Patent Pending

  • It is patent pending first of all so it is not issued yet. Even if it is issued, profiling is such a wide open technology, that it would be almost impossible to win a lawsuit against any other company that releases a profiler, or any company that offers profiling as an add on tech to their current product.


    A company would just have to add some kind of exclusive revolutionary profiling name and call it for example "our exclusive M1HD-CloningTech". Or any other impossible to define marketing buzz crap.

  • I'm an IP attorney (trademarks generally) and what you say is not necessarily true regarding the patent. It really goes to how well the patent claims were drafted in the patent application and whether the implementation used by the "alleged infringing party" overlaps those claims. There is more than one way to build a mouse-trap.


    Also, sometime "winning" the lawsuit is not the objective, but having the financial resources to sue and forcing a less financially capable company from continuing using the tech or forcing them to license the tech. License fees can be quite lucrative.


    In terms of Line6 not suing anybody, I remember checking a few years ago and not finding any case, but I believe Behringer licensed the Pod technology for the V-amp.


    Finally, calling the tech by a different name is a trademark issue, not patent issue.

  • Even if it is issued, profiling is such a wide open technology, that it would be almost impossible to win a lawsuit against any other company that releases a profiler, or any company that offers profiling as an add on tech to their current product.

    I don't consider profiling to be a "wide open technology".....I had never heard of "profiling" before the KPA, did you ? if so, where ?

  • Well,


    It would have been a treat if Mr. Kemper had actually decided to comment on my patent link post, but I can’t blame him if he decides not to because that’s the smart money call. I’ve been down the patent road a couple times, and I glad there’s an IP attorney among us (Hi, Adfinitum) here to comment.


    For anyone who’s curious, Line 6’s 1998 modelling patent (http://bit.ly/y90f5u) is pretty much the Mother Of All Amp Modeling Patents. And Douglas L. Jackson’s 2003 patent (previously mentioned, http://bit.ly/yBZtJF) is my nominee for the Mother Of All Amp Profiling Patents. For a while I wondered if Chris’ KPA was actually that design made real, but since it does not incorporate intermodulation distortion analysis I’m optimistic that the KPA is on to something original.


    Now, Cristoph’s patent link was German but fortunately he’s applied in the U.S. as well, and you can read an English version at http://bit.ly/A1rVZD. This application (originally filed in 2007) is still pending.


    In case you’re wondering, I’m a musical patent collector of sorts (I keep a list of these on my Website) because patents tell the other half of the story, namely the part that’s left out of AES papers and design conferences like DAFX. But, they’re admittedly difficult reading; you’re dealing with inventors who are trying to obscure their inventions by trying to cast overly wide nets over their claims (i.e, over-generalizing things through abstraction) or trying to cast overly narrow nets by revealing as little as they can get away with while being generally unenlightening about things.


    But the point is, where utility patents like this are concerned, is to Reveal As Much Prior Art As You Can In Order To Explain What Makes Your Invention Different while Explaining In Detail How To Build A Particular (Physical, Material) Something. Patents don’t exist to protect Ideas – they exist to protect their Implementations. So, whenever Patent claims are brought up by anyone, I ask people to take nothing at face value and digest the actual works in question. And as Adfinitum mentioned, he’s right – I’m not aware of Line6 having ever litigated their modeling patent either, and frankly it makes So Many Claims that I’m not sure if they ever really could. This is the Keep It Simple Stupid rule of patents – more complexity means more holes for others to attack. But at least they’re practical claims, and the same goes for the Jackson patent.


    I’m not at all concerned with any potential patent claims coming from the Axe-FX front, although I would be unimpressed by Cliff Chase as a businessman if he didn't try to cast some FUD in this area. Most people think that patents are an ironclad guarantee of inventor rights, but really they’re not – the “guarantee” comes through active litigation, and ONLY active litigation. Patents themselves are mainly proof that the inventor claimed something by a certain date, and classified it accurately – beyond that, it’s Game On which why the only people who benefit from patent litigation are Large Companies with Deep Pockets.


    -djh

    Edited 13 times, last by dhodgson ().

  • DHodgson. Excellent post and interesting hobby! Luckily, many IP firms, such as mine, do take on patent contingency cases, so the smaller company can take on the bigger company. Let's just say the Line6 patent has come up in conversation with clients and potential clients.


  • I love that music brings together so many people from so many different backgrounds. Anyhow, what you say reaffirms my thoughts on reading this, but I have to ask, doesn't that also make it a bit of a double edged sword?

  • So - in other words - does that mean that any competitor that incorporates profiling into their machine will be sued?


    It sounded like Fractal was working on profiling for the AxeFX II - sounds it could be a bold venture for them.
    On the other hand - I never heard of Line6 taking anybody to court for stealing the idea of modeling amps.


    Maybe one day in the future a profiler will be looked at as a device like a mixing console, a speaker or a vacuum cleaner ;)


    I think if 2 small companies are going to sue each other over this, the only winner will be the attorneys involved, they'll be much better off having some out of court agreement, and working things out then doing it in the courts. I'm sure people will respect each other over any patents granted or pending.

  • [quote='multivir1',index.php?page=Thread&postID=20223#post20223]


    I think if 2 small companies are going to sue each other over this, the only winner will be the attorneys involved, they'll be much better off having some out of court agreement, and working things out then doing it in the courts. I'm sure people will respect each other over any patents granted or pending.


    Yeah, Samsung and Apple are really respecting each others' patents lately. Same with Nokia, Motorola and Microsoft. All very respectful. Sorry, but respect of IP rights is the last thing competitors have for each other. It is what can they get away with.


    Unfortunately, in order to get to an out of court agreement, you generally need an attorney protecting your rights and enforcing those rights via threat or filing of a lawsuit. As I tell my clients, there are two ways to get an infringer to stop - either they come to a rational decision on their own to stop (based up the threat of monetary loss or injunction) or a judge tells them to. Most settle.

  • Yeah, Samsung and Apple are really respecting each others' patents lately. Same with Nokia, Motorola and Microsoft. All very respectful. Sorry, but respect of IP rights is the last thing competitors have for each other. It is what can they get away with.


    Unfortunately, in order to get to an out of court agreement, you generally need an attorney protecting your rights and enforcing those rights via threat or filing of a lawsuit. As I tell my clients, there are two ways to get an infringer to stop - either they come to a rational decision on their own to stop (based up the threat of monetary loss or injunction) or a judge tells them to. Most settle.


    That's why i said small companies, I read stories everyday about Apple, Samsung, Microsoft etc suing each other, but they can afford to do that, whoever has the most $$ for attorneys wins.. :) Small companies like Kemper, Fractal etc will most likely respect each other, and won't want anything to do with lawsuits I imagine.

  • Don't mean to start an argument (whether the 5 minute or full half hour). Again, not true. If your whole company is based on a patented technology, you'll sue the hell out of a competitor if they use that technology. Size of the company doesn't matter, especially when a law firm will take the case on contingency. Believe me, small companies sue other small companies (my firm generally represents those companies). Respect does not enter into the equation. In fact, patent lawyers many time will give opinions on how close you can come to a certain patent without infringing. What does enter into it is whether the tech is already outdated or whether you can prove infringement. It is a battle that takes a lot of time that a company may not want to invest in.

  • Don't mean to start an argument (whether the 5 minute or full half hour). Again, not true. If your whole company is based on a patented technology, you'll sue the hell out of a competitor if they use that technology. Size of the company doesn't matter, especially when a law firm will take the case on contingency. Believe me, small companies sue other small companies (my firm generally represents those companies). Respect does not enter into the equation. In fact, patent lawyers many time will give opinions on how close you can come to a certain patent without infringing. What does enter into it is whether the tech is already outdated or whether you can prove infringement. It is a battle that takes a lot of time that a company may not want to invest in.


    Well I'm just a musician, don't know anything about law or how it works like you do, so certainly don't want to argue stuff like that when I don't know anything about it.. :) I just would like to think we live in a world where people can respect each other and not have to come to lawsuits, courts etc, but I'm probably just a dreamer.. :) Apparently the Real world of business is worse then i imagined..

  • Yes, we musicians usually tend to have a very laid back view on things. Unfortunately, the business world is anything but peaceful. If you're laid back in a business... you just won't survive.

  • My thought is that you can't protect the concept of generic model + waveshaping but you can protect how you extract some parameters from the test tones, what i would call the "characterisation".
    That's why CK talked about that everywhere.(make it public is the first step to protect your work)

  • CK made it public after he filed his patent; otherwise if there is public disclosure more than a year prior to filing the patent application, there is a statutory bar to filing. Rule of thumb - patent first, market second.