Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Sound Ninja Noiz2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Detroit & SF
    Posts
    6,390
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    But that's what's bizarre...it has nothing to do with Amazon. But the reason they aren't allowed to ship that product here because it's not allowed to be used in the USA because the company who owns the technology inside of it will not allow it.
    Maybe I should clear some things up since I worked for a couple of inventors back when and we had a number of patents. A patent does not make it illegal to sell something. A patent, as our patent attorney put it, "is a license to litigate". You can not patent ideas so the "concept" of a wireless that records can not be patented. Only mechanisms can be patented, actual hardware, chemical formulas etc. And it has to be unique, with no foreshadowing by an older patent. So the basic problem is Tascam doesn't think their profit would justify the lawyer costs. It is extremely unlikely that Zaxcom has a patent on anything that the Tascam unit would be in actual conflict with. And while I haven't checked I would almost bet that what Zaxcom has is a "patent pending". Which means they are trying to get a patent on something and if they are smart they will drag that out for as long as possible because the minute they get an actual patent the patent becomes public. So for instance if you are old enough to remember Dymo labelers, they kept competitors out with a patent pending for a bunch of years. nobody knew what was actually going to be protected so it was risky to try and get in on the market. Finally they got their patent and it was for the adhesive on the tape. Knock offs flooded the market within a year because nothing in the mechanism was actually protected.

    Only 10% of US patents hold up in court. Usually they get killed by "prior art" which just means someone thought of it first and can prove it. The US system is actually pretty good. In Japan you can patent almost anything even if it doesn't work. Which is part of the "Prior Art" problem. The Japanese (and others probably also but the Japanese were kind of notorious for the practice) would brainstorm a problem and then patent everything anybody thought of. In the US this wouldn't fly. The result is that there is a HUGE amount of "prior art" in Japanese patents that can be used to kill other countries patents.

    So in the American market the trick is to stall that process till you have a chance to become the "Kleenex" of whatever it is and dominate the market. If Zaxcoms patent is pending they may not care if they ever get it granted as long as it keeps competition out for some years.
    Cheers
    SK


    Scott Koue
    Web Page
    Noiz on Noise


    ďIt ainít ignorance that causes all the troubles in this world, itís the things that people know that ainít soĒ

    Edwin Howard Armstrong
    creator of modern radio


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,797
    Default
    That is a nice breakdown and thank you, but the bottom line is we have no other options.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of the Pecos
    Posts
    2,478
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Noiz2 View Post
    It is extremely unlikely that Zaxcom has a patent on anything that the Tascam unit would be in actual conflict with. And while I haven't checked I would almost bet that what Zaxcom has is a "patent p ending". Which means they are trying to get a patent on something and if they are smart they will drag that out for as long as possible because the minute they get an actual patent the patent becomes public.
    Zaxcom's patent was awarded in 2010 and has been vigorously defended against all comers. It was challenged in court as not being novel and won and actually set precedence about what is novel. Similar 'obvious' inventions have been patented. Combining a camera and a recorder (back in the tape days) was awarded a patent.

    People seeking a patent have to be prepared to spend a lot of money defending a patent. If you have a competitor that has a lot of money, and wants your idea, and you don't have a lot of money, you have to find a lawyer with deep pockets that knows they can win and will take the case. Patents last 20 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noiz2 View Post
    So in the American market the trick is to stall that process till you have a chance to become the "Kleenex" of whatever it is and dominate the market. If Zaxcoms patent is pending they may not care if they ever get it granted as long as it keeps competition out for some years.
    While a patent application can remain unpublished at the request of the assignee, anyone can copy the idea and compete. It would be an open market until the patent is granted and the assignee is willing to take people to court. In this case, the idea is well known and can be copied by anyone without seeing the patent. So there is nothing to hide. Paragraph 6 of the claims in the patent is the key to the patent:

    "at least one control unit in communication with said local audio device receiver, said audio input device, and said memory for creating local audio data from said locally generated audio and storing said local audio data in said memory;"
    Last edited by Paul F; Yesterday at 09:54 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •