R7 firmware

davidc502

Avoiding Speeding Tickets
Beginner User
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
568
Reaction score
698
Location
Tennessee
I'm not going to bother digging it up, but someone in the know said that wasn't the patent in question. I seem to remember one that expired 2020 that was not the auto-lockout patent.
 

TheSkyIsFalling

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
1,270
Reaction score
1,664
I don't believe you understand the 1:1 signal relationship thing well enough in that scenario. It would have to be the same frequency, nearly the same strength, and there's a directional component too. This is different than a simple 24.116 signal can replace a 24.116 signal. If the signal is stronger than it was in previous passes it will alert as well.
I don’t u understand that bigger picture I’m saying here or if u do. U don’t want to say it. Mike Murphy’s. If a false alert area was inoperative on a day of the legit source that matched the lockout criteria. A user nabbed would be nailed.

Again what I’m saying is. No application seems full proof. Just the likely hood of it happening.
 

Riptide

Recovering M3 Addict
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
6,693
Reaction score
1,693
I'm not going to bother digging it up, but someone in the know said that wasn't the patent in question. I seem to remember one that expired 2020 that was not the auto-lockout patent.
That patent expires in 2020 and if you read even just the abstract its definitely related to lockouts. Lmk if you can dig up what you think is the actual patent in question.
 

BlueV1

"Good News Everyone!" -Hubert J. Farnsworth
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
6,978
Location
Western NC
I don’t u understand that bigger picture I’m saying here or if u do. U don’t want to say it. Mike Murphy’s. If a false alert area was inoperative on a day of the legit source that matched the lockout criteria. A user nabbed would be nailed.

Again what I’m saying is. No application seems full proof. Just the likely hood of it happening.
Speech to text possibly? ;)
If there is a truth about this, and it goes against what I want it to be, I'm still going to speak the truth if I'm aware. It's the responsible thing to do for others.

What we are saying is that the signal would have to match in many ways to be mistaken for the door opener signal. It's more than just frequency at 8 MHz tolerance. There are a lot of settings. Perhaps you should look at them sometime.
 

wjbertrand

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
106
Reaction score
116
Location
Ventura, CA
That patent issued in 2003. The US patent office used to grant patents for 17 years from date of issue. I forget what year they changed that to 20 years from date of application which was 2000 in this case. Whichever applies to this one, if it is the one blocking Uniden, don't hold your breath. It won't expire until at the earliest June 14 and at the latest not until December next year. Assuming this is the THE patent, the only way Uniden could offer the technology disclosed before then would be to agree to a licensing arrangement with Escort. Given the competitiveness of the market and short duration of coverage left, I doubt either Escort or Uniden are interested in a license deal.

I think auto lock outs would be nice but not in the way Escort executed them in the 9500ix I have. There is unfortunately an auto unlock feature as well. On my commute there is myriad TSR drones that switch on and off. The likelihood of a particular source being switched on every time you pass is is evidently small so they don't tend to get locked out automatically. I think the 9500ix (can't speak for other Escort GPS RDs) needs to see the signal there 3 times in a row before automatically locking it out. Worse, because of the auto unlocking, the falses will reappear, even after manually locking them out. The 9500ix has an algorithm that unlocks a previously locked signal if you pass that location (can't remember if it's once or more than once) and there's no signal present. The 9500ix ended up being a game of whack-a-mole for me. I'd rather manually mark the falses and have them remain marked. I wonder how Uniden will do it? Allow auto & manual lockouts, with no auto unlock - now we're talking.
 
Last edited:

Riptide

Recovering M3 Addict
Advanced User
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
6,693
Reaction score
1,693
That patent issued in 2003. The US patent office used to grant patents for 17 years from date of issue. I forget what year they changed that to 20 years from date of application which was 2000 in this case. Whichever applies to this one, if it is the one blocking Uniden, don't hold your breath. It won't expire until at the earliest June 14 and at the latest not until December next year. Assuming this is the THE patent, the only way Uniden could offer the technology disclosed before then would be to agree to a licensing arrangement with Escort. Given the competitiveness of the market and short duration of coverage left, I doubt either Escort or Uniden are interested in a license deal.
When I ask google when patents expire:
According to the “twenty-year term,” U.S. patents (other than design patents) issued from applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, have a term beginning on the date of patent issue and ending on the date that is 20 years from the earlier of its filing date or that of a prior U.S. non-provisional or PCT application
If I'm understanding that correctly then expiration would be 20 years from filing, thus June 14th 2020. This corresponds with the anticipated expiration listed by Google on the link above.

Seems fairly straightforward to me. Not sure where the mass of confusion in this thread is coming from.

I see no reason to expect automatic lockouts on the R7 until after 14/06/2020
 

Brainstorm69

TXCTG 2016 MOTY
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
May 23, 2015
Messages
9,340
Reaction score
20,013
Location
Lone Star State
Nevermind...someone already stole my thunder. Teach me not to read the whole thread before posting. lol
 
Last edited:

GotWake

Speed Kills
Advanced User
Joined
Jun 4, 2011
Messages
10,726
Reaction score
10,271
Location
NC
So, do people really ride past a k band source 3-4 times without just locking it out? I just think of the autolockout feature as something for newbies that really don't know what they are doing. I know, I know "Dadgum Uniden promised it!!!!"

Another thing you guys better think about with autolockouts is the little problems that creep up. One time, I watched my STIR+ lockout a Va deputy riding down the highway blasting his C/O K band. It's a "feature" that I would turn off the moment they include it.
 

KnightHawk

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
334
Reaction score
327
Location
Somewhere Out There
IMO, it's the only way to do lockouts in K band country. Auto-lockouts on JBV1 are narrow (+/- 8MHz), and enforce a 1:1 signal to lockout ratio. That means if JBV1 locks out a stationary false at 24.154, and the next day there is a LEO parked near the lock out location running a K band gun at 24.154, the detector will alert because it sees the second signal and only has a stored lockout for one signal at that frequency. AFAIK it's the only detector capable of this.
Some hardcore V1 users are just having a hard time distinguishing an orange from an apple. They are having a hard time accepting the facts that the V1 is the noisiest radar detector from the factory no matter what your settings and programming are among other radar detectors in the industry. If you look at the V1's manual, the features are non existent. Don't get me wrong. I am glad for V1 users and JBV1 came up with a solution to make the V1 a quiet detector. But it is also very important not to make false claims, false information and misrepresentation of a product. Seriously, we have to be discrete in putting out information around here and this is just a bad example. The JBV1 or the V1 cannot exist without the other in terms of the features you are claiming it can do.

Which would you prefer in an area with active K band use: having to remember every stationary false location and keep an eye out for signals you don't recognize, track the ramp up, and spend time looking around trying to determine whether it is a threat, or have your detector quiet all the time unless there is a new signal it hasn't seen before?
I will prefer this. But, you will never find a radar detector at the present time that will do that from the factory. All the claims you are stating is not because of the radar detector's features and capabilities but rather, it is the 3rd party app that is doing it for the V1
Post automatically merged:
I don't believe you understand the 1:1 signal relationship thing well enough in that scenario. It would have to be the same frequency, nearly the same strength, and there's a directional component too. This is different than a simple 24.116 signal can replace a 24.116 signal. If the signal is stronger than it was in previous passes it will alert as well.
Again, it is not the radar detector that is doing the processing but the 3rd party app. The V1 and the JBV1 cannot exist without the other in terms of the capabilities and features of what you guys are claiming.
 
Last edited:

KnightHawk

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
334
Reaction score
327
Location
Somewhere Out There
As InsipidMonkey said, it works great in K-band areas.
Attached is a histogram showing all of my K-band hits (almost 90,000 miles worth) as well as the percentage of those that are locked out.
This is across 5-7 states that I travel in. Also note at the bottom that I get way more K-band than all of Ka combined.
This should state what the JBV1 can do. Not the V1. Just love what the JBV1 can do. But do I really need all that information? No. I want the simplest and fewer information I can get to go by and get away from the situation. Looking back on how many lockouts, maps, coordinates is just unnecessary for me. I want to deal with the current situation, forget the past and looking forward to the next encounter.
 

BlueV1

"Good News Everyone!" -Hubert J. Farnsworth
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
6,978
Location
Western NC
We aren't bringing up the V1. We are talking about lockouts and how they relate to the R7 firmware and R7 expectations. :offtopic:
 

KnightHawk

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
334
Reaction score
327
Location
Somewhere Out There
We aren't bringing up the V1. We are talking about lockouts and how they relate to the R7 firmware and R7 expectations. :offtopic:
Seriuosly, would you expect that coming out from a stand alone radar detector? Talking about the claims that the JBV1 can do? Would you want to pay for a radar detector that will be close to $1000? Now a days, our phones are like computers that can process a lot of information with an app. It could possibly happen some day. But that is a long long way to go. I would prefer to just have a phone that has radar detection capabilities in the future rather than having a stand alone radar detector with the capabilities your are claiming a JBV1 can do when that time comes.
 

BlueV1

"Good News Everyone!" -Hubert J. Farnsworth
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
6,978
Location
Western NC
Seriuosly, would you expect that coming out from a stand alone radar detector? Talking about the claims that the JBV1 can do? Would you want to pay for a radar detector that will be close to $1000?
If we are talking about a method of auto-lockouts with a reasonable portion of those capabilities, I do think it's possible.

It's more than we can get into here but essentially it all comes down to stacked logic operations. Add some storage to save lockout info and perhaps a CPU (or share clock cycles with a reasonable CPU that does other stuff) and it could be possible.

everything currently fits in our flat phones, why couldn't a handful of crucial parts fit in the case of an RD?

Depending on features and options, some of us may very well be willing to pay $1000.

Decent auto-lockout rules and logic could be hard-coded instead of programmed into a multi-purpose CPU and it could likely be even faster if running native code. What does 32 GB cost these days?
 

KnightHawk

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
334
Reaction score
327
Location
Somewhere Out There
If we are talking about a method of auto-lockouts with a reasonable portion of those capabilities, I do think it's possible.

It's more than we can get into here but essentially it all comes down to stacked logic operations. Add some storage to save lockout info and perhaps a CPU (or share clock cycles with a reasonable CPU that does other stuff) and it could be possible.

everything currently fits in our flat phones, why couldn't a handful of crucial parts fit in the case of an RD?

Depending on features and options, some of us may very well be willing to pay $1000.

Decent auto-lockout rules and logic could be hard-coded instead of programmed into a multi-purpose CPU and it could likely be even faster if running native code. What does 32 GB cost these days?
With the 1:1 feature, that's a lot to ask for and expect from a radar detector company. Storage is not a problem. It is processing the information, programming, components needed to complete the task that are not easy to do and cost more that storage itself. It is easy for us to say it but is hard to implement on a product. Would you think that the current software/hardware of the R7 is capable of doing what you want Uniden to do? I don't think so. Those features mentioned however are great ideas.
I don't believe you understand the 1:1 signal relationship thing well enough in that scenario. It would have to be the same frequency, nearly the same strength, and there's a directional component too. This is different than a simple 24.116 signal can replace a 24.116 signal. If the signal is stronger than it was in previous passes it will alert as well.
 
Last edited:

BlueV1

"Good News Everyone!" -Hubert J. Farnsworth
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
6,978
Location
Western NC
Embedded instructions are everywhere today. I don't think it would be a stretch.

If we keep saying that it's too hard for detector manufacturers to provide improvements like this, they aren't going to rise to the level where they should be. Almost all of the built-in lockout methods are very simple. It appears that they are afterthoughts.
We are seeing claims from Radenso that seem to support this assertion.

No, I don't think the R7 can do this and that's a shame for an MSRP of $599.

BTW, I checked on my JBV1 storage usage. This is interesting. The entire app, and all of my data consumes less than 64 MB. Surely 4 GB would be enough.

Perhaps we need a lockout theory thread where we can get more in-depth.
 

Attachments

DC Fluid

Dreaming of a warm dry summer!
Beginner User
Joined
Jun 7, 2019
Messages
611
Reaction score
795
Location
Prince George BC
What we need is Bluetooth connectivity of a stand alone RD that connects to OEM dashboard displays, with its manufacturer supplied app, so you can totally hide the detector from view, and control the device and extra features right from the automobile dashboard.
No auxiliary phone devices.
This helps comply with all hands free legislation and gives mega real estate to screen display/controls.
Imagine 3" arrows on your 10" display.....
Please move this to the fantasy thread.
 

KnightHawk

Learning to Drive
General User
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
334
Reaction score
327
Location
Somewhere Out There
Embedded instructions are everywhere today. I don't think it would be a stretch.

If we keep saying that it's too hard for detector manufacturers to provide improvements like this, they aren't going to rise to the level where they should be. Almost all of the built-in lockout methods are very simple. It appears that they are afterthoughts.
We are seeing claims from Radenso that seem to support this assertion.

No, I don't think the R7 can do this and that's a shame for an MSRP of $599.

BTW, I checked on my JBV1 storage usage. This is interesting. The entire app, and all of my data consumes less than 64 MB. Surely 4 GB would be enough.

Perhaps we need a lockout theory thread where we can get more in-depth.
Possibly in the future. But what I am saying is that, we need not to expect sooo much, tooo much or being unrealistic of what the current software/hardware of the R7 can do right now. At this point, there are limitations as to what Uniden can do with the R7's features with it's current platform.

Best thing that Uniden can do in the future as DC Fluid stated is to add BT connectivity to do the other functions without sacrificing too much hardware/software changes.
 

BlueV1

"Good News Everyone!" -Hubert J. Farnsworth
Advanced User
Lifetime Premium Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
6,978
Location
Western NC
Perhaps like I suggested this alone would make a good Lockout Theory thread.
I truly don't see how hard it would be for any manufacturer to do a better job at handling lockouts.
Uniden makes scanners that have a bunch more "logic" functions in them that their RDs do.

Keep in mind, everything JBV1 does was put in there by one guy with a day job.
 

larrymz3

Learning to Fly
Beginner User
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
64
Reaction score
41
Age
49
Still nothing! If no auto lockouts how about at least fixing MRCD which is basically worthless? Maybe clean up some of the issues identified in the bugs thread?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Discord Server

Latest threads

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
78,465
Messages
1,194,277
Members
19,998
Latest member
bigcat
Top