1. Topics
  2. RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

w7aqk <w7aqk@...>
 

John and all,

First, I'm always a bit irked when messages contain no real identification, like a call sign, so we at least know approximately who and where you are.

Secondly, I don't know how "individual ham integrity" became an issue in this thread. If I followed it correctly, I think it was simply some people noting that there seem to be very high "mark ups" on imported ham gear sold by dealers. Well, there certainly is a rational reason for marking things up, but I don't see why it is wrong to question the amount. Besides, hams seem to always be looking for "a better deal". The problem is,properly analyzing just what is a better deal! If a dealer provides significant additional value, such as a guarantee of some sort, then perhaps things are different.

It doesn't seem to be any secret that, in the U.K., a couple of larger dealers have pretty much squeezed out the smaller ones. This may be due to efficiency, but it does limit competition, and pave the way for higher prices. Something similar seems to be the case here in the U.S., but not nearly as significant.

Still, I continue to be confused as to the justification for some prices I see from U.K. dealers vs. those in the U.S. Presumably they are getting their product from the same primary source. Your VAT doesn't justify the disparity. Rightly or wrongly, I conclude that it is the limited competition that causes this.

Ordering something directly from China, or some other foreign source, can be something of a "crapshoot". You may not have much, if any, recourse if there is some defect in the product. However, there are lots of very good products coming out of these foreign places, so the risk may be less than one might imagine. Actually, I have had pretty decent luck doing this, but admittedly, I've never purchased something as significant as a sophisticated transceiver in that manner. I've even acquired a "clunker" or two, and they were replaced by the seller without a lot of hassle. Perhaps I was just lucky.

In any event, I'm not suggesting that the U.K. prices quoted for this transceiver are definitely excessive, but I can certainly understand why some might question them. While the mark up here may be "reasonable", there seem to be plenty of other examples that don't seem so reasonable. So, it's not hard to understand why it causes some people to be a bit cynical in general. When the rationale is so obtuse, it's not hard to be that way.

Dave W7AQK
applewiz2000 <rob@...>
 

Hi Dave,

I agree a policy of “No callsign no post” would be nice. But some members of the group may be in it for listening only, therefore not have a call.

As to prices of equipment vs. the USA, that’s probably one for another forum. My only comment is that if you notice this as a U.S. citizen, you can be sure we do!

73, Rob
M0RZF
Mike Bott <mike_bott@...>
 

Somehow I must have missed where the transmit function of SDR Console has been hidden. Didn't realize a call was necessary for the software.

Sheeesh, get real.

--
Mike NoCall

On 08/27/2017 10:35 AM, applewiz2000 wrote:
Hi Dave,

I agree a policy of “No callsign no post” would be nice. But some members of the group may be in it for listening only, therefore not have a call.

As to prices of equipment vs. the USA, that’s probably one for another forum. My only comment is that if you notice this as a U.S. citizen, you can be sure we do!

73, Rob
M0RZF
Rob Ram
 

Hi Dave,

Theoretically, I support your idea. However this is the internet where
what you and say is open to criticism from all sorts of wackos and ID
theft. I do not trust the internet, do not trust Google, my internet
service supplier ...etc. 

I was first licensed in 1959 as a novice, up graded to technician class
in the late 60's and finally to extra class, at the FCC office in
Manhattan, about 1995. Regardless, I will keep my callsign private when
using the internet.

73's Robert



On 8/27/2017 10:14 AM, w7aqk wrote:Hi Dave


First, I'm always a bit irked when messages contain no real
identification, like a call sign, so we at least know approximately
who and where you are.


Dave W7AQK
john rader
 

My apology's for not including my call sign,  as far as individual integrity is concerned, that was used trying to express the individual's decision to either support the original author or to support a knock-off from an unreliable source. You can use your own interpretation as you wish, and that idea was also brought up by others, thus my reply.

John, kd8paf

On 8/27/2017 10:14 AM, w7aqk wrote:
John and all,

First, I'm always a bit irked when messages contain no real identification, like a call sign, so we at least know approximately who and where you are.

Secondly, I don't know how "individual ham integrity" became an issue in this thread.  If I followed it correctly, I think it was simply some people noting that there seem to be very high "mark ups" on imported ham gear sold by dealers.  Well, there certainly is a rational reason for marking things up, but I don't see why it is wrong to question the amount.  Besides, hams seem to always be looking for "a better deal".  The problem is,properly analyzing just what is a better deal!  If a dealer provides significant additional value, such as a guarantee of some sort, then perhaps things are different.

It doesn't seem to be any secret that, in the U.K., a couple of larger dealers have pretty much squeezed out the smaller ones. This may be due to efficiency, but it does limit competition, and pave the way for higher prices.  Something similar seems to be the case here in the U.S., but not nearly as significant.

Still, I continue to be confused as to the justification for some prices I see from U.K. dealers vs. those in the U.S.  Presumably they are getting their product from the same primary source.  Your VAT doesn't justify the disparity.  Rightly or wrongly, I conclude that it is the limited competition that causes this.

Ordering something directly from China, or some other foreign source, can be something of a "crapshoot".  You may not have much, if any, recourse if there is some defect in the product.  However, there are lots of very good products coming out of these foreign places, so the risk may be less than one might imagine.  Actually, I have had pretty decent luck doing this, but admittedly, I've never purchased something as significant as a sophisticated transceiver in that manner.  I've even acquired a "clunker" or two, and they were replaced by the seller without a lot of hassle.  Perhaps I was just lucky.

In any event, I'm not suggesting that the U.K. prices quoted for this transceiver are definitely excessive, but I can certainly understand why some might question them.  While the mark up here may be "reasonable", there seem to be plenty of other examples that don't seem so reasonable.  So, it's not hard to understand why it causes some people to be a bit cynical in general.  When the rationale is so obtuse, it's not hard to be that way.

Dave W7AQK
Alan Woodman
 

I’m in total agreement that Chinese knockoffs are harmful and unfair to not only the original developer but the entire ham community. That said, this original developer apparently didn’t anticipate the success of his design. Presently being out of stock often causes a gap that invites knockoffs. It’s a sad reality that the Chinese, Korean and other Asian countries often use this to their market advantage. In the past higher tech designs could maintain their market even through their supply shortages but the Asian engineers are much more competent now. Flex Radio is an example to me of hardware and firmware designs that makes copycats much more difficult but even they are seeing some similar markedly inferior product appearing.

I personally had this same knockoff situation some years ago. Upon the very early availability of higher power LEDs I designed a unique type of flashlight with high power LEDs for the law enforcement market. These LEDs were made by Philips and were difficult to get in quantity at that time. But as the Asians began to make their own much poorer quality LEDs they saw this market and soon clobbered my product with cheaper inferior flashlights. Even though their lights had inferior color and beam collimation their prices eventually ended my efforts. But in an interesting stroke of one-upsmanship I was able to maintain my design awhile longer by offshoring it to a Korean maker.

This story is much the same with any superior and unique in this era. Unless it’s a proprietary design, and even despite this, our free market and the difficulty in prosecuting offshore copycats is unfortunate. Apple is a current example of extreme proprietary designs and they are suffering a similar problem.
Freeman Pascal
 

I have seen folks say that the hardware for the mcHF is opensource. I'm pretty sure the hardware it is not opensource. Chris has not release an open license for the hardware. The firmware is open source, and has recently been forked into a second project.

-Freeman, N5FPP
doug
 


On 08/28/2017 05:34 PM, Freeman Pascal wrote:
I have seen folks say that the hardware for the mcHF is opensource. I'm pretty sure the hardware it is not opensource. Chris has not release an open license for the hardware. The firmware is open source, and has recently been forked into a second project.

-Freeman, N5FPP

There must be some system of protecting a physical design. I don't think you could patent something like this. I don't know if you could copyright the schematic, and if you did, would it protect
anything? When I was a kit, 70 years ago, every radio had a sticker that said something like "licensed by Hazeltine" but I don't have any idea how that worked. Maybe Hazeltine had the
superhet patented. But this is not a superhet, and that patent would surely have expired long ago anyway. If you copied a Corvette engine and put in a BMV, would GM have a case?

--doug, WA2SAY
w7aqk <w7aqk@...>
 

Alan and All,

It seems we need some legal expertise here to help clarify the issue, and I'm not the one to provide it. However, isn't there a question of whether or not a patent or copyright has been infringed? Is there a patent or copyright involved here? If so, I'm not aware of it. If there were, I would have a much different view of all of this. Someone truly knowledgeable on such matters could possibly clarify this.

The Chinese, and other countries, frequently disregard the existence of patents or copyrights. However, if they are just copying something that really is only a clever combination of otherwise well established principles, and doing it at a substantially reduced price, then I'm not sure that can be effectively countered. Patents and copyrights can be expensive to obtain, and many fail to obtain them for that reason. Still, you are supposed to have something rather unique and innovative in order to qualify for obtaining such protection. A lot of patent applications are rejected just for that reason--nothing truly innovative involved.

A very good friend of mine used to sell antenna systems that were very appealing because he used some techniques that weren't commonly available. However, I'm not at all sure his process was sufficiently unique to provide him protection from copy cats. For a while he had something of a captive market, but that soon changed, and he was pretty much "run out of Dodge"! Nothing he was producing was really revolutionary, only clever. Anyone could make it if they just had the right tools. While I might personally question the ethics of the copy cats, there may be little that could be done from a legal standpoint to prevent it.

So, is that what we have here? Or is there really some legal violation involved? There really isn't much we do that can't be done more cheaply by the Chinese. That is clearly very irritating, but it's the consequence of our being in a global market these days. Indeed, much of what goes into a lot of our own creations is at least partly (and often substantially) comprised of components from China and elsewhere. "Made in America" (or the U.K., or wherever) doesn't carry the same connotation it once did.

I'd also point out that hams are "famous" for copying things for their own benefit. They often see something sold at retail that they conclude can be "homebrewed" with relative ease. That's not the same thing as making a commercial venture out of it, but it is taking advantage of someone else's efforts. Just take the schematic or construction details and build it yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if most of us haven't done that more than once.
Unless you have a process that is relatively difficult to duplicate, you are exposed. Some manufacturers put relatively straight forward components in "sealed black boxes" to hide the simplicity of duplication.

So, unless we have a genuine legal issue here, we are really only arguing about what seems "fair". There are many very good reasons to be on the side of "fair". Still, you can't really blame someone for trying to save money, so long as they are willing to accept the inherent risks. If there are no legal consequences involved, it becomes more or less a purely personal decision, and not one that should label someone as being without integrity.

Dave W7AQK
Allan Isaacs
 

When I worked in electronics donkeys years ago we got £30 for each invention
patented in the name of our company (Plessey)
The patent needed to be registered in every country where you wanted
protection so was virtually worthless. We registered in the UK and the US
but nowadays most stuff is developed in the far east, Korea, Taiwan, China
etc
Once someone publishes anything without a patent the design is available to
anyone that wants to use it. I'm afraid that's just the way it is and if the
copycat can make something in large quantities using cheap labour (the same
cheap labour that your esteemed leader wants to swap for US labour) and
cheap parts (the same parts we and the US import) then prices will tumble,
which is a good thing for radio hams. A lot different to the old days when
Japanese manufacturers ruled and set astronomic prices (and still do to some
extent).
I understand also that publishing something without a patent bars one from
patenting it.
SDRs are pretty well all very similarm many using common chipsets so my
guess is the patentable bit is the complex chip itself not the design that
uses it.

In my current business I come across lots of clever electronic designs where
the chips have their identification markings ground off, but that's probably
done to force fresh purchases rather than making repairs.
73 Allan G3PIY

-----Original Message-----
From: SDR-Radio@groups.io [mailto:SDR-Radio@groups.io] On Behalf Of w7aqk
Sent: 29 August 2017 16:03
To: SDR-Radio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

Alan and All,

It seems we need some legal expertise here to help clarify the issue, and
I'm not the one to provide it. However, isn't there a question of whether
or not a patent or copyright has been infringed? Is there a patent or
copyright involved here? If so, I'm not aware of it. If there were, I
would have a much different view of all of this. Someone truly
knowledgeable on such matters could possibly clarify this.

The Chinese, and other countries, frequently disregard the existence of
patents or copyrights. However, if they are just copying something that
really is only a clever combination of otherwise well established
principles, and doing it at a substantially reduced price, then I'm not sure

that can be effectively countered. Patents and copyrights can be expensive
to obtain, and many fail to obtain them for that reason. Still, you are
supposed to have something rather unique and innovative in order to qualify
for obtaining such protection. A lot of patent applications are rejected
just for that reason--nothing truly innovative involved.

A very good friend of mine used to sell antenna systems that were very
appealing because he used some techniques that weren't commonly available.
However, I'm not at all sure his process was sufficiently unique to provide
him protection from copy cats. For a while he had something of a captive
market, but that soon changed, and he was pretty much "run out of Dodge"!
Nothing he was producing was really revolutionary, only clever. Anyone
could make it if they just had the right tools. While I might personally
question the ethics of the copy cats, there may be little that could be done

from a legal standpoint to prevent it.

So, is that what we have here? Or is there really some legal violation
involved? There really isn't much we do that can't be done more cheaply by

the Chinese. That is clearly very irritating, but it's the consequence of
our being in a global market these days. Indeed, much of what goes into a
lot of our own creations is at least partly (and often substantially)
comprised of components from China and elsewhere. "Made in America" (or the

U.K., or wherever) doesn't carry the same connotation it once did.

I'd also point out that hams are "famous" for copying things for their own
benefit. They often see something sold at retail that they conclude can be
"homebrewed" with relative ease. That's not the same thing as making a
commercial venture out of it, but it is taking advantage of someone else's
efforts. Just take the schematic or construction details and build it
yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if most of us haven't done that more than

once.
Unless you have a process that is relatively difficult to duplicate, you are

exposed. Some manufacturers put relatively straight forward components in
"sealed black boxes" to hide the simplicity of duplication.

So, unless we have a genuine legal issue here, we are really only arguing
about what seems "fair". There are many very good reasons to be on the side

of "fair". Still, you can't really blame someone for trying to save money,
so long as they are willing to accept the inherent risks. If there are no
legal consequences involved, it becomes more or less a purely personal
decision, and not one that should label someone as being without integrity.

Dave W7AQK
Rob Ram
 

Hello Dave,

I am not a lawyer either; however having my own software ripped off by a
large corporate conglomerate, I can sympathize with your concern. I will
not go into detail but simply say, this corporation decided to base
their decision on current corporate policy and practice rather than on
original agreements. Even though the software was registered with the
Library of Congress it made no difference. They demanded ownership of my
software.

The point is, when there is a good profit to be made, dam the copyright
or patient; we dare you to sue us!

The mc-hf transceiver is based on the design by Dan Tayloe QSD design. I
do not know about the RS-918SSB transceiver.
http://defenseelectronicsmag.com/site-files/defenseelectronicsmag.com/files/archive/rfdesign.com/images/archive/303Tayloe58.pdf

In fact so was the Flex transceiver, early versions, designed around the
QSD decoder.

"Software Defined Radio for the Masses" By Gerald Youngblood.

https://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/tis/info/pdf/020708qex013.pdf

Gerald, at least, gives credit to Dan Tayloe.


I do not know if the QSD method was copyrighted or patented, but the
design was published. This alone, I believe, would prevent a copyright
and patient for future derivatives of the QSD method.

On 8/29/2017 11:03 AM, w7aqk wrote:

It seems we need some legal expertise here to help clarify the issue,
and I'm not the one to provide it.  However, isn't there a question of
whether or not a patent or copyright has been infringed?  Is there a
patent or copyright involved here?  If so, I'm not aware of it.  If
there were, I would have a much different view of all of this. 
Someone truly knowledgeable on such matters could possibly clarify this.
doug
 

On 08/29/2017 11:47 AM, Allan Isaacs wrote:
When I worked in electronics donkeys years ago we got £30 for each invention
patented in the name of our company (Plessey)
The patent needed to be registered in every country where you wanted
protection so was virtually worthless. We registered in the UK and the US
but nowadays most stuff is developed in the far east, Korea, Taiwan, China
etc
Once someone publishes anything without a patent the design is available to
anyone that wants to use it. I'm afraid that's just the way it is and if the
copycat can make something in large quantities using cheap labour (the same
cheap labour that your esteemed leader wants to swap for US labour) and
cheap parts (the same parts we and the US import) then prices will tumble,
which is a good thing for radio hams. A lot different to the old days when
Japanese manufacturers ruled and set astronomic prices (and still do to some
extent).
I understand also that publishing something without a patent bars one from
patenting it.
I'm not sure that's true anymore. At least in the US. I am aware that
two drugs that I take, one of which is asprin, when taken together,
as is prescribed, (the combination of which) may now be patented,
while the patent on the other drug, used by itself, has expired. The
company that maies the other drug just raised the price by over 100%!
I know because I am the patient using this combination, and I have
been watching for the original patent to expire. So far nobody has
started copying the drug, doggonit!

--doug

SDRs are pretty well all very similarm many using common chipsets so my
guess is the patentable bit is the complex chip itself not the design that
uses it.

In my current business I come across lots of clever electronic designs where
the chips have their identification markings ground off, but that's probably
done to force fresh purchases rather than making repairs.
73 Allan G3PIY

-----Original Message-----
From: SDR-Radio@groups.io [mailto:SDR-Radio@groups.io] On Behalf Of w7aqk
Sent: 29 August 2017 16:03
To: SDR-Radio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

Alan and All,

It seems we need some legal expertise here to help clarify the issue, and
I'm not the one to provide it. However, isn't there a question of whether
or not a patent or copyright has been infringed? Is there a patent or
copyright involved here? If so, I'm not aware of it. If there were, I
would have a much different view of all of this. Someone truly
knowledgeable on such matters could possibly clarify this.

The Chinese, and other countries, frequently disregard the existence of
patents or copyrights. However, if they are just copying something that
really is only a clever combination of otherwise well established
principles, and doing it at a substantially reduced price, then I'm not sure

that can be effectively countered. Patents and copyrights can be expensive
to obtain, and many fail to obtain them for that reason. Still, you are
supposed to have something rather unique and innovative in order to qualify
for obtaining such protection. A lot of patent applications are rejected
just for that reason--nothing truly innovative involved.

A very good friend of mine used to sell antenna systems that were very
appealing because he used some techniques that weren't commonly available.
However, I'm not at all sure his process was sufficiently unique to provide
him protection from copy cats. For a while he had something of a captive
market, but that soon changed, and he was pretty much "run out of Dodge"!
Nothing he was producing was really revolutionary, only clever. Anyone
could make it if they just had the right tools. While I might personally
question the ethics of the copy cats, there may be little that could be done

from a legal standpoint to prevent it.

So, is that what we have here? Or is there really some legal violation
involved? There really isn't much we do that can't be done more cheaply by

the Chinese. That is clearly very irritating, but it's the consequence of
our being in a global market these days. Indeed, much of what goes into a
lot of our own creations is at least partly (and often substantially)
comprised of components from China and elsewhere. "Made in America" (or the

U.K., or wherever) doesn't carry the same connotation it once did.

I'd also point out that hams are "famous" for copying things for their own
benefit. They often see something sold at retail that they conclude can be
"homebrewed" with relative ease. That's not the same thing as making a
commercial venture out of it, but it is taking advantage of someone else's
efforts. Just take the schematic or construction details and build it
yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if most of us haven't done that more than

once.
Unless you have a process that is relatively difficult to duplicate, you are

exposed. Some manufacturers put relatively straight forward components in
"sealed black boxes" to hide the simplicity of duplication.

So, unless we have a genuine legal issue here, we are really only arguing
about what seems "fair". There are many very good reasons to be on the side

of "fair". Still, you can't really blame someone for trying to save money,
so long as they are willing to accept the inherent risks. If there are no
legal consequences involved, it becomes more or less a purely personal
decision, and not one that should label someone as being without integrity.

Dave W7AQK
Dennis Smith
 

Drugs are an an extremely bad example because patents on drugs can be extended by minor changes in the drug effectively produces the same drug (think left channel and right channel drugs).

So far there is a lot of talk absolutely assuming that it is fact that the Chinese company who makes this radio has done wrong. From what I have seen in a brief look at their site, and from the images posted of the project in question, I can find minimal actual evidence that guarantees wrong doing by the Chinese firm. The Company in question has a product range made up of almost exclusively rebadged products, and there is nothing to suggest this radio isn't just the same. I would not be surprised to find that the company making this radio reverse engineered it instead, the firmware that use is probably equally the same.

A comment posted by M0NKA in 2014 made it relatively clear his rights to the various design components was very weak and what was open and what wasn't.

Dennis Smith
M1DLG

On 30 August 2017 at 01:00, doug <dmcgarrett@...> wrote:

On 08/29/2017 11:47 AM, Allan Isaacs wrote:
When I worked in electronics donkeys years ago we got £30 for each invention
patented in the name of our company (Plessey)
The patent needed to be registered in every country where you wanted
protection so was virtually worthless. We registered in the UK and the US
but nowadays most stuff is developed in the far east, Korea, Taiwan, China
etc
Once someone publishes anything without a patent the design is available to
anyone that wants to use it. I'm afraid that's just the way it is and if the
copycat can make something in large quantities using cheap labour (the same
cheap labour that your esteemed leader wants to swap for US labour) and
cheap parts (the same parts we and the US import) then prices will tumble,
which is a good thing for radio hams. A lot different to the old days when
Japanese manufacturers ruled and set astronomic prices (and still do to some
extent).
I understand also that publishing something without a patent bars one from
patenting it.
 I'm not sure that's true anymore. At least in the US. I am aware that
two drugs that I take, one of which is asprin, when taken together,
as is prescribed, (the combination of which)  may now be patented,
while the patent on the other drug, used by itself, has expired. The
company that maies the other drug just raised the price by over 100%!
I know because I am the patient using this combination, and I have
been watching for the original patent to expire. So far nobody has
started copying the drug, doggonit!

--doug


SDRs are pretty well all very similarm many using common chipsets so my
guess is the patentable bit is the complex chip itself not the design that
uses it.

In my current business I come across lots of clever electronic designs where
the chips have their identification markings ground off, but that's probably
done to force fresh purchases rather than making repairs.
73 Allan G3PIY

-----Original Message-----
From: SDR-Radio@groups.io [mailto:SDR-Radio@groups.io] On Behalf Of w7aqk
Sent: 29 August 2017 16:03
To: SDR-Radio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

Alan and All,

It seems we need some legal expertise here to help clarify the issue, and
I'm not the one to provide it.  However, isn't there a question of whether
or not a patent or copyright has been infringed?  Is there a patent or
copyright involved here?  If so, I'm not aware of it.  If there were, I
would have a much different view of all of this.  Someone truly
knowledgeable on such matters could possibly clarify this.

The Chinese, and other countries, frequently disregard the existence of
patents or copyrights.  However, if they are just copying something that
really is only a clever combination of otherwise well established
principles, and doing it at a substantially reduced price, then I'm not sure

that can be effectively countered.  Patents and copyrights can be expensive
to obtain, and many fail to obtain them for that reason.  Still, you are
supposed to have something rather unique and innovative in order to qualify
for obtaining  such protection.  A lot of patent applications are rejected
just for that reason--nothing truly innovative involved.

A very good friend of mine used to sell antenna systems that were very
appealing because he used some techniques that weren't commonly available.
However, I'm not at all sure his process was sufficiently unique to provide
him protection from copy cats.  For a while he had something of a captive
market, but that soon changed, and he was pretty much "run out of Dodge"!
Nothing he was producing was really revolutionary, only clever.  Anyone
could make it if they just had the right tools.  While I might personally
question the ethics of the copy cats, there may be little that could be done

from a legal standpoint to prevent it.

So, is that what we have here?  Or is there really some legal violation
involved?  There really isn't much we do  that can't be done more cheaply by

the Chinese.  That is clearly very irritating, but it's the consequence of
our being in a global market these days.  Indeed, much of what goes into a
lot of our own creations is at least partly (and often substantially)
comprised of components from China and elsewhere.  "Made in America" (or the

U.K., or wherever) doesn't carry the same connotation it once did.

I'd also point out that hams are "famous" for copying things for their own
benefit.  They often see something sold at retail that they conclude can be
"homebrewed" with relative ease.  That's not the same thing as making a
commercial venture out of it, but it is taking advantage of someone else's
efforts.  Just take the schematic or construction details  and build it
yourself.  I wouldn't be surprised if most of us haven't done that more than

once.
Unless you have a process that is relatively difficult to duplicate, you are

exposed.  Some manufacturers put relatively straight forward components in
"sealed black boxes" to hide the simplicity of duplication.

So, unless we have a genuine legal issue here, we are really only arguing
about what seems "fair".  There are many very good reasons to be on the side

of "fair".  Still, you can't really blame someone for trying to save money,
so long as they are willing to accept the inherent risks.  If there are no
legal consequences involved, it becomes more or less a purely personal
decision, and not one that should label someone as being without integrity.

Dave W7AQK
gautea@...
 

HI ALL, I really wish you could take this endless and stupid discussion elsewhere!
No suprise that some people who actually search this group for useful information just give up.
LB6YD Gaute
Simon Brown
 

Hi,

 

The groups.io support subgroups – maybe we can use this feature. I’ll have to investigate.

 

Simon Brown, G4ELI
www.sdr-radio.com

 

From: SDR-Radio@groups.io [mailto:SDR-Radio@groups.io] On Behalf Of gautea via Groups.Io
Sent: 30 August 2017 08:53
To: SDR-Radio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

 

HI ALL, I really wish you could take this endless and stupid discussion elsewhere!
No suprise that some people who actually search this group for useful information just give up.
LB6YD Gaute

Simon Brown
 

Oh,

 

Looks like I’ve somehow changed the main group e-mail address ☹ .

 

Simon Brown, G4ELI
www.sdr-radio.com

 

From: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io [mailto:main@SDR-Radio.groups.io] On Behalf Of Simon Brown
Sent: 30 August 2017 09:55
To: main@SDR-Radio.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

 

Hi,

 

The groups.io support subgroups – maybe we can use this feature. I’ll have to investigate.

 

Simon Brown, G4ELI
www.sdr-radio.com

 

From: SDR-Radio@groups.io [mailto:SDR-Radio@groups.io] On Behalf Of gautea via Groups.Io
Sent: 30 August 2017 08:53
To: SDR-Radio@groups.io
Subject: Re: [SDR-Radio] RS-918SSB - SDR Transceiver

 

HI ALL, I really wish you could take this endless and stupid discussion elsewhere!
No suprise that some people who actually search this group for useful information just give up.
LB6YD Gaute

21 - 36 of 36