RTP-area local music and culture

["Matt Fisher" <mattf AT sugarhillrecords.com>]

I am guessing that Clear Channel would have knowledge of ways that other
companies could get around this patent they purchased. Are they just making
this claim to try and scare off any potential small players? And hoping that
no one will really challenge them because of the legal fees that might be
involved? Are they just using it as a way to publicize that they have this
technology available? And people might just as soon go through them rather
than some newer, less-tested technologies?
One truly frustrating aspect of this is that the main reason that Clear
Channel has enough money and power to act this way, is that they were
allowed to take the airwaves that rightfully belong to the public and
streamline them into nothing more than advertising outlets. That does not
seem to be in the public's interest. Perhaps this will be Clear Channel's
attempt to conquer Russia in winter. Of course, that's just not the case,
but a guy can dream...

So, this would come down to cost I am guessing. ?
I don't know what the cost is of actually implementing the current Clear
Channel technology, as far as setting it up and recording the shows, etc.
Would you think that the cost of a system that is similar, possibly in some
of the ways you describe (great work on that, by the way), would cost
considerably more than Clear Channel's technology?
I will have to look into this further. Thanks for the links and the leads.

-Matt


"Richard Tanzer" wrote in message
news:Xns94FD2B27512D2mrreznatyahoocom AT 24.94.170.87...
> United States Patent  6,614,729, "System and method of creating digital
> recordings of live performances," Griner, et al.  (September 2, 2003) may
> not be as broad as it first appears.
>
> The first claim is
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> An event recording system, comprising:
>   (i) an event-capture module to capture an event signal and transform
>       it into a primary event file that is accessible as it is being
>       formed;
>  (ii) an editing module communicatively connected to the event capture
>       module, wherein the editing module accesses and parses the primary
>       event file into one or more digital track files that can be recorded
>       onto a recording media; and
> (iii) a media recording module communicatively linked to the editing
>       module for receiving the one or more digital track files, the media
>       recording module having a plurality of media recorders for
>       simultaneously recording the one or more digital track files onto a
>       plurality of recording media.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> A patent claim is only infringed if each and every element of the claimed
> invention is practiced.  Considering the Griner patent, for example:
>
> Suppose you record the first 2 minutes of a concert using "an
event-capture
> module" (a CD, or a file on a hard drive, or an audio tape, or whatever
> medium is most convenient), but NOT onto a Tivo-type medium that is
> "accessible as it is being formed."
>
> 1 minute and 59 seconds after the beginning of the concert you start
> recording onto the next CD, or file in a hard drive, or whatever.  You
> record on that medium for 2 minutes, then you start the next recording,
> etc.  In that way the whole concert is recorded on a total of perhaps 60
> files on a hard drive.
>
> At 2 minutes and 1 second after the beginning of the concert you run your
> first recording through an editor and copy it onto a bunch (perhaps 500)
of
> CD's.  At 4 minutes and 1 second after the beginning of the concert you
run
> your second recording through the tape editor and copy it onto the CD's.
> In this way, at 2 minutes after the end of the concert the recordings are
> available for sale.
>
> Because you did NOT use a "a primary event file that is accessible as it
is
> being formed," you apparently did not infringe the patent.
>
> Another way to avoid the patent might be to directly record the concert
> onto a bunch (say 500) of Tivo-type media, without editing.  As the
concert
> is still being recorded, read the data from each of the 500 Tivo-type
> medium, edit the data through 500 different editing circuits, and
re-record
> the data back onto the same Tivo-type medium from which it was read.  In
> that way you would not be practicing item (iii) of the claim - you would
be
> simultaneously recording the one or more digital track files onto a single
> recording medium - NOT "a plurality of recording media."
>
> With a little bit of creativity there are many other ways of achieving the
> objective of this patent without infringing the claims.
>
> This is not legal advice - you are not my client - I am not your lawyer.
>
>
> -  Richard
>
>
>
> fikri_y AT yahoo.com (Fikri Yucel) wrote in
> 20040602204917.23043.qmail AT web40907.mail.yahoo.com:">news:20040602204917.23043.qmail AT web40907.mail.yahoo.com:
>
> > I am not a lawyer either, but I know a bit about
> > intellectual property issues.  A patent grants
> > exclusive rights and protection to an idea, whereas a
> > copyright grants protection to a specific expression
> > of an idea.  So, yes, you can patent a concept--that's
> > what patents are for.
> >
> > But a patent only grants you exclusive rights for 20
> > years, and after that, into the public domain it goes.
> >  (Copyrights generally last until 70 years after the
> > death of the author.)  It's useful to keep in mind
> > that the purpose of patents is NOT to promote
> > monopolist power; the real purpose is "to promote the
> > progress of science and useful arts" which ultimately
> > serve the public good.  Many innovations require a
> > huge amount of research and development which costs
> > huge money; without some limited amount of protection,
> > the thinking goes, far fewer people would undertake
> > that research and development, and so, there would be
> > far less progress.
> >
> > Having said all that, it's also useful to keep in mind
> > that historically lots and lots of patents never
> > amounted to anything, and those that did were often
> > challenged in court.  Up until the 1970s the courts
> > were not very sympathetic to patent holders.  Since
> > then, revisions to the laws have strengthened the
> > patent system.  Now intellectual property issues
> > (patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc.) are
> > uber-hot stuff, especially because of the challenges
> > of keeping up with rapidly evolving information
> > technologies (and other technologies for that matter).
> >
> > For a patent to be granted, the patent office has to
> > assess whether or not the idea is "useful, novel, and
> > not obvious" at the time of the invention.  The patent
> > now held by Clear Channel was issued in 2003.  If
> > someone could demonstrate that the technology
> > described in the patent was already used, offered for
> > sale, or described publicly before the patent was
> > issued, then the patent could be lost.  I suppose you
> > could also challenge them on the "non-obvious"
> > criterion, but any of those challenges would take big
> > bucks in legal fees.
> >
> > Anyhow.  Here's an informative link if yr interested:
> >
> > http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/ipbasics.htm
> >
> > -Fikri
> >
> ...........
>