DBSM Digital Transcorder cannot record sound files and send audio at the same time?and

[Eric Lau]

DBSM Digital Transcorder why factory cannot make record sound files (sd card) and send audio to the receiver at the same time? DBSM Digital Transcorder only has A1B1, will it has B1C1 in the future ?

[Fish]

Zaxcom

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, Fish said:

Zaxcom

And their lawyers. 

And the screwed up Patent Office, and the messed up IP laws in the USA. 

 

Ah well, at least their patent will expire in a few more short years. 

[Jeff Wexler]

To IronFilm: ask yourself if you had produced something and had it patented (whether you think the patent system is a good thing or a bad thing) wouldn't you want to defend your patent rights? If you are actually interested in the patent system in the US and how it has affected so much of our everyday lives regarding the gear that we use, I would be happy to discuss some of this history with you. 

[John Blankenship]

I find myself rather baffled by IronFilm's stance against innovation in the marketplace. 

 

 

.  

 

[IronFilm]

 

2 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

To IronFilm: ask yourself if you had produced something and had it patented (whether you think the patent system is a good thing or a bad thing) wouldn't you want to defend your patent rights? If you are actually interested in the patent system in the US and how it has affected so much of our everyday lives regarding the gear that we use, I would be happy to discuss some of this history with you. 

 

First of all, I wouldn't patent and defend anything that shouldn't be patented (although unfortunately the system is designed to force you to get defensive patents). For instance the entire category of software patents simply should not exist! To have a patent for those is as ridiculous as having a patent for e^iπ + 1 = 0!  (Imagine if Euler had been given a patent for that?? Or even a copyright. Or maybe Roger Cotes should have got the IP for it? What an absolute mess of a disaster!) That should never ever happen, it's a crime against science and physical reality. Ask yourself if it is ethically right and good for society if there are patents for math? Or is it immoral and a net harm? And yes, I'm quite aware of patent history (I'm quite a big nerd for this stuff, been around the IT scene a long time, I was pretty deep into the politics of IP law at one point). Aware of in the USA too, it's really got out of hand there, too many patents being granted in the USA that just wouldn't be allowed in other countries (for instance here in my country the entire category of software patents that's allowed in the USA is instead banned in NZ. As I said before the entire IP system in America is badly broken, and that's just one example). Just because something "has a patent" doesn't make it right.

 

Funny timing to bring this up, as I just watched this evening a video from JinniTech as for the first time in three long years he's put out another video, of course about RED and how this other patent there is the film industry that should never ever have been granted: 

 

JinniTech has put out a bunch of other videos, have a watch of them, such as this one:

 

 

After watching them then ask yourself, is it right this patent still stands? How much has the existence of this patent held back over a decade's worth of progress in the film industry? How much has society missed out on because of this? 

I understand you are very quick in wanting to defend Zaxcom, as you have a long history of using them. And I appreciate the products they've been making. Don't read this as an attack specifically on Zaxcom (note that I didn't even use the word "Zaxcom" in my previous post!), but a wish to highlight the broken patent system. (which is what the bulk of my short comment was about)

 

If it had been any other company I'd be still saying exactly the same! Just like I am also against how RED abused the patent system in America. And although I'm primarily a Lectrosonics and Sound Devices user, if they did something similar I'd be quick to bring up my issues I see with their actions too! For instance if Sound Devices decided to play hard ball with the Superslot standard and deliberately kept out Deity/Zaxcom/Hollyland/DJI/Line6/Godox/Rode/Saramonic/AudioTechnica/Audix/whoever/etc and were pursing aggressive legal actions against them, then I'd certainly be strongly objecting to that as well! As not only would it be ethically wrong, but it would be very bad for our industry too if Sound Devices did that. (& I hope they never do! I don't think they would either as they seem like sensible people, just gave it as a theoretical example) 

 

12 minutes ago, John Blankenship said:

I find myself rather baffled by IronFilm's stance against innovation in the marketplace.   

I'm very strongly in favor of innovation! 🙂 That's why I strongly oppose obstacles that block and hold back innovation. 

[Jeff Wexler]

32 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

First of all, I wouldn't patent and defend anything that shouldn't be patented

So, are you the one who decides whether something is patentable or not? Are you aware of all the abuses of the patent/copyright procedures that have been tried over the years? Do you know that Microsoft wanted to patent the use of a "window" in computer operating systems? All of the "look and feel" litigation that went on (Apple, Microsoft, etc.). How about the famous Betamax lawsuits where the motion picture studios tried to get Congress to allow personal home video tape! Regarding our industry and the gear we use, do you know one of the primary reasons the Nagra recorder was the only recorder used for sync sound for picture (Kudelski patented the neopilot sync system that was introduced with the Nagra III and became the standard to which all recordings had to adhere other manufacturers were prohibited from producing recorders that utilized this patented system). I could go on and on but I won't. If you have a problem with the patent system, do something to try and change it --  don't attack the companies that are obeying the law and give a free pass to those companies who break the law.

[Jeff Wexler]

Apple had to settle with Creative Technology (a company that had an MP3 player with a user interface it had patented) for $100 million (US) to allow the Apple iPod to be produced without violating Creative's valid patent. We can all debate whether Creative should have been allowed to patent their user interface, but they applied for a patent and it was granted.

 

-from Wikipedia: 

 

Apple's application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a patent on "rotational user inputs",^[93] as used on the iPod interface, received a third "non-final rejection" (NFR) in August 2005. Also in August 2005, Creative Technology, one of Apple's main rivals in the MP3 player market, announced that it held a patent^[94] on part of the music selection interface used by the iPod line, which Creative Technology dubbed the "Zen Patent", granted on August 9, 2005.^[95] On May 15, 2006, Creative filed another suit against Apple with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Creative also asked the United States International Trade Commissionto investigate whether Apple was breaching U.S. trade laws by importing iPods into the United States.^[96]

On August 24, 2006, Apple and Creative announced a broad settlement to end their legal disputes. Apple will pay Creative US$100 million for a paid-up license, to use Creative's awarded patent in all Apple products. As part of the agreement, Apple will recoup part of its payment, if Creative is successful in licensing the patent. Creative then announced its intention to produce iPod accessories by joining the Made for iPod program

[Trey LaCroix]

While I would love to see recording come to more manufacturer’s transmitters, I absolutely cannot think of a good reason as so why their patent shouldn’t be upheld. They are entitled to protect the technology they designed first for a certain amount of time in order to make back their investment in R&D and profit from said technology.

[John Blankenship]

The blind spot seems to be that without patent protection, smaller companies whose raison d’être is innovation would cease to exist.

 

 

[Philip Perkins]

Zax got there first, folks.  A pisser to many, but that's how it is.  Would we prefer a system where larger co.s could just run over smaller ones and steal their tech?  There are many such countries that operate this way...the USA isn't one of them, so far.

[JonG]

I’m not a fan of the fact that our only option for recording while transmitting is Zaxcom. But I definitely believe in their right to hold the patent. Anybody here who claims to believe in Zaxcoms rights, and uses products from companies that have blatantly ripped off other companies equipment should look in the mirror. I can think of a few companies that have done so, and yet people in this community seem to wholly embrace their products. It doesn’t make sense to me thats for sure. That said, I would be very happy if Zaxcom would come to some agreement with other manufacturers to allow them to use their technology. I don’t hate on Zaxcom, I just don’t use their products. 

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:59 AM, Jeff Wexler said:

If you have a problem with the patent system, do something to try and change it --  don't attack the companies that are obeying the law and give a free pass to those companies who break the law.

I'm sorry, but this sentiment pisses me off.  IronFilm lives in New Zealand, where, presumably, he is a citizen.  WTF is he supposed to do to change the patent system in the USA aside from speaking out in a public forum and making a reasonable argument that the system is broken?  He is literally doing about the only thing in his power that he could be doing to change it.  He has zero ability to do anything about the USPTO:  He doesn't live in the US, can't vote in the US, and any committees or advocacy groups that have any chance of reforming the USPTO are also based in the US.

I've been involved advocacy and policy making around copyright and IP in my own home country (Canada) for over a decade now.  The hard reality is, Canadian copyright (and patent) laws don't matter all that much, even in Canada.  Most of the players that matter are either American themselves, or do so much business in America that they tailor their business practices to American law.  Most of the internet functions on the de facto basis of US law.  I can do absolutely nothing about this; but I follow Canadian laws in my own business, I try to do business with Canadian entities that also follow these laws, and I attempt to make sure that these laws do not follow the corrupt patterns and processes of American IP law.  But, much of the time, those best efforts are futile, and I'm stuck dealing with policies that are tailored to American laws which, from the perspective of a foreigner like me, are simply imposed; there is absolutely nothing I can do to change them.

With respect to IronFilm's comment about what should and shouldn't be patented, he doesn't need to decide.  There are well-known legal standards of novelty and obviousness that the USPTO is supposed to abide by, but which they have largely ignored over last few decades.  In other words, a patentable invention in the US is supposed to be both new and non-obvious to an inventor in the same field as the invention.  The USPTO has lost lawsuits over this (I believe in the second circuit), yet they continue to award patents in large quantities for "inventions" that have copious prior examples available, or for "general concepts" that are so broad as to cover wide swaths of existing inventions.

As that pertains to Zaxcom's patent, adding recording capability to a wireless transmitter might have been new at the time (2005 I believe), but figuring out how to add that capability would have been obvious to any electrical engineer at the time.  The simple idea of adding record functionality to a device is not a hard problem, and therefore should not have been patentable.  What might have deserved patenting was the specific way that Zaxcom solved this problem:  Perhaps they designed an IC that was both miniature and efficient enough to be battery powered in a transmitter (though, recording ICs have been available since at least 1997, likely earlier, so Zaxcom would have had to show that their design was special in some way).  In any case, a well-functioning patent system (and the system imagined by the people who originally wrote US patent laws) should have allowed Zaxcom to patent their *specific* solution, not the general concept of adding recording to a transmitter.

The original point of the patent system was to provide an incentive for inventors to *share* the designs they create and give them a possible revenue stream so that others don't have to duplicate their work.  This is why part of the patent application process is supposed to be that the inventor makes public everything necessary to build a duplicate of their invention.  Patentability is supposed to be grounded in a specific design or process.  It's not enough to just wave your hands and say "I could build a transmitter with record capability".  A patent is supposed to describe a *specific* way of doing this, and the patent is not supposed to impede other inventors who solve the problem in a different way.  It's supposed to make it possible for inventors to build on each other's work by licensing designs at a price that is cheaper than creating a design from scratch, but it's not supposed to prevent inventors from coming up with different designs.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the USPTO routinely grants patents for general concepts and for ideas that have clear "prior art" (i.e. for things that have already been invented) has destroyed the legitimacy of patent law in the US.  You can say that Zaxcom applied for and was granted a patent, and therefore they are entitled to the legal rights that go with that.  And, indeed, they are within their legal rights to enforce their patents.  But, I'm not willing to endorse those actions just because they are legal when the laws that create that legality are corrupt.  I believe it has long been an American precept that there is a moral obligation to disobey laws that are unjust.

So, if you are reading this and asking why I don't "do something about the system":  I'm doing my part by arguing for a better system, and I'm keeping my own backyard in order.  This is literally the most I'm able to do a non-citizen of the United States.  Those of you who are citizens:  Fix your goddam laws, and stop imposing them outside your border.

[Paul F]

2 hours ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said:

I'm sorry, but this sentiment pisses me off.  ....

That's what is fun about patents. They make everyone angry.

 

 

[Jeff Wexler]

Thank you "The Documentary Sound Guy" (sorry, I don't know your name) for taking the time to post your thoughts on this subject. I agree with much of what you are saying here, but I also strongly disagree with you on certain things. Thank you as well for painting out that "Iron Film" lives in New Zealand, something which I had not considered with some of my comments to him. I would take the time to respond to your post, point by point, but I feel that it might be something that doesn't really interest that many people, I would not want to dominate the site (though I would rather not have you have the last word.)

[The Documentary Sound Guy]

4 hours ago, Jeff Wexler said:

Thank you "The Documentary Sound Guy" (sorry, I don't know your name) for taking the time to post your thoughts on this subject. I agree with much of what you are saying here, but I also strongly disagree with you on certain things. Thank you as well for painting out that "Iron Film" lives in New Zealand, something which I had not considered with some of my comments to him. I would take the time to respond to your post, point by point, but I feel that it might be something that doesn't really interest that many people, I would not want to dominate the site (though I would rather not have you have the last word.)

Feel free to continue with a private message then.  Or, if you need the last word ... it's your site, I promise I won't let it drag out.