Who Makes The X-coils? Who Sells Them?

[Jonathan Porter]

21 hours ago, jasong said:

.............However, if the DOD design itself was patented and no other manufacturer was allowed to use it at all then that seemed like a seperate issue from the chip discussion. That's why I was curious about wether it was a concern with the chip or the DOD design.

The GPZ is the first detector of its kind in the world, as such ZVT is unique to Minelab which means it is their IP, as such a preventative device in the coil connector strongly suggests they are trying to prevent others from making coils, whether this is for counterfeit prevention or locking out aftermarket manufacturers because of the complexity of the electronics I cannot say. I am unsure if the DOD design coil is patented.

JP

[Jonathan Porter]

21 hours ago, AussieDigs said:

Jonathan,

you stated previously that these X coils being hand wound has the potential to be inconsistent which wouldnt suit Minelabs quality requirements. (Let me know if i have that wrong). Yet the 10k plus GPZ’s are showing a concerning level of performance inconsistency of a concerning number of units.

Im not having a dig at you, you are only relaying the likes of Minelabs policies.

Al.

The GPZ units are actually very consistent from one to the other, there have been some issues though especially around coils and screens. The main issue I see in our shop is noisy coils especially from the first release units. The X coils are hand wound so there will be inconsistencies, there has to be, but as has been evidenced here on the forum the complaints seem few and far between from those happy to talk about it.

JP

[jasong]

Alright, thanks for the reply there.

If the DOD is not patented then I personally don't see where IP is being violated here from a legal standpoint. I'm certainly not a lawyer though.

What has happened is users themselves are bypassing security features to use a feature of the product they paid for and own (much like we do with cell phones, which is legal and not unethical). This is pretty much a given in any kind of hardware modding, modding being a normal part of the enthusiast culture for virtually every product that can be turned into a hobby.

I mentioned in a previous post that here in the US we may soon have legislation specifically addressing the right to do just this outside the realm of hobby and into commercial equipment, in the case of farmers VS John Deere who implements similar chipped security methods to prevent upgrading, repairs, and modifications by the owners. Some states have already sided with the farmers, some haven't. So, when federal rulings occur we may soon have an actual legal basis to decide what we have rights to do, here in the US anyways.

Either way, I don't think the argument is IP protection here. I don't see a case where the chip prevents IP theft itself and I haven't seen a case made so far for that either. The chip seems to exist only prevent 3rd party manufacturers from making coils without first obtaining licensing (and thus fees) from Minelab. So, what seems to be at stake here is not IP theft but loss of business revenue from licensing. And in that case, I don't see the relevance to customers at all since we already paid for the product and Minelab made the decision not produce or license the accessory product which we are wanting to buy. Otherwise we'd be buying coils from Minelab and it wouldn't be a problem, so it's a problem of their own making and not reasonable to put the onus of ethics onto the customer.

If there was an ethical argument to make here I would say it would be a company selling a very expensive product with promise for future expansion, but then not holding true to the promise while simultaneously preventing an aftermarket to satisfy that missing demand too. Without that, this X Coils subject wouldn't even exist. But that's a different post that has already been covered ad infinitum.

On that note, being what appears primarly to me a matter of economics and not IP theft - again I will mention a reasonable solution at this time that addresses all party's concerns: Release a firmware patch which disables the security chip authentication and which customers could pay Minelab for so they could generate income from X Coils. The only reason I could conceivably guess why this wouldn't be considered is if another 3rd party has already licensed security chip access and paid for it in order to develop their own GPZ coils.

I'm not saying all this to be flippant or argumentative, I realize my typing method may sometimes sound like that. I'm just saying that from a legal standpoint that is my best interpretation of this matter with the information we as the public have at hand.

[Jonathan Porter]

I would say the main reason/justification for the chip is to prevent counterfeiters, without the chip the detector does not work, as such that is a security measure designed I would say to protect their IP. Cutting off the plug end is a way to circumvent that security feature to avoid the detector from shutting down. This is mostly conjecture on my part but would seem logical considering what counterfeiting has cost Minelab in the last 10 years.

Minelab have invested huge amounts of money into the development of GPZ, we the end user get to access that for a fee. If the business model for Minelab does not pay off that’s their risk, if the market does things that interfere with their ability to make money from their investment they will either stop development of new products or just design this type of issue out of the end product, either way there will be change if it affects their bottom line. This is just my opinion only.

JP

[jasong]

Note to engineering/manufacturing staff: next time design a coil with the chip inside the coil, not the plug. Potted in epoxy with a killswitch that destroys the chip if removed. 

Anyways, yeah I get what your saying and I agree. But semantically and legally, IP = intellectual property. If there is no patent, there is no property,  and thus no ethical quandries.

[jasong]

The chip doesnt prevent counterfeiting in any way I can determine. Chinese can still replicate the GPZ circuit board, they can still replicate the DOD design, and they can still replicate the physical design of the case. The chip prevents none of that. It's not like Chinese counterfeiters sell machines with genuine Minelab coils and thus are thwarted because they can't now with the GPZ. Presumably, further, a counterfeit machine wouldnt have the chip authentication so any coil could run on them.

What the chip very effectively prevents is an aftermarket coil from being used without a licensing fee and company approval on a AUTHENTIC machine. Occams razor... it answers basically all the mysteries we've wondered about here.

Unless someone can explain something I've missed regarding the chip doing anything to prevent Chinese counterfeiting. There are already counterfeit GPZs on the market so that would indicate it hasn't.

[Norvic]

If there was IP theft going on, ML would`ve closed X coil down long ago, X coils have been around long enough. Nah this is simply a desperate attempt to stop customers, just go back and read all the varying negatives that have been placed on X coil by MLs only voice, the attempts at discrediting experienced operators right through to "ethical' considerations. Down the track gold will settle this matter conclusively.

[jasong]

If one guy from Russia can make coils then I'm pretty sure the massive Chinese market could find a way to produce a coil too if that was the only stumbling block. 

Plenty of other 3rd party companies have also produced coils for the PI machines along with a ton of hobbyists. There is no way the Chinese couldnt do it too if they wanted, they probably just dont care since the counterfeit machines are generally garbage anyways so what's the point. But properly working coils arent magic voodoo that only Minelab can do properly, they are well within the realm of replication, even for hobbyists. Open up an 11" minelab commander and take a look at the very loose engineering inside them and you will see what I mean.

 

[Norvic]

21 minutes ago, jasong said:

Open up an 11" minelab commander and take a look at the very loose engineering inside them and you will see what I mean.

Or test a Coiltek Extreme Coil on a SDC, my memory tells me we were fed stories of coil matching even right up to when Coiltek notified us of their SDC coils or test a X coil on a GPZ. MLs the worlds dominant gold detector Manufacturer, they also dominate in their PR, they dominate in their dealer network although that must be getting a wee shaky amongst ML loyal dealers with the selling of a lot of their recreation detectors through OZ Chainstores.

In the US can you purchase ML detectors through Chainstores?