Jump to content

Invention, innovation and patent law


justanross

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Scott: " Zaxcom you're not making a friends. "

so you are saying that Zaxcom is wrong for asserting its ownership of something it not only invented, but also took the time, effort and expense (!) not only to invent and perfect the IP, but then took the further TE&E to patent..?  How would you feel if it was your creation that was involved ??

Constantin: " Tascam isn't making any friends with this "

I disagree with this, as well... It really seems that TASCAM did not knowingly and deliberately infringe on Zaxcom's IP; so far, since it was courteously brought to their attention, TASCAM has been straight up front in properly dealing with the situation.  I am sure they will either reach a fair licensing agreement, or modify the products as needed.

Edited by Jeff Wexler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please explain how a small audio recorder infringes on the patents of a wireless transmitter with a built in audio recorder. If I took a Radio Shack portable cassette recorder, plugged a mic into the recorder and connected the aux out to a Sennheiser tx would I be infringing upon Zaxcoms patent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ET: " Someone please explain how a small audio recorder infringes on the patents of a wireless transmitter with a built in audio recorder. "

I believe that is exactly what is being discussed...

lawyers could tell you (us)...

actually, once the patent is issued, it is no longer kept secret as during "patent pending"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

since a  patent can specify a solution for a problem, (like "wearable recorder",etc), I think zaxcom may have pantented something like " system/solution for a belt pack recorder for lav mics" . This can include the  TRX and specialy  in this case the ZFR recorders.

How many years ago did Nagra have a belt pack recorder? 

Larry F

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many years ago did Nagra have a belt pack recorder? 

Larry F

Larry may be referring to the Nagra SN developed for our very own CIA but not released to the public until 1970. This could, of course, be "worn on the body" (as could the full-sized Nagra which I "wore" for many years doing documentaries). There are today, lots of tiny recorders that could be worn on the body or the belt, but I think possibly this is only a small part of the Zaxcom patent. Nagra in fact did have a patent that covered a specific use of the Nagra SN in conjunction with a modified QRRT synchronizer. Using multiple SN recorders, each single mono track from each individual SN recorder could be synchronized using a series of coded pulses embedded in the Neopilot crystal sync system, providing a method of "multi-track recording" using any number of body worn - belt worn Nagra SN recorders. I would venture to say that if this Nagra patent were still in place (long expired, of course, as is the Nagra SN recorder) Zaxcom's patent would never have gone through and would be a violation of Nagra's patent.

 

post-1-0-30749400-1416854143_thumb.jpg

for the youngsters who never saw the Nagra SN

 

post-1-0-05941100-1416854415_thumb.jpg

 

 

the Nagra CBR, somewhat of a secret project, released in 2007 (but not available to the general pulbic)

post-1-0-61486900-1416854185_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...]I would venture to say that if this Nagra patent were still in place (long expired, of course, as is the Nagra SN recorder) Zaxcom's patent would never have gone through and would be a violation of Nagra's patent.[...]

 

I don't know if that would matter. The fact that the patent expired would be enough, because it showed that the patent existed in the first place. What that means is that anybody who tried to patent the same solution wouldn't be successful, because the existence of the expired Nagra patent would constitute prior art. Now of course the overwhelmed U.S. Patent Office might issue a new patent, but then it becomes an issue of challenging it by showing prior art - but that of course costs time and money, so a small company may not have the resources to deal with that... this is the weak point of the intellectual property legal system we have today - it costs a ton of money to challenge illegitimate patents, as well as to fight off patent trolls. I assume Tascam is big enough to afford that, so I doubt this is the issue here. Not being privy to what the details of this case are, all we can do is speculate... a bit uselessly. 

 

As consumers we are hurt by a malfunctioning patent system, because it inhibits innovation and economic growth. There should be a balance between IP protection to promote and reward innovation, and protecting the consumer and promoting competition and economic development. The current system is flawed, which is why several attempts have been made to reform it. It's still flawed, and I suppose it will always be flawed (as all human institutions must be). 

 

On an individual level people have to make their own choices. You can bring gear in from abroad and get around some absurd situation, or wait until a resolution is found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotten: " As consumers we are hurt by a malfunctioning patent system, because it inhibits innovation and economic growth. "

I disagree... I'm doing that a lot recently... but if someone invents something, and patents it, others may be able to license that IP.

when I discuss IP in my classes (typically regarding music), I ask my students, who typically tend to believe they can borrow whatever they need, how they would feel if Stephen Spielberg, or Quentin Tarantino "borrowed" some of their (the students') IP, and included it in their big budget movies.... then the light bulbs illuminate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

Sorry, I have to disagree strongly with your disagreement. The patent office is overwhelmed and understaffed. Rotten is not saying we shouldn't have a patent system but that we need a better working patent system. Congress has attempted to address the shortcomings but nothing has happened yet. If the system weren't so broken, the patent trolls wouldn't have a business model.

 

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the Nagra pictures. I always considered the Nagra SN as engineer porn.

Best to you both,
Larry F
Lectro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry: " The patent office is overwhelmed and understaffed. Rotten is not saying we shouldn't have a patent system but that we need a better working patent system "

I can agree that there are issues, like staffing and throughput, but in the quote from RC, I got the implication he meant that the malfunctioning patent system (flaw) was that it is keeping TEAC from possibly infringing on other (Zaxcom) patents unchallenged, to the detriment to those who want to buy something Zaxcom invented, but for cheaper...(did I say that correctly??  :wacko:  )

I believe patents are operating properly in that respect, as when Lectrosonics challenged a wireless product that Sony introduced. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone will I hope explain (someone who really knows) how this infringes on Zax, because that doesn't make sense to me.  What might make sense would be if Tascam reverse-engineered some of the guts of a ZFR etc and is getting busted for it.  It doesn't seem like the fact that the DRs are a small portable recorder that could (or could not) be used with a wireless mic could be the bone of contention….?

 

philp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

I agree completely with what you have said. I think Rotten was not in disagreement but speaking about a patent system that needs to be improved. The technological world is changing rapidly but the Patent Office is not. To make changes, however, would require Congress to give some direction. Of course, that's not a problem.

Best,
Larry F
Lectro 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

philip: " Someone will I hope explain... how this infringes on Zax, "

What is the difference..?  either it does, or does not, and that will be determined,--and the issue resolved-- and probably sooner rather than later.*

" What might make sense would be if Tascam reverse-engineered some of the guts of a ZFR etc and is getting busted for it."

that clearly does not appear to be the case, and in fact there appears to be no unscrupulous or malicious intent.

 

It doesn't seem like the fact that the DRs are a small portable recorder that could (or could not) be used with a wireless mic could be the bone of contention….? "

well, it seems that some facts seem so to someone, and enough so that someone else, when told,  agreed to delay its introduction to the usa until the matter can be resolved.

 

that may not be the specific issue (bone of contention) of infringement, there is legitimate concern that both parties share that there may be some pretty certainly inadvertent infringement.... it happens!


no one is out to make enemies, and it seems to be being handled properly in a congenial manner

 

*there is no requirement that either party make any public disclosures regarding the matter, unless they actually file court documents, which would become public records.

 

folks, get over this, please...

Edited by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) the patent system is a mess. Partly because it's completely overwhelmed with software patents because people are scared into getting patents on everything. The patent office is basically rubber stamping things that conflict with existing patents and figure it'll be sorted out later, if it becomes a question just to clear the volume of applications they get.

2) part of the patent system (as traditionally intended) is that you have to explain your invention so that nobody else accidentally designs the same thing. This was concocted when patents were almost all for mechanical inventions like a piece of farm equipment or a better mousetrap. That system arguably hasn't evolved well to some sort of box of transistors that does something completely differently based on software running it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JP: " 2) part of the patent system (as traditionally intended) is that you have to explain your invention so that nobody else accidentally designs the same thing. "

virtually impossible...

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

Actually once you are granted patent protection, it is up to the patent holder to protect their IP.  that is exactly what is happening in the instant case.

I might accidentally design something that someone patented, and unless I get on the radar by manufacturing, advertising displaying and selling it there might never be any issue...  I am not obligated to do a patent search for my invention unless I want to patent it.

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...