Q Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 They don't have timecode, per se. But, didn't I read that they have the ability to set time on one unit and then sync other units to the same time? It isn't frame accurate, but close enough. I suspect that is the "virtual multitrack" part of the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Reilly Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Makes me wonder how Juiced Link's Lil Darling figures into this. Development seems to be going forward, though they have delayed things supposedly due to feature reconsiderations.....ummm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Feeley Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 The Electronic Frontier Foundation maintains a page with background information and current news about patent trolls: Patent Trolls https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 There are at least 8 patents assigned to Zaxcom, including one for a design feature. 4 of those concern the virtual multitrack, but the other 4 do not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeKai Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 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? This is the bottom line for now. Until we know exactly what the nature of the infringement we can't really have informed opinions on it. Regardless, speculating is quite enjoyable . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrecorder Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Well, it seems that the highly paid lawyers are going to have a bumper year arguing about what a 'virtual multitrack' actually means. I mean - is a simple two track pocket recorder (which is all the tascam really is) a 'virtual multitrack' recorder? If you're a lawyer maybe. If you're a regular person, it's stretching it, also the tascam isn't part of a 'system' unless you make it so, which is true for any device. And so it goes on..words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they slither wildly as they slip across the universe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Who would've thought the ranks of a sound mixing forum would contain so my patent attorneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Who would've thought the ranks of a sound mixing forum would contain so my patent attorneys. Made me laugh. Happy Thanks, y'all. J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 I graduated college with a Masters in Sociology and a minor in Patent Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 I know many shooters who have used a Zoom H something type recorder to feed their Sennheiser TX all worn by the talent in instances where a clean RF feed was iffy to the RX. I don't see that as being any different than the Tascam feeding a TX of any brand. How that type of setup infringes on a patent is beyond comprehension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mills Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 I graduated college with a Masters in Sociology and a minor in Patent Law. And I bet you've used the sociology training more often than patent law.. Journalism and Sociology student here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 Hey, Christopher, just kidding (about the patent law part). I do have the sociology degree and it has been very helpful, not in any direct way for the work I have been doing for the last 46 years, but meaningful in helping me have an educated and disciplined view of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 How that type of setup infringes on a patent is beyond comprehension. Eric, pleased to see that you are sharing your intimate knowledge of the patents involved and hopefully you are assisting Tascam's and Zaxcom's legal teams as they sort this all out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 >Eric, pleased to see that you are sharing your intimate knowledge of the patents involved and hopefully you are assisting >Tascam's and Zaxcom's legal teams as they sort this all out. I think we really need a SARCASM font Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 BA in Sociology from FSU I learned about a niche and decided to be one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Mills Posted November 27, 2014 Report Share Posted November 27, 2014 BA in Sociology from FSU I learned about a niche and decided to be one So did I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Toline Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Jeff Wexler, on 27 Nov 2014 - 5:06 PM, said: Eric, pleased to see that you are sharing your intimate knowledge of the patents involved and hopefully you are assisting Tascam's and Zaxcom's legal teams as they sort this all out. All I asked for was a simple explanation based on my interpretation of the involved units. No one has bothered to offer any at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 All I asked for was a simple explanation based on my interpretation of the involved units. No one has bothered to offer any at all. That's probably because no one knows. Or those who do won't tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard-NYNY Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 All I asked for was a simple explanation based on my interpretation of the involved units. No one has bothered to offer any at all. the difference is that the shooters who use a zoom feeding a transmitter are not mass manufacturing and then selling a product that violates a zaxcom patent. mass manufacturing by another entity who does not have patent rights deprives zaxcom of income derived from their own manufacturing and sales of products that feature the design capabilities stated in their patent. additionally, mass manufacturing by another entity impacts the assets, future assets, research and design budgeting for future products and the total monetary value of the brand and company. it also devalues the equipment that was sold to private parties who bought the equipment because of the unique design features and/or capabilities of the patented system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Nobody who creates patentable stuff for a living is gonna discuss it in a place like this. Having read more than a few articles on the patent troll business model, seems to me that--like your unalienable rights--if you don't legally defend your patented work you stand to lose it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macrecorder Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Gerard, that might be true if the item in question copied zaxcom's transmitter/recorder, which it doesn't. Only in the parallel world that legal eagles like to construct it seems, with their intentionally opaque and grandiose language. It doesn't 'devalue' anything, or replace an existing product. I think that is what is described as opportunistic. Imho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard-NYNY Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 the boilerplate indications, descriptions and definitions for what is patentable under united states law is not opaque or grandiose; it's a little involved, but not hopelessly complex. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Overheard in the break room: "I'm not a patent attorney, but I play one on JW Sound." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard-NYNY Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Gerard, that might be true if the item in question copied zaxcom's transmitter/recorder, which it doesn't. at face value it appears the item in question copied the recorder part of the system and designed it to interface with another manufacturer's transmitter. in doing that, it appears to be in violation of the parts of the patent involving processes and mechanical equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 How come we have so many microphones that look like a 416 ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.