waves maxxbass patent

[evosilica]

Hi,

since there are a lot of devs here, i thought that maybe you could give me an answer to this stupid question:

waves holds a patent for its maxxbass and rbass processors. The patent is about a "Harmonics generator coupled to the frequency generator and being capable of generating, for each fundamental frequency within the low frequency range of interest"

I mean that's pretty comprehensive.
Does that mean you can't commercially sell any kind of processor that creates harmonics in the bass region, directly or indirectly making use of the old missing fundamental principle (1954) ?

Or does it only count for their specific implementation?

The patent in question:
http://www.google.com/patents/US5930373

[Richard_Synapse]

A new patent doesn't lock old, expired patents to my knowledge (that wouldn't make sense). Someone more familiar with US law can probably shed more light on the details though, as I'm not a lawyer.

Note that since this patent is old, you could just wait for expiry.

Richard

[logicalhippo]

I'm not a lawyer, so please talk with one before doing anything that might violate the patent.

However, the title and abstract of a patent really has nothing to do with exactly what is claimed in the patent. In fact, if you read the whole patent, there's an entire section describing exactly what is claimed and what isn't (called the "claims" section). This is a common mistake a lot of people make when understanding patents. Please read the claims section to see what is covered.

[highkoo]

I think there was already a plugin that got canned because of polite enforcement of this patent...

[evosilica]

Thank you all.
Yes, I should probably ask a lawyer. The algorithm I have here works and sounds very different than maxxbass, but of course it involves filtering and harmonic generation and it is based on the old missing fundamental principle, which has not been discovered by waves, afaik.

Please read the claims section to see what is covered.

Thanks. Of course I've read the claims section.
My understanding is that they have basically patented the process of splitting a signal into 2 bands and generating harmonics in the low band.
That is so broad, technically even a tube multiband compressor would voilate that patent.

I still can't believe you can patent something trivial like that.

kind regards

[antto]

O_O
that's so.. i have no words to describe..

okay, how about... split the signal into 3 bands, do whatever you want with the lowest band, avoid the patent? ;P~

[JonHodgson]

My understanding is that they have basically patented the process of splitting a signal into 2 bands and generating harmonics in the low band.
That is so broad, technically even a tube multiband compressor would voilate that patent.

I still can't believe you can patent something trivial like that.

kind regards

You'd be amazed at what can be patented, Sensaura (3d sound guys I worked for years back) actually had a patent on sensing when headphones were plugged into the soundcard and switch HRTFs from speakers to headphones accordingly.

Whether it would have been enforcable is another question, but often the idea is just to patent everything possible and then use that as ammunition, companies will tend to settle out of court anyway.

But in this case, I don't think they've patented something as trivial as you believe, there's prior art mentioned which probably does that, and I know other companies have similar systems (Philips for example). Look at where it mentions prior art, and see how they differentiate themselves from it. Also look directly at the prior art that's mentioned, if your techniques are covered by a previous patent, and it has expired, you should be fine.

[JCJR]

Sometimes patents are taken in self defense, so that if you use a rather ovious wheel in your own product, some ignoramus can't patent the obvious technique and cost you lawyer fees in defending something you have already been using for years.

[avasopht]

Sometimes patents are taken in self defense, so that if you use a rather ovious wheel in your own product, some ignoramus can't patent the obvious technique and cost you lawyer fees in defending something you have already been using for years.

But that can be done with a simple upload to github

[AnalogGuy1]

In the U.S. if a patent is issued by the USPTO that reads on any publicly-available knowledge at the date of the patent filing, whether the knowledge was commercialized or not, then the patent is invalid and cannot be enforced. It happens all the time that an art department of the USPTO makes a mistake. To prove the patent is invalid however, takes a patent litigation team of lawyers, and they don't come cheap; in biomedical patent enforcement, for instance, they burn through several tens of thousands of dollars per court day, and a substantial amount of money in the weeks leading up to the trial date.

So the way it works is: the questionable patent holder issues a cease and desist order to the developer they feel is infringing. If the alleged infringer has no money, he complies. If he has deep pockets, he contests. The patent holder either gives up, or files suit. Then the alleged infringer either gives up, or issues a counter-suit to invalidate the patent holder's patent, and requests summary judgement. This goes back and forth for either several months (in many European courts) to several years (US courts) until finally the case is heard by arbitration or by jury, or until one of the sides decides to stop hemorrhaging money or becomes bankrupt. At the end, regardless of the outcome, each legal team celebrates (separately!) in two of the most expensive restaurants in the city of the deciding court/arbitration panel.

[JonHodgson]

I remember Creative Labs sued Aureal (one of the other 3d sound innovators) for patent infringement. Aureal won, but the process of winning cost them so much cash that they were weakened enough for Creative to buy them out, so in effect Creative came out on top, with a major competitor removed from the field and a chunk more IP.

[avasopht]

I remember Creative Labs sued Aureal (one of the other 3d sound innovators) for patent infringement. Aureal won, but the process of winning cost them so much cash that they were weakened enough for Creative to buy them out, so in effect Creative came out on top, with a major competitor removed from the field and a chunk more IP.

Assholes. I abhor this extortion game that the legal profession plays.

[Ross21]

Hi,

Reading about saturation, harmonics and exciters and came across this post.

Seems to me that the discussed patent is over (a few months ago).

Is this a good time for a KVR challenge ??

Ross

[Winstontaneous]

On the subject of expired bass-processing patents, I'm surprised that no one has taken Bag End's ELF/INFRA concept (for running subwoofers below a driver/sealed cab's resonant frequency) further. A brilliant idea with the tightest, deepest bass I've ever experienced.

[Music Engineer]

So the way it works is: the questionable patent holder issues a cease and desist order to the developer they feel is infringing. If the alleged infringer has no money, he complies.

what, if he simply doesn't comply? how can the questionable patent holder force the alleged infringer to even show up in court at all (especially if that court is supposed to be in an entirely different country - which it presumably often is)? will i have to expect a raid from the local police, if i simply ignore an obvious patent troll who is harassing me?