Jeff Wexler Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 How come we have so many microphones that look like a 416 ? Because any microphone that uses an interference tube design to achieve directionality will have a tube, some slots, an XLR connector, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Reineke Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 How come we have so many microphones that look like a 416 ? or U87, 47, SM58, ect, ect, ect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Deakin Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Plus apparently the 416 is being discontinued??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Norflus Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 The parties involved have obviously chosen not to elaborate as for either personal and or legal reasons. Zaxcom has several patents so to speculate which patent, or patents, is being infringed, at this point, is pure speculation. Why not let this battle take place between the two parties and when the dust settles thing should become a bit clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Deakin Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Cause Its more fun guessing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Plus apparently the 416 is being discontinued??? I can't find an official word from Sennheiser for this. Where did you find it or hear it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Deakin Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Another thread on here (equipment , shotgun mics ) so it must be true. [emoji3] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Sennheiser still lists the MKH416 as a current model on their website. Perhaps word hasn't reached them yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) macw: " I don't see the Tascam as an infringement of zaxcom because... " this isn't about what you see... not at all. " 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? " no not at all... this is about inventors protecting their creations. reminder: Dan Dugan patented his auto-mixing inventions... in fact patent holders typically make a lot of their money by licensing their IP. Gerrard: " the essence and meat of the zaxcom patent " + " the key words in the patent award (for the sake of this discussion) are virtual and system. " how do you know you are looking at the correct patent ..? ET: " ...How that type of setup infringes on a patent is beyond comprehension. " while I don't believe that is exactly the issue, maybe it does infringe... that happens all the time, but the patent holder may not realize it; OTOH, when a big entity like TEAC/TASCAM introduces a significant new product at a major trade show, just an aisles away from the patent holder, and proudly shows it off to him... " 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 parties involved , no doubt following their legal advice have chosen not to discuss this publicly, as they work the matters out. very typical. completely typical! plain AL: " How come we have so many microphones that look like a 416 ? " patents are not particularly about what something looks like... and, BTW: GD: " Plus apparently the 416 is being discontinued??? " Sennheiser has been in the process of discontinuing the 416 for ~20 years... (since the MKH-60/70) --and I see what you tried to do there, but it didn't work! Edited November 28, 2014 by studiomprd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 Because any microphone that uses an interference tube design to achieve directionality will have a tube, some slots, an XLR connector, etc. I do not recall Sennheiser threatening a lawsuit against the other interference tube microphone manufacturers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 (edited) plain AL: " I do not recall Sennheiser threatening a lawsuit against the other interference tube microphone manufacturers " so..? Who said Sennheiser even invented the interference tube design ?? although Electro-Voice made several early dynamic interference tube mic's, it was actually RCA that controlled the original patents. ... Shure originally patented the single dynamic element cardioid microphone (aka uni-dyn) ... so..? Sennheiser, like lots of most companies patents its inventions, but there are a lot of factors you also may not recall: other companies often license the IP of their competitors, and patents expire. Edited November 29, 2014 by studiomprd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 This entire community lifts with joy when you finally add pertinent information to this board. I hope it wasn't an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted November 28, 2014 Report Share Posted November 28, 2014 how do you know you are looking at the correct patent ..? Exactly. As I stated earlier, Zaxcom holds several patents, incl one for a design feature. As in ornamental feature, not technical feature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard-NYNY Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 my guess all along has been this one. a virtual wireless multitrack recording system. http://www.google.com/patents/US7711443 and--in respectful deference to Jack Norflus's suggestion to halt speculation, i will do as he requests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramallo Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 I do not recall Sennheiser threatening a lawsuit against the other interference tube microphone manufacturers Harry Olson designed the interference microphone in 1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_F._Olson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al mcguire Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 Thank you Ramallo What a wonderful community jwsound is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted November 29, 2014 Report Share Posted November 29, 2014 speaking of patents: how about Mr. Olsen's: " A prolific inventor and engineer, Olson won more than 100 patents for the various types of microphones (including the widely used 44- and 77-series), cardioid (directional) microphones, loudspeaker baffles, air-suspension loudspeakers, isobaric loudspeakers, early video recording equipment, audio recording equipment, phonograph pickups, underwater sound equipment, noise reduction, sound technology in motion-pictures, and public-address systems he developed. " or Dr. Dolby's..? or Zippers...? Velcro... ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Well, as you said earlier, Senator, patents expire. Typically, they only last for ten years, I think, although that may vary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted November 30, 2014 Report Share Posted November 30, 2014 Constantin: " patents expire. " exactly. and many things we all use everyday were once patented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted December 1, 2014 Report Share Posted December 1, 2014 and speaking of patents (and companies that agressively defend theirs)... take a look at Apple's patent portfolio... and tactics revealed during some of the lawsuits: " The case involving the iPod has kicked around various Bay Area federal courts for a decade. It is an amalgam of multiple suits, with over 900 filings from lawyers on both sides. The jury will hear from some of Apple’s top executives, including Philip W. Schiller, the head of marketing, and Eddy Cue, who oversees iTunes and Apple’s other online services. Part of the case will involve RealNetworks, an Internet media service that had come up with a workaround to allow songs sold in its store to play on iPods and other media players. In response, Apple in 2004 issued an incensed statement, accusing RealNetworks of hacking the iPod and warning that future software updates might prevent songs sold by RealNetworks from playing on iPods. RealNetworks is not a party in this suit. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudRaymond Posted January 2, 2015 Report Share Posted January 2, 2015 It is only my humble opinion, but a lavalier microphone recorder is not a "recording wireless transmitter", as is listed on the Zaxcom patent. I think it is far fetched and a stretch of any reasonable logic to say it infringes on their unique transmitters. As Larry pointed out, the compact Nagra was used to record for law enforcement and film purposes over 40 years ago, without the addition of a wireless transmitter. To be combative with Tascam in this manner only dilutes the integrity of Zaxcom and the strength of their products. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted January 2, 2015 Report Share Posted January 2, 2015 To be combative with Tascam in this manner only dilutes the integrity of Zaxcom and the strength of their products. From what I have heard about this situation (a lot of that in this thread), Zaxcom isn't really combative at all. They have brought something to Tascam's attention, and apparently, Tascam agreed that there was a potential problem and voluntarily withdrew their product. Both companies are acting like adults. It would be negligent of Zaxcom to just stand idly by and watch a possible copyright infringement of one of their products. Zaxcom would get into deep trouble with their owners, investors, employees, and whoever else (I don't actually know their structure). Besides, no one here knows (or admits to knowing) what this case is all about. So there is not much use in speculating about it and drawing conclusions from that speculation about a company's business practice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 If you don't protect what you patent, you have no patent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 If you don't protect what you patent, you have no patent. Are you talking philosophically or legally? As I understand it, you have the legal right to choose which patent infringements you want to pursue while letting others go by. Not protecting a patent in one case doesn't dilute your rights in other cases. Trademarks are different. If you don't actively go after each infringement, you can legally lose them. Xerox, Laundromat, Polaroid and other trademark holders who were in danger of being generic names for their products used to even run ads in publishing-trade mags, reminding editors to treat their trademarks properly. Philosophically is a different issue, as in "what's the point of having a patent if you treat your invention like it's public domain"? IANAL. But my son, a former broadcast engineer, is now a patent attorney specializing in electronics and communications. I get an education in this stuff every time I see him. (By the way, anyone need a patent?) </kvell> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan McL Posted January 4, 2015 Report Share Posted January 4, 2015 Philosophically...since IANAL. 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.