QuantumDrive Distortion?

[R.G.]

From the patent application, the uniqueness - if it actually happens in practice - is that it can make a reversal-glitch at some voltage across the tunnel diode. Tunnel diodes do cause this if operated at the right point.

However... (you knew that was coming, right?  )

- the distortion shown in the drawing on the application is unlikely as I remember them from solid state physics class; the drawing would let through a blip when the TD conducted, not notch out a hunk as shown. Maybe when it's used in a feedback path. I haven't dredged through it in detail, just my impression.

- the tunnel diode is not the only way to get a negative-resistance component; the application gives a nod to this by mentioning quantum dot transistors, but it's easy enough to use a PNP/NPN cascade or SCS to do a negative resistance. This is more tailorable and probably cheaper than TDs.

- the patent application is essentially worthless, IMHO; it is very tightly limited to devices which clip by tunneling and (possibly, I'm not a patent lawyer) other quantum mechanical effects. Since there are other ways to achieve the same result, IMHO the advantage of the patent application is be able to threaten other people who use any tunneling/quantum mechanical device for distortion, and so it's primarily a way to protect advertising copy.

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong. 

[Taylor]

- the patent application is essentially worthless, IMHO; it is very tightly limited to devices which clip by tunneling and (possibly, I'm not a patent lawyer) other quantum mechanical effects. Since there are other ways to achieve the same result, IMHO the advantage of the patent application is be able to threaten other people who use any tunneling/quantum mechanical device for distortion, and so it's primarily a way to protect advertising copy.

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong. 

I actually think it's more likely that they want a patent so that the ad copy can say that they are using such a unique form of clipping that it needs a patent. I doubt they'd care about enforcing it so much as they want to implant in the minds of guitarists that they are doing something special, since at least some guitarists are hip to the fact that overdrives are mostly TS clones. They still want it to sound like a TS of course, but if they think there is some unique cosmic science at work in their overdrive pedal, psychologically that seems worth the money to some people.

[iccaros]

From the patent application, the uniqueness - if it actually happens in practice - is that it can make a reversal-glitch at some voltage across the tunnel diode. Tunnel diodes do cause this if operated at the right point.

However... (you knew that was coming, right?  )

- the distortion shown in the drawing on the application is unlikely as I remember them from solid state physics class; the drawing would let through a blip when the TD conducted, not notch out a hunk as shown. Maybe when it's used in a feedback path. I haven't dredged through it in detail, just my impression.

- the tunnel diode is not the only way to get a negative-resistance component; the application gives a nod to this by mentioning quantum dot transistors, but it's easy enough to use a PNP/NPN cascade or SCS to do a negative resistance. This is more tailorable and probably cheaper than TDs.

- the patent application is essentially worthless, IMHO; it is very tightly limited to devices which clip by tunneling and (possibly, I'm not a patent lawyer) other quantum mechanical effects. Since there are other ways to achieve the same result, IMHO the advantage of the patent application is be able to threaten other people who use any tunneling/quantum mechanical device for distortion, and so it's primarily a way to protect advertising copy.

As always, I reserve the right to be wrong. 

There are two reasons to go to the expense of the Patent processes, according to the legal structures of technology companies class I am just finishing for my masters, is to 1) stop others from making for sale a product that works like your and/or 2) to keep from some other company coming along, patenting your product and suing you.  See any software company for examples of this.

A company has the right to decide how to enforce patents unlike trademarks, where a trademark that is not enforced is not longer a trademark. (US LAW )

[R.G.]

I actually think it's more likely that they want a patent so that the ad copy can say that they are using such a unique form of clipping that it needs a patent. I doubt they'd care about enforcing it so much as they want to implant in the minds of guitarists that they are doing something special, since at least some guitarists are hip to the fact that overdrives are mostly TS clones. They still want it to sound like a TS of course, but if they think there is some unique cosmic science at work in their overdrive pedal, psychologically that seems worth the money to some people.

That's kinda what I said - they want to use magic, mystical, cosmic quantum dust in the advertising because it sounds so incredibly kewl. The obvious and immediate followup to that is that they DON'T want everyone else to then be able to say the same thing - yes?

I have no doubt that for the expenses involved in actually getting a patent application into the system ( the guy probably laid out a kilobuck or so get it to there ) so they can claim "patent pending" legally, they would then be legally aggressive with at least threatening letters and such to anyone else who even mentions "quantum" in their advertising. There are laws forbidding saying "patent pending" unless there is at least an application. There is very little reason to go to the trouble of filing if you can't threaten or hold out the promise of threatening, which amounts to the same thing, just less immediate. Reasonable people count up the cost/benefit ratio. This guy is speculating that he'll at least recover his application fees from keeping others away from the subject in advertising copy.

But we can only speculate until the cease-and-desist letters fly.  

[Paul Marossy]

I have no doubt that for the expenses involved in actually getting a patent application into the system ( the guy probably laid out a kilobuck or so get it to there ) so they can claim "patent pending" legally, they would then be legally aggressive with at least threatening letters and such to anyone else who even mentions "quantum" in their advertising. There are laws forbidding saying "patent pending" unless there is at least an application. There is very little reason to go to the trouble of filing if you can't threaten or hold out the promise of threatening, which amounts to the same thing, just less immediate. Reasonable people count up the cost/benefit ratio. This guy is speculating that he'll at least recover his application fees from keeping others away from the subject in advertising copy.

But we can only speculate until the cease-and-desist letters fly.  

If I had to take a guess, that is also what I would think is the case.

[petemoore]

  I get reverse psychology effects from 'You-gotta-havit' ad copies, to the tune of "I don't, and don't care''.
   A bit of pre-investigation always seems to give a thumbs-up to the "CCL" effect [could care less].