Patents and physical models

[gwenhwyfaer]

Here's why we might not see too many new physical models turning up in the Fusion, at least until 2009 or so:

www.sondius-xg.com/patent.html

Between Yamaha and Stanford University, pretty much every interesting physical model is patented; Alesis would have to license those patents (as Korg did, which is why the Prophecy, Z1 and OASYS include the physical models they do) to use those models. And from looking at the models supported by the Z1, it would appear that conical-bore wind and reed instruments are in there... and I'll hazard a guess that the cost-benefit of obtaining licences was just too low.

I have to say, I'm not a fan of the patent system at all; it seems to me that it's come to be the most harmful to the very people patents were supposed to protect, inventors trying to ensure that their ideas weren't stolen by large corporations before they'd had a go at them themselves. *growl*

Not only that, but in the case of synthesis it's held back the state of the art. For over a decade, the only company who made FM synths was Yamaha - so they stagnated whilst the rest of the world moved onto S+S and analogue emulation, and FM stagnated without the cross-pollination of other techniques and ideas. All because only Yamaha had access to the FM patents... and by the time they didn't, FM had ceased to matter. The same is rapidly turning out to be true of physical modelling, despite the fact that ever-cheaper DSP makes it increasingly relevant.

[falcon]

Yes, patents are questionable. It's not only counter-productive in general but also often based on unfair claims. It's usually not the inventor that gets a patent but the one with the most financial/legal backing. And some situations are totally insane. Like being sued for using an XOR instuction to flip a bit, which has happend in the past

For synths I think there is a bit of a way around some issues by delivering a modular design. You can hardly sue a producer for creating a modular device, or a user for implementing something like FM, wavetabling or whatever on such device. Should the fusion have some comb filters in it's FM model, you could more or less create PMish effects yourself. And it won't break a patent as far as I know...

[markone]

As the named inventor on a number of patents (don't see a penny as the IPR belongs to the company), I have had all kinds of dealings with patent attorneys.

And the wisest of these pointed out something really obvious to me that gets by most people.

You don't patent stuff to stop people doing something (They will probably do it anyway, and either you licence them to do it on fair and reasonable grounds or spend millions litigating which probably will cost more than the benefit of the invention)

You patent stuff to ensure that someone else can't stop YOU doing it. It is more about insurance than recompense in real life.

Most large companies (certainly in the telecoms sector) spend much of their time trading IPR - "You let me do this stuff, and I'll let you do that stuff"

If you are a little start-up you are probably better off just keeping the clever stuff dead-secret, because once you patent it, (or even apply for a patent) your dead clever dohicky is out there in the public domain for any multi-million dollar multinational to rip off and say either "so sue us" or "sorry - have 100 grand on us"

The most despicable players in the IPR game are the companies who's business is nothing but the acquisition of IPR. They cruise the cash-strapped campuses of the world looking for impoverished research post-grads who have just submitted their patent for the next wonder anti-retro virus, or the next quantum communication circuit, chuck them a few tens of grand (gratefully snapped up) in return for full rights to the patent.

They then sit on the patent until a big drug company or silicon company starts working in the field and then hit them with a cease and desist (It's called baiting a bear trap, I believe).

I was once involved in the costing of one of our patents for one of these cases and (a) the big financial company we hired to set the price was charging us in the 100s of £K , and (b) the CEO of the company we were dealing with was in all likelihood the only Billionaire I am ever likely to share a room with (He owned his own skyscraper overlooking central park in NY!)

[Hollow Sun]

I am sure that patents can, in principle, protect an inventor (if he can afford it) but, as said, is of little value when confronted with big business.

What gets me as well is when paople take out patents on 'the bleeding obvious'. For example, one manufacturer has (cynically) taken out patents on digital envelope generators, layering sounds and others and competing manufacturers either have to prove that they were using these techniques before the patent was established or pay a licence royalty to said manufacturer .... it's a bit like patenting putting butter on bread!

The cynical purchase of IPRs also winds me up. There are many businessmen buying up old and defunct musical instrument manufacturers' trade names. They have no intention of developing products under that trade name but they are as quick as lightning to pounce on sample developers who use that trade name if they sell samples of that long forgotten and discontinued instrument. I can't name names of real-life events for obvious reasons but, for example, some businessman can buy the ARP trademark for $50 and he can then sue the crap out of anyone who is selling (or giving away) samples from the classic ARP 2600, Odyssey or Omni - products that disappeared in the late 70s/early 80s when the company folded. This kind of 'ambulance chasing' is becoming more and more common in these new litigious days

And Gwen is correct - protecting patents can stifle development (his example of Yamaha and FM and the DX being a case in point).

There are examples where patent holding can work to the advantage of the patent holder. For example, Bob Moog took a patent out on his unique filter design. His major competitor, ARP, ripped it off but Dr Moog was able to force them into stopping this because of his patent/copyright.

But for everyone of those cases, I am sure there are impoverished people living out there watching others get rich as their ideas are patented by others.

Although I don't fit into that category myself, I invented the concept of the 'retro-review' in music mags - where an old product that is out of production is reviewed again many years on to assess its 'vintage appeal'. Basically, I was short of money and had this idea to 're-review' my ARP2600 14 years after its release. I proposed the idea to the then UK magazine 'Music Technology' (who I used to write for occassionally) and they ran the 're-review' (and I received a few quid!). I subsequently did 're-reviews' of the Oberheim SEM, MemoryMoog and others and it became a popular feature of the magazine. I didn't think twice about it at the time but now, these 'retro-reviews' are common - often regular - practice in hi-tech music magazines all across the world. I wish I had patented THAT idea!!


Steve