If convinced these can be made so cheaply why not just do it, undercut AMB and be a success. Do a decoder box too to help out tracks and clubs and get that business as well. Preferably compatible with the AMB system.

I’m serious, seize the opportunity and live the dream.

Dave's right. I've got the decoder and transponder designs complete and tested. You just need to add money and business acumen. PM me if interested.

MRT already knows that my designs are available for them. Actually, I have made the hardware designs free for anyone to use.

Actually it's not the fact that the "clones" share a similar electronics design, it's the fact that they are illegally copying the codes the transponder emit! These are most likely copyrighted. It would be like copying a copyrighted DVD movie. The DVD disk itself can be made by anyone but the contents, the movie, is protected.

MyLaps transponders codes are unique, there's only one with that number. I have never understood why anyone needs multiple pt's with the same number! Having multiple same number pt's is not that great for the software running our races. Having a unique number tells the software "this is Bob's pt for this class". MyLaps has taken the same number for the pt's a bit further by adding a unique last digit. The first 7 digits are the same with a different last digit.

The transmitted information is not copyrighted.

It is quite likely that the microprocessor program is copyrighted. In this case, the copyright notice must appear either on the microprocessor itself or be embedded within the program. The latter is standard practice.

The MRT transponders don't use the same type of microprocessor, and therefore do not infringe since the program is necessarily different.

The fact is that whoever makes clones copy the code, program, whatever you want to call it from an existing MyLaps/AMB transponders and doesn't create their own codes, programs, whatever you want to call it and can't stand on their own merits makes whoever makes clones asshats!

come on hobby king make some transponders.

So much for civility and logic. I was hoping for a meaningful conversation.

Not quite sure how to have a civil discussion about a product that is probably or at least borderline illegal! The cloners have either found a loophole, MyLaps feels that pursuing legal action not worth their time across international boundaries or both.

Face it....MyLaps RC division is probably less than 10% of their market now. They could phase it out and not even feel it. It's probably just the nostalgia that RC is what started their business!

But one thing for sure is this is a matter that has effected all RC racers where it hurts....the wallet!

What car, motor, speed control, battery, radio, charger, etc do you use?

Anyone who would build a transponder that does the same thing as a mylaps transponder is legit as long as they re-create what a mylaps transponder is doing, instead of tearing one apart and copying embedded software and the hardware. One is not allowed to crack/hack/copy/reverse engineer what mylaps is doing, but when you can create something yourself that does the same thing it's legal. Unless you have a patented "I have a small piece of hardware that is detected by a loop in a race track". That's how Dutch law works and since Mylaps is based there that's how it is. And hence they never sued MRT.

There is only one big problem with mylaps: They sell loops with decoders for tracks (not only rc) and they sell matching transponders. Their system works great, there's no denying that. That's why every track I ever ran on uses a mylaps system. It just works.

But because of that they can ask whatever they want for their transponders, you don't have a choice. If you want to use something else, what can you do? It's not like you can go against the flow on your own, you need your entire club to switch, and if you race at different tracks you still need the mylaps transponder.

When PC's/Windows/Internet Explorer was dominant, people could opt for a Linux or Apple based computer and start changes on their own. We can't.

The price of their transponders is not only hardware, which is close to nothing. R&D? Yes, of course, but they figured out "transponding" ages ago. At the Rotterdam Marathon you receive a transponder to put on your shoe. It's included in the entree fee, which is for partial marathons about 10 euro.

In the end they can charge basically whatever they feel they can get away with for their transponders. My local track runs mylaps and every other track I go to as well. I have one option and mylaps have shown it's power that they can shut down that one other option whenever they feel like. That's not a healthy situation.

But even though with some velcro you can run multiple classes with just one transponder, and they last forever, they work great and mylaps sponsors a lot of events.
Mylaps transponders are one overpriced piece of kit.

That might make sense except for one small detail. If you want a clone made you must send them your MyLaps pt. Why do you have to send them your pt? Why do all the transponders they sell use an existing MyLaps code, program whatever you want to call it? Could you possibly say they are copying that "embedded software" and not creating ther own codes, programs or whatever you call it? Why can't they create their own codes that would work with MyLaps decoders? Might be illegal?

I don't know this from first hand info but it was mentioned in the thread on the RC4 upgrade (earlier this year) that MyLaps did sue MRT and lost the case.

If you had taken the time and energy to read Howard Cano's thread on developing his own transponders you would understand why you have to send an AMB transponder to MRT for cloning and that it has nothing to do with copying MyLaps code or hardware.

But since you didn't, I will explain it to you.... (though I won't be able to understand it for you):

No one, AFAIK knows the correspondence between a transponder number (the 7 digits you see written on a MyLaps transponder) and the encoding of the signal a transponder generates. So in order for MRT to make a clone transponder that reads your number, they must read the signal.

They are not reading the code or the program or taking anything apart, they are just reading the signal, so they can reproduce that signal in the cloned transponder. Then they create their own program to produce that signal, and load it into the computer inside the cloned transponder. That way, the clone will show up with your number when it is read by the decoder.

The reason that MyLaps was able to disable the original MRT transponders with the RC4 upgrade is that the state transitions inside the signal were not exactly the same as in AMB/MyLaps transponders. This shows that MRT did not copy AMB hardware or program. So the RC4 Decoder started filtering based on the signal state transitions as well as the data values encoded in the signal.

MRT figured this out and changed their hardware so that the transitions, as well as the data values more closely matched the original signal they recorded when reading the transponder for cloning. This meant the RC4 could no longer detect them as being different from original AMB transponders. This is evidenced by the three "New System" MRT transponders I have that work fine with RC4 decoders.

That's the explanation of why they are not copying MyLaps hardware or software. Understanding is up to you.

Ok, I think I understand now. They read the signal so they can reproduce that signal. So with my limited knowledge of these things I confused reproduce with copy!

Don't I feel a bit foolish!

"Reproducing" a signal is not "copying" software. I guess you really don't understand.

Because only MyLaps knows the encryption codes and algorithms to get get the signal from the 7 digit number (and the 7 digit number back from the signal). The signal is not simply the 7 digit number otherwise MRT would not need to read the signal.

If it was illegal to make something that would broadcast the signal, a lawsuit would have worked to get MRT to cease and desist.

In the simplest terms, MRT is simply making a second device which broadcasts the same signal as the first device.

I guess you know that when you quote someones post and you add your own text to that quoted persons post it could be considered a no no?

"Originally Posted by Bob Malphurs
Ok, I think I understand now. They read the signal so they can reproduce that signal. So with my limited knowledge of these things I confused reproduce with copy!

Here you implied they are copying embedded software:

Don't I feel a bit foolish!"
I suspect you'll edit your post and put your comment outside the quote!

Call it what you will....copy says I!