EFF Kills Bogus Clear Channel Patent

[Kurt Albershardt]

<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/clearchannel/notice_of_intent_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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[hank alrich]

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

[Mark]

> 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

[Mike Rivers]

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.

[Jay Kadis]

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

[Richard Crowley]

"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.

[hank alrich]

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

[Tracy Wintermute]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:51:39 -0800, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Jay Kadis wrote:
>> 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".

Well, this is my guess about the situation, and it is indeed only a
guess:

I would equate the current patent granting process to the process of
obtaining a copyright for a musical creation;
You jump through some hoops, and provide some documentation. I'm
pretty sure no one really takes the time to see if there is an
existing similar/identical musical creation. You have merely
established a "date of inception" which is legally recorded. And, all
this does is provide some ammunition (for you or against you) should
your musical creation be legally challenged.

What with the massive number of existing patents, added to the
undoubtedly huge number of patent applications; if you think in
realistic rather than idealistic terms, you can understand that the
task of assuring that only unique/unprecedented patents are granted is
near insurmountable. The staffing required to guarantee such
grantorship would surely make the cost of obtaining a patent
prohibitive to all but those entities at the very top of the 'food
chain', making patents out of reach for likely 99% of the truly
creative.

In my opinion, all that you are accomplishing on both the copyright
and patent fronts is providing attorney fodder. If no one ever
challenges you, all is well. If someone does challenge you, you may
well lose your ass, even if you win.

That being said, I would still never ever discourage anyone from
attempting to protect themselves via copyright/patent.


====================
Tracy Wintermute

Rushcreek Ranch
====================