Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by DaftCat, Jul 9, 2005.
It's not as bad as it sounds.
Patents only apply to "methods".
All they're talking about is a computer-based training "method".
I just love the way the media mischaracterizes patents and their scope of coverage to make it sound like someone has patented something known forever.
It irritates the crap out of me! I don't know whether it is due to a lack of the author's understanding of patents and patent laws, or if it is just an agenda. I realize people generally hate Microsoft, so I guess it makes for attention grabbing headlines and an opportunity to express that hatred.
The thing I hate about this disingenuous journalism is that people read this ignorant crap and believe it.
The patent system by-and-large works pretty well. Rarely does something old slip thorugh the patent office and get patented. And when it does, it gets invalidated later on in the courts or thorugh reexamination.
Tell that to any pickup companies that want to manufacture double cream bobbin pickups but can't because of Larry DiMarzio's patent.
I"m not familiar with that PUP or the patent, but if they incorporate one or more features that are new and that never have been combinbed in a PUP before, then Larry DESERVES his patent!
That is, after all, the purpose of patents. It ensures that Larry gets to recover his dollars invested in R&D to develop them. If it cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more to invent those PUPS, and then anyone else can come along and knock them off after all of the heavy lifting has been done, where is the incentive to spend the $$ inventing them in the first place??
If all of the features of these PUPS you write about have in fact been employed in a single PUP prior to his inventing them, or the use of the combination would have been obvious to those skilled in the art of PUPs at the time LArry invented them, then someone wanting to manufacture those PUPS should do so and prove that the patent is invalid, either through a reeam at the PTO or in court.
Otherwise, they should either take a license (if LArry is even willing to offer one), or they should invent their own PUPs that don't infringe on Larry's!
Since when does Larry DiMarzio have an evil empire/monopoly on pickups? I'm sure he could be bought out if it was worth doing.
Dubious patents can be knocked out in litigation. Just because it got past the overworked patent office doesn't mean that it's airtight.
Can someone explain this patent to me?
I will try to look at it later in the week. I have a deadline to file a patent application for Monday, so I need to work on that one first! LOL!
This is from the patent document:
"As described above, once a new listener is "passed" for assessment
and recognition of all of the fundamental media properties, the new
listener is considered a groover, and may code or classify new media
entities, such as songs or song segments."
I guess we'll all have to be careful at our next gigs, rehearsals or jams. We can no longer throw out off hand comments like "That was groovin", "The rhythm section was grooving tonight" or "Yeah. Give him a call, he's a good groovy drummer" because none of us are qualified groovers.
Damn. And here I thought playing and listening to what's going on around you was enough.
Relatively quicky, this is my understanding of the situation and the history surrounding it.
1956/57 Seth Lover, working for Gibson, invents the humbucking pickup, named the PU-490 (or something to that effect) and the design is submitted for a patent. A sticker was placed on the bottom of the pickup that said "Patent Applied For." Normally, the pickup was made of plastic bobbins which were colored black. However, in 1959 the company that supplied Gibson with the bobbins ran out of the pigment to dye the bobbins black. Instead some of the bobbins are of a cream color. Some pickups were black, some had one bobbin black, the other cream (known as "Zebras) and some had both bobbins cream colored (known as "double cream" or "double white"). Some time down the road- figure early 70's, guitarists started looking for the old Les Pauls and the pickups that were in them. You probably know these pickups as "PAFs" meaning "Patent Applied For" and the most highly sought after, because of their rarity are the double cream variety.
Larry DiMarzio was shrewd enough to realise that this was a big market as far as pickups go. So what he did is take the name "PAF" and the big selling point of the double cream bobbins and took "ownership of those."
So in effect, Larry spent no money in R&D, other than to create a pickup that had the same charcteristics of a pickup invented 20 years before.
Where this has stood up in court against Gibson and other pickup manufacturers has been that even though the pickups with those characteristics, and referred to with that existing name, DiMarzio contended that his company created the demand for pickups with that name and those characteristics.
I understand that you can custom order double cream pickups through Seymour Duncan and such, but they have to be sold with the covers on.
I guess you could liken it to is someone taking the name "P-Bass" and using it to market their instrument.
I really dislike M$.
This doesn't sound like a patent case to me. It sounds like some other kind of IP, like trademark or tradedress.
I will have to read the case to understand exactly what kind of IP is being claimed by Larry.
After re-reading your description, it looks like it is trademark. If Larry regsitered that TM PAF and began using it as a Trademark for the first time, he is entitled to do so.
His investment would not be for R&D, which is what patents protect. Instead, it would for his investment in the marketing of the name PAF as an indication of source for his pick-ups.
Again, would need to read the case opinion, but that is what it appears to be from your description.
Patent-Trademark, protection of something that's not ethically rightfully owned. If "domain squatting" is illegal, something like this (either the MS deal or DiMarzio) is questionable at best.