RTP-area local music and culture

[sorren AT mindspring.com]

This is where the fucking patent office should just not grant them a patent.  
You can't go around handing out patents to every fucking tom dick and harry 
that fills out an application.  Seems like there used to be some scientific 
standards applied to patent application approval.  Now there is just a flood 
of crap coming out of there as out of everywhere else and you are right, a 
lot of good money and time will have to go towards fixing it and it's not 
right.  Sloppiness at the patent office costs everyone in the many 
innovations it squashes, the same way that copyright and trademark and sm 
infringes on freedom of speech.  I mean, think about it, companies are 
copyrighting phrases like "have it your way" and pretty soon you won't' be 
able to talk without giving money to some corporation.  I dont' think anyone 
has copyrighted "have a nice day" yet, if anyone on this list wants to become 
a quick millionaire.  

Rachel

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Harper <tharper AT nc.rr.com>
Sent: Jun 5, 2004 9:47 AM
To: ch-scene AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: more clear channel insanity


"Richard Tanzer" <mr_reznat_ AT yahoo.com> 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
> >
> ...........
>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/net
ahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,614,729,&OS=6,614,72
9,&RS=6,614,729,

At the bottom it continues...

snip>>
Any suitable communications links or network schemes may be used to
inter-connect the various components and modules. Furthermore, persons of
skill will recognize that not all of the above-described modules and/or
stations would be required to implement a sufficiently operational event
recording system. For example, in one simple system, the editing module
could be omitted. The primary event file could be transferred directly to a
media recording module. In this simple embodiment, the track length
calculation unit could comprise track delimiters inserted into the event
signal by a person at the event (for example, a technician or a performer).
Such delimiters could be recognized by either the primary storage computer
media recording controllers for parsing up and recording the event into
discrete tracks. The resulting media recordings could thus be produced
almost completely automatically, without any significant human intervention.
This embodiment would allow the creation of small, dedicated systems that
could be used by performers in small venues without large investment in
either equipment or personnel.

Persons of skill will recognize numerous other embodiments of the invention
as presented herein. Accordingly, the present invention is not limited to
that which is expressly presented in the specification and drawings.

>>snip

As I read this I get the impression that they are claiming any event
recording system as being applicable to this patent. Now the little bit I
remember from my business law classes, etc. points to the fact that this
patent is overly broad in its scope. Here is the 'What is a patent' text
from the uspto web site.

'What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor,
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term
of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the
patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an
earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance
fees. U.S. patent grants are effective only within the United States, U.S.
territories, and U.S. possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term
extensions or adjustments may be available.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute
and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using,
offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or
“importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the
right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude
others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the
invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent
without aid of the USPTO.

There are three types of patents:

Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of
matters, or any new useful improvement thereof;

Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and
ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and
asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plants. '

Patentable inventions must be new, involve an inventive step and be capable
of industrial application. Involving an inventive step means that the
invention is "not obvious". Being capable of industrial application means
that the invention is "useful".

How can applying the patent to all event recording systems meet the 'not
obvious' rule when this activity has been available and obvious since before
2001 when the patent was filed? disc-at-once software was also available
prior to 2001. Hell, the TOC is written last so what is new and not obvious
about this 'invention'?

Every day I get more jaded by the 'oversights' of the legal profession and
our government agencies. The bitch is that it will take a pile of money,
lawyers and time to overcome this major piece of crap. Any takers?

Tim


-- ch-scene: the list that mirrors alt.music.chapel-hill --
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/ch-scene