Jump to content

Invention, innovation and patent law


justanross

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by studiomprd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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>
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...