Zaxcom patent infringement question

[Paul F]

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.

I like to read up on how other side views the issue. It's often useful to get another perspective. You know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, or as General Patton said when demolishing Rommel's troops in North Africa in the movie Patton, "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!"*

*Patton never really said that.

[mico]

Basically this all comes down to either having or not having an output jack or just disabling it during recording. Thats it.

[IronFilm]

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.

I do believe Panasonic had flip out screens with their MFT cameras, before Canon DSLRs.
(and I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic wasn't the first either, and this is an even older concept)

Likewise, DJI wasn't the first to make gimbals.

[Run&Gun]

I do believe Panasonic had flip out screens with their MFT cameras, before Canon DSLRs.
(and I wouldn't be surprised if Panasonic wasn't the first either, and this is an even older concept)

Likewise, DJI wasn't the first to make gimbals.

Yeah, there were flip-out screens on handycams, like the DVX-100, in the early 2000's(if not sooner), before Canon or anyone else even thought about putting one on a DSLR. Especially since DSLR's weren't really even a category, yet(even though digital still cameras go back into at least the 80's and working prototypes even earlier).

*I stand corrected. While not a DSLR, Canon did have a digital still camera in at least 1998 with a swivel LCD screen.*

[BrianMurphy]

Again, I had no idea this would escalate but now that it has, I think that it is a discussion that is missing one voice, Zaxcom. I wrote to them today to see if they would respond to this discussion, we shall see.

[JAMedia]

Again, I had no idea this would escalate but now that it has, I think that it is a discussion that is missing one voice, Zaxcom. I wrote to them today to see if they would respond to this discussion, we shall see.

I assume you also invited the other One missing voice:- Zoom who have had to make two versions..... and Tascam and the others whilst we are at it.

[Run&Gun]

Again, I had no idea this would escalate but now that it has, I think that it is a discussion that is missing one voice, Zaxcom. I wrote to them today to see if they would respond to this discussion, we shall see.

I’d love to know their justification(besides just flat out attempting to suppress competition) for being able to somehow keep other manufacturers from being able to simply have a working output/loop-through on their stand-alone recorders or wireless transmitters. I lay equal blame on Zaxcom AND the US Patent Office.

[Paul F]

Glenn Sanders, founder of Zaxcom, has commented on their patents here - https://www.reddit.com/r/LocationSou...nt_discussion/

[JAMedia]

Glenn Sanders, founder of Zaxcom, has commented on their patents here - https://www.reddit.com/r/LocationSou...nt_discussion/

Most illuminating "After conferring with our intellectual property counsel, the answer is no. Our counsel informs us that none of our patent claims specifically require a “lavalier microphone" or "unbalanced input” and/or that the transmitter be “worn.” " basically it is a patent drawn up by IP lawyers as a device to stop competitionn as he goes on to say "The invention of the recording transmitter and the process of replacing dropouts with time code referenced files recorded in the transmitter is clearly a desirable and unique feature. Zaxcom innovates at great cost and has advanced the state of the art."

The record and transmit is used on a vast number of devices and is clearly prior art. It seems to me the novel part is the replacing drop outs with the time coded reference files. However even there if you have a recording with no dropouts and you use that to replace the transmitted audio that is hardly novel. I record to a Zoom F4 and send a "guide track" out via a radio mic the the camera. So the process has been used for years.

So what is novel and special about the Zaxcom units? You would have thought that if it was novel they would have had an EU patent for it as well?

[BrianMurphy]

I have exchanged a couple of emails with Glenn Sanders of Zaxcom since posting my "missing voice" reply. Glenn, much to my surprise responded immediately this morning to my email. I have agreed not to copy and paste his detailed response to my questions but to summarize his position on my concern regarding the patent that prevents Zoom and Tascam from selling their product without disabling output when recording.
Glenn has said that Zaxcom is totally open to any manufacturer who would like to license their IP but at this point the only one who has is Diety. So the onus is on Zoom and was on Tascam to simply connect and license or negotiate with Zaxcom. I think this is a fair statement and position.Certainly both Zoom and Tascam not small companies at all could see the value in offering an unencumbered device to the American market? So help me understand why Zoom and Tascam would "cheap out"? It seems to me that they are the ones doing the wrong thing here to the market in the USA. Zaxcom are not the bad guys, they got a patent for something and they own the rights in the USA. I also wonder why Tentacle would not have licensed this for their latest offering?
Now I am not familiar with the Lectrosonics vs Zaxcom lawsuit, I don't believe it has anything to do with this thread and its sounds complicated. But several folks have expressed opinions about it and how they feel one way or the other. Perhaps that discussion should find its way elsewhere?
Glenn also mentioned that the patent we have been discussing here will expire in about four years but again that they are "totally open to licensing if other manufacturers want to contact us and make a deal." As for Zoom and Tascam, I don't feel I need to contact them to get their side of the story. I have contacted two dealers who have contacted Zoom's distro in Canada and Zoom has not replied to multiple calls and emails. I believe they are well aware of this issue but if one of you wants to, go for it. I still intend to buy a Zoom recorder if it is not disabled and it should not be disabled if sold in Canada, that however remains to be seen...or rather heard.
CORRECTION: I was just told by Glenn that Diety contacted Zaxcom and negotiated a deal but it has yet to be completed. My understanding from the first email was that there was a deal in place. I shared this posting with him and he asked me to correct this.