Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_03.php#005155
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent Patent Busting Project Wins Victory for Artists and Innovators San Francisco - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has announced it will revoke an illegitimate patent held by Clear Channel Communications after a campaign by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The patent -- owned by Instant Live, a company formerly owned by Clear Channel, and now owned by Live Nation -- covered a system and method of creating digital recordings of live performances. Clear Channel claimed the bogus patent created a monopoly on all-in-one technologies that produce post-concert digital recordings and threatened to sue those who made such recordings. This locked musical acts into using Clear Channel technology and blocked innovations by others. However, EFF's investigation found that a company named Telex had in fact developed similar technology more than a year before Clear Channel filed its patent request. EFF -- in conjunction with patent attorney Theodore C. McCullough and with the help of Lori President and Ashley Bollinger, students at the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic at American University's Washington College of Law -- asked the PTO to revoke the patent based on this and other extensive evidence. "Bogus patents like this one are good examples of what's wrong with the current patent system," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "We're glad that the Patent Office was willing to help artists and innovators out from under its shadow." The Clear Channel patent challenge was part of EFF's Patent Busting Project, aimed at combating the chilling effects bad patents have on public and consumer interests. The Patent Busting Project seeks to document the threats and fight back by filing requests for reexamination against the worst offenders. "The patent system plays a critical role in business and the economy," said McCullough. "Everyone loses if we allow overreaching patent claims to restrict the tremendous benefits of new software and technology development." For the notice from the Patent Office: http://www.eff.org/patent/wanted/cle..._to_cancel.pdf For more on EFF's Patent Busting Project: http://www.eff.org/patent Contacts: Jason Schultz Staff Attorney Electronic Frontier Foundation Theodore C. McCullough Registered Patent Attorney [Updated: 3/13/07] Posted at 12:02 AM |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
On Mar 24, 2:52 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Meanwhile, we have folks Asleep At The Patent Office, caching all sorts of stuff that has no legitimate right to patent. I read an article not too long ago that said that the Patent Office has finally figured out that they don't have all the expertise that they need for properly evaluating the patent applications that they're getting today. They intend to set up a web-based means for experts in the field to comment on the patent applications. Maybe some day you could review one yourself. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
On Mar 24, 1:02 pm, Kurt Albershardt wrote:
San Francisco - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has announced it will revoke an illegitimate patent held by Clear Channel Communications after a campaign by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The patent -- owned by Instant Live, a company formerly owned by Clear Channel, and now owned by Live Nation -- covered a system and method of creating digital recordings of live performances. I remember reading about this issue in Mix a while back. I could never see what could be patented about the method. It looked like normal production to me, just done in a hurry. I think that the thing that made it work was that they were mixing and editing real time in ProTools, while the show was being recorded. That's a pretty clever trick, but unless they modified ProTools, that's just something that it does. It sounded to me like trying to patent a method of removing screws with a screwdriver. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2007_03.php#005155 EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent Patent Busting Project Wins Victory for Artists and Innovators San Francisco - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has announced it will revoke an illegitimate patent held by Clear Channel Communications after a campaign by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Hey, maybe even Bob O will be okay with this bit of EFF work. Meanwhile, we have folks Asleep At The Patent Office, caching all sorts of stuff that has no legitimate right to patent. -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
I read an article not too long ago that said that the Patent Office has finally figured out that they don't have all the expertise that they need for properly evaluating the patent applications that they're getting today. They intend to set up a web-based means for experts in the field to comment on the patent applications. thats a good idea, but somebody probably already has a patent on web based contributions systems and will try to sue the patent office...:-) Mark |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
On Mar 25, 2:04 pm, "Mark" wrote:
thats a good idea, but somebody probably already has a patent on web based contributions systems and will try to sue the patent office...:-) Sigh . . . yeah, I suppose so. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
In article .com,
"Mike Rivers" wrote: On Mar 24, 2:52 pm, (hank alrich) wrote: Meanwhile, we have folks Asleep At The Patent Office, caching all sorts of stuff that has no legitimate right to patent. I read an article not too long ago that said that the Patent Office has finally figured out that they don't have all the expertise that they need for properly evaluating the patent applications that they're getting today. They intend to set up a web-based means for experts in the field to comment on the patent applications. Maybe some day you could review one yourself. Oh, great: a Wiki Patent Office. Something has to be done, though. They really do lack the expertise to properly judge many of the applications. -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
"Jay Kadis" wrote ...
"Mike Rivers" wrote: (hank alrich) wrote: Meanwhile, we have folks Asleep At The Patent Office, caching all sorts of stuff that has no legitimate right to patent. I read an article not too long ago that said that the Patent Office has finally figured out that they don't have all the expertise that they need for properly evaluating the patent applications that they're getting today. They intend to set up a web-based means for experts in the field to comment on the patent applications. Maybe some day you could review one yourself. Oh, great: a Wiki Patent Office. Well, we have the Google Patent Office! :-) Something has to be done, though. They really do lack the expertise to properly judge many of the applications. We (the Feds) are too busy ****ing away the tax revenues on unconstitutional pork. The Patent Office isn't the only governmental bueraucracy that suffers from both fiscal and management neglect. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent
Jay Kadis wrote:
"Mike Rivers" wrote: (hank alrich) wrote: Meanwhile, we have folks Asleep At The Patent Office, caching all sorts of stuff that has no legitimate right to patent. I read an article not too long ago that said that the Patent Office has finally figured out that they don't have all the expertise that they need for properly evaluating the patent applications that they're getting today. They intend to set up a web-based means for experts in the field to comment on the patent applications. Maybe some day you could review one yourself. Oh, great: a Wiki Patent Office. Something has to be done, though. They really do lack the expertise to properly judge many of the applications. I know someone who got a patent (and there is some new work in the way he went about gathering information to inform the design) which is in many ways very close to another patent, and he says he can't really understand why either he or the other person got patents since there exists what he considers fairly obvious prior art. So it goes beyond a mere lack of expertise; it may well also involve a sheer lack of personspower and/or insufficient distribution of common sense an/or a less-than-satisfactory understanding of "what we do here". -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
EFF Challenges Clear Channel Recording Patent | Pro Audio | |||
Cllass Action Suit against Clear Channel | Pro Audio | |||
Clear Channel and Their Unethical Behavior | Pro Audio | |||
Bicyclists vs Clear Channel | Pro Audio |