开云体育

Scope Copying

Phil (VA3UX) #997 At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Don Black #998 Yes, please tell us about the "Bait Hole". I've got visions of one of those little Tektronix cartoons of a plugin sitting on the ice with a little technician fishing through the hole. But perhaps I'm just a little weird. Don Black. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Stan or Patricia Griffiths #1001 Hi Don, This story probably falls in the category of "Tek Legends" but that does not mean it is not true. If asked to prove it . . . I could not . . . Tek had a pretty good idea what was going to happen when they lost the Goverment bids for Tek scopes. They knew who the competing companies were and that copying was very likely to take place as there really wasn't an easy way to get around Tek's patents and still meet the Government specs for scopes. Tek was on the lookout for suspicious orders that would be placed with them for instruments that would serve as the copy samples. When a suspicous order was found, Tek rigged a special instrument with an extra hole in the chassis with no special purpose other than to make it a unique instrument and shipped that instrument to satisfy the order. Sure enough, that very hole showed up in the copies. In court, Tek asked the defending companies to explain the purpose of the hole and, of course, there was no explaination. Tek, however, had a very good explaination, with documents to prove it . . . I don't remember whether this now famous hole was in a scope or a plugin. Boy, would I like to have THAT instrument in my collection . . . Stan w7ni@... Don Black wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text Yes, please tell us about the "Bait Hole". I've got visions of one of those little Tektronix cartoons of a plugin sitting on the ice with a little technician fishing through the hole. But perhaps I'm just a little weird. Don Black. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Phil (VA3UX) #1002 At 12:14 PM 11/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Don, This story probably falls in the category of "Tek Legends" but that does not mean it is not true. If asked to prove it . . . I could not . . . It is apparently quite true Stan, assuming Marshall Lee did a thorough job of researching Tek's history for Tek's 40th anniversary book. It's on page 241. The bogus "D" holes were prompted by an order (to Tektronix) for two plug-ins from a company that was a subcontractor to Hickok. The order apparently had the words "Hickok Job" somewhere on the order form, which was enough to raise plenty of suspicion and get them planning a trap (the "D" holes). Phil Tek had a pretty good idea what was going to happen when they lost the Goverment bids for Tek scopes. They knew who the competing companies were and that copying was very likely to take place as there really wasn't an easy way to get around Tek's patents and still meet the Government specs for scopes. Tek was on the lookout for suspicious orders that would be placed with them for instruments that would serve as the copy samples. When a suspicous order was found, Tek rigged a special instrument with an extra hole in the chassis with no special purpose other than to make it a unique instrument and shipped that instrument to satisfy the order. Sure enough, that very hole showed up in the copies. In court, Tek asked the defending companies to explain the purpose of the hole and, of course, there was no explaination. Tek, however, had a very good explaination, with documents to prove it . . . I don't remember whether this now famous hole was in a scope or a plugin. Boy, would I like to have THAT instrument in my collection . . . Stan w7ni@... Don Black wrote: Yes, please tell us about the "Bait Hole". I've got visions of one of those little Tektronix cartoons of a plugin sitting on the ice with a little technician fishing through the hole. But perhaps I'm just a little weird. Don Black. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Don Black #1003 Hi Stan, Thanks for the explanation, it's likely to be true. I believe something similar happened in the early commercial history of Integrated Circuits. I think it was a 741 that was copied by photographing one of the original manufacturers chips. The chip had a defect where an extra transistor had been included by mistake. It didn't affect operation but the pirated chip had the exact same redundant transistor, proving it was a direct copy. I think that resulted in a successful law suit. Incidentally, I found a good web site by the Australian Patent Office a while ago that gave a lot of guide lines for patent matters. One of the basic tenets it indicated was a 50 year limit on copyright printed material from the time first published. I think this may be a gray area, things like music seem to have a much longer copyright life but it could indicate some of the Tektronix manuals will come out of copyright in the next few years, depending when they were released. Hopefully the indications you have from tektronix may indicating a softening by them and more general permission might be forthcoming. Thanks for the efforts you put into the forum. Have a Happy Thanksgiving. Cheers, Don. Stan or Patricia Griffiths wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text Hi Don, This story probably falls in the category of "Tek Legends" but that does not mean it is not true. If asked to prove it . . . I could not . . . Tek had a pretty good idea what was going to happen when they lost the Goverment bids for Tek scopes. They knew who the competing companies were and that copying was very likely to take place as there really wasn't an easy way to get around Tek's patents and still meet the Government specs for scopes. Tek was on the lookout for suspicious orders that would be placed with them for instruments that would serve as the copy samples. When a suspicous order was found, Tek rigged a special instrument with an extra hole in the chassis with no special purpose other than to make it a unique instrument and shipped that instrument to satisfy the order. Sure enough, that very hole showed up in the copies. In court, Tek asked the defending companies to explain the purpose of the hole and, of course, there was no explaination. Tek, however, had a very good explaination, with documents to prove it . . . I don't remember whether this now famous hole was in a scope or a plugin. Boy, would I like to have THAT instrument in my collection . . . Stan w7ni@... Don Black wrote: Yes, please tell us about the "Bait Hole". I've got visions of one of those little Tektronix cartoons of a plugin sitting on the ice with a little technician fishing through the hole. But perhaps I'm just a little weird. Don Black. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Don Black #1004 Thanks, Phil. Much appreciated. Happy Holiday, Don. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text At 12:14 PM 11/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Don, This story probably falls in the category of "Tek Legends" but that does not mean it is not true. If asked to prove it . . . I could not . . . It is apparently quite true Stan, assuming Marshall Lee did a thorough job of researching Tek's history for Tek's 40th anniversary book. It's on page 241. The bogus "D" holes were prompted by an order (to Tektronix) for two plug-ins from a company that was a subcontractor to Hickok. The order apparently had the words "Hickok Job" somewhere on the order form, which was enough to raise plenty of suspicion and get them planning a trap (the "D" holes). Phil Tek had a pretty good idea what was going to happen when they lost the Goverment bids for Tek scopes. They knew who the competing companies were and that copying was very likely to take place as there really wasn't an easy way to get around Tek's patents and still meet the Government specs for scopes. Tek was on the lookout for suspicious orders that would be placed with them for instruments that would serve as the copy samples. When a suspicous order was found, Tek rigged a special instrument with an extra hole in the chassis with no special purpose other than to make it a unique instrument and shipped that instrument to satisfy the order. Sure enough, that very hole showed up in the copies. In court, Tek asked the defending companies to explain the purpose of the hole and, of course, there was no explaination. Tek, however, had a very good explaination, with documents to prove it . . . I don't remember whether this now famous hole was in a scope or a plugin. Boy, would I like to have THAT instrument in my collection . . . Stan w7ni@... Don Black wrote: Yes, please tell us about the "Bait Hole". I've got visions of one of those little Tektronix cartoons of a plugin sitting on the ice with a little technician fishing through the hole. But perhaps I'm just a little weird. Don Black. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Miroslav Pokorni All Messages By This Member #1087 I was wandering if book published for Tek's 40th anniversary is available for sale and where there any other history books published after and before 40th. "Phil (VA3UX)" <phil@...> wrote: At 12:14 PM 11/20/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Don, This story probably falls in the category of "Tek Legends" but that does not mean it is not true. If asked to prove it . . . I could not . . . It is apparently quite true Stan, assuming Marshall Lee did a thorough job of researching Tek's history for Tek's 40th anniversary book. It's on page 241. The bogus "D" holes were prompted by an order (to Tektronix) for two plug-ins from a company that was a subcontractor to Hickok. The order apparently had the words "Hickok Job" somewhere on the order form, which was enough to raise plenty of suspicion and get them planning a trap (the "D" holes). Phil Tek had a pretty good idea what was going to happen when they lost the Goverment bids for Tek scopes. They knew who the competing companies were and that copying was very likely to take place as there really wasn't an easy way to get around Tek's patents and still meet the Government specs for scopes. Tek was on the lookout for suspicious orders that would be placed with them for instruments that would serve as the copy samples. When a suspicous order was found, Tek rigged a special instrument with an extra hole in the chassis with no special purpose other than to make it a unique instrument and shipped that instrument to satisfy the order. Sure enough, that very hole showed up in the copies. In court, Tek asked the defending companies to explain the purpose of the hole and, of course, there was no explaination. Tek, however, had a very good explaination, with documents to prove it . . . I don't remember whether this now famous hole was in a scope or a plugin. Boy, would I like to have THAT instrument in my collection . . . Stan w7ni@... Don Black wrote: Yes, please tell us about the "Bait Hole". I've got visions of one of those little Tektronix cartoons of a plugin sitting on the ice with a little technician fishing through the hole. But perhaps I'm just a little weird. Don Black. "Phil (VA3UX)" wrote: At 11:50 AM 11/19/2001 -0800, you wrote: Hi Mike, I agree that the Hickok, LaVoie, and Jetronic instruments have some historic There are other chapters to this story about what evidence Tek provided at the trial that might be interesting to some of you. Tell them about the "bait" plug-in : the one with the special hole drilled in the chassis. Phil Stan w7ni@... mwcpc7@... wrote: In a message dated 11/18/2001 5:28:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, w7ni@... writes: The main reason that the lawsuit between the U.S. Government and Tektronix took so long is that it was the first time in U.S. History that a private company (Tek) ever took the U.S.Government to court for patent infringement. There were no precidents and no one knew exactly how to proceed. The Government's position was that since they had ISSUED the patents to Tek in the first place, they could rescind them any time they wanted to. Tek challenged that concept and it took 20 years to resolve it. In the mean time, 2 of the three companies that did the copying of Tek instruments (with Government approval) went bankrupt (LaVoie and Jetronic) so there was nothing for Tek to collect from them. The U.S. Government and Hickok were left to pay the damages, which, by the way, did not even come close to covering the attorny costs, much less any real damage done to Tek. I have one of the Hickok 545s and was quite surprised to see it at a Hamfest. I was originally going to use it just for parts, but the very interesting discussion here makes me think that it has some historical interest. Mike Csontos To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: TekScopes-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctionsfor all of your holiday gifts!
Stan or Patricia Griffiths #1110 Hi Miroslav, The Tek 40 Year History book is called, "Winning With People: The First 40 Years of Tektronix" by Marshall M. Lee. I don't know of any other official Tek History books. The current bunch at Tek do not like to discuss Tek History very much. It was a GLORIOUS history and a DARNED hard act to follow. You can find copies of this book on eBay occasionally. It came in soft cover and hard cover versions. The hard cover versions are rarer and generally more expensive. Marshall M. Lee was hired by Tek management to write this book for them in about 1985. It was published in 1986 and is, of course, copyrighted by Tektronix. Since Marshall M. Lee never worked at Tektronix, he got all of his information "second-hand" and I am certain he was given specific instructions regarding exactly WHO to interview. I am also certain that the manuscript was carefully edited to make sure Tek's image would not be tarnished by what was written in it. Obviously, no company is perfect (although early Tek was about as perfect as any company I have ever seen) and there are many unofficial Tek stories going around these parts among ex-Tek employees that are at least as interesting as most of what you can read in the official book. For example, I don't recall reading in that book about any payments that Tek made to the U.S. Government for apparent violations of Government contract terms . . . maybe that is in there somewhere . . . but I don't recall it. Or any times that Tek was taken to court and LOST . . . Every company has its dirty laundry, including Tek. Stan w7ni@... Miroslav Pokorni wrote: toggle quoted message Show quoted text I was wandering if book published for Tek's 40th anniversary is available for sale and where there any other history books published after and before 40th.

Previous Topic Next Topic