Invention, innovation and patent law

[Victor Rubilar]

to mister Larry:  would you tell us why your wireless tx dont have an internal back up recorder? or is it to much an intromission? It is an exelent feature.

 

I just saw that only the tascam lav beltpack is not for sell in USA, but the XLR version seems to be available, at least at tascam web site, I think the only diference between both units is the  type of mic suport.

[johnpaul215]

Apple

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

You are 100% wrong.

The term "Patent troll" is used for a company, or person, that does not actually make anything and never has. They slip through, or buy, some vague patents. Wait till another company builds something they can try to claim infringement over, and have lawyers file papers. Often they want a quick "license fee" (shakedown). Most of the corporate addresses of these companies are really an empty office in Texas. For whatever reason, there's a judge in Texas known to side with these parasites, and there are office buildings where nobody actually comes in to work. It's just a physical address so they can file in the jurisdiction of this judge. This is one of the things stifling innovation in the USA these days. Plus, companies spending tons of time and money defending their products. It's bad enough that a small startup can be sued out of existence as soon as they ship a product.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two

[OmahaAudio]

I refer you to George Harrison about He's so Fine, which he accidentally  rewrote as My Sweet Lord...

Accidentally? Maybe, maybe not.

In an case, he should have realized his error and settled very early.

[Mirror]

You are 100% wrong.

The term "Patent troll" is used for a company, or person, that does not actually make anything and never has. They slip through, or buy, some vague patents. Wait till another company builds something they can try to claim infringement over, and have lawyers file papers. Often they want a quick "license fee" (shakedown). Most of the corporate addresses of these companies are really an empty office in Texas. For whatever reason, there's a judge in Texas known to side with these parasites, and there are office buildings where nobody actually comes in to work. It's just a physical address so they can file in the jurisdiction of this judge. This is one of the things stifling innovation in the USA these days. Plus, companies spending tons of time and money defending their products. It's bad enough that a small startup can be sued out of existence as soon as they ship a product.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/when-patents-attack-part-two

 

The judge sides with them because they are not breaking any laws.  They own the patent, plain and simple.  They can argue if the product infringes on the the patent but chances are that they do in some way or the trolls wouldn't put forth much effort.  You can argue if it's a sleezy way to make a living.  My answer is yes.  They are suers. They look to sue, much like class action lawyers.

[Chris Woodcock]

You are 100% wrong.

The term "Patent troll" is used for a company, or person, that does not actually make anything and never has. They slip through, or buy, some vague patents. Wait till another company builds something they can try to claim infringement over, and have lawyers file papers. Often they want a quick "license fee" (shakedown). Most of the corporate addresses of these companies are really an empty office in Texas. For whatever reason, there's a judge in Texas known to side with these parasites, and there are office buildings where nobody actually comes in to work. It's just a physical address so they can file in the jurisdiction of this judge. This is one of the things stifling innovation in the USA these days.

So what was Apple with the Rockstar consortium if not trolls? They didn't invent any of the patents yet had suits out within a week of purchase?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[johnpaul215]

My point exactly, Apple (and others like Microsoft and Sony) are not part of that company, they have to send them checks to license their IP. The Rockstar consortium, from my understanding was the remains of a company called Nortel that owned patents in regards to cellphones. Things Nortel secured when they were building things. Apple and a few other companies making cell phones have to license a bunch of IP from Rockstar. Nortel went from being an actual company to a "NPE" (non-practicing entity). They use NPE as a way to say a company went from actually building physical things to a bunch of patents and a legal team to monetize them. As in, sell the factory and reduce the physical footprint of a conpany that used to have factories and employees and now they are a filing cabinet in an office somewhere. For whatever reason Google tried to avoid "joining the consortium" and has been sued. This isn't Apple vs Google, this is a lawyer from Rockstar going after Google (and many more phone makers). I'm not clear if their patents are hardware or software, but they have gone after Google and Samsung (among others) over phone stuff. As you know, at the end of the day the company is going to do the math to figure out if it's easier and cheaper to settle as opposed to fighting something in court. That's why there is this bigger discussion of software patents and should the system change because it's crippling innovation in many cases when you bring these NPEs into it.

This sad situation of going from a company making things to a NPE is what many people expected to happen to Kodak. I don't remember how that worked out but somebody was trying to secure the Kodak patents for digital photography and immediately do what Rockstar did to every cellphone company that has a camera, and every digital camera out there. Kind of sad because Kodak and Apple jointly did a LOT of groundbreaking work on digital cameras. Eventually Apple legally let go of their claims to the IP and worked out a long term deal with Kodak. I forget what year this was and who was running Apple (not Jobs), but it was post the Apple QuickTake digital camera. The QuickTake was considered the first consumer digital camera and was manufactured by Kodak, but a joint apple / Kodak team developed it.

Apple having aggressive lawyers to protect their IP is different than a company that has literally never produced a single product. Like I said, "Patent troll" (they like to call themselves NPEs, but they never made anything) is applied to a company that has no R&D division (they usually buy these patents in bankruptcy situations), no real employees, no products, no services. The only thing they have is a lawyer buying and filing patents, and suing other companies for actually trying to build something. The term can't really be applied to Apple, Microsoft, Google, Lectrosonics, Zaxcom, Chrysler, etc.

[Jeff Wexler]

Thank you, johnpaul, it's a lot of work explaining these things and you have done a wonderful job! I love it when JWSOUND can be so educational, lifting up our collective knowledge of things which we otherwise might be basically clueless. I truly appreciate the efforts of so many of our members who take the time and energy to make such thoughtful posts.

[studiomprd]

JP: " Like I said, "Patent troll" (they like to call themselves NPEs, but they never made anything) "

might another name for them be "inventors" ??  "inventors' agencies" ?? maybe..?

there are also companies that inventors send there inventions to and these companies do the patenting and licensing business stuff for them...

I'm suggesting that there are a lot of aspects to this stuff, and it doesn't always boil down to "good vs evil"...

[RottenCarcass]

It's all business. Dollars and cents. The merit of a case often has no bearing. A company may use patent law to slow down a competitor even though their patent is not being infringed. You make the competitor come to the market late - you gain a year or more and maybe gain time to develop your own product and then be well positioned in the market, or in the simplest case, just gain another year of earnings without having a product that competes. They can ask for injunctions and get them. How is a judge supposed to know the technical ins and outs of every kind of tech there is? It's impossible. So games are played. It costs so much to defend an often meritless suit, and rarely are attorney fees reimbursed upon winning, not to mention the loss of time, focus and energy while a lawsuit is dragging on. Those with less money simply can't afford to play even if they are in the right. Guess how that impacts innovation, competition, the consumer and the economy. 

 

The idea behind patents and copyright is to grant the inventor or rights holder a limited monopoly to encourage innovation that benefits society and the economy. Therefore congress sets the terms of that monopoly carefully to balance rights on both sides - the rights holders and the consumers. Because in its natural state, there is no such thing as patents or copyright - people can copy or imitate the moment you release a product. You need government to bring the force of law to bear to make that monopoly. Which of course can be abused. Note, btw. that we chose not to patent or copyright everything - for example, there is no copyrighting design in fashion or design in architecture (although, obviously you can copyright the *depiction* of a particular building etc.). Somehow, neither fashion nor architecture seem to be suffering from a lack of innovation. There is a discussion as to whether we need patents in software - or is it a net loss for society to try to have patents there. As you can see, there is nothing "natural" about patents and copyright - it's all up to how we as a society decide how much if any of it is *good* for us, since again, without such regulation, the natural state is for anybody to imitate and copy and there is *nothing* wrong with it - only we as a society can decide - *decide* - that we do want to limit copying, but that's subject to re-evaluation. We could abolish it all tomorrow and the world would go on. Would it be better or worse? That's what we have to decide. How much, and for how long.

[Christian Spaeth]

it doesn't always boil down to "good vs evil"...

 

+1. I also really don't feel comfortable reading words here like "parasites" and this distinguishing between companies that "actually make something" and others that supposedly don't. This black and white thinking can lead to pretty bad witch hunting.

[Jeff Wexler]

A new thread for those who wish to continue the discussion of all things patent.

[Gerard-NYNY]

us patent office gazette search: zaxcom

 

 

http://search.uspto.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&affiliate=web-sdmg-uspto.gov&query=zaxcom&go=Go

 

 

digging through the search query the most notable result was the patent description for neverclip and a virtual multitrack recording system.

 

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week44/OG/html/1408-1/US08878708-20141104.html

http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/week38/OG/html/1406-4/US08842854-20140923.html

 

 

here is the patent cerification/award to zaxcom for virtual multtrack recording that explains the technology and processes of the system that results in it's unique functions and capabilities.

 

http://www.google.com/patents/US7711443

 

everyone's guess and speculation has been that achieving a virtual multitrack recording without a zaxcom product has become an issue. perhaps the issues also include how it is achieved in the processing of audio as well.

 

it appears (without reading through the whole of the description) the patent includes a recording process in the transmitter and then that process has been replicated by another party in an plug on device to enhance the capability of a different device (transmitter), thus replicating certain functions by extraction to achieve the same result.

 

or perhaps it is another issue entirely. or multiple issues as the breakdown of processes is explained elegantly; since there are many steps to achieve the capability, the issues may be spread out and not directly connected.

 

it will be interesting to see what the issues actually are how it all plays out.

 

my very limited understanding of  patent law is that infringement can occur in different ways, including, using a different technological process to achieve or mimic the the processes or final resullt of a technology that has been awarded a patent.

[Philip Perkins]

I'm not ready to get over this, thanks.  I'm curious to know what Zax thinks the infringement is, which is why I mentioned the possibility of some firmware/recording hardware type infringment, if accidental.  I sincerely hope the infringment in question is not over the fact of the DR being a mini battery-operated recorder that uses micro SD as media, because that would be ridiculous.

 

philp

[studiomprd]

Gerard: "  it appears (without reading through the whole of the description)"

sorry, but in order to be clear, the entire description(s) must be considered...

and also other patents that Zaxcom controls, or has licensed must be included.

 

philip: " I'm not ready to get over this, thanks.  I'm curious to know what Zax thinks the infringement is, "

you are of course free to be curious, but it is, at this point, completely between the parties.  whatever it is, TEAC/TASCAM thinks it has enough merit to take the actions they feel are prudent and appropriate.

"  I sincerely hope the infringment in question is not over the fact of the DR being a mini battery-operated recorder that uses micro SD as media, because that would be ridiculous. "

sorry, but there is a lot of disagreement there...

the patent office considered what it awarded the patent for to be patentable, and they do not award a patent to everything that is applied for.

there are numerous things that have been patented; just one example:superhetrodyne receivers and FM transmission and reception were originally patented by RCA.

did you perhaps see the movie about intermittent windshield wipers ??

 

and keep in mind that the patent office does not enforce patents, that is done by the civil courts, and the policing is done by (or on behalf of) the patent holders.

[macrecorder]

Since anyone of us could use a small pocket recorder in tandem with a transmitter, with the appropriate wiring, it is hard to see why tascam's implementation is any different, since it is not incorporated into the transmitter. The only difference is that they supply it with radio mic system friendly connectors, thus making the task slightly easier. But it is still two separate systems, not the integrated one which zaxcom apparently has a patent on. Or is any recording device on a person's body, who also has a radio mic transmitter, a violation of their patent? That would be a very generous interpretation of the patent. I guess tascam are simply considering their options, but a patent defence can have the useful effect of delaying the introduction of a product into a market, or making it not worthwhile to fight.

[studiomprd]

mace: " Or is any recording device on a person's body, who also has a radio mic transmitter, a violation of their patent?"  

you need to study the devices and patents in question

"  That would be a very generous interpretation of the patent. "

I'm sorry, did I miss something ?  do you, in fact know what patent(s) is involved, specifically and exactly ??

what would you do if you were TASCAM/TEAC ??

for that matter, what would you be doing if you were ZAXCOM ??

 

" but a patent defence can have the useful effect of delaying the introduction of a product into a market, or making it not worthwhile to fight. "  yes, it can, it is protection of the inventors' IP; and that is as it should be.

[Tom Duffy]

I won't comment on this particular issue, but in general, take into consideration that Patents are written by Patent Lawyers, and interpreted by other Patent Lawyers to discern their meaning.  Depending on how good the lawyers are (at orating and/or researching), different interpretations can be argued for.   If there is even a trace of doubt, the only people that benefit are the hourly paid Lawyers.

[SeeKai]

 

for that matter, what would you be doing if you were ZAXCOM ??

 

This is something that has come up a lot further into the discussion than I would have thought.  I've never run a pro audio equipment company before so I'm not sure I can volunteer a truthful answer other than "I don't know".  I do find myself wondering how differently we'd all discuss this if it was a non professional audio thing(e.g. cars, domestic appliances, whatever you like).  I wonder how many of us are forgetting that these are two businesses, albeit ones that have representatives here in our online community.

Without knowing the nature of the infringement claim it's hard to say anything about this other than it's unfortunate that so many in the states are disappointed that they cannot try this new product.  

I have other personal opinions on the matter, mostly based around differing target markets and differing nature of the products but I'm hesitant to state them without knowing all the facts.  

I'll publicly cross my fingers for the fairest and most just outcome while enjoying some private debates on the matter which don't adhere to anything that could be called "statesmanlike behaviour" and hope that this posting is non committal and balanced enough to not upset anybody!

Best,

S,

 

[Philip Perkins]

I've been set up to do what the DR-10 does with a couple of Tascam pocket recorders of a diff model for the last year.  I could have done this with any pocket recorder, and so could any other soundie.  If that sort of pairing with any sort of wireless TX is the issue then it's a non-issue.  This isn't even a new idea--we did this with Nagras back in the day--4.2s and SNs!

 

philp

[studiomprd]

Duffy: " the only people that benefit are the hourly paid Lawyers. "

and that includes the lawyers on all sides!

everyone else loses, although some more than others...

 

SK: " it's unfortunate that so many in the states are disappointed that they cannot try this new product.  "

at least right away, and yes, that is an unfortunate (though certainly not life threatening) effect.

 

meanwhile Philip keeps saying: "  If "

[Philip Perkins]

Yeah, if.  A non-issue.  As in the bone of contention better be more substantive than this.

 

p

[Gerard-NYNY]

Since anyone of us could use a small pocket recorder in tandem with a transmitter, with the appropriate wiring, it is hard to see why tascam's implementation is any different, since it is not incorporated into the transmitter. The only difference is that they supply it with radio mic system friendly connectors, thus making the task slightly easier. But it is still two separate systems, not the integrated one which zaxcom apparently has a patent on. Or is any recording device on a person's body, who also has a radio mic transmitter, a violation of their patent? That would be a very generous interpretation of the patent. I guess tascam are simply considering their options, but a patent defence can have the useful effect of delaying the introduction of a product into a market, or making it not worthwhile to fight.

 

did anyone using a zaxcom virtual multitrack recording system (whether it be zfr units or wireless recording transmitters in comjunction with qrx or erx units) get an ugly pain or twinge when the tascam product was announced? of course, yes.

 

it's a big investment that enhances one's marketability.

 

having that marketability hijacked by another device manufacturer that borrows an essential spirit of the zaxcom system should have some folks seething with anger as their investment suddenly devalued by a workaround.

 

others, of course, are happy to see a very cheap alternative that replicates the zaxcom system to a close degree (with less features) using different technologies to achieve the original idea of a virtual multitrack wireless recording system (a very ingenious and creative idea, in my opinion) that belongs to zaxcom, for which it was awarded a patent that indicates the idea and the technologies it created or licensed to create the system are protected.

[macrecorder]

Competition and choice are good. I don't see the Tascam as an infringement of zaxcom because a) it isn't built into the transmitter, doesn't have timecode, or c) zaxnet -  all of these are powerful arguments in favour of zaxcom if that is what you want/need. The tascam is a cheap alternative which is not a copy of anything, other than a small recorder with no remote control or syncing capabilities. I agree with Philip, what's the fuss? There are clear differences between the products which fulfil different requirements. Or are you saying eg. that a recorder built into a mixer should only be allowed to be made by the first manufacturer to market them?

 

What would I be doing? Well, welcome the competition, start a marketing campaign to make sure people understand the differences between a professional integrated solution and a prosumer device. Maybe tweak the price, or do some special offers and bundles. Then light a cigar, pour a whisky, go to bend and sleep very soundly.

[Constantin]

This is not really a question of our opinions. We can keep saying that the differences are obvious and the similarities too broad, but actually we don't know that. Nobody here knows, or admits what the infringement is, so I really don't get how anyone here can be arguing this. Why not wait for a more official statement?

[Gerard-NYNY]

Competition and choice are good.

 

1. I don't see the Tascam as an infringement of zaxcom because a) it isn't built into the transmitter, doesn't have timecode, or c) zaxnet -  all of these are powerful arguments in favour of zaxcom if that is what you want/need.

 

2.The tascam is a cheap alternative which is not a copy of anything, other than a small recorder with no remote control or syncing capabilities.

 

3.I agree with Philip, what's the fuss? There are clear differences between the products which fulfil different requirements.

 

4.Or are you saying eg. that a recorder built into a mixer should only be allowed to be made by the first manufacturer to market them?

 

1. it doesn't have to have those capabilities in order to be an infingement. the essence and meat of the zaxcom patent is virtual multitrack recording. using one tascam product that has partial design features of the zaxcom system to create a virtual multitrack recording violates the patent of zaxcom's system, by copying, partially, a chunk of the system.

 

2. see above, it extracts performance capabilities that create an essential part of the system.

 

3. the end result of the zaxcom system products are to achieve a virtual multitrack recording. the tascam product is shooting for the same goal without having a system, because it extracted a chunk of the zaxcom system to make virtual tracks to be used in post production.

 

but unfortunately the system to produce those elements has already been patented, by zaxcom. they both fulfill the same requirements, iso elements recorded virtually for sync, but zaxcom got there first because they were inspired to do so, designed a system and patented it. tascam copied an essential element. that's infringement.

 

the key words in the patent award (for the sake of this discussion) are virtual and system.

 

4. who said that? you are likely referring to licensing agreements on existing patents. if a patent holder did not want to get into manufacturing he could license the patent and collect fees for the use of the patent if they wanted to go down that route.

 

the only issue of licensing in this matter is the lack of a license for tascam to extract a key feature of the zaxcom system.