New DeVilbiss IntelliPAP Auto

WNJ wrote:Besides, it seems to me that they could reverse engineer this functionality without violating any patent.

They very likely could - but could they afford to defend themselves in a patent suit brought by either of the 800lb gorillas? Patent fights are notoriously expensive in the US, easily the most expensive form of litigation for both plaintiff and defendant - it's my understanding that if someone files against you it'll run around $2M regardless of merit.

In software, the usual outcome is the individual or small developer pretty immediately caves in simply because he can't afford to defend himself (the reverse is true also - large companies violate patents held by small companies all the time, the small guys can't afford to make them stop).

It's starting to change slowly with the PubPat project http://www.pubpat.org and Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net among others. But it's got a long way to go before it's fixed.

BTW, remember reverse engineering, if done properly, will protect you against copyright infringement claims. It will not help at all against patent claims. You need to look up the formal claims of the patent and think up a design that does not use any of them. Simply thinking it up independently doesn't help you one bit.

I'd be very surprised to see a lot of our members trying these out, considering there seems to be no way to get the data out of the thing. Who knows how long it will take them to come out with the software and equipment and then what the quality of the data would be. Seems like another product rushed to the market just a little too soon.

Assuming the machine has good data capability, this seems like it could be a viable competitor. It's smaller than the M-Series, and it costs $63 less than the CFlex model. If you don't care about exhalation relief, then I think it would be a good choice (although personally, I'm a huge fan of CFlex and BiFlex).

kennethryan wrote:

WNJ wrote:Besides, it seems to me that they could reverse engineer this functionality without violating any patent.

They very likely could - but could they afford to defend themselves in a patent suit brought by either of the 800lb gorillas?

Good point.

kennethryan wrote:. . . (the reverse is true also - large companies violate patents held by small companies all the time, the small guys can't afford to make them stop).

Very true. That's been Microsoft's mode of operation from the beginning. (Have they come up with one original idea since GW Basic?) And when that doesn't work, they simply buy the politicians to call off the anti-trust dogs.

Wayne

WNJ wrote:

kennethryan wrote:

WNJ wrote:Besides, it seems to me that they could reverse engineer this functionality without violating any patent.

They very likely could - but could they afford to defend themselves in a patent suit brought by either of the 800lb gorillas?

Good point.

kennethryan wrote:. . . (the reverse is true also - large companies violate patents held by small companies all the time, the small guys can't afford to make them stop).

Very true. That's been Microsoft's mode of operation from the beginning. (Have they come up with one original idea since GW Basic?) And when that doesn't work, they simply buy the politicians to call off the anti-trust dogs.

Wayne

That's been my question for many years. It was true of their first MS-DOS operating system (they bought it), and, according to Wikipedia, they didn't "invent" GW BASIC, and in particular the original....."BASIC", either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC

Wikipedia wrote:GW-BASIC was a dialect of BASIC developed by Microsoft from BASICA, originally for Compaq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_programming_language

Wikipedia wrote:In computer programming, BASIC (an acronym for Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code[1]) refers to a family of high-level programming languages. The original BASIC was designed in 1963, by John George Kemeny and Thomas Eugene Kurtz at Dartmouth College, to provide access for non-science students to computers.

Den

WNJ wrote:

Wulfman wrote:Very true. That's been Microsoft's mode of operation from the beginning. (Have they come up with one original idea since GW Basic?)

That's been my question for many years. It was true of their first MS-DOS operating system (they bought it), and, according to Wikipedia, they didn't "invent" GW BASIC, and in particular the original....."BASIC", either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC

Wikipedia wrote:GW-BASIC was a dialect of BASIC developed by Microsoft from BASICA, originally for Compaq.

Well, I think the Wikipedia quote leaves the wrong impression. The original PC's ROM BASIC was provided by Microsoft, as was BASICA (a layer loaded from DOS that added on to the ROM BASIC). MS developed GW-BASIC for Compaq because Compaq did not have license for the ROM BASIC. Unlike DOS, the BASIC was not bought from someone else.

That BASIC interpreter traces its lineage to a BASIC interpreter that was in fact written by Bill Gates and Paul Allen for the Altair 8800. (It's my understanding that Gates was actually an excellent programmer in his day).

ken
(whose dad bought the family an IBM-PC - with 16KB RAM and a
cassette interface {well it had a floppy drive but wouldn't boot DOS
until he got hold of a couple tubes of RAM chips}. I spent a lot of
time in Gates's BASIC instead of my homework)

Yep, this new xPAP's PRIMARY drawback is the "promise" of the software AND what data it is able to produce FOR ME TO ACCESS. OTH I really do like its profile and that drawer type humidifier tank!!! That profile and humidifier tank access is its biggest attraction for me.