he was 15 he prevailed.
Not the same thing but still reminds me of it.
should send those over to JT
Thing is, I despise the Chinese mentality of: "Copy everything with no regard to patents, copyrights, trademarks, or falsified country of origin markings", and I respect Evolv for the innovations they've brought to the vaping market, so a part of me actually hopes that Evolv prevails despite the fact that I don't think their patent is very strong. In fact, you could say I'm somewhat conflicted about all this, and if JT wants my help with proving that prior art exists, they're not getting that help for free.
Yes and yes. But is it really innovation? Seems more like evolution.
Either way I appreciate being able to use variable wattage and Evolv brought it to the market. I just don't like this suit, I would likely be much less conflicted if we had the full story.
I believe Joyetech has a tattered past, and that past is similar to this suit from what I have read. So I definitely can't root for them to prevail. I just can't root for Evolv either, not based on current information. When more details surface this may change.
My current way of looking at it is:
Evolv: 1 (was 2 before the suit)
Joyetech: 0 (1 for driving the lower end market, -1 for previous history)
*edit*
Forgot about temperature control, something I use on a daily basis.
Last edited:
They'll copy your notes and use them against you.Thing is, I despise the Chinese mentality of: "Copy everything with no regard to patents, copyrights, trademarks, or falsified country of origin markings", and I respect Evolv for the innovations they've brought to the vaping market, so a part of me actually hopes that Evolv prevails despite the fact that I don't think their patent is very strong. In fact, you could say I'm somewhat conflicted about all this, and if JT wants my help with proving that prior art exists, they're not getting that help for free.
should send those over to JT
I hope you are joking but honestly I'm not sure.
Thing is, I despise the Chinese mentality of: "Copy everything with no regard to patents, copyrights, trademarks, or falsified country of origin markings", and I respect Evolv for the innovations they've brought to the vaping market, so a part of me actually hopes that Evolv prevails despite the fact that I don't think their patent is very strong. In fact, you could say I'm somewhat conflicted about all this, and if JT wants my help with proving that prior art exists, they're not getting that help for free.
Yes, there's no question in my mind that it's innovation -- in the field of e-cigs/vaping. The fact that prior art exists that did the exact same thing in other fields doesn't change that, it only calls into question whether the patent they were granted is actually valid and enforceable.
Either way I do appreciate Evolv for bringing it to the market, it definitely pushed the technology of vaping forward. As did temperature control, I forgot about TC. So it's Evolv 1.
Apparently the patent office agrees that it was innovative.
VV and VW are the same thing. You just use a different formula in the same mathematical law. Implementation is slightly different with VW capable of adjusting itself as the coil heats and cools changing its immediate resistance properties, but at the end of the day, it's the same thing.
On his deal with REO, Mike and Rob actually had a discussion here on ECF about it. Mikes patent was approved and a few months later, so was Robs. At the time, Mike was indeed making noises about enforcing his patent. It would have been less expensive for REO to use other chips that were available at the time, but the two of them came to an understanding and we, the users, got some cool PVs out of the deal. There was a 'virtual' handshake that played out right here in the forums, though I'm not sure we got to witness all of it. I'd guess they must have had some private conversations on the matter.
And I have no idea if anyone ever paid Mike licensing. He was pretty angry back then about a number of things and the least among them might have been patent infringement. He was really unhappy with a position ECF took on tube mods... One of the first battery explosion incidents hit the news and ECF set out some guidelines for features tubes needed to have (they weren't specific regarding regulated devices vs mechanical). His tubes didn't comply and he didn't want to change them... His sales took a dive and he blamed ecf... It was a very noisy fiasco. At the same time, he was threatening to sue at least one importer who was bringing Chinese VV devices in to the US market.
But, most of that noise left ECF when he turned over his sub-forum to a helper (maybe an employee... I'd guess he was paying her but I don't know) and he stopped posting on ecf. I'd catch a post from him now and then on another vape-related forum, but I didn't follow his progress on the legal front. The last thing I remember reading was that he was pretty much counting on the idea that other patents shouldn't have been granted and that he would eventually see some lawsuits among other device makers... It sounded to me like he figured he could enter that fight after it starts and he figured he would win on "prior art".
I'm not really sure what notcigs offers these days. After the VVPV, I lost interest in his ecig-related products. His other patents are mostly related to fiber optics, I think. He's an engineer, so I'd guess it isn't limited to fiber optics, but I know for sure he patented a process and a device design related to polishing cut fiber among other things.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
