Jump to content

Tascam DR10 mini recorder in use


Philip Perkins

Recommended Posts

We seem to be in that position on JW unique to Zaxcom where everyones view is valid as long as you agree with JW, I don't think you ever ask people to stop posting on a thread unless they're criticizing Zaxcom Jeff. Either our views and opinions are all welcome and valid, or they're not, if this is just a place to talk about people you like, and espouse views you agree with, just say, and it'll be fine, as long as we know.

 

I'm amazed I've got this far without abusive PMs from you know who, it usually happens!

Dear Jon: first of all, any "abusive PMs" you get from anyone other than me is not my problem. Secondly, you are dead wrong about me asking people to "stop posting" only regard to threads that are criticizing Zaxcom --- this is just not true. There have been countless times I have had to reign in topics that have gotten out of hand, threads on numerous topics, none of which have anything to do with Zaxcom. I will state again that which everyone knows, everyone who has spent any substantial time on JWSOUND, that all views and opinions are welcome and this will always be the case. I have rarely if ever censored anyone, I have only once banned someone from the site, but I do moderate, daily, hourly, every single day of the year, and never with a heavy or thoughtless hand. I sincerely believe that this is in part the reason for the success of JWSOUND.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, and FWIW, I don't think anyone for a minute is besmirching Tascam, they're the innocent party in this, well except for us who can't have the kit people want to make for us.

"Innocent party"? Seriously, Jon, are you portraying Tascam as this innocent victim of Zaxcom's outrageous attack? You've got to be joking (or you really have been mis-informed regarding this whole issue).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff, I really don't get it when you say "now that  bralleput has joined in this topic is getting more and more out of hand".What do you mean with 'out of hand'?I just ask questions with ??? And there are no bashing remarks at Zaxcom at all,just wondering why no TA5 ?(No answers yet..) Still very misty....And can we have a discussion on this one ?(or are we talking lawsuit in this case: Zax vs Tascam?everybody shssst)

Regarding "It is my understanding from my reading of the functions and specifications, the DR-10X (with the XLR connector) is the same recorder that is used in the DR-10c model we have been discussing."

All these recorders are the same.DR-10C only available with mini jack ( Europe..)

Again, you have come late to the issue if you are asking about the patent infringement and this Tascam product. Also, the questions, specifically regarding the TA5 connector, cannot be answered by us, so why do we continue to speculate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DR-10X and DR-10C have same board, same firmware with a couple of minor menu item differences.

 

Jeff is right that this topic is rife for wild speculation, criticism and accusation. 

 

The facts are covered in layers of interpretation, and they are not available for public discussion, i.e. no comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way ( sorry Jeff..) the TA5 version is not available overhere.(Europe)

I am aware of that (mentioned already in a previous comment) and added that the reasons for Tascam NOT offering the TA5 in Europe are not known and to assume that this relates to the US patent may not be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Innocent party"? Seriously, Jon, are you portraying Tascam as this innocent victim of Zaxcom's outrageous attack? You've got to be joking (or you really have been mis-informed regarding this whole issue).

Jeff I'm really mis-informed about this issue:What's going on??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speculation is what drives forums Jeff, you must know that. As for my comments on Tascam, it's pretty obvious to me, they design a product, Zaxcom try and stifle it, on such a tenuous basis that it comes down to what connector the device uses, so Tascam continue to market the device with certain connectors, but not the one Zaxcom objected to most, knowing that their users are a resourceful bunch and can either use ebay or wire up an adaptor. It's easier for Tascam to do this than fight a grudge match against some unpleasant people.

 

Simples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you truly want this thread to die, then calling for people to stop posting, while supporting your own favourites in the fight really isn't the way, surely you've been in this game to know that comment invites comment, and if you take the fuel away from a fire, it'll stop burning, but then that wouldn't give you the last word, would it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DR-10X and DR-10C have same board, same firmware with a couple of minor menu item differences.

 

Jeff is right that this topic is rife for wild speculation, criticism and accusation. 

 

The facts are covered in layers of interpretation, and they are not available for public discussion, i.e. no comment.

Thank you again, Tom, for the clarification, and the affirmation that the topic is somewhat out of control (as I have said before). Since I come under attack anytime I try to reign this in (with everyone declaring that I am the defender of all things Zaxcom, my company right or wrong, all that kind of BS), do you think you could make the appeal here to retire this topic? My only goal is to stop all the second guessing, speculation and arm-chair lawyering that's happening here. I am sure that if there is any significant change regarding this product, its availability, functions or feature set, you will be able to post the relevant news here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Again, you have come late to the issue if you are asking about the patent infringement and this Tascam product. Also, the questions, specifically regarding the TA5 connector, cannot be answered by us, so why do we continue to speculate?"

'Again...and late' My first post was yesterday..Late? What do you mean with late?"(Two days) "cannot be answered by us" "who is us?JW SOUND?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bralleput, the discussion goes back to October last year when the DR-10 series was first announced at AES. There are a couple of older threads that cover all the speculation already.  The search box finds those easily.

 

We can certainly continue the conversation about the versions of the product that are available in various markets, but there is no inforrmation that can be shared about what is not available.  

For speculation, please use a different thread, that is my request.

 

Jeff already spilit one thread out to aid this, but it is a admin pain to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Zaxcom at fault? Copyrights, patents and trademarks exist for a reason. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of items that never make it to the public because laws that are designed to protect exist.

Look the bottom line is Tascam is not offering the product. They have a reason but they are choosing not to elaborate on it - speculation and conjecture is not going to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will put an end to all speculation, as this is not a private matter.  Attached is the Complaint filed by Zaxcom in U.S District Court.  Because Zaxcom has filed, this is a matter of public record. 

 

A review of the complaint indicates that it is not the TA5 or any connector per se at issue, but Zaxcom's patent on "Virtual Wireless Multitrack Recording System".  

 

As clearly stated in the complaint, TEAC's product infringed on Zaxcom's patent by including instructions on its use in combination {with a wireless device} that infringes on Zaxcom's patent:

 

"recording systems with instructions for combination and use by end users in a manner such that the recording system and/or method of use infringes one or more claims of the ‘902 Patent."

 

That's it.  TEAC allegedly infringed Zaxcom's patent by instructing how the device can be used in combination {with a wireless}.  Zaxcom is not alleging that the device itself infringed, rather, the device + instructions for combining infringed. 

 

This implies that, had TEAC simply not explained how the device could be used in combination, we might be able to purchase this.

 

Zaxcom Complaint..pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a swede and kind of european, all these patent infringement things are curious to me. But I've read everything about this product and to me this is all super clear: in the US, the rights system and patent laws are such that you can stop certain companies from selling things that may or may not infringe on a patent. Like Apple has been doing for quite some time. Not bashing on any part, just understanding and recognizing what's going on. It's easy for us Europeans to just go WTF on the whole thing cus these things simply don't happen the way they do in the US, but look at it with American eyes and it all makes sense.

Just let it go. Whining and throwing accusations is not going to make any company a better company, and it's not going to help with any product development. Meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This implies that, had TEAC simply not explained how the device could be used in combination, we might be able to purchase this."

 

Michael, saying that your post puts an end to all the speculation and then you close with the above statement, this is nuts! That something is "implied" in your mind does not translate into the potential outcome of a legal matter like patent infringement. There you go in your final words, speculating just like everybody else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:  you are correct.  I departed from the facts in making that last statement.

 

However, I can also tell you that, unlike everybody else, I have been working in the legal arena for 3 decades and, while not a lawyer, I interpret laws and regulations, draft case and rebuttal brief arguments, and review federal court decisions on an almost daily basis (when I am not mixing sound).  That Zaxcom did not claim that the device itself was infringing is telling.  In spite of my legal background, my observation on what might have been is simple logic, a conclusion that any reasonable mind could derive based on a simple reading of the complaint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:  you are correct.  I departed from the facts in making that last statement.

 

However, I can also tell you that, unlike everybody else, I have been working in the legal arena for 3 decades and, while not a lawyer, I interpret laws and regulations, draft case and rebuttal brief arguments, and review federal court decisions on an almost daily basis (when I am not mixing sound). 

So, I'm not sure whether I should be pleased that your brand of speculation is potentially considerably more well informed because of your law experience. Again, I would rather this all go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody says Zaxcom is at fault..Jack :what is the copyright,patent or trademark in this case?? This seems to be a very 'loaded subject' with NO answers!?

Really??

While you personally haven't blamed Zaxcom there are several other posts in this thread - as well in the several other threads on this subject that do. If you can't recognized them message me and I can point them out.

There are "no answers" because the parties involved chose not to answer. Why cant you just be satisfied with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One rather important aspect that seems to escape the hoard of armchair rebels that the internet seems to foster, is that with intellectual property (which includes patents), one of the important tenets of maintaining rights, is that the owner of the intellectual properly exhibit "due diligence" to protect that property, otherwise the rights can be lost. 

 

Far from being the "bad guy" for challenging a competing product that contains a patentable element, it is irresponsible for a company to observe patent infringement and not challenge its use.  It would show a lack of "due diligence" and could contribute to the loss of the intellectual properly, which is an asset of the company.  In a publicly held company, an executive who allowed the company's assets to be endangered, could open him or herself up for a flood of lawsuits from shareholders.  In a privately held company, it's just bad business, and therefore endangers the well-being of the company, and by extension, the livelihoods of its employees.

 

But, what value is knowledge to those dedicated to distinguishing themselves with wild speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...