Attack! But please one unit per person! The demand is so high, be nice with others!To buy it click here please.[Copy/Paste Update]:Also note that FMA XY is $43, the Z sensor wasanother $25, and the cable wasn't included. So that was at least $75with cables. Also, we have to pay a royalty to FMA and don't buy partsat the same volume they do. Plus, of course, FMA doesn't make the Z atall anymore.You might also want to note that our sensors are less than thePaparazzi ones ($125:http://ppzuav.com/osc/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=13_5&products_id=66&osCsid=08841e8ba7cd41f6d279d30be5167e22)and the same price as AttoPilot. Or you can make your own, just buy the 6 thermophiles for about hundred dollars from Digikey (http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=MLX90247ESF-DSA-ND). So basically these are tied for thecheapest full XYZ sensor solution in the world.However, if people want to wait for FMA to bring the XYs back instock, people can always buy two of them and use one as a Z sensor andsave a few dollars. (just ignore one wire).
You are all probably right, but this is water under the bridge. Better to pay the licence fee now and innovate to migrate to non-patented technologies. As far as I'm concerned, patents are just an incentive to obsolete that technology as soon as possible. FMA won't have long to enjoy its monopoly.
If this technology was developed by NASA, then the design is in the public domain because NASA is a government entity. bGatti is probably right. There was probably an insufficient patent search done prior to the granting of the FMA patent.
This is similar to the US Patent Office granting a patent to a company in San Diego a number of years ago that essentially covered all search engine theory and algorithms. The Patent Office later had to recind the patent because it covered theory and algorithms that were already in the public domain. The US Patent Office knows a few things, but it doesn't know much!
bGatti,
The IR sensors are to measure the difference of temperature between earth and sky. Good enough to know the orientation of the aircraft respect to ground, even in dark. Is a clever idea.
The worse part is that this technology was develop by NASA (and later abandoned), not by the person who patent it. That is an opportunist and there's nothing we can do here in the US. My idea was to offer modified version of paparazzi sensors. But if we do that they may proceed legal against us (and only us).
Earl,
in 2.1 yes! in 2.2 not (for security), only in stabilization mode (no GPS plugged). Because if you go out of range in 72mhz the servo moves like crazy! and you will crash.
Some reasonable people might argue that the infrared gradient is a physical property of the globe, and not the proper subject for a claim of personal innovation. As to the construction of a sensor for same, the bimetallic junction was discovered in the 1800's - so that's out - finally as to this particular sensor, all the IP rights are included in the purchase price, the final question is the use of these physics in the context of an airplane.
What is the innovation? Sensing orientation of an object in relation to light? - bees have been doing this for millennium. - in relation to this particular wavelength?
I'm just suggesting that this patent smells of obviousness and of basic physics, and a reasonable person may not be breaking a law if the idea is obvious, but rather that the patent office may have broken the law in approving the patent. (remember the patent office is "Paid" to approve patents; they have motive and opportunity.)
We pay a per-sensor royalty to FMA. Actually, to be precise, we're just making sensors for Attopilot, which is the FMA licencee and we pass on the royalty to Attopilot to pay to FMA. At any rate, thermopile sensors of this type are patent protected so anybody who isn't paying royalties is potentially breaking the law.
Comments
If this technology was developed by NASA, then the design is in the public domain because NASA is a government entity. bGatti is probably right. There was probably an insufficient patent search done prior to the granting of the FMA patent.
This is similar to the US Patent Office granting a patent to a company in San Diego a number of years ago that essentially covered all search engine theory and algorithms. The Patent Office later had to recind the patent because it covered theory and algorithms that were already in the public domain. The US Patent Office knows a few things, but it doesn't know much!
Just a thought.
Regards,
TCIII
The IR sensors are to measure the difference of temperature between earth and sky. Good enough to know the orientation of the aircraft respect to ground, even in dark. Is a clever idea.
The worse part is that this technology was develop by NASA (and later abandoned), not by the person who patent it.
That is an opportunist andthere's nothing we can do here in the US. My idea was to offer modified version of paparazzi sensors. But if we do that they may proceed legal against us (and only us).in 2.1 yes! in 2.2 not (for security), only in stabilization mode (no GPS plugged). Because if you go out of range in 72mhz the servo moves like crazy! and you will crash.
What is the innovation? Sensing orientation of an object in relation to light? - bees have been doing this for millennium. - in relation to this particular wavelength?
I'm just suggesting that this patent smells of obviousness and of basic physics, and a reasonable person may not be breaking a law if the idea is obvious, but rather that the patent office may have broken the law in approving the patent. (remember the patent office is "Paid" to approve patents; they have motive and opportunity.)
An operational question here.
When in RTL or AP mode, shouldn't the RC sticks over ride the autopilot ?
for each sensor sold, you must pay them? or just they ask a quantity of $ and then you can sell as many as you want?
in case one, how do they know how many sensor did you sold?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next