Jump to content

Patents, Innovation and the Law


Jeff Wexler

Recommended Posts

Good morning Chris,

I'm a DoP based in Switzerland and the proud owner of a SX-R4 (old version).

I developed the FanPlate with Stefan Sax (the son of Jacques) under a company named Mecasax, the FanPlate is not related to sound equipment but is a Red Epic camera accessory therefore we didn't sell it under Sonosax brand. Nevertheless, Jacques was a major help for us to make this happen and put his time and manpower to make my vision a real product. 

I have no business interest in Sonosax nor in Mecasax. 

I live in Lausanne, 300m from Jacques Sax's home. I had a red wine glass with him yesterday night as he is a friend. He is actually a great guy to have a beer with. To bad Glenn didn't take the opportunity to have a chat with him at AES as Jacques loves to exchange views with professional sound guys, even with the competition like with Aaton, they where on ongoing discussion since decades.

Have a nice day Chris.

Pat

ps: Bash made a nice analyses. 

Edited by Patrick Tresch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jac never came to our booth at AES while I was there. We could talk about all sorts of things. I to enjoy working with sound people as well. As for the current matter Jac is very aware that any communication regarding this matter needs to be via Email.

Glenn

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a face-to-face has a lot of value for two honorable guys. It's much easier to discuss things openly and honestly. The insistence on a "paper"-trail reeks of paranoia. Like someone who has been burnt before. When at a meeting some sort of understanding has been reached this then needs to be fixed in writing, of course, and only this is what counts. 

On the other hand, I still don't understand why Zaxcom is the bad guy here. They got a patent and naturally they defend it. If I wrote a song and someone copies it and claimed it as their own, of course I would interject and make sure this song was credited to me and that I got my fair share. What's wrong with that? We all need to pay our bills. 

And I would like to point out that almost all the companies, which Jaques listed in his response, hold or held patents, too. Sennheiser holds more than 1300, Schoeps has 28, Aaton 60 (which includes non-audio gear of course), Neumann has 30, Stellavox had 10. Zaxcom has 7 patents. So in the grand scheme of things, Zaxcom is not particularly outstanding (in terms of patents). All of these companies wouldn't have applied to patents if they weren't prepared to defend them. Some would say to the detriment of the customers, but for others developing and patenting and marketing a new and great product is for the benefit of the customers. If the high dynamic range is important to you buy Zaxcom or one of the other devices which do not infringe on Zax's patent, but offer a high dynamic range, too. If it's not important to you, buy something else. But making Zaxcom into some sort of Apple-like "we sue everyone who might just even barely infringe on our patent" predator who seeks out to sue every competitor is foolish, naive and totally over-estimates the financial resources of them. (That last one is a guess). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They got a patent and naturally they defend it. If I wrote a song and someone copies it and claimed it as their own, of course I would interject and make sure this song was credited to me and that I got my fair share. What's wrong with that? We all need to pay our bills. 

 

Copyright and patents are not always analogous in this respect.

Two songwriters working in complete isolation can compose substantially the same song, and yet both would be entitled to copyright protection. On the other hand, two inventors working in complete isolation can put an equal amount of effort into substantially identical inventions, but it is the one who wins the race to the patent office that acquires exclusive rights.

Possession of patent registration does not necessarily imply having the moral high ground.

P.S. This is NOT intended as a comment on the current circumstances. I'm speaking only in an abstract sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two songwriters working in complete isolation can compose substantially the same song, and yet both would be entitled to copyright protection. On the other hand, two inventors working in complete isolation can put an equal amount of effort into substantially identical inventions, but it is the one who wins the race to the patent office that acquires exclusive rights.

it wasn't meant as an analogy, but rather to illustrate another case where intellectual property is protected and generally this protection seems to be more readily accepted than other cases

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

it wasn't meant as an analogy, but rather to illustrate another case where intellectual property is protected and generally this protection seems to be more readily accepted than other cases

Agreed.

I just wish the system was not so heavily biased toward protecting the intellectual property of mega-corporations and patent trolls

The underlying rationale for the entire system has lost its moorings. It no longer seems to be to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" but rather to encourage the massing of portfolios, stifling of innovation, and keeping the intellectual property bar fully employed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Wexler said ;

Do any of us know how many other manufacturers of wireless gear have had their development "blocked" because part of their development was to steal Lectrosonics patented digital hybrid system?

Please don't drag our name into this discussion. 

To my knowledge, Lectrosonic's has not blocked another product based on our patent nor threatened legal action to do so.  We did ask Sony to cease advertising their digitally companded wireless as Digital Hybrid (that's a trade mark issue) and they honorably and cooperatively complied.  They simply missed the trademark and corrected immediately.  They are still selling the product.   But we have NEVER blocked another product based on patent issues nor has anyone to our knowledge has even tried to infringe on any of our patents.  

The implication that we may have in this statement disturbs me greatly - that's not "how we roll" and I resent that implication, both corporately and personally.   I also resent the implication in that same question that other manufacturers would attempt to "steal" our patent.  That part of the statement is , in my opinion, a disservice to all the audio manufacturers out there.  As has been pointed out before by others, the pro audio industry is remarkable in the exemplary honor amongst its manufacturers and its users. I have always felt the industry at every level has been a joy to work in for that very reason.   So, in answer to that question quoted above.

How many manufacturers?  - "None"    Do any of you know?  - the answer now should be "yes". 

Now, back to the more important task of herding engineers for more new toys for you guys - (the lashings will continue until morale improves.........)

Gordon

Gordon Moore

President - Lectrosonics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone has 10 minutes to spare, and wishes for some light relief, then please read this......

http://tinyurl.com/l52mt72

It ir the reply by the CEO of Blue Jean hiFi cables, written to the CEO of Monster Cables, who iirc tried to make a claim that Blue Jean cables were trying to 'look like' Monster cables. As it happens, the CEO/owner of Blue Jean cables used to be involved in patent/copyright/trademark law.... It is a fun read.....

Kindest,

 

sb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon, I think you mis-understood my statement regarding Lectrosonics --- I was trying to make the point that we don't know all the ins and outs of patents (actually, very few here seem to even understand the concept) or whether other companies have had to defend their patents and so forth. By putting Lectrosonics up as an example, I was NOT saying that Lectrosonics has ever, ever done any of these things, "blocked" another company's development --- these are things that Zaxcom is being accused of. I was trying to point out that as users of this gear, we don't know what has gone on with ANY of the other companies, and to infer that what Zaxcom has done is "block" somebody else is a mis-characterizaton. That is why I also posted excerpts from the research I have done on patents in the marketplace to show that other companies have had to defend their patents. Your statement: "But we have NEVER blocked another product based on patent issues nor has anyone to our knowledge has even tried to infringe on any of our patents."  makes my point exactly --- until this time you have made this statement, no one CAN know whether the existence of a Lectrosonics patent has ever "blocked" some other company. Additionally, it is a testament to the size and strength of Lectrosonics I believe that no one has tried to infringe because they know you would taker them to court and win.

"The implication that we may have in this statement disturbs me greatly - that's not 'how we roll' and I resent that implication, both corporately and personally."

I'm very sorry to have made the statements regarding Lectrosonics that have been interpreted as an indictment of the company. This was NOT my intention in any way whatsoever. I know that Lectrosonics, if faced with a similar patent infringement, would behave in a reasonable, ethical, legal and professional manner, just as Zaxcom has --- my intention by using Lectrosonics as an example was to show that ANY company defending their patent should not be subjected to the un-reasonable wrath of criticism that has been heaped on Zaxcom.

"I also resent the implication in that same question that other manufacturers would attempt to 'steal' our patent.  That part of the statement is , in my opinion, a disservice to all the audio manufacturers out there."

Again, I am trying to educate people here, if a manufacturer develops a product using patented technology from another company, that is stealing, plain and simple.

Some of the confusion may have come from possibly an incorrect assumption on my part: is Lectrosonics' Digital-Hybrtid technology patented? I just assumed it is, otherwise I would never have used Lectrosonics as an example. Also, if you discovered that another company was utilizing your same patented technology, would you defend your patent or just let them go ahead and market their product with your technology?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for the well reasoned clarification.  As a wise man once said, "When invited to a knife fight - bring a gun...."   :^)  Yes, the Digital Hybrid technology is patented as is our Automatic Mixer algorithm (Continuous Gain Modulation with Auto-Skewing).

Yes, if a product was brought to market and it demonstrably violated one of our (very few) patents we would be in contact with the manufacturer.  We would not do so merely on the possibility or rumor of such a violation but when we have determined it to be true by buying said product and analyzing/confirming the design and deciding that it would have a negative impact on our company. 

We find little virtue in spending hard earned money on lawyers - we would rather keep engineers off the streets, gainfully employed and making new toys.  What do you call 1,000 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?   A good start......

My favorite anecdote about patents is the statement by Charles H. Duell.  He was the Commissioner of the US Patent Office in 1899.  He wanted to close down the patent office in 1899 because  - and I quote -  

"everything that can be invented has been invented."

The Patent Office and Patent laws have been overwhelmed by the proliferation of technology.  There is renewed interest and discussion on the Hill of long overdue patent law reform to account for the current pace of technology change.  It is probably time for it.

Gordon

Now I'm going over to the "Whispering Sultry things into the Boom" thread - I might just buy a Boom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. 
 
I just wish the system was not so heavily biased toward protecting the intellectual property of mega-corporations and patent trolls

The underlying rationale for the entire system has lost its moorings. It no longer seems to be to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" but rather to encourage the massing of portfolios, stifling of innovation, and keeping the intellectual property bar fully employed.

 

agreed as well.

There seem to be many frivolous patents, like the aforementioned color orange, around. Also the whole Monsanto or Nestlé thing is sickening. But these many negative examples don't mean automatically that ALL patents are frivolous or that ALL company daring to claim a patent (and defend it) is a ruthless greedy evil company. I'm pretty sure that Zaxcom is one of the good ones and none of the above applies to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In our industry (or any where your employees number from the dozens up to the few hundreds, not thousands), the threat of a lawsuit is huge, and is a very effective ban-hammer.

An early stage of a lawsuit is discovery, that means finding out who knew what, when, and who they shared it with, internally or externally.

That means the computers and hard drives for everyone remotely involved in a project are subpoened and imaged, and all paper copies of anything relevant have to be produced.  That's days of work for anyone who ever talked about the project.  

Then you need to get your lawyers involved in sifting through it all to prevent trade secret info on other products from accidentally getting into the hands of the plaintiffs lawyers.

Time is money, this process sucks the lifeblood out of Engineering staff (who will have had the most frequent and frank discussions about how a product is designed), and exposes the very real risk of leaking unrelated secret info. 

Settling a lawsuit or otherwise making it go away before discovery is vital to the well being of a company, regardless of the merits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the confusion may have come from possibly an incorrect assumption on my part: is Lectrosonics' Digital-Hybrtid technology patented? I just assumed it is, otherwise I would never have used Lectrosonics as an example. Also, if you discovered that another company was utilizing your same patented technology, would you defend your patent or just let them go ahead and market their product with your technology?

Yes, Lectro's Digital Hybrid patent was issued in 2007:

http://www.lectrosonics.com/US/Press-Releases/lectrosonics-receives-patent-for-digital-hybrid-wireless-technology.html

http://www.google.com/patents/US7225135

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 2 years later...

Interesting discussion from a few years ago.

My immediate thoughts are about the assumptions people in the thread have made in general about the holder of patents (and rights to defend them - i.e. the assumption that they are always valid and in a moral sense should be defended) and also the assumptions people have made when a company doesn't want to reveal their technology to a rival. Even Glenn's wording seems to heavily imply he fully believes his own confirmation bias that Sonosax don't wish to because they are hiding something (e.g. repeating that he has the e-paper trail of the conversation) ... Likely the truth is he doesn't really know  (unless he's received some kind of inside info/tip-off?) . 

When people choose to make an assumption and fall on one side or the other, they are only reflecting their internal biases and that has nothing to do with the truth or reality.

Confirmation bias is even stronger in groups (e.g. within companies) and anecdotally more so when it comes to defending something the group believes could be under attack (e.g. technology, market position, reputation of appearing weak/not protecting themselves legally - I get the impression that is strong in US business culture -  etc )  That it is under attack is just one level of possible confirmation bias.

An opinion more close to the truth as we know it here is  "I don't know".

It's interesting that Zaxcom didn't or couldn't apply for a worldwide patent. I'm not sure if that says something about the technology, the process, the US patent system, cost or what... anyone with some bias could read into that too!

www.techdirt.com is a good website for reading about the problems with many granted patents by the US patent office (it's a US based news site).

 

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...