• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Topic: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    Here is my "open" suggestion to Tascam:

    If other software samplers are infringing on Tascam's "fast sample loading" patent (and I don't really know if companies like NI are), Tascam should sue them for patent infringement and force them to pay some type of licensing fee.

    I have read in other posts that Tascam had decided against this a while back due to "image concerns", but I think they SHOULD sue. I don't see why other samplers should be able to benefit from Tascam's patents without any compensation.

    In the case of other software, patent disputes are common, and normally result in some type of licensing arrangement.


    [The above is, of course, my personal opinion]

  2. #2

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    I think Tascam is a huge business and knows what it's doing, there must be some very good reasons for not suing other companies . Also, even though not sure , maybe they only have their streaming patented while other companies use other methods
    Theo Krueger - Composer

    www.TheoKrueger.com

    Kontakt 2 Scripts

  3. #3

    Wink Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    Why sue a company you might just want to buy for yourself later? Better to let the target company grow so that when you swoop it's actually worth something in the market place.

    Well, who knows, but companies have all kinds of strategies for PR and market growth. I'm still expecting Sony to own all of it in ten years anyway, from Westgate Winds to VSL, from Tascam to NI, and from Microsoft to, well, you and me. So buy shares in yourself today!

    Happy speculating
    Heath

  4. #4

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    As far as I can gather they licensed their kernel-based streaming technology from Conexant, so if anyone was going to get litigious it would be them. However, no other software uses this system as far as I know. I don't think you could patent the method Kontakt etc use for streaming... I think sequencers have precached the start of waves for years so it would be a tough case. And opening software patent lawsuits conjures a whole can of worms, which is why there is (in my opinion) a justified campaign against software patents in the EU.

    And besides, why should the non-VST integrated Gigastudio be allowed to crush cool products like Kontakt, BFD and sfz? What would Mac users do for streaming? Competition is good.

  5. #5

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    Another problem is that they could be accused for monopoly of the market , Nintendo has had this problem , Microsoft too. When a big company starts smashing smaller ones dislike starts growing in the customers .

    My biggest concern at the moment is this though:

    I have a 1500 word essay to hand in within the next 3 hours . O Knowledge Gods of the Internet , Google , Yahoo and Msn help me on my noble quest ( and any other " gods " i forgot )
    Theo Krueger - Composer

    www.TheoKrueger.com

    Kontakt 2 Scripts

  6. #6
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    Quote Originally Posted by griels
    As far as I can gather they licensed their kernel-based streaming technology from Conexant, so if anyone was going to get litigious it would be them. However, no other software uses this system as far as I know. I don't think you could patent the method Kontakt etc use for streaming... I think sequencers have precached the start of waves for years so it would be a tough case. And opening software patent lawsuits conjures a whole can of worms, which is why there is (in my opinion) a justified campaign against software patents in the EU.

    And besides, why should the non-VST integrated Gigastudio be allowed to crush cool products like Kontakt, BFD and sfz? What would Mac users do for streaming? Competition is good.
    Actually, the authors of GigaStudio CREATED the technology at Conexant, then moved on to create their own company and their own MI-channel product. So the "license" is technically a correct way to look at it, but essentially it's a specific re-license by the original creators.

    If you look up, and read, the patent...you'll see that it's indeed being encroached by the competing streaming samplers. But your thinking is very astute. There are some times when you don't want to blow the lid off Pandora's Box. Is that time and effort better spent just moving forward? Many times, yes.

    Who knows what the future holds? Competition, I agree, is extremely healthy. And GigaStudio has a very specific mission, which differs a bit from the competing products, so this is quite healthy and contributes to a robust set of choices for the end user. Win Win.

  7. #7

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    Nuendo has a monopoly problem?! I don't understand.

  8. #8

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin Hines
    I don't see why other samplers should be able to benefit from Tascam's patents without any compensation.
    Let me play devil's advodate:

    Can anyone claim that other companies are benefitting from the tascam patent? If that were the case, then how could we have had those endless debates about how much more efficient GS streaming is to both Kontakt and Halion? The "beneficial" aspects of the GS streaming technology appear to have worked against their competitors!

    Those debates have since died out, for the most part, but I still see these statements (even recently): "GS still has the advantage in the streaming efficiency". So where's the "benefit" if those other vendors (still) can't compete with the GS technology in terms of streaming efficiency, buffer sizes, etc.? Seems to me the competition took the much longer and harder road by not licensing the conextant streaming engine to begin with.

    Also, it seems that tascam's invention goes far beyond the caching/streaming aspect (which, IMO, would in itself appear to be suspect, since caching and streaming is what a hard disk does, is provided by OS file systems, etc.), and goes into a lot of detail about sample "cells" and memory configurations. Maybe that's why the patent is hard to enforce -- it describes an efficient engine, but it's too specific to apply to "sample streaming engines" in general.

    - Keith

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Tascam Should Sue for Patent Infringement

    The truth of the matter, up to the time of Tascam's purchase of the technology, is exactly as I have stated. Opening up a legal Pandora's Box is not how the creators of the technology choose to spend their lives and their money. Who knows, Tascam may one day feel differently, and we'll see how it plays out.

    In general, though, and knowing the personalities involved pretty well, I would say these are people who are simply more interested in exploring new ideas than sitting in a courtroom. You have to look at the cost/return equation. This is not a huge market. Most of the players we're talking about are not big profit generators. NI employees have gone months with little pay at times, to keep that company floating. Who wins when money gets spent on destruction instead of creation?

    So it may be hard to believe in this day of litigation-frenzied living, but there ARE people in the world who simply choose to rise above it.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •