next page  >> 1979


A DOCUMENTARY about SENSOR TIMING Occurences, Projects, R & D: 1978 - 2013


Here you learn about patent infringments, theft and crime - whereby the damage caused, all in all, runs into the billions !!

These websites not only show how to destroy the works, plans, visions and skills of
a small private inventor - they demonstrate the way efficient IPR-protection of
electronic hardware has been made impossible. FOR NOW and for the FUTURE by
so-called "Techno Bandits", drunken managers, polit-idiots, criminals and frauds.

See: -> the tragedy of Rieder and Schwaiger -> the amazing patent of Udo Proksch and R. Wein

Note: Even 15 years later, some maniacs are trying to break through the "time
barriere" (i.e. they are trying to overcome the impossibility of transcending time-data
acquisition as top-technology in digital sensor applications). In relation to patent
specifications, they behaving like a bull in a china shop. More about this at the end.

I described the background of the matter in the autobiographical novel "Eric`s time
machine". Visitors to my homepage were able to read this book online between 2002
and 2005. It`s now offline. (Maybe it will appear again in a modified version in the
coming years).

Those who read this novel might have thought:
How the heck could this disaster happen?

Why is someone, who has invented new technologies, who has financed and
performed substantial research- and developement work through private
endeavours, not in position to enforce his patent rights? Why does society not
support his efforts, why does it not appreciate his work?

Some people even may ask: Is it delusion? Or merely a sign of weakness? Or - were
his patents invalid from the beginning?

Other people may say: If it was impossible for an inventor during the 70s, 80s and 90s
to succeed despite owning such enormously important patents - how could it be
possible for an inventor today! When conditions are now so much more difficult?

Anyway. I will try to put all evidence and facts on the table. There are no speculations
or presumptions. There are written vouchers, letters, photos, documents and

The reader shall get an idea of the reality in the patent- and inventors scene. (In
general, not only related to the mentioned inventor Erich B. (Austria, EU).


1978 saw the launch of the project "SENSOR TIMING

The inventor Erich B. now explains what happened since then.

Before we get into details, some basics.

What is a patent?

--  A patent is a sort of intellectual property right, granted to an inventor, that protects monopoly on a
technical novelty. The monopoly period generally lasts 20 years. If a patent is granted, the patent
applicant receives the "patent document".

-   A patent document consists of three parts: description, patent claims and drawings.

-  The wording of the patent claims limits the scope of protection of the patent. The claims indicate
which sort of technology is now under patent protection. In practice, this wording defines the worth
of a patent in the future, if the said invented technology is successful.

-  The patent holder can make, use all the technological features that are within the scope of the
patent claims; he can also exclude others from making, using and selling those features.

-   Interpreting the scope of a patent is not only the concern of a patent agent or expert - it is of
course also the business of the patent holder or inventor himself. However, first, an inventor has to
obtain sufficient professional knowledge on patent matters and text interpretation, and should know
something about novelty-examination procedures, patent issuance, annulment- and infringement
action practice.


So far, so good.

Now I had an important idea back in the early 70s: to measure and store the elapsed

time fora movement automatically and directly ON THE MOVING OBJECT ITSELF;

rather than distanced from the moving object (with photoelectric barriers etc.).
I was a skilled electronic engineer, and I found the way to solve the technical


This idea was much more than "worthy a patent application". No, this idea was

indeedsensational. Later, a great number of people attested this fact. Any

creatively talentedhuman being would have gone to a patent agent, if he had had

that idea..

So, in December 1977, I filed the patent application "Zeitmess- und Anzeige-

vorrichtung"("time measuring and displaying device") to the Austrian Patent Office

and subsequently to the DP and the US-Patent Office ("device for measuring and

indicating the time between the reception of first and second airborne signals").

For description and drawings of the issued patent documents see:

Now, let`s take a look at the mentioned Patent US4245334 (Bieramperl).
Patent claim 1) reads:

1. A system mounted on a vehicle for measuring and indicating the time required for a movement
    from a first location to a second location spaced from the first location, said system comprising:

    - a first transmitter located at said first location and adapted to transmit a first energy signal;

    - a second transmitter located at said second location and adapted to transmit a second energy signal;

    - an electronic stopwatch for delivering clock signals;

    - a memory coupled to said watch for receiving and storing said clock signals;

    - display means coupled to said memory means for providing a visual indication of the clocksignals stored by said memory;

    - an energy signal receiver having a sensor for receiving said first and second energy signals;

    - a start switch for coupling the output of said receiver to the input of said stopwatch
and responsive to said first energy signal, so as to turn on said watch to provide clock signals; and

    - a stop switch for coupling the output of said receiver to the input of said stopwatch and responsive
to said second energy signal, so as to turn off said watch and terminate the clock signals.

Note: the original claim in my initial filing read differently; it was even broader. (We

will talk about later..)

What do we see? Patent claim 1) shows clearly, that neither the distance, nor the sort

of "transmitter", nor the sort of received "energy signals", nor the sort of "electronic

stop watch" (= timer), nor the sort of "memory", nor the sort of display, nor the sort

of "start switch" or "stop switch" nor the sort of SENSORS are defined!

What does that mean?

It means: ALL sorts of technology, featuring the characteristics of patent claim 1),

are covered under the patent! Every patent expert knows this! Even if a product

provides no visual indication" at said memory, but uses a means of storage to

perform various sorts of data processing, itis covered under said patent - perhaps

up to 80% (not 100%).

Therefore, many parts of industry had to pay a licence fee to the inventor i.e. the

patent holder from 1981, if there was no foul play all the time. Do you understand?

Example: Look at a digital CamCorder with a flash memory (semiconductor chip):

1) It is equipped with a
SENSOR. A so-called "CCD-sensor" (charge coupled display), or +

an "APS" (Active Pixel Sensor, which detects the impinging light signals (electromagnetic
waves) and converts these into digital code.
Therefore: Feature 1 of Pat. US4245334 is present.

2) There is also a transmitter. You do not believe me? Oh yes, there is... Every photons-
emitting entity or structure, where a camcorder is moving along when recording a video, is

a transmitter which sends "energy signals".
Therefore: Features 1 and 2 of Pat. US4245334 are present.

3) Some people may argue now: Okay, tell me where is the electronic stopwatch,

the memory and the start/stop-switches to measure the elapsed times - ("time required for a movement from a first location to a second location") ?

Simple explained:
Should all movements NOT be exactly time-dependently detected und chrono-
logically acquired, there would be chaos in the chip data carrier (flash memory)!
Therefore: all elapsed times between arriving optical signals have to be digitally
measured and stored at the CCD-sensor!

When using a magnetic tape cassette drive instead of a semiconductor flash memory

(e.g. a SSD-drive), the drive mechanism performs the task of timing and synchronisation of

video data automatically. But if you have a flash memory, there is no way around sequentialelapse time measurements and chronological assignement of

acquired data.
Finally: Said "start-stop-switches" achieve their function via software, and

need notto be distinctive.

All in all, nothing does change the fact, that a human viewer, who looks on a LCD-
monitor, sees actually visualized elapsed times, and nothing else..
Therefore: Feature 4, 5 and 6 of Pat. US4245334 is present.

And that the "system" is placed on a "vehicle", and is "moving", need not to be
further elaborated here...

------------------------------------ -

Now let`s take a look at my fundamental invention of 1977, which was


the key for said patent claims, and to the first FRAUD, which

happenedaround 1980 (the first of many irregularities in the context

to myinvention to the present time):

Admittedly, in 1977 it was not my intention to submit a patent for a multi-data chip

recorder (this happened later, in 1986), but I did know that my elapse time

measurement system had universal applicability. It was obvious to me, that, if one

can measure and store elapse time via an on-board sensor in a passive manner,

all other time-dependent physical values may be derived too. I also knew, that

the mode of the patent claim 1) allowed the interpretation of iterative and

recursive applications.

I asked a personally known patent expert to helped me to file the patent description

at the Austrian Patent Office. He formulated broad claims (usual in the patent

scene). The Austrian Patent Office had no objection and finally granted said patent

in 1982 (patent Nr. AT 366834).
Unfortunately, 1979 (one year after filing the patent in Austria), this expert was

unable to help me translate the description and file the patent in the USA and

elsewhere. He recommended that I consult an accredited patent attorney in

Linz/Austria, (Mr. H. Huebscher).

I mandated H. Huebscher to submit the patent description with patent claim 1) to

the US- Patent Office:

(see also this link: original submission of patent claims to US4245334).

The original patent document, which was granted on January 13, 1981, contained the following claim 1):

What is claimed is:


1) A device for measuring and indicating the time between reception of first and second

airbornesignals, comprising


     -  an electronic watch for delivering clock signals


      -  indicating means adapted to receive said clock signals and to give an indication

correspondingto the clock signals thus received


     - a sensor for receiving said first and second airborne signals


     - a start switch arranged to connect said indicating means to said stop watch for

thereception ofsaid clock pulses from said stop watch by said indicating means in

response to the reception of saidfirst airborne signal by said sensor, and


     - a stop switch arranged to disconnect said indicating means from said stop watch

in responsetothe reception of said second airborne signal by said sensor


The patent document I now possess, contains the modified claim you can read at the

top ofthis page (see above) !! Nobody knows the point in time when this document

was exchanged against a duplicate; nobody knows HOW this theft occurred - but it

seems it really did happen !

Moreover, said U.S. patent application should include a drawing of the vehicle

(see link).
This not provided by my patent attorney (or he simply "forgot"?) - , as a result,

an inventornamed A. R. Hocken received a patent three years later that was

almost 100% identical towith my invention (not granted by the European Patent

Office). And this was not the only case.

More in the next sites:

PATENT Theft Thread (1985 - 1987), see link
The Hocken Documentation
Very important. Of great interest is:
When and how came the time recorder chip on the running shoe? The ARMSTRONG-

and the stunners
The unknown amazing patent of Udo Proksch & Rudi Wein



As I have already said, a patent document consists of three parts: description of the invention, patent claims and drawings. You have read now, what technologies could have been derived from my patent claims. Now you will hear, what the mankind has been deprived of a result of destructive patent policy.

A video camcorder from 10 or 15 years ago, is worthless today because the mechanical drive is outdated. It can be thrown away now. But you would have already obtained a video camcorder with an electronic chip drive (SSD) in the 90s, if the manufacturers had not been afraid of having to pay a few dollars licence fee! For at least 20 years, the manufacturers have utilized OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY (mechanical drives with tapes or discs!) in various recorder, only to save on license fees for inventors!

Just imagine: They used outdated technology, only to avoid measuring and storing elapsed times on a semiconductor chip! Only to avoid a patent dispute with a small private inventor which would probably appear in the papers!

You do not believe me - you think this is a conspiracy theory? NO! This is the absolute truth! In global terms, the damage is in the hundred of billions of dollars!

If you believe, that now - where this technology is used everywhere and where some patents have expired - no new damage is being caused, you are wrong: there is no IPR protection anymore on such technology and it can be cheaply imported from the Far East. For now and for ever. In the USA it is just the same as in Europe. The innovation status of a chip-based flash recorder has dwindled - its now near the level of junk. Prices are meanwhile almost lower than for discarded mechanical drives. Since 2000, the technology has destroyed millions of jobs, and has also brought down the system of copyright in the music business.

The reason is simple: A strong patent holder in all these elapse-time-capturing technologies (including "streaming", "speech recognition" and so on..) had a good chance of keeping progress in regulated channels. Instead, all that resulted was arbitrariness and illegality.


But that`s not all. Listen: Measuring and storing elapsed times is, indeed! - the key to real-time-identification of all sorts of perceptions, auto-adaption, self-organization and, finally, artificial intelligence. Even the brain works solely with elapsed time measurements! There is no sort of data processing like in personal computers. I elaborated the evidences in the new patent application:



                                           Patent US 6172941


(Method to Generate Self-Organizing Processes in Autonomous Mechanisms and Organisms)

If you believe, there is no increase of cynism possible anymore, you are mistaken!

The global scientific community knows since more than 10 years about the facts and evidences, but they deny the facts, and proceed in same way as before - only for the purpose to avoid jeopardizing the system...!!


You now know what has become of my patent claims. Now,

let`s take a look what happened with my described invention

of 1978 itself, with my drawings, with my written words. (See

sports and traffic branches).


What happened to the sensor-activated elapse time measurement

system (the so-called SRCT/Sensor Timing) ? The project I worked

on, for which I made the greatest personal and financial sacrifices,

where I made the first steps in research and developement ?

Purely and simply said: IT HAS GOT STOLEN. I no longer earn a single cent,

while copycats and product pirates make millions.

From the very beginning, my intention was to set up as a mainstay in the sports branch,

before dealing with other applications of the technology. My aim was to establish

profitable production with my own firm. The firm would eventually have granted licences to other companies.

In 1978, the most obvious application (and the easiest to realize) seemed to be the

 automatically operated lap timer for motorsports, with magnetic sensors on the vehicle

and magnetic tape on the road. But this was too trivial for me. I wanted to develop a

timing system, that could operate under severe environmental conditions without a

need to tear open a track etc., To this end I undertook long, expensive and difficult

research- and development work.

I had decided to make the first sensor-operated parallel-running timer on an

alpine ski real! Already in May 1978 I had completed a first prototype. There

exists, however, no photo.


Here are some SensorTiming configurations in sports (lap timer,

total distance timer, intermediate timer etc.):


  Examples: Longarcre Timer, MyChron, Casio etc.

Example: Freelap

 Examples: Starlane, QStarz, RaceChrono, Runtastic, Garmin, Memotec SOLO, Suunto  etc.


                                                            next page  >> 1979

           you are the visitor Nr :