Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 91
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JAMedia View Post
    The US patent system is well known internationally for granting almost anything a patent (for a US firm) even if there is something similar elsewhere the world. As with this case it is designed to protect US companies against foreign competition rather than protecting anything novel. The US are not alone in this other countries such as China simply ignore foreign patents as several US companies have discovered.

    As noted Zaxcom serves a small niche of a niche market where anyone in the US who wants to get round it just gets a friend to order one in Europe or Canada. So there is no point in anyone challenging the patent. That costs money, probably more than the market is worth. However why spend money on challenging Zaxcom when the patent causes threads like this one that dent Zaxcom's standing (free of charge)?

    Due to the internet crossing borders without seeing them, anyone looking for this sot of device will find not only the competition to Zaxcom but many threads like this one discussing the situation. Is suspect the current, well documented, situation gains Zoom more sales, for free, than would be the case if they challenged and won the case against Zaxcom.
    Here I'll fix this for you. The thing you're missing is that its costing more of my money to get around the patent here in the U.S., and when I want another product that comes out in the future that infringes I''l have to pay more to get around it and so on and so on. Thats what Zaxcom is doing to US buyers. The majority of buyers of track Es , Zooms, Tascams, would never even consider buying Zaxcom because of their high end pricing so Zacom is not losing any business from those buyers.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member JAMedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    141
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mico View Post
    Here I'll fix this for you. The thing you're missing is that its costing more of my money to get around the patent here in the U.S., and when I want another product that comes out in the future that infringes I''l have to pay more to get around it and so on and so on. Thats what Zaxcom is doing to US buyers. The majority of buyers of track Es , Zooms, Tascams, would never even consider buying Zaxcom because of their high end pricing so Zacom is not losing any business from those buyers.
    Understood. Maybe not loosing [that m]any customers but certainly not gaining any.

    Though does it cost any more to buy the "international Zoom or Tascam from Canada than the hobbled one from the US?


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JAMedia View Post
    Understood. Maybe not loosing [that m]any customers but certainly not gaining any.

    Though does it cost any more to buy the "international Zoom or Tascam from Canada than the hobbled one from the US?
    My 3 track E's from England $1224 US. Three from B&H $1047 + tax = $1109. And lets not forget the warranty issues that might come up for me if the recorders have any problems within the 2 year overseas warranty.
    Last edited by mico; 12-27-2020 at 02:33 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member Peter C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    466
    Default
    I don't understand the "rules" because I see in other areas 3rd party Chinese companies only too happy to step in and sell almost the identical product. Take for example Aperture sells the wildly popular Light Storm monolight and the Light Dome parabolic soft box. In no time you have knock offs with similar design. At first you had to insert rods and then they went built in rods like an umbrella. With each innovation the knock offs quickly followed suit. Then consumers have the choice to buy Aperture or lower quality copy. You even see it in cameras. Canon came out with the flip out screen in their DSLRs and gradually all the other manufactures have copied that feature. Look at gimbals, they all have copied dji, they all offer very similar design and functionality.
    Last edited by Peter C.; 12-27-2020 at 12:58 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,232
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mico View Post
    Here I'll fix this for you. The thing you're missing is that its costing more of my money to get around the patent here in the U.S., and when I want another product that comes out in the future that infringes I''l have to pay more to get around it and so on and so on. Thats what Zaxcom is doing to US buyers. The majority of buyers of track Es , Zooms, Tascams, would never even consider buying Zaxcom because of their high end pricing so Zacom is not losing any business from those buyers.
    I more or less agree with you. But what they are doing is ticking-off/screwing people like me off, who are in that high/higher end demographic that they serve. I'm entrenched heavily in Lectrosonics to the tune of many, many tens of thousands of dollars and I'm not making a wholesale change to Zaxcom for what is a secondary(maybe tertiary) level feature.

    And again, as has been said many times, it's not just them stopping other manufacturers from making one-piece, self-contained transmitter/recorders, BUT that they have somehow managed to con the US Patent office into blocking even output and pass-through features on STAND-ALONE transmitters and recorders from other manufacturers sold here in the US.

    I don't have any numbers to back this up, just my observations over the years working in this business and across the country. Lectrosonics probably outsells them, conservatively, 2:1, but probably really 3:1 or 4:1 and Sound Devices is probably in the same range. And while I'll never wish ill-will on anyone, I hope it stays like that.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Run&Gun View Post
    I more or less agree with you. But what they are doing is ticking-off/screwing people like me off, who are in that high/higher end demographic that they serve. I'm entrenched heavily in Lectrosonics to the tune of many, many tens of thousands of dollars and I'm not making a wholesale change to Zaxcom for what is a secondary(maybe tertiary) level feature.

    And again, as has been said many times, it's not just them stopping other manufacturers from making one-piece, self-contained transmitter/recorders, BUT that they have somehow managed to con the US Patent office into blocking even output and pass-through features on STAND-ALONE transmitters and recorders from other manufacturers sold here in the US.

    I don't have any numbers to back this up, just my observations over the years working in this business and across the country. Lectrosonics probably outsells them, conservatively, 2:1, but probably really 3:1 or 4:1 and Sound Devices is probably in the same range. And while I'll never wish ill-will on anyone, I hope it stays like that.
    My feeling is the patent is Zaxcon specifically directing their position against Lectrosonics and no one else. The rest of us not in that battle have to also pay a price unfortunately.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West of the Pecos
    Posts
    2,625
    Default
    For a perspective from the other side of this topic: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/08/1...ted/id=112135/


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,232
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by mico View Post
    My feeling is the patent is Zaxcon specifically directing their position against Lectrosonics and no one else. The rest of us not in that battle have to also pay a price unfortunately.
    Yes, it hurts everyone that is not Zaxcom or a Zaxcom customer.

    I'm all for competition and protecting your hard work and original ideas. But this is NOT an original idea and they are stifling competition and advancements in the field.


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

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul F View Post
    For a perspective from the other side of this topic: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/08/1...ted/id=112135/
    And the comments section has the other side. You can post as many pro Zaxcon articles you want. The only thing up for debate is that they took two existing technologies and put them together which some people believe existed before Zaxcom did it and some believe isn't patent worthy.
    Last edited by mico; 12-27-2020 at 03:08 PM.


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

  10. Collapse Details
    #40
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,232
    Default
    I stumbled across that article several months ago. In relation to the industry at large, this guy is clueless.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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