Bose beats JBL in law suit (1 Viewer)

[Brett DiMichele]

Sean,
Amen....
But I should not speak of things I know absolutely nothing about (patents)
Shoot I did it again.. This is my LAST post on this subject!

 

[ThomasW]

Sean

Why should Bose or any other company be able to patent a design that is a basic requirement for most speakers?

Yep that's what all the fuss was about. My very limited legal understanding was that basically since no one had patented the design/ideas, anyone was free to do it and Bose did. That's why everyone was angery. This was known info that lots of people were already using.

As I recall it primarily related to bandpass enclosures, but it's been too long for me to remember any specifics

 

[Mark Austin]

It's like Ford suing Chevy for having a similar piston design. namely, it's: Round and Cylindrical.

Actually, it isn't like that. And originally the internal cumbustion engine was patented, but that expired. Patents only run 17 years. As for Ford and Chevy, they do patent their piston, head, and intake designs everytime they make a new advance.

 

[ThomasW]

Not so. Only if it is marketed and sold to the mass public. I could go make an exact replica of any patented product I wanted to as long as I didn't try to sell it to the public.

Actually there was a post on HTF several years ago where this was discussed. A patent atty posted to the effect that it was indeed illegal to copy any patented design. But that companies didn't go after the individuals that copy the design due to cost.

 

[Gail M]

Larry B: My husband has had some discussions with you, or was it LarryB(no space) on a forum in the past and he told me that you were an attorney. Sorry if I made the mistake of listening to him. It wouldn't be the first, or last, time he was wrong. I am a 1982 graduate of Thomas Jefferson in Phila and we had several instuctors who visited to talk about medical ethics and liability insurance. Is that your teaching area? If not, what kind of medical teaching did you participate in?

 

[Mark Austin]

Actually there was a post on HTF several years ago where this was discussed. A patent atty posted to the effect that it was indeed illegal to copy any patented design. But that companies didn't go after the individuals that copy the design due to cost.

Since that particular patent attorney isn't around to defend his statements, I can only say he was wrong. You can copy anything ver betim as long as it is not offered to the public for sale.

 

[Mark Austin]

Phase Technology holds the patent to the soft dome tweeter, but have sold off the rights to many a company. I'm not sure if it's still in effect today, but many manufacturers patent novel approaches.

 

[ThomasW]

Since that particular patent attorney isn't around to defend his statements, I can only say he was wrong. You can copy anything ver betim as long as it is not offered to the public for sale.

He didn't post his opinion. He posted the excerpt from some legal document. I have no idea what it was.

 

[Mark Austin]

It was like the first, or second week in patent law. I know it to be a fact.

 

[ThomasW]

Ok, I thought that's what it was, but he was pretty insistant....

 

[Larry B]

Gail:
I am not an attorney, though I do work (as a consultant) in patent law. And no, I do not lecture on the topics you discussed. I teach neuroanatomy, though I'm actually a neuropharmacologist by training. (Hard as it may be to believe, neuroanatomy is sort of a hobby )
To all:
I posted some passages (on a separate thread) from a patent text which I think might be helpful. If anyone's interested, take a look.
For whatever reason, I seem unable to make a basic point, but I'll try one more (and only one) time more: If a technology is well known, a patent does not, and will not be granted on the technology to the first person who chooses to file an applications. To get a patent, YOU MUST HAVE INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGY. If the technology is already in the public domain (i.e., someone else invented it, and decided to use it or sell it without patenting it), then the invention is NOT PATENTABLE.
That's it folks, I gave it my best shot.
Larry
P.S. Mark: Since 1995, the patent term in the U.S. is 20 years from filing (rather than 17 from issuance), which makes us consistent with the rest of the world.

 

[Larry B]

Mark and Thomas:

To my knowledge (and I am not an expert on this, so feel free to verify), one can infringe a patent by USING or selling the patented invention. In other words, you could be sued even if you copied an invention for your own use. However, from a practical standpoint, this is unlikely.

Larry

 

[Steve WC]

I wish I could follow this, but I only have half a frontal lobe!!!!

 

[John Morris]

Since 1995, the patent term in the U.S. is 20 years from filing (rather than 17 from issuance), which makes us consistent with the rest of the world.

Larry B: I thought that the patent on pharmaceuticals was as little as 7 years from filing... not true?

 

[Larry B]

Steve:
Reminds me of the old saying, "I've rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy,"
Larry

 

[Larry B]

Merc:

All patents, regardless of subject matter, have the same term. What you may be thinking of is the fact that pharmaceuticals often have a USEFUL life of, perhaps, 7 years. This is because the patent clock starts ticking when the patent is applied for (as I mentioned above, it used to start clicking when the patent issued), but the drug can not be sold until it is approved by the FDA, which can take a really long time. Thus, by the time the drug reaches the market, there may not be much patent life remaining. I don't want to open up another can of worms here, but that's one of the reasons pharmaceutical companies charge a lot for their products.

Larry

P.S. I hope you saw the message I left for you in the X-Mas tree thread.

 

[Sean Conklin]

Actually, it isn't like that. And originally the internal cumbustion engine was patented, but that expired. Patents only run 17 years. As for Ford and Chevy, they do patent their piston, head, and intake designs everytime they make a new advance.

The point is ALL internal combustion engines require a similarly designed piston, I'm not talking about intake port designs, etc.

Just because Chevy built a piston with a valve relief in the same spot as the Ford piston, I don't think a lawsuit would ensue. Piston composition, ring placement, ring configuration, piston top shape can and will be either the same or slightly different depending on design, and I doubt the piston shape, design, etc. has been the object of any lawsuits past or present.

I think it's the same thing with the Bose port lawsuit.

JBL incorporates waveguide technology which directs the sound waves in an elliptical enclosure and is guided to a port. The only difference between JBL and most other popular speaker makers is in the way JBL uses the rounded enclosure that directs the waves to a flared port.

I have never seen a Bose speaker use this elliptical shaped cabinet, so they must be suing because of the port shape length or whatever.

I don't think any reputable speaker maker would intentionally copy Boses patented intestine like port mess.

I have the N series JBL's, and in no way do the JBL's resemble either visually or sonically any of Boses square cubes,"Bass modules" or any other Bose speakers.

The lawsuit sounds ridiculous. And it's no secret Bose is always suing someone, like anyone would want to copy an overall inferior design. What? Do the ports resemble one another, big deal!

Overall I find Bose, their lawsuit, and this thread in general, ugly.

Of course it would help if we/I(has this been established) knew the exact part of the port patent JBL infringed upon.

 

[Chu Gai]

perhaps if someone posts the patent(s) in question and we can refer to the specific claim it may shed a bit more light on the matter. now i'd love to see some dbt's done with comparably priced Bose and whatever done. i'm curious as to what the results would be in terms of people's preference.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Although it is very difficult to determin if any infringments where made. And I am not an exspert in this area. But it is sad that Bose is so threatend by JBL that they would take them to court. Bose has 0 edge on JBL and even less than that in the professional arena! Bose must be trying to stay above water. Maybe they should try and build a good product instead of messing with JBL

 

[nolesrule]

If a technology is well known, a patent does not, and will not be granted on the technology to the first person who chooses to file an applications. To get a patent, YOU MUST HAVE INVENTED THE TECHNOLOGY. If the technology is already in the public domain (i.e., someone else invented it, and decided to use it or sell it without patenting it), then the invention is NOT PATENTABLE.

Larry, it's a lovely theory, but it doesn't always happen. You wouldn't believe (or maybe you would) the amount of software patents that are granted regardless of prior art. It's almost as if the USPTO doesn't bother to research the patent application before granting it.