Jump to content

Invention, innovation and patent law


justanross
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...