Donald Kauffman Posted February 1 Report Share Posted February 1 Hi all Every now and again when a job comes up that needs it I get exasperated that my SMWBs cannot transmit and record at the same time. Obviously this has been going on a long time and I know why it is but I wondered has anyone heard whether Lectro have the capability, once the patent has ended, to flick a switch that will allow the SMWBs to do this? I do also wonder why I can do this already with my A10 but not Lectros. I'm based in Europe which must be why Audio Ltd has avoided the patent, but I guess Lectro have never found a way to do this outside of the US... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Steel Posted February 1 Report Share Posted February 1 I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Lectrosonics manufactures the product inside the USA, and therefore the patent applies to the manufacture. Whereas, if another company might be able to manufacture outside the geographic scope of the patent, in which case only sales are restricted by the patent. I have not heard one way or the other whether the hardware has the capability to do both simultaneously. Personally I suspect it can and is limited only by the firmware. If I remember correctly, the SMWB firmware package contains at least two separate programs, one for record mode and another for transmit mode; based on the chosen functionality, the appropriate code gets loaded into memory and executed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Kauffman Posted February 1 Author Report Share Posted February 1 Yeah it would be madness if they didn't build it in in some way to be able to change it in the future. And yeah it must be that Lectrosonics manufactures the product inside the USA so can't get around the patent. Unfortunate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lipka Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 I heared from a distributor in my country that as soon as the Patent will expire, a firmware update will be able to unlock this feature. Still some years to wait.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejan Ceko Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 https://patents.justia.com/assignee/zaxcom-inc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Karlsson Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 38 minutes ago, Dejan Ceko said: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/zaxcom-inc Not sure if I’m reading it correctly, but looks like it was just renewed (?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Documentary Sound Guy Posted February 2 Report Share Posted February 2 Patents aren't renewable. So, typically lawyers will find some minor modification that they can treat as a "new" innovation and they patent that. I believe that's what's happening here: It's the same basic idea, re-written in a way that it can be argued that something new has been invented. Also, that's a list of *all* of Zaxcom's patents, not just the ones pertaining to transmitters with a recording function. Judging from the title alone (not a very solid basis), the "renewal" pertains to a mixer / recorder, not a transmitter. If you try to read the patents themselves, you'll find that they are almost unreadable from a technical perspective. I challenge you to read any of Zaxcom's patents and explain what they actually say. This is deliberate; it's a legal tactic to use language that is so obscure and hard to understand that the patent examiner will conclude it's highly technical, and therefore, new and patentable (in legal terms, something novel and original). In theory, patents are supposed to disclose the key innovation so that, in the long term, everything becomes public knowledge, but in practice, most patents are written to be intentionally confusing and obscure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Karlsson Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 Ah ok, copy. I didn't read very closely, just kinda skimmed over it. Thanks for clarifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronFilm Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 8 hours ago, The Documentary Sound Guy said: Patents aren't renewable. So, typically lawyers will find some minor modification that they can treat as a "new" innovation and they patent that. I believe that's what's happening here: It's the same basic idea, re-written in a way that it can be argued that something new has been invented. Each time a patent gets "renewed" (gets a minor modification made for a "new" patent) then the basis of that patent monopoly becomes weaker and weaker than it originally was. So if you're of the opinion that original patent for recording/transmitting was granted already on a very weak basis, then the "new" one should be even weaker, and be even more vulnerable to strong and well funded legal challenge. (but that's the problem... even weak patents are very expensive to properly and thoroughly challenge, and even then, you're guaranteed nothing! Is it worth taking the risk with all those $$$$ if it's for a very niche product market that has only a small number of sales each year in that country?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted February 3 Report Share Posted February 3 On 2/1/2024 at 12:03 PM, Donald Kauffman said: Lectro have never found a way to do this outside of the US... They would have found a way, but as a US company they are still under the patent restraints, regardless of where they manufacture. In the case with Sound Devices I‘m surprised they can still do this as they purchased Audio Ltd several years ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnpaul215 Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 On 2/3/2024 at 12:01 AM, Constantin said: They would have found a way, but as a US company they are still under the patent restraints, regardless of where they manufacture. In the case with Sound Devices I‘m surprised they can still do this as they purchased Audio Ltd several years ago *just a guess* but Sound Devices probably never brought the wireless division (Audio Limited) in to the USA. So they're probably still made at the same place, outside the USA. Maybe on some legal level, that's is why it's ok, but they can't import recording versions into the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalton Patterson Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 Is it a no no for someone to go to “Europe” and come home with a few units that do both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.paterson Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 It can't have helped lectro sales.. Here in UK /Europe other than Shure and Sony,- Zaxcom/Wysi/ audio ltd(Sound Devices) can all record and transmit at same time, my new lectro tx's could but can't so still using PDR's with tx's when I need to, but very frustrating as a lectro user in Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izen Ears Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 Once around 2009 or 2010 I spoke to a Lectro rep and he asked me what would I like to see. Immediately I answered recording transmitters. What a bummer Zaxcom has killed that dream. I was an early adopter of Zaxcom wireless because of this feature, but they just sucked so hard I ended up selling them at a great loss. If only their tech could have lived up to their patents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.paterson Posted February 11 Report Share Posted February 11 Does the zaxcom ammended patent mean that the patent doesn't end next year now?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Documentary Sound Guy Posted February 12 Report Share Posted February 12 58 minutes ago, r.paterson said: Does the zaxcom ammended patent mean that the patent doesn't end next year now?. Strictly speaking no, because the patent would only apply to whatever is amended, and it is presumably possible to build a transmitter / recorder without invoking the amendment (after all, Zaxcom did it 20 years ago). I also don't think anyone here has actually read the patents, so we have no evidence that their new filing is, in fact, amending anything to do with the recording capabilities of transmitters. The title suggests it is for something else (something to do with mixing multiple sources; I would guess it covers integration between a receiver and recorder ... but that is extremely speculative on my part, please don't take it as fact). That doesn't discount the fact that there are multiple patents around transmitter / recorders filed between 2005 and 2010, so one of those earlier patents could still be encumbering a transmitter / recorder design even after the first one has expired. All in all, this is really a lawyer question and a question of how Lectrosonics specific design relates to the Zaxcom's designs. You can try and read the patents if you like (they are public), but they are deliberately written in obfuscating language, so I would guess you really do need a lawyer's help. 18 hours ago, Dalton Patterson said: Is it a no no for someone to go to “Europe” and come home with a few units that do both? Technically, I believe it is illegal to import products that violate patents (it certainly is for commercial reasons). But, if you are importing small amounts in your personal luggage, I think it's pretty unlikely customs would complain. They'd want you to pay duty and taxes (which you should do), but those agents aren't going to know (or care, probably) whether the items you are importing implicate American patents. They probably would want them to be FCC certified, which could be a problem for the European models though. It depends how they are marked ... you could try bringing them in under the certification of the American models and they might not look closely enough to notice. It could end up being a pretty expensive experiment if they do though... It might also be easier / cheaper to try importing from either Canada or Mexico ... it'd be a cheaper flight for sure. I can buy the European A20 from Trew Audio here in Vancouver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Steel Posted February 13 Report Share Posted February 13 On 2/11/2024 at 5:53 PM, r.paterson said: Does the zaxcom ammended patent mean that the patent doesn't end next year now?. Some of them appear to expire next year, others do not. Here is a sample: Patent 8,385,814 B2 appears to have an anticipated expiration date of 2025-07-14. (Google patents). Patent 9,336,307 B2 appears to have an adjusted expiration date of 2025-07-31. (Google patents). Patent 7,929,902 B2 appears to have an adjusted expiration date of 2028-08-22. (Google patents). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Tresch Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 On 2/2/2024 at 10:04 PM, Dejan Ceko said: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/zaxcom-inc Did Zaxcom patent the mixing of tracks ? 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Documentary Sound Guy Posted February 14 Report Share Posted February 14 From the title, it certainly sounds like it. I would hope the PTO would reject it if it were that simple; simple mixing is not something that is patentable given the long history of doing just that. But I haven't read the details. I'm guessing the "from multiple sources" part of the title is how they intend to claim they've made a unique invention, and the most likely interpretation I can think of (again, without having read the details), is that maybe they want to patent integrating a receiver into a recorder. There's lots of prior art here I think, but it does look a bit dodgy from the surface. I don't want to pre-judge because, again, I haven't read it, and the details will matter. If you actually want an answer to your question, someone needs to do that. And, much as I have concerns over how that application is titled, I really have better things to do with my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Tresch Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 Their dual AD is also a well known trick dating back from the telecinema times in the 80's. Sonosax had it also implemented before them and Arri is also using it in their Alexas camera... nothing new. Bright idea to patent the wheel... Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 15 Report Share Posted February 15 23 minutes ago, Patrick Tresch said: Their dual AD is also a well known trick dating back from the telecinema times in the 80's. Sonosax had it also implemented before them and Arri is also using it in their Alexas camera... nothing new. Bright idea to patent the wheel... Patrick You are only partially correct on this. Zaxcom did not patent (and would not have been granted a patent) merely for the use of 2 A-D converters. What Zaxcom DID patent, this is my understanding, is Zaxcom's specific utilization of 2 A-D converters in a unique way. The patent would never have been granted if it were merely the use of 2 A-Ds --- you are right that this is not new and predates anything from Zaxcom, Lectrosonics, Audio, Ltd., etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeySound Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 Keep an eye on the Rode vs Zaxcom lawsuit. If Rode wins, that could be big for the other manufacturers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted June 24 Report Share Posted June 24 As far as I can tell, Rode will lose just as Lerctro lost. The patents are solid whether you agree with them or not. Defending the patent is no fun at all but necessary for any company that holds patents that presupposed to prevent other companies from stealing. The legal costs are substantial and obviously hurts Zaxcom ore than Rode (Rode is a billion dollar business). No matter what the legal costs are, it has to be done, it will be settled in court and Rode will have to wait like every other company until the patents expire. Of course if Rode agrees to a licensing fee (something which many, many other companies have had to do to produce products that are deemed to infringe), they would be able to legally manufacture and sell a recording transmitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Tresch Posted July 18 Report Share Posted July 18 On 6/24/2024 at 8:52 PM, Jeff Wexler said: As far as I can tell, Rode will lose just as Lerctro lost. The patents are solid whether you agree with them or not. Defending the patent is no fun at all but necessary for any company that holds patents that presupposed to prevent other companies from stealing. The legal costs are substantial and obviously hurts Zaxcom ore than Rode (Rode is a billion dollar business). No matter what the legal costs are, it has to be done, it will be settled in court and Rode will have to wait like every other company until the patents expire. Of course if Rode agrees to a licensing fee (something which many, many other companies have had to do to produce products that are deemed to infringe), they would be able to legally manufacture and sell a recording transmitter. Or ignore the USA market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.