Re: Re: Rationale behind InAll?

[Guest guest]

Thanks Emmanuel.

Beats me how anyone can be allowed to patent such things. Where would counselling be if one was allowed to patent empathy or open ended questioning? Patenting devices I understand.

Mark

Re: Rationale behind InAll?

The montage of Inall protocol is one frontal site referenced to aneutral site like earlobe.The the protocol is described in the patent avalaible at the followinglink :http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2 & Sect2=HITOFF & p=1 & u=/netahtml/search-bool.html & r=1 & f=G & l=50 & co1=AND & d=ptxt & s1=5,983,129.WKU. & OS=PN/5,983,129 & RS=PN/5,983,129(patent nb 5,983,129)The location of the active electrode is described this way :>The preferred location for detecting a signal emitted from anindividual's body is from the frontal or fronto-central midlineportion of the individual's brain at or near locations on theindividual's head typically referred to as FCz, Fz, AFz and FPz, whereconcentration or single-pointed focus of attention on an object by theindividual causes organized brainwave patterns to diminish inintensity. In general, detection of the desired signal can occurwithin an area bounded by two lines, each running between the twoearlobes, one passing through the shallowest portion of the nose (thenasion) and one passing through a point one inch forward of thehighest, most central part of the head (the vertex). But I don't know if Jon Cowan uses any location in this area when hedoes training or if he sticks to a specific one.Emmanuel>> What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I tried to > look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only find a > mention of fp1 being the other site.> > Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate cortex was > not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's no > reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).> > I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up the fp1 > as the other site now to see if there is any difference in results.> > Tommi>

[Guest guest]

In China?

(Not replied to all, as this is completely off topic)

Mark

Re: Rationale behind InAll?

where would society be if the government did not protect intellectual property the way that it protects real property? sorry for going off topic> >> > What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I tried to > > look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only find a > > mention of fp1 being the other site.> > > > Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate cortex was > > not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's no > > reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).> > > > I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up the fp1 > > as the other site now to see if there is any difference in results.> > > > Tommi> >> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

In this instance to claim it as individual property is bogus.Given a limited set of potential sites and combinations for training we could all posit a training protocol and patent it and lock down the field.

Mark

Re: Rationale behind InAll?

where would society be if the government did not protect intellectual property the way that it protects real property? sorry for going off topic> >> > What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I tried to > > look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only find a > > mention of fp1 being the other site.> > > > Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate cortex was > > not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's no > > reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).> > > > I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up the fp1 > > as the other site now to see if there is any difference in results.> > > > Tommi> >> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

I'm not an expert in the field. But I fully believe that intellectual rights should be able to be patented. The problem I see with biofeedback design patenting is that many, if not most, of these designs are already out in the public domain. The patent holders would need to go back 15 years to retroactively patent the designs. Don't know about the noted one below. The current designs we see are only "variations on the theme" and so would not apply. In addition, I've got to wonder about the ten20 stated locations being specific. How far (or close) would a new design need to be to infringe? If this is stated in the patent, please let me know.

-- A

Do Something Useful

Re: Rationale behind InAll?

where would society be if the government did not protect intellectual property the way that it protects real property? sorry for going off topic> >> > What do people here think of Jon Cowan's InAll protocol? I tried to > > look around what the exact montage he uses is, but could only find a > > mention of fp1 being the other site.> > > > Recently on the biofeedback list he said that the cingulate cortex was > > not part of the thalamocortical loop and implied that there's no > > reason to use that site (if I understood him correctly).> > > > I've been training T3/T4 for hot temporals but I will take up the fp1 > > as the other site now to see if there is any difference in results.> > > > Tommi> >> > > > > > >