Jump to content

Tascam DR10 mini recorder in use


Philip Perkins

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 143
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Again, arm chair lawyers, speculation rampant, lots of mis-information. It IS a win-win situation for both Tascam and Zaxcom but not for the reasons some of you seem to think. It is a win for Tascam because the potential lawsuit and court proceedings will not drag on and on, and it is a win for Zaxcom because its patent has been defended. The case has not been dropped, it has been settled. The Tascam model in question does infringe on Zaxcom's patent and it will not be sold in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you're saying, is that it's like tic-tac-toe. And it just went from three in a row win-win-win... solved! to win-win-lose... blocked! Others may have a different opinion: win-lose-lose. After all, if this is a win for Tascam for the reason that "potential lawsuit and court proceedings will not drag on and on", then had Zaxcom simply dropped their suit, it would also be a win for Tascam as there would not be proceedings that drag on and on - except that now Tascam would be able to sell their products, which would really be a win. Which tells me that it's not really a win for Tascam. The losers of course in either case are the end users who don't get the benefit of using gear. It's all in how you see it. Who knows, it might even be a lose-lose-lose as people who hate what they perceive as consumer hostile actions by a company, decide to boycott their products. Whatever the case, it's amazing how much such non-technical factors influence what gear we get to use or not use, or how such gear works, when companies are forced to pretzel their designs to get around some claim or another, whether legitimate or not - so if ever you look at a piece of gear and wonder "why did they do it this convoluted way", the explanation may not be something that an engineer can answer, but rather a lawyer. Interesting times we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhmmmm, what the heck was that, Rotten? 

 

Jeff is correct.  Zaxcom had the action dismissed because they came to a settlement.  It was dismissed in a way that they can bring the case again, if TEAC doesn't abide by whatever bargain was struck.  With regards to that bargain, I will speculate:

 

Pulling tidbits from multiple sources, it appears that the settlement will be that no TA5 versions will be sold anywhere in the world, and the other versions will not be sold directly in the US (except the XLR plug-on).  Its a business deal, not a victory or a loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't think the typical (low budget) G3 user would be purchasing the Zaxcom recording transmitter system anyway, so I don't see much of a monitory loss for Zaxcom. But if Zax just wants to break balls for the sake of breaking balls, that's up to them.. The only real winners are the attorneys.

OTOH, the DR-10 with TA5 connectors is a different story.  Now what happens if Lectro or Sennheiser decides to make a recording transmitter.. or a smart phone with the appropriate connectors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I don't think the typical (low budget) G3 user would be purchasing the Zaxcom recording transmitter system anyway, so I don't see much of a monitory loss for Zaxcom. But if Zax just wants to break balls for the sake of breaking balls, that's up to them.. The only real winners are the attorneys.

OTOH, the DR-10 with TA5 connectors is a different story.  Now what happens if Lectro or Sennheiser decides to make a recording transmitter.. or a smart phone with the appropriate connectors.

Or *cough* Audio Ltd. Who likely are doing that, but simply not releasing it in the US (allegedly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Rick: no one is "breaking balls" for the sake of just doing mischief or being difficult. Intellectual property and patent protection are very important parts of any design and manufacturing business. Your view of competition and your assessment of what the losses could be for Zaxcom are just that: your view. If a company holds a patent but does not defend an infringement, however small or possibly insignificant, the patent can be considered nullified and not in force. It doesn't matter whether the specific infringement would result in a small loss or a big loss. "Now what happens if Lectro or Sennheiser decides to make a recording transmitter.." it would be a clear infringement of Zaxcom's patent --- why do you think Lectro and Sennheiser haven't made a recording transmitter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe all this negative attitude towards Zaxcom. It's absolute BS to be mad at a company that's defending their patents and intellectual property. A patent they spent years and years and lots of money to develop and refine. And then a company that compared to Zaxcom is huge and has near endless resources to come up with new products more or less copies their product. Any one of us would react the same as Zaxcom did. Well, everyone in their right mind. Lectro, Sennheiser, Shure, whoever else they all would do the same in a heartbeat. As would Tascam, by the way, if it were the other way around.

And every film-maker, painter, writer, musician, inventor and so on would do the same. And they are right.

How could anyone possibly get mad at the infringee? Get mad at the infringer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are obviously many ways to go about what we do to get the end result. My thought is this.. Does enforcing the patent really help zaxcom? In the short term yes because they own the IP and that's all well and good. But the other end of the spectrum is that WE the consumer are left with a single manufacturer to buy from and depend on development of this technology. At some point the development could become stagnant, and/or the pricing and availability of the product is out of reach because there is no competition in that particular niche.

I know all of the manufacturers do their very best to deliver us great products. The quality and innovation that comes to market because of the competition is great...sadly we will not have that in this case.

 

Don't take this as saying zaxcom should give up on its patent enforcement. I am just looking at this in a big picture sort of way and thinking about some of the "what could have beens" for our market. Maybe at some point Zaxcom will license the IP so that a different approach to this can be taken. In the end that would be win-win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and thinking about some of the "what could have beens" for our market. Maybe at some point Zaxcom will license the IP so that a different approach to this can be taken. In the end that would be win-win.

That is the only really win-win.

You are thinking about the could-have beens? Turn your argument around then. Without patent laws there would be no could-have beens. Without the protection of a patent no one would want to invent anything, because the next big company would snatch up your idea and market it quicker and bigger, because they have the money and you don't, because you won't sell anything.

And yes it does help Zaxcom, because now they actually have a chance of earning back some of the huge investments necessary with inventing, developing and releasing a product of this complexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the only really win-win.

You are thinking about the could-have beens? Turn your argument around then. Without patent laws there would be no could-have beens. Without the protection of a patent no one would wabt to invent anything, because the next big company would snatch up your idea and market it quicker and bigger, because they have the money and you don't, because you won't sell anything

Totally agree. Like I said. I'm not against zaxcom enforcing their patent. My thinking was from a purely consumer point of view...

 

Again my hope is that the technology will be licensed so that another set of eyes and ideas can take the technology someplace they might not have thought about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unfortunate fact is that the consumer does suffer at times when important and significant business decisions are made by the companies involved --- this is just a fact of life. If anyone is really interested in some of the most significant legal actions that have been taken by companies far larger than Tascam and Zaxcom, just look into some of the cases involving Microsoft and Apple. I'm not talking about the things that went on between Microsoft and Apple, I'm talking about the things that both Microsoft and Apple have patented or attempted to patent to protect their business, often to the detriment of competition and the consumer. One simple example which you all may know was Microsoft's threat to ALL the major computer manufacturers that if they altered or removed the Microsoft Windows splash screen, Microsoft would not license the Windows operating system for their computers. Compaq, Leading Edge, Dell and Hewlett Packer all would have had their core businesses destroyed --- a hardware box that does NOTHING without an operating system. Apple sued Microsoft over the "look and feel" of the OS when the first version of Microsoft Windows came out. Microsoft returned the favor by trying to patent the use of the word "windows" in relation to any operating system. It goes on and on. We should be pleased that we have so much un-fettered innovation and the design and manufacturing of so many terrific products for our work and that we are rarely mired in some of these horrendous legal battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, that's the entire foundation of IP protection laws, including patents. It's supposed to promote innovation by granting the IP holder a time-limited monopoly on economic exploitation - for the ultimate benefit of society. And at its best one hopes that's the way it works. But it is also true, that since imperfect humans are involved, no law will be perfect, and in due time unintended consequences will manifest, and counterproductive outcomes that are directly injurious to the ultimate aims of the IP regimen (benefit of society) serve to undermine respect for the law.

 

Jeff Wexler said it best: none of us here are in a position to know the nitty gritty behind this Zaxcom/Tascam situation. Only those directly involved know the details - I mean, that's just patently (oops!) obvious. 

 

It may very well be that it's like Constantin outlines - perhaps Zaxcom are merely defending their hard-earned patents against unjust usurpation. In which case, more power to them and my sympathy is 100% on their side.

 

It is also however possible that a company might be inappropriately stretching a marginal or trivial patent to prevent competition, which results in injury to another company and ultimately to the consumer - it is fully legal, because there is always a gap between the loophole-laden letter of the law and the lofty spirit of the law. It may be "inappropriate" from a spirit point of view, but pass muster in the letter.

 

Which case is it? I don't know, and I'm not passing judgment.

 

I am only pointing out that while those who defend one company here are assuming the first case, while refusing to acknowledge the possibility of the second case, and those on the other side are doing the reverse. It's in how you choose to see it.

 

But hey, we've been here before in other cases: the market will find a way - buy abroad and use here, boycott one or the other company, buy a knockoff from China/India/Wherever and ignore the IP issue, a thousand individual decisions.

 

We don't know. That's the truth. What is indisputably true is that now we're deprived of a useful product... temporarily, one hopes. Perhaps we're deprived for good reason, or for spurious reasons, but either way, if it's desirable enough, someone will make it, and we'll get it one way or another and life will go on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please explain to be how the Tascam DR10 is any different from me plugging a mic into a recorder (like a Zoom or similar small flash based recorder) then sending that signal into a wireless transmitter of my choice.

The idea is still the same, the process is still the same.

How can that be patented? Has Zaxcom been granted a patent on 'recording audio and then sending it to a transmitter'?

I'm not being facetious. I realize that neither party owes any explanation (perhaps they even signed NDA's!) I just find it fascinating and mysterious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason, I will try and explain it (I had the same questions in the beginning when this issue first surfaced). Like many patents there is an element of intent expressed by the company designing and manufacturing the product, sometimes this is evident even in the promotional literature, owners manual and specification. The patent would never be able to stop you from taking an existing product, any one of a number of readily available handheld pocket recorders, make up appropriate cables, hook it all up with a microphone and a wireless transmitter, and go ahead and start using that. We've all done this sort of thing as far back as 1975 when the original mini-recorder, the Nagra SN, was available. Now, if a company designs and produces a product that is specifically designed to enable the owner of that product to use it in a fashion that infringes on a patented product and procedure offered by another company (that holds the patent), this is a no go. There are several other aspects of the patent that are affected --- the synchronization of multiple recorders via time stamp is one of them. It was clearly stated in the documentation from Tascam that the main intended purpose of the recorder was to provide a means to locally record the output of the lav microphone as a backup to RF drop outs and to be able to employ multiple units synchronized via time to eachother. Again, I am not a patent lawyer but the lawyers involved in this issue, both sides, obviously agreed that the product Tascam was about to market did infringe the Zaxcom patent. I believe Zaxcom did offer a licensing agreement which would have allowed the product to be sold here, but evidently Tascam declined. Ultimately, it appears that it has been settled and Tascam will not be marketing it in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez Jeff, summed up nicely!

Thank you.

JP

Jason, I will try and explain it (I had the same questions in the beginning when this issue first surfaced). Like many patents there is an element of intent expressed by the company designing and manufacturing the product, sometimes this is evident even in the promotional literature, owners manual and specification. The patent would never be able to stop you from taking an existing product, any one of a number of readily available handheld pocket recorders, make up appropriate cables, hook it all up with a microphone and a wireless transmitter, and go ahead and start using that. We've all done this sort of thing as far back as 1975 when the original mini-recorder, the Nagra SN, was available. Now, if a company designs and produces a product that is specifically designed to enable the owner of that product to use it in a fashion that infringes on a patented product and procedure offered by another company (that holds the patent), this is a no go. There are several other aspects of the patent that are affected --- the synchronization of multiple recorders via time stamp is one of them. It was clearly stated in the documentation from Tascam that the main intended purpose of the recorder was to provide a means to locally record the output of the lav microphone as a backup to RF drop outs and to be able to employ multiple units synchronized via time to eachother. Again, I am not a patent lawyer but the lawyers involved in this issue, both sides, obviously agreed that the product Tascam was about to market did infringe the Zaxcom patent. I believe Zaxcom did offer a licensing agreement which would have allowed the product to be sold here, but evidently Tascam declined. Ultimately, it appears that it has been settled and Tascam will not be marketing it in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad there was a settlement, I guess.  Maybe someone who actually knows what it said will let us know, I'm not too interested in speculation about it.  I'm going to continue to use my DR10S in the USA, and probably get a few more from overseas, as will a small number of other soundies I'll guess.  Someone will figure out how to after-market mod the DR10s to have TA5F (and now 3 pin Lemo) connections to be compato with Lectro, if that hasn't happened already.  Those who need and can afford all the bells and whistles of Zax's system will continue to use and buy those.  The markets of the 2 devices will not interpenetrate, ever.  And…I bet some folks in China are watching and doing some reverse engineering as we speak.  Zax should make an affordable mic pass-thru pocket recorder with connections compato with non-Zax wireless before the reverse-engineers do.

 

philp

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...