Drive-Smart Defender2 laser jammer bypasses blinder patent?!

**JTW** · 03-23-2006, 05:37 AM

Jim did a great job of posting the blinder patent on another thread. Basically the blinder patent states it uses a look up table of the different pulse paterns to use when it encounters a laser gun detected and registered on the software. Drive-Smart claims they don't need to use a look up table at all, thus a generic jamming code isn't even needed because they'll be able to jam any gun by real fly time. This is quite the engineering marvel if Drive-Smart can actually achieve this, but who knows? Drive-Smart is brand new to the laser jammer areana.

The beef:
If Blinders patent is solely based on the software of a look up table and if Drive-smart doesn't use one that basically makes a total loophole around the blinder patent right?

What are you thoughts guys?

JTW

**amoney** · 03-23-2006, 06:48 AM

I would agree.

**ronsc1985** · 03-23-2006, 07:21 AM

My thoughts are if laser jammers get to be prevalent there is a very easy way for gun manufacturers to foil the currentr discussed jammer methods be they table lookup or so called on the fly.

Simply put it would be easy for any gun manufacturer to implement random pulse output spacing. If they do this there is nothing to learn or lookup. When the jammer sends pulses back outside the window when a pulse should be returned the gun would know it is being jammed. A good analogy is the frequency skipping methods used in military communication equipment. For all I know the laser designators in the military equipment use a similar technique. Random number generation in a simple microprocessor has been done for a long, long time. Unless you can somehow know the seed number to start the process you cannot determine the number sequence on the fly. You can do it by after the fact analysis but this is not very useful out on the highway.

In any event it is easy to do and all this talk about whether a particular jammer can defeat all future guns is just that talk.

Can some other form of jammer defeat a random pulse spacing gun without the gun knowing it is being jammed? Probably but not using the methods currently being discussed.

**Rottman** · 03-23-2006, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by amoney

I would agree.

Me too JTW. GOD I hope that's true.....

**drive-smart** · 03-23-2006, 07:35 AM

This question really applies to AL/POO Park as they use a look up table.
I think no one will comment as revealing all your IP and technology secrets is not really the most sensible thing to do is it?
One thing our system is totally software upgradeable so it can be used for loads of different purposes and its also up to the end user what software they run on it.

**jimbonzzz** · 03-23-2006, 07:43 AM

Originally Posted by ronsc1985

My thoughts are if laser jammers get to be prevalent there is a very easy way for gun manufacturers to foil the currentr discussed jammer methods be they table lookup or so called on the fly.

Simply put it would be easy for any gun manufacturer to implement random pulse output spacing. If they do this there is nothing to learn or lookup. When the jammer sends pulses back outside the window when a pulse should be returned the gun would know it is being jammed. A good analogy is the frequency skipping methods used in military communication equipment. For all I know the laser designators in the military equipment use a similar technique. Random number generation in a simple microprocessor has been done for a long, long time. Unless you can somehow know the seed number to start the process you cannot determine the number sequence on the fly. You can do it by after the fact analysis but this is not very useful out on the highway.

In any event it is easy to do and all this talk about whether a particular jammer can defeat all future guns is just that talk.

Can some other form of jammer defeat a random pulse spacing gun without the gun knowing it is being jammed? Probably but not using the methods currently being discussed.

The only technique that I can think of that would jam such a method would be to use a 2+ MHz pulse rate, similar to the Lidatek LE-10/LE850. That way in theory there's always a jamming pulse received at the gun between the time the gun's pulse is sent out, but before it is reflected back.

Jim

**jimbonzzz** · 03-23-2006, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by JTW

The beef:
If Blinders patent is solely based on the software of a look up table and if Drive-smart doesn't use one that basically makes a total loophole around the blinder patent right?

Last I heard, it was DriveSmart's intent to also use a lookup table too:

http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...r=asc&start=60

Originally Posted by drive-smart

We also have a look up table that we will release not long after the Defender2 is available.
The users can then update the Defender2 to do either Pulse link or look up table or both.
This is why we have worked hard to develop a software upgradeable system,Power out put can easily be adjusted as well as the power supply is all controlled via software its easy to run from 0.1-10 amps with our system.Although 10amps is really not recommend.

**JTW** · 03-23-2006, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by drive-smart

This question really applies to AL/POO Park as they use a look up table.
I think no one will comment as revealing all your IP and technology secrets is not really the most sensible thing to do is it?
One thing our system is totally software upgradeable so it can be used for loads of different purposes and its also up to the end user what software they run on it.

Can you seriously grow up Neil and act like a respectable manufacturer JUST ONCE? It's called Pro Park, not Poo park you moron.

**drive-smart** · 03-23-2006, 08:56 AM

This was already a name users were calling it already on previous posts.
Did you see the post from FLYBOY earlier?

Originally Posted by FLYBOY!!!!!

Yes, Roy has received the first batch of STi's and has already shipped them out.

As for my AL 6.5, it arrived today.

When I opened it, I immediately noticed a few things:

(1) The box had its seal broken
(2) There was no mounting bracket in the box
(3) The junction box had the cutouts for the connections cut quite amateurishly, I could do better with a jigsaw!!!!!
(4) The cable sheathing ends on the outside of the junction box leaving wiring exposed to the naked eye
(5) There was no serial # on the unit, only on the carton
(6) The packaging for International shipping was woeful and the unit was scratched from rubbing on the carton

I immediately telephoned the U.K. dealer with my [i]EXTREME DISAPPOINTMENT[i] and they agreed to a full refund upon return of the LPP, Thank you for accepting responsibility K300.

As such, I will now wait for the GOL testing and see which Jammer comes up No.1

As I have learnt with my years of growing old (but not UP

), you can't always have a win, but, when you do win it makes the disappointments worth it.

Oh well, just have to wait for my toys to arrive from Roy.

Really was a poo park for him.LOL

We did not start that name!LOL

ffs people take things much to seriously on here lighten up Chris you seem a bit tense today.

**drive-smart** · 03-23-2006, 09:13 AM

On a more serious note,I think patents are for people who do not innovate or want to stifle innovation.
And a lot of the time its very easy to get round someones patent/s.