Would you trust this gadget?

https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/

I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.

--
Rich

On 24/01/2024 03:34, RichD wrote:
> Would you trust this gadget?
>
> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>
> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>
> --
> Rich

The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator. An advanced Audio Ribaldry
Locator algorithm will then pinpoint the source.

--
Cheers
Clive

On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>> Would you trust this gadget?
>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>
> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.

I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"

So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
What makes it invisible?

--
Rich

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:49:38 -0800 (PST), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>
>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>
>I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>
>So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?

Yes, but ...

>What makes it invisible?

If the hidden camera works in the IR, but reflects into a wide beam in
the visible, there won't be any cat-eye retroreflector effect to
reveal the hidden camera to the eye.

An IR camera detector with coaxial IR source can see the cat-eye
effect. For sensitivity, it may be useful to modulate the IR source
and synchronous detect the detector output.

Some video cameras (Sony?) can be modified to do this, by removing the
IR absorbing filter on the image sensor.

Joe Gwinn

On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>
>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>
> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>
> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
> What makes it invisible?
>
> --
> Rich
>

A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.

Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
pay the judges less.) ;)

This one was a real beast.

Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
the back-reflection.

Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
others.

Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
run.*

I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.

Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
they wound up with zilch.

Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

(*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:41:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
>> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>>
>>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>>
>> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>>
>> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
>> What makes it invisible?
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>
>A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
>not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
>in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
>usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.
>
>Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
>of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
>pay the judges less.) ;)
>
>This one was a real beast.
>
>Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>the back-reflection.
>
>Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>others.
>
>Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
>run.*
>
>I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
>rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
>judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
>did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.
>
>Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
>and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
>'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
>ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
>and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
>they wound up with zilch.
>
>Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs
>
>(*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
>Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014

Classifying a patent is a direct conflict with the concept.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:58:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:41:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
>>> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>>>
>>>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>>>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>>>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>>>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>>>
>>> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>>>
>>> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>>> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
>>> What makes it invisible?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>>A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
>>not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
>>in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
>>usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.
>>
>>Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>>Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
>>of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
>>pay the judges less.) ;)
>>
>>This one was a real beast.
>>
>>Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>>laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>>scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>>beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>>see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>>bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>>would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>>patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>>the back-reflection.
>>
>>Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>>about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>>developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>>optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>>others.
>>
>>Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>>this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>>amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
>>run.*
>>
>>I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
>>rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
>>judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
>>did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.
>>
>>Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
>>and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
>>'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
>>ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
>>and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
>>they wound up with zilch.
>>
>>Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Phil Hobbs
>>
>>(*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
>>Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014
>
>Classifying a patent is a direct conflict with the concept.

But happens all the time, especially when a shooting war is involved,
and there is nothing the inventor can do to stop it. One would hope
that the inventor is compensated for this taking, but the government's
opinion of worth may differ from the inventor's opinion.

Phil: What is the patent number?

Joe Gwinn

On 2024-01-26 18:44, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:58:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:41:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
>>>> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>>>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>>>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>>>>
>>>>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>>>>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>>>>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>>>>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>>>>
>>>> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>>>>
>>>> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>>>> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
>>>> What makes it invisible?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Rich
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
>>> not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
>>> in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
>>> usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.
>>>
>>> Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>>> Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
>>> of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
>>> pay the judges less.) ;)
>>>
>>> This one was a real beast.
>>>
>>> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>>> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>>> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>>> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>>> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>>> the back-reflection.
>>>
>>> Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>>> about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>>> developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>>> optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>>> others.
>>>
>>> Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>>> this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>>> amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
>>> run.*
>>>
>>> I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
>>> rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
>>> judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
>>> did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.
>>>
>>> Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
>>> and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
>>> 'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
>>> ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
>>> and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
>>> they wound up with zilch.
>>>
>>> Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>> (*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
>>> Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014
>>
>> Classifying a patent is a direct conflict with the concept.
>
> But happens all the time, especially when a shooting war is involved,
> and there is nothing the inventor can do to stop it. One would hope
> that the inventor is compensated for this taking, but the government's
> opinion of worth may differ from the inventor's opinion.
>
> Phil: What is the patent number?
>
> Joe Gwinn

The patents were issued to Norman R. Wild and Paul M. Leavy.

RE40,927 RE42,913 RE43,681

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:32:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 2024-01-26 18:44, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:58:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:41:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
>>>>> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>>>>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>>>>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>>>>>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>>>>>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>>>>>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>>>>>
>>>>> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>>>>> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
>>>>> What makes it invisible?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Rich
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
>>>> not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
>>>> in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
>>>> usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.
>>>>
>>>> Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>>>> Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
>>>> of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
>>>> pay the judges less.) ;)
>>>>
>>>> This one was a real beast.
>>>>
>>>> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>>>> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>>>> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>>>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>>>> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>>>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>>>> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>>>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>>>> the back-reflection.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>>>> about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>>>> developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>>>> optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>>>> this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>>>> amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
>>>> run.*
>>>>
>>>> I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
>>>> rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
>>>> judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
>>>> did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.
>>>>
>>>> Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
>>>> and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
>>>> 'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
>>>> ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
>>>> and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
>>>> they wound up with zilch.
>>>>
>>>> Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>
>>>> (*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
>>>> Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014
>>>
>>> Classifying a patent is a direct conflict with the concept.
>>
>> But happens all the time, especially when a shooting war is involved,
>> and there is nothing the inventor can do to stop it. One would hope
>> that the inventor is compensated for this taking, but the government's
>> opinion of worth may differ from the inventor's opinion.
>>
>> Phil: What is the patent number?
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>
>The patents were issued to Norman R. Wild and Paul M. Leavy.
>
>RE40,927 RE42,913 RE43,681
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Thanks. I'll be off reading.

Joe

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:35:45 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:32:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
><pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-01-26 18:44, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:58:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:41:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
>>>>>> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>>>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>>>>>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>>>>>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>>>>>>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>>>>>>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>>>>>>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>>>>>> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
>>>>>> What makes it invisible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
>>>>> not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
>>>>> in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
>>>>> usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>>>>> Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
>>>>> of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
>>>>> pay the judges less.) ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> This one was a real beast.
>>>>>
>>>>> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>>>>> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>>>>> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>>>>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>>>>> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>>>>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>>>>> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>>>>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>>>>> the back-reflection.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>>>>> about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>>>>> developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>>>>> optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>>>>> this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>>>>> amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
>>>>> run.*
>>>>>
>>>>> I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
>>>>> rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
>>>>> judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
>>>>> did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
>>>>> and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
>>>>> 'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
>>>>> ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
>>>>> and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
>>>>> they wound up with zilch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>
>>>>> (*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
>>>>> Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014
>>>>
>>>> Classifying a patent is a direct conflict with the concept.
>>>
>>> But happens all the time, especially when a shooting war is involved,
>>> and there is nothing the inventor can do to stop it. One would hope
>>> that the inventor is compensated for this taking, but the government's
>>> opinion of worth may differ from the inventor's opinion.
>>>
>>> Phil: What is the patent number?
>>>
>>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>>The patents were issued to Norman R. Wild and Paul M. Leavy.
>>
>>RE40,927 RE42,913 RE43,681
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Phil Hobbs
>
>Thanks. I'll be off reading.

I've read them. It would seem that they were trying to patent the
idea of retro-reflectors, and I wondered about that, retroreflectors
having been patented in 1934:

..<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector>

Two of the reissues eliminate those claims, but one does not, so I'm
missing something.

Also there was a lot made of the mechanical position of the
retroreflection within the optical system. What are they getting at?

As for secret patents, I notice that all the assignees were all
defense contractors, originally the rubble from the collapse of
Sanders, so I bet they made significant money on this, only uncloaking
when this trick was general knowledge.

Joe

On 2024-01-27 14:27, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 12:35:45 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:32:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-01-26 18:44, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 13:58:42 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 16:41:26 -0500, Phil Hobbs
>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-01-25 23:49, RichD wrote:
>>>>>>> On January 24, Clive Arthur wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Would you trust this gadget?
>>>>>>>>> https://omg-solutions.com/multifunctional-detector-rf-signal-mobile-phone-camera-lens-magnet-detector-1-8000mhz-spy991/
>>>>>>>>> I expect it would constantly beep false alarms.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The camera lens detector is quite ingenious, though it only works for
>>>>>>>> locally monitored cameras. You look through the hole in the device and
>>>>>>>> slowly scan the room for camera lenses while listening for the
>>>>>>>> uncontrolled guffaws of the camera operator.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have a naive idea. Consider the first law of optics: "I C U, U C ME"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you use a flashlight to scan the room. If a lens is peeping at
>>>>>>> you, through an aperture somewhere, can't you peep back?
>>>>>>> What makes it invisible?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Rich
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lens with a scatterer at the focus works like a cat's eye. (Which,
>>>>>> not coincidentally, is also a lens with a scatterer at the focus.) Back
>>>>>> in the film camera days, pictures of people taken with direct flash
>>>>>> usually showed 'red eye', due to precisely this effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>>>>>> Commission. (The ITC is an administrative law 'court' operating as part
>>>>>> of the Commerce Department. The fancy-schmancy name probably lets them
>>>>>> pay the judges less.) ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one was a real beast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>>>>>> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>>>>>> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>>>>>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>>>>>> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>>>>>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>>>>>> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>>>>>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>>>>>> the back-reflection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>>>>>> about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>>>>>> developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>>>>>> optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>>>>>> this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>>>>>> amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year, *and had 20 years to
>>>>>> run.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I got hired to help defend Samsung against this one. ITC cases are real
>>>>>> rocket dockets, typically taking nine months to a year to reach final
>>>>>> judgment, versus two or three years for a normal district court case. I
>>>>>> did only a part of the work on it, but kept an eye on its progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Samsung settled out of the case, but the other defendants soldiered on
>>>>>> and eventually won on a technical legal point: the plaintiffs lacked
>>>>>> 'prudential standing', i.e. they hadn't made sure they had clear
>>>>>> ownership of the patent. That was a huge black eye for the plaintiffs,
>>>>>> and especially their lawyers: it looked like they owned the world, and
>>>>>> they wound up with zilch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucky escape for everybody else, of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (*) Optical Devices LLC v. Lenovo Group et al.
>>>>>> Investigation 337-TA-897, US International Trade Commission, 2014
>>>>>
>>>>> Classifying a patent is a direct conflict with the concept.
>>>>
>>>> But happens all the time, especially when a shooting war is involved,
>>>> and there is nothing the inventor can do to stop it. One would hope
>>>> that the inventor is compensated for this taking, but the government's
>>>> opinion of worth may differ from the inventor's opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Phil: What is the patent number?
>>>>
>>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>
>>> The patents were issued to Norman R. Wild and Paul M. Leavy.
>>>
>>> RE40,927 RE42,913 RE43,681
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> Thanks. I'll be off reading.
>
> I've read them. It would seem that they were trying to patent the
> idea of retro-reflectors, and I wondered about that, retroreflectors
> having been patented in 1934:
>
> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector>

The red eye effect is distinct due to its much larger angular subtense
and lack of cube corners. Back in 1967, highway signs weren't nearly as
bright--they were just paint. Somebody thought of putting glass beads
in the paint, which made them much brighter, but not like today's.

> Two of the reissues eliminate those claims, but one does not, so I'm
> missing something.
>
> Also there was a lot made of the mechanical position of the
> retroreflection within the optical system. What are they getting at?

They want to shoot the enemy sniper right in the eyeball.

>
> As for secret patents, I notice that all the assignees were all
> defense contractors, originally the rubble from the collapse of
> Sanders, so I bet they made significant money on this, only uncloaking
> when this trick was general knowledge.

Yeah, if you're an employee you don't get much of anything from a
patent. IBM used to have a fairly generous patent awards program--over
the years I probably made about 2 years of one kid's college tuition off it.

Naturally they recently gutted it.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On 27/01/2024 8:41 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
> see those bright red-eye glints.  With perfect aim, that would send a
> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
> would probably be sufficient.  So naturally our bright spark filed a
> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
> the back-reflection.

Sounds like one would want a scope that is not only telescopic but also
periscopic.

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:47:13 +1100, Chris Jones
<lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 27/01/2024 8:41 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>> see those bright red-eye glints.  With perfect aim, that would send a
>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>> would probably be sufficient.  So naturally our bright spark filed a
>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>> the back-reflection.
>
>Sounds like one would want a scope that is not only telescopic but also
>periscopic.

Yes. That's one of the alternatives shown in the patents.

Joe Gwinn

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 2:47:21 AM UTC-8, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 27/01/2024 8:41 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:

About detecting eyeballs in battle...

> > Back in 1967, ... our bright spark filed a
> > patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
> > the back-reflection.
> Sounds like one would want a scope that is not only telescopic but also
> periscopic.

Or a drone.
Or a drone that spits out parachute-borne retroreflectors.
Or fit the scope with polarizing/optical rotating retroflection prevention filters.

Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 27/01/2024 8:41 am, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
>> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
>> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>> see those bright red-eye glints.� With perfect aim, that would send a
>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>> would probably be sufficient.� So naturally our bright spark filed a
>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>> the back-reflection.
>
> Sounds like one would want a scope that is not only telescopic but also
> periscopic.
>

It would be nice to have it a meter off to one side!

Of course parallax is a problem.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On January 26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Back in 1967, during the Vietnam War and soon after the invention of the
> laser, some bright spark working for the military came up with this
> scheme for killing enemy snipers: you send out a broad collimated laser
> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
> the back-reflection.

Did it work?

--
Rich

On January 26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
> Commission.
> you send out a broad collimated laser
> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
> the back-reflection.
> Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
> about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
> developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
> optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
> others.
>
> Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
> this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
> amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year

Wouldn't it fail the obviousness criterion?

That is, after lasers became a commodity item, it's obvious to
anyone well versed in the subject.

--
Rich

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On January 26, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> Some years ago, I worked on a patent case (*) at the International Trade
>> Commission.
>> you send out a broad collimated laser
>> beam from a scope, and shoot a .50-caliber round at the places where you
>> see those bright red-eye glints. With perfect aim, that would send a
>> bullet right through the poor guy's sniper scope, but anywhere close
>> would probably be sufficient. So naturally our bright spark filed a
>> patent on the idea of sending out a collimated laser beam and detecting
>> the back-reflection.
>> Of course, the patent was immediately classified, and so nobody knew
>> about it for over 40 years. Lots and lots of laser applications
>> developed in which this technique was used, including essentially all
>> optical disk systems, laser radars, long-distance lidars, and many, many
>> others.
>>
>> Then in the mid-teens it got declassified again, and suddenly there was
>> this patent that covered a good third of all laser applications,
>> amounting to tens of billions of dollars per year
>
> Wouldn't it fail the obviousness criterion?
>
> That is, after lasers became a commodity item, it's obvious to
> anyone well versed in the subject.

Sure, but it was prior art to all that.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics