Threats to the AV Industry

Pro Audio Other
1

YES!.. All blarney gone father ‘O Fun, Have Tram! UP Pomme* (right!!!)
David Kent.
P.S. Apologies to all, but Joyce got to me. I would hope that any attempt to patent or issue a brevet pertaining to the principle of mixing remotely from any mixer should fail following the appearance of the mass of information to be found on Andy’s site and elsewhere (and some of what I have found is quite old). However, I am not so sure.

This is the page that got my goat - United States Patent Application 20080091286 (if you want to see the actual application then Google it’s number):
http://www.macnn.com/blogs/2008/04/17/apple-to-enter-live-concert-biz-with-on-stage-box-patent-reveals.html

The Apple (mac) patent gimme-gimme office might note that their application should be considered stillborn anyway, as Yamaha kindly put Studio Manager into the public Domain long ago, and many Yamaha desks have ethernet ports for remote control. However, I am not certain that the US patent office sees things that way. It is not possible for a third party to oppose a patent application in the US once it has been published unless that third party obtains written approval from the applicant!!
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2003/week16/patoppo.htm
Maybe Yamaha would have the clout required to put a stop to Apple’s megalomania. Maybe they would not be considered a “Third” Party.

The old standards, and ideas about the advantages of shared information, are being dusterbrushcarpetburied away. Anyone interested should read “Traité secret sur l’immatériel” by Florent Latrive, published in “Le Monde Diplomatique” in March 2010. It is in French, but might have been translated for the “Guardian Weekly” by now. Otherwise look around for the very secret trade talks concerning ACTA (ACAC in French).

Here is some more to make your blood boil:
http://www.macnn.com/blogs/2009/06/16/apple-granted-patents-for-surround-sound-mixing-os-x-finder-gps-iphone-theft-detection.html

I am pink, therefore I am Spam… after this one I will be Black Pudding!
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/apple_patent_involves_association_of_virtual_controls_with_physical_control

OK, just in case a patent office is currently doing their research, it should be noted that Yamaha already produced exactly the equipment that uses the ideas that Apple wish to patent PRIOR to 27 September 2000.
The Yamaha DME32.
http://aes.harmony-central.com/109AE...aha-DME32.html

Apple lists Gerhard Lengeling (Los Altos, CA) and Nikolaus Gerteis (Horst, DE) as the inventors of this patent which was originally filed in October 2006. It is impossible that Gerhard Lengeling (looking at his long history) should have been unaware of the existence, in mass production, of the Yamaha DME32 and it’s associated software for control over ethernet when he filed his Patent Application.

US patent law is rather soft at the point of entry (with good reason) and rather pro-US (ditto) and has been used massively to gain control over pre-existing ideas and even the building blocks of life (that I think probably pre-existed too). Large US companies, that have built their fortunes on such patents now have the power and the cash to clobber you in the US courts. Very soon, via ACTA, the big stick will be leaning against the wall of a court near you.

2

OK, just in case a patent office is currently doing their research, it should be noted that Yamaha already produced exactly the equipment that uses the ideas that Apple wish to patent PRIOR to 27 September 2000.
The Yamaha DME32.
http://aes.harmony-central.com/109AES/article/Yamaha/Yamaha-DME32.html

Apple lists Gerhard Lengeling (Los Altos, CA) and Nikolaus Gerteis (Horst, DE) as the inventors of this patent which was originally filed in October 2006. It is impossible that Gerhard Lengeling (looking at his long history) should have been unaware of the existence, in mass production, of the Yamaha DME32 and it’s associated software for control over ethernet when he filed his Patent Application.

US patent law is rather soft (with good reason) and rather pro-US (ditto) and will be coming your way soon with ACTA.

3

Yeah, I heard about that Apple patent a while ago, but nothing seems to have come of it.

I do hope that Yamaha’s next mixer is a distributed-processing device. That will be a game-changer for sure.

4

My ideal Yammie would be a PM5 or similar, in a box no bigger or heavier than my laptop, with at least 10 toslink in/out connections on the back, at least 10 ethernet connections on the front, at least 10 usb connections on each side, a power input (90-240V) and maybe some firewire connections for legacy equipment. It would have no expensive bits - screen, knobs, moving faders etc. so it would cost under $2000. It could have a led on it somewhere that confirms that it works, and wireless it would have to have too. It would have an ultimate version of SM that could set up and talk to anything connected to it. That’s probably some kind of a distributed processing device, and I sure would find it easier to carry. It could be called the “YUMMIE DME”.

5

Somehow I can’t help but think that Yamaha may have a different take on " public domain" than you seem to be expressing. It’s more than a little humorous to contrast the relative levels of avarice of Apple versus Yamaha. These two very large, very successful corporate behemoths doing a good job of rewarding their stockholders by making their customers happy. I am still more than a little unclear on how it is a bad thing for Apple to patent and eventually market some sort of distributed Aviom style personal cue mixing system that would presumeably run on Apple branded Mac computers when Aviom, Yamaha, Avid and assorted other hardware makers provide software for their branded hardware. Whats the issue here?

6

The Patent application to which I was referring was for a very general idea (invention), a method (undefined, although by digital data) of controlling a mixing console remotely in a live concert environment. US patent law states:

“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.”

The invention was not a specific product, just an “idea”. Thus if they were to obtain such a patent for the “idea” of controlling a mixer remotely then to do so would be to break US patent law, and Apple would be able to sue for damages, no matter “how” or with what equipment one is doing so, and it would be illegal to import, or to use Studio Manager in the United States. If they obtained a worldwide patent then it would be illegal to do so anywhere unless using their equipment (with the attached licence) or paying Apple for a licence to use their idea, which they would not be likely to sell. New rules may make a worldwide patent unnecessary.

My point is a general one, about US patent law and “prior art”, upon which the application should fail. However, take a look at this link to get a general idea of how US patent law is either lacking in rigour, or just plain biased: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/neem-ch.htm

David Kent