New coding method for a state machine in groups in HDL

W

Weng Tianxiang

Guest
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng
 
On 25/11/2019 21:27, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng
Click to expand...

So presumably as you have it patented, you will be requiring money for
anyone to use it?
 
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng
Click to expand...

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.
 
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.
Click to expand...

The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK
 
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:59:38 AM UTC-8, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.


The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK
Click to expand...

Hi MK,
I don't understand your saying "I think it may be up to you to prove
> that you have".

It's USPTO official publication, what do I have to prove?

I have patented not the coding method, but on how to generate the specific circuit that can be grouped with easiest coding method on mind.

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.

Weng
 
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:50:23 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:59:38 AM UTC-8, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.


The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK

Hi MK,
I don't understand your saying "I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have".

It's USPTO official publication, what do I have to prove?

I have patented not the coding method, but on how to generate the specific circuit that can be grouped with easiest coding method on mind.

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.

Weng
Click to expand...

Please let us know when you have success in selling the patent. I assume you would go for a royalty rather than a single payment, or perhaps a combination.

How would you know if a company is using your patented idea in their tools? Enforcement might be the hard part. Heck, how do you know companies aren't using the idea already?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:50:23 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:59:38 AM UTC-8, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.


The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK

Hi MK,
I don't understand your saying "I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have".

It's USPTO official publication, what do I have to prove?

I have patented not the coding method, but on how to generate the specific circuit that can be grouped with easiest coding method on mind.

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.

Weng

Please let us know when you have success in selling the patent. I assume you would go for a royalty rather than a single payment, or perhaps a combination.

How would you know if a company is using your patented idea in their tools? Enforcement might be the hard part. Heck, how do you know companies aren't using the idea already?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Click to expand...

Rick,

What I have done is trivial and not important, and I have patented them for living. What is important is what I am now developing and the final technology will be used by everyone, cellphones, computers and supercomputers, but not for industrial product controllers.

"Please let us know when you have success in selling the patent. " OK.


As an individual inventor, I have no resources to detect any situations as you described: How would you know if a company is using your patented idea in their tools?

What I want to do is to sell the patent once and get money to support my next project that will benefit everyone in the world.
 
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 1:15:54 PM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 7:44:24 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:50:23 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:59:38 AM UTC-8, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.


The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK

Hi MK,
I don't understand your saying "I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have".

It's USPTO official publication, what do I have to prove?

I have patented not the coding method, but on how to generate the specific circuit that can be grouped with easiest coding method on mind.

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.

Weng

Please let us know when you have success in selling the patent. I assume you would go for a royalty rather than a single payment, or perhaps a combination.

How would you know if a company is using your patented idea in their tools? Enforcement might be the hard part. Heck, how do you know companies aren't using the idea already?

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick,

What I have done is trivial and not important, and I have patented them for living. What is important is what I am now developing and the final technology will be used by everyone, cellphones, computers and supercomputers, but not for industrial product controllers.

"Please let us know when you have success in selling the patent. " OK.


As an individual inventor, I have no resources to detect any situations as you described: How would you know if a company is using your patented idea in their tools?

What I want to do is to sell the patent once and get money to support my next project that will benefit everyone in the world.
Click to expand...

If you don't have a way of knowing whether a company is using your patent, why would anyone pay you for it rather than just use it and wait for you to come after them for not paying royalties? That happens often even between large companies. Eventually a company will reverse design a product and find out their patent is infringed. But there has to be a way of knowing if the patent is infringed or not. Otherwise no one will pay for it.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:27:41 PM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.
Click to expand...

KJ: And I suppose you think that this is new or novel or something (Hint: I do not)

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.
Click to expand...

KJ: Current patents that have your name are all assigned only to you. Does that mean you have not sold any patents yet? When somebody does sell a patent, does the assignee have to get updated at USPTO as part of that sale?

Kevin Jennings
 
On 26/11/2019 13:50, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:59:38 AM UTC-8, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.


The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK

Hi MK,
I don't understand your saying "I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have".

It's USPTO official publication, what do I have to prove?

I have patented not the coding method, but on how to generate the specific circuit that can be grouped with easiest coding method on mind.

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.

Weng
Click to expand...

Strewth Weng !

Here you are patenting state machines and you don't seem to get news net
threads.
My comment was to Rob Dickinson, not to you.

MK
 
On 26/11/2019 15:44, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 8:50:23 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 4:59:38 AM UTC-8, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 26/11/2019 12:39, rob dickinson wrote:
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 9:27:41 PM UTC, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine.

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng

Good luck proving that I have never done this before.


The patent has been granted - so I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have :)

(Would you have wanted to ?)

MK

Hi MK,
I don't understand your saying "I think it may be up to you to prove
that you have".

It's USPTO official publication, what do I have to prove?

I have patented not the coding method, but on how to generate the specific circuit that can be grouped with easiest coding method on mind.

Andy,
As an independent inventor, I want to sell the patent to a company to get financial support for my next tens of new exciting inventions.

Weng

Please let us know when you have success in selling the patent. I assume you would go for a royalty rather than a single payment, or perhaps a combination.

How would you know if a company is using your patented idea in their tools? Enforcement might be the hard part. Heck, how do you know companies aren't using the idea already?
Click to expand...

He may be able to sell it to an NPE, although they prefer to buy in bulk.
The way they operate doesn't rely on precise identification of infringement.

Here's a link:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/071515/who-are-patent-trolls-how-do-they-work.asp

Not that good an article but will give you pointers to follow if you are
really interested.

MK
 
If you don't have a way of knowing whether a company is using your patent, why would anyone pay you for it rather than just use it and wait for you to come after them for not paying royalties? That happens often even between large companies. Eventually a company will reverse design a product and find out their patent is infringed. But there has to be a way of knowing if the patent is infringed or not. Otherwise no one will pay for it.

--

Rick C.
Click to expand...

Rick,
I think I will have many many more patents in the future.

My strategy dealing with your infringing cases is very simple:
To any engineer who has solid evidence to prove in court that your current or previous employer has infringed my patents, please cooperate with my company as witness to suit the employer and he/she will get 20% of damaging penalty of court or one time compensation the employer will pay for previous infringement if he agrees to resolve the issue before law suit.

Weng
 
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
If you don't have a way of knowing whether a company is using your patent, why would anyone pay you for it rather than just use it and wait for you to come after them for not paying royalties? That happens often even between large companies. Eventually a company will reverse design a product and find out their patent is infringed. But there has to be a way of knowing if the patent is infringed or not. Otherwise no one will pay for it.

--

Rick C.

Rick,
I think I will have many many more patents in the future.

My strategy dealing with your infringing cases is very simple:
To any engineer who has solid evidence to prove in court that your current or previous employer has infringed my patents, please cooperate with my company as witness to suit the employer and he/she will get 20% of damaging penalty of court or one time compensation the employer will pay for previous infringement if he agrees to resolve the issue before law suit.
Click to expand...

Virtually all employees have to sign non-disclosure agreements these days which would prevent them from coming to you with any information about what the company was working on. If they come to you, they will be held liable for ALL costs the infringing company has to pay you... and all legal fees.

That might put a damper on their willingness to get 20% of what you make.

I think your main problem is what appears to be a total lack of exposure to the engineering work environment. You come up with lots of ideas, but don't seem to understand their utility or lack thereof. It appears that you don't understand the real issues that designers encounter. Designers are not mathematicians or logicians. They don't typically write research papers. They just get their work done.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 9:32:56 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
If you don't have a way of knowing whether a company is using your patent, why would anyone pay you for it rather than just use it and wait for you to come after them for not paying royalties? That happens often even between large companies. Eventually a company will reverse design a product and find out their patent is infringed. But there has to be a way of knowing if the patent is infringed or not. Otherwise no one will pay for it.

--

Rick C.

Rick,
I think I will have many many more patents in the future.

My strategy dealing with your infringing cases is very simple:
To any engineer who has solid evidence to prove in court that your current or previous employer has infringed my patents, please cooperate with my company as witness to suit the employer and he/she will get 20% of damaging penalty of court or one time compensation the employer will pay for previous infringement if he agrees to resolve the issue before law suit.

Virtually all employees have to sign non-disclosure agreements these days which would prevent them from coming to you with any information about what the company was working on. If they come to you, they will be held liable for ALL costs the infringing company has to pay you... and all legal fees..

That might put a damper on their willingness to get 20% of what you make.

I think your main problem is what appears to be a total lack of exposure to the engineering work environment. You come up with lots of ideas, but don't seem to understand their utility or lack thereof. It appears that you don't understand the real issues that designers encounter. Designers are not mathematicians or logicians. They don't typically write research papers. They just get their work done.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Click to expand...

Rick,

You are right in some points, but not all.

Court system has precedence on how it may work.

Chinese Huawei was suited by Cisco company for coping their manuals in their laboratory research department. The proof was provided by a white American engineer previously employed by Huawei. Huawei resolved the suit by paying $500 million to Cosco and what the white American engineer got?

Did not he sign non-disclosure agreement before he joined the company?

Non-disclosure agreement does not shut your employees' mouth up totally, and in law scope it does not cover any illegal activities.

Of cause the employee who would cooperate with me, in most cases, would have left his company before any lawsuit.

Weng
 
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 9:32:56 AM UTC-8, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
If you don't have a way of knowing whether a company is using your patent, why would anyone pay you for it rather than just use it and wait for you to come after them for not paying royalties? That happens often even between large companies. Eventually a company will reverse design a product and find out their patent is infringed. But there has to be a way of knowing if the patent is infringed or not. Otherwise no one will pay for it.

--

Rick C.

Rick,
I think I will have many many more patents in the future.

My strategy dealing with your infringing cases is very simple:
To any engineer who has solid evidence to prove in court that your current or previous employer has infringed my patents, please cooperate with my company as witness to suit the employer and he/she will get 20% of damaging penalty of court or one time compensation the employer will pay for previous infringement if he agrees to resolve the issue before law suit.

Virtually all employees have to sign non-disclosure agreements these days which would prevent them from coming to you with any information about what the company was working on. If they come to you, they will be held liable for ALL costs the infringing company has to pay you... and all legal fees.

That might put a damper on their willingness to get 20% of what you make.

I think your main problem is what appears to be a total lack of exposure to the engineering work environment. You come up with lots of ideas, but don't seem to understand their utility or lack thereof. It appears that you don't understand the real issues that designers encounter. Designers are not mathematicians or logicians. They don't typically write research papers. They just get their work done.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick,

You are right in some points, but not all.

Court system has precedence on how it may work.

Chinese Huawei was suited by Cisco company for coping their manuals in their laboratory research department. The proof was provided by a white American engineer previously employed by Huawei. Huawei resolved the suit by paying $500 million to Cosco and what the white American engineer got?

Did not he sign non-disclosure agreement before he joined the company?

Non-disclosure agreement does not shut your employees' mouth up totally, and in law scope it does not cover any illegal activities.

Of cause the employee who would cooperate with me, in most cases, would have left his company before any lawsuit.

Weng
Click to expand...

Leaving a company does not relieve a person of the responsibility of adhering to the non disclosure agreement. I can't attest to any particular case unless I have the details and there may be some cases where a company won't pursue the matter. But it does tend to be a huge impediment to employees and ex-employees from talking about work.

I stand my my previous statements.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
On Monday, November 25, 2019 at 4:27:41 PM UTC-5, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi everyone,

Welcome all critics from ones who are interested in coding state machine that seems to many as matured, but can be further improved.

Here is a coding snippet for new method you can immediately understand what will happening for coding a state machine.

type State_Machine_t is (
First_group : (s1, s2, s3),
Second_Group : (s4, s5, s6),
Third_Group ; (s7, s8, s9)
);
signal State_Machine, State_Machine_Next : State_Machine_t ;

Here is only one sentence that tells you what you can do with new method:
Any state machine's states can be grouped together in coding in HDL at one's discretion and each group acts like a small state machine sharing a same initial state and all act together as coordinated as a full state machine..

Here is a famous paper about the method with 244 cites, using probability theory:
http://www.scarpaz.com/2100-papers/Low%20Power/00503933.pdf

But my patent describes a new simpler and perfect method using group theory:

Patent:10482208, "Coding and synthesizing a state machine in state groups"

https://patents.justia.com/search?q=tianxiang+weng

Thank KJ for helping me to improve the patent text.

Thank you.

Weng
Click to expand...

Can you compare to this paper which divides states into groups and only activates clocks of active FSMs:

Asynchronous control of low-power gated-clock finite-state-machines

: ICECS'99. Proceedings of ICECS '99. 6th IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems

An efficient approach to reduce power consumption in a synchronous Finite-State Machine (FSM) is to de-compose it, according to a partitioning algorithm, to a number of sub-FSMs that interact through some communication signals. Only one sub-FSM is clocked at a time and low power operation is obtained by only clocking the active sub-FSM. In this paper we introduce a new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs, which reduces the total capacitance switched by the system clock. Experimental results show that this leads to significant power savings when the FSM is partitioned into many sub-FSMs.
 
Can you compare to this paper which divides states into groups and only activates clocks of active FSMs:

Asynchronous control of low-power gated-clock finite-state-machines

: ICECS'99. Proceedings of ICECS '99. 6th IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems

An efficient approach to reduce power consumption in a synchronous Finite-State Machine (FSM) is to de-compose it, according to a partitioning algorithm, to a number of sub-FSMs that interact through some communication signals. Only one sub-FSM is clocked at a time and low power operation is obtained by only clocking the active sub-FSM. In this paper we introduce a new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs, which reduces the total capacitance switched by the system clock. Experimental results show that this leads to significant power savings when the FSM is partitioned into many sub-FSMs.
Click to expand...

Hi dhe,

Thank you for your post. I like your post very much because until now nobody cares about my working principles that are unique and inventive and many experienced designers can learn something from them.

I will return to your post within a few hours after I carefully read the paper.

From your post, I know at least 2 important differences between your post and my method so two methods work for the same function, but use two different principles.

1) Your post: a partitioning algorithm.
My method: partitioning method is at your discretion so you can partition a state machine freely.

2) Your post: a new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs.
My method: No new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs is generated except that only a few "or" and "and" operators are involved so that the logic is simpler than others.

I did not read and know the paper before until now.

Weng
 
On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 2:26:15 PM UTC-8, Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Can you compare to this paper which divides states into groups and only activates clocks of active FSMs:

Asynchronous control of low-power gated-clock finite-state-machines

: ICECS'99. Proceedings of ICECS '99. 6th IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems

An efficient approach to reduce power consumption in a synchronous Finite-State Machine (FSM) is to de-compose it, according to a partitioning algorithm, to a number of sub-FSMs that interact through some communication signals. Only one sub-FSM is clocked at a time and low power operation is obtained by only clocking the active sub-FSM. In this paper we introduce a new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs, which reduces the total capacitance switched by the system clock. Experimental results show that this leads to significant power savings when the FSM is partitioned into many sub-FSMs.


Hi dhe,

Thank you for your post. I like your post very much because until now nobody cares about my working principles that are unique and inventive and many experienced designers can learn something from them.

I will return to your post within a few hours after I carefully read the paper.

From your post, I know at least 2 important differences between your post and my method so two methods work for the same function, but use two different principles.

1) Your post: a partitioning algorithm.
My method: partitioning method is at your discretion so you can partition a state machine freely.

2) Your post: a new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs.
My method: No new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs is generated except that only a few "or" and "and" operators are involved so that the logic is simpler than others.

I did not read and know the paper before until now.

Weng
Click to expand...

Hi dlhe,

Sorry for misspelling your name in my last response to you.

The paper uses another paper's probability theory to generate group scheme.

Their method uses an asynchronous transition state machine to generate related clock gating signals and my method uses combination of state jumping signals to generate related clock gating signals.

Working principles of the present invention:
1) A piece of combinational logic is defined as a jumping signal for a state machine, and each jumping signal has the following characteristics:
a) A jumping signal has a current state.
b) A jumping signal has a target state.
c) A jumping signal has a transfer function that doesn’t include information of the state machine.
d) A jumping signal is deasserted if input signal SINI is asserted.
e) One and only one jumping signal is asserted on any cycle after the state machine is initialized.
f) If a jumping signal is asserted on the current cycle, the state machine will jump from the jumping signal’s current state to its target state on the next cycle.
2) All states are grouped into one or more State Groups (SGs) by a designer or a synthesizer, and an SG may have from one state to all states in the state machine.
3) Attach each of SGs with a clock gating device.
4) Define a jumping signal as a true jumping signal for an SG if the jumping signal’s current state and target state are different, and the target state belongs to the SG.
5) Feed each state of an SG with all true jumping signals whose target state is that state.
6) An SG will change states on the next cycle if the SG has at least one of the currently asserted jumping signal’s current state or target state, and the current state and the target state are 2 different states.
7) Generate a clock pulse to each of SGs on the next cycle when either input signal SINI is asserted on the current cycle or the SG will change states on the next cycle.

I copy this paragraph from my patent's specification.

Weng
 
Hi dhe,

Thank you for your post. I like your post very much because until now nobody cares about my working principles that are unique and inventive and many experienced designers can learn something from them.

I will return to your post within a few hours after I carefully read the paper.

From your post, I know at least 2 important differences between your post and my method so two methods work for the same function, but use two different principles.

1) Your post: a partitioning algorithm.
My method: partitioning method is at your discretion so you can partition a state machine freely.

2) Your post: a new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs.
My method: No new asynchronous communication control for the interacting sub-FSMs is generated except that only a few "or" and "and" operators are involved so that the logic is simpler than others.

I did not read and know the paper before until now.

Weng

Hi dlhe,

Sorry for misspelling your name in my last response to you.

The paper uses another paper's probability theory to generate group scheme.

Their method uses an asynchronous transition state machine to generate related clock gating signals and my method uses combination of state jumping signals to generate related clock gating signals.

Working principles of the present invention:
1) A piece of combinational logic is defined as a jumping signal for a state machine, and each jumping signal has the following characteristics:
a) A jumping signal has a current state.
b) A jumping signal has a target state.
c) A jumping signal has a transfer function that doesn’t include information of the state machine.
d) A jumping signal is deasserted if input signal SINI is asserted.
e) One and only one jumping signal is asserted on any cycle after the state machine is initialized.
f) If a jumping signal is asserted on the current cycle, the state machine will jump from the jumping signal’s current state to its target state on the next cycle.
2) All states are grouped into one or more State Groups (SGs) by a designer or a synthesizer, and an SG may have from one state to all states in the state machine.
3) Attach each of SGs with a clock gating device.
4) Define a jumping signal as a true jumping signal for an SG if the jumping signal’s current state and target state are different, and the target state belongs to the SG.
5) Feed each state of an SG with all true jumping signals whose target state is that state.
6) An SG will change states on the next cycle if the SG has at least one of the currently asserted jumping signal’s current state or target state, and the current state and the target state are 2 different states.
7) Generate a clock pulse to each of SGs on the next cycle when either input signal SINI is asserted on the current cycle or the SG will change states on the next cycle.

I copy this paragraph from my patent's specification.

Weng
Click to expand...

Hi dlhe,

You may be confused by above description, here are more definitions which are bases for developing my method fully and systematically.

12) A jumping signal is defined as a true jumping signal for an SG if the jumping signal’s current state and target state are different, and its target state belongs to the SG.

13) A true jumping signal is called an entry jumping signal for an SG if the SG does not have the true jumping signal’s current state.

14) A true jumping signal is called a local jumping signal for an SG if the SG has the true jumping signal’s current state.

15) A jumping signal is called a leaving jumping signal for an SG if the SG has the jumping signal’s current state and does not have its target state.

16) A jumping signal is called a crossing jumping signal for a state machine if the jumping signal’s current state and target state belong to 2 different SGs.

17) A crossing jumping signal belongs to two SGs: a) the SG has the crossing jumping signal’s current state and the crossing jumping signal is used as a leaving jumping signal for the SG; and b) if the SG has the crossing jumping signal’s target state and the crossing jumping signal is used as an entry jumping signal for the SG.

18) A jumping signal is called a holding jumping signal for an SG if the SG has the jumping signal’s current state and target state, and both are the same.

19) An SG is said to have a currently asserted jumping signal on the current cycle if the currently asserted jumping signal belongs to the SG.

Using different combinations of all jumping signals belonging to a SG, one can generate different simplest circuits to finish the job.

Weng
 
> Using different combinations of all jumping signals belonging to a SG, one can generate different simplest circuits to finish the job. 

For years now you've made these same claims about your state machines without providing any evidence to back the claim. During those years I've provided evidence showing your claims to be false. I doubt there will be anything different this time since it appears to be more of the same.

Kevin Jennings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top