Death of Audirvana?

[jhwalker]

"ChannelD has announced they will be suing Damien." What else needs to be said?

 

Mr Robinson: you're a hack.

 

Maybe it was confusing because Audio_ELF did not use a question mark, but that was a rhetorical question: "Have Channel D announced they will be suing Damien?"

 

Not a statement of fact.

[miguelito]

Maybe it was confusing because Audio_ELF did not use a question mark, but that was a rhetorical question: "Have Channel D announced they will be suing Damien?"

 

Not a statement of fact.

 

Fair enough. A punctuation mark can make a big difference. I'm getting too worked up at this point.

[Leonardo Piras]

This kind of Software patents are just stupid.

The whole software industry is getting more and more screwed by this kind of behaviours.

 

ChannelD patenting proxy files methods is just another reason not to buy or use their sloppy software. They should invest in proper designers and good engineers.

I'll never buy anything from them.

Just my 2 cents.

[miguelito]

Roch, if someone develops a clever solution to a problem, why is it fair to allow everyone to steal it? Why should anyone bother to expend the effort to develop new ideas if everyone can steal them? I applaud Rob for his creative solution which obviously was valuable enough that others copied it.

I'm fully supportive of this.

(On the other hand, I have no clue as to what prior art already may have existed and whether the idea therefore deserved to be patented. One hopes the Patent Office examiner did a good job of investigating that, but it's an almost impossible job to do as well as would be ideal.)

That's wishful thinking. There are all sorts of patents being awarded for the most frivolous of designs.

However, the patent is not as broad as some of you seem to think. It requires a proxy file that "comprises a silent data block comprising a duration and sample rate equal to that of the media file". I believe that the current version of Audirvana does not have that feature.

Fair enough. I don't know the details, so maybe I'm overreacting. But frankly, I cannot imagine that there's something worth patenting in PM in the realm of proxing given that PM's integration with iTunes is beyond bad - unusable in my opinion.

 

We shall see. I will not buy anything from ChannelD anymore if they go forward and enforce this nonesense.

 

Miguel

[miguelito]

This kind of Software patents are just stupid.

The whole software industry is getting more and more screwed by this kind of behaviours.

 

ChannelD patenting proxy files methods is just another reason not to buy or use their sloppy software. They should invest in proper designers and good engineers.

I'll never buy anything from them.

Just my 2 cents.

Amen

[miguelito]

Roch, if someone develops a clever solution to a problem, why is it fair to allow everyone to steal it? Why should anyone bother to expend the effort to develop new ideas if everyone can steal them? I applaud Rob for his creative solution which obviously was valuable enough that others copied it.

There is such a thing as taking an old old concept, used in many realms, and trying to cast it as your invention. This proxy patent looks like such a thing.

 

ChannelD would have a better chance of making money by producing an iTunes integration that actually worked. They clearly are not smart enough to do that, so instead they grabbed a stick to pummel those who are. Bullies. Lame.

 

Personally, I won't buy anything from them anymore. I payed for PM knowing I would not use it simply to support the industry.

 

They are also not smart enough to understand they are alienating people with these antics. I had respect for Mr. Robinson.

 

Miguel

[Musicophile]

The question of what is innovative and what should be protected is really tricky. Apple developed the iPhone, which really was a game changer in this industry (I'm writing this post on one sitting in a foreign country) and nevertheless Samsung and Google cloned it well (and patent battles are ongoing).

 

On one hand, I understand that channel D is annoyed that somebody copies their idea. But on the other hand it may be better for the consumer to have more competition. Again, not an easy answer.

[miguelito]

The question of what is innovative and what should be protected is really tricky. Apple developed the iPhone, which really was a game changer in this industry (I'm writing this post on one sitting in a foreign country) and nevertheless Samsung and Google cloned it well (and patent battles are ongoing).

 

On one hand, I understand that channel D is annoyed that somebody copies their idea. But on the other hand it may be better for the consumer to have more competition. Again, not an easy answer.

Agree that innovation vs replication or rather small evolution of an already existing concept is subtle. But like it was said of porn, you know it when you see it.

 

If Mr. Robinson would have produced a decent player, one that doesn't look like it was prototyped in 1985 Java and released as is, one that actually worked properly with iTunes, then maybe people would've bought his player and not A+.

 

Miguel

[Leonardo Piras]

If Mr. Robinson would have produced a decent player, one that doesn't look like it was prototyped in 1985 Java and released as is, one that actually worked properly with iTunes, then maybe people would've bought his player and not A+.

Miguel

 

+1

 

Besides, the whole "proxy" concept is very old and it's just like someone trying to patent symbolic links, as someone earlier in this thread already stated. Very, very short sighted. The best way to help sales of your software is making it better than the competition.

[freddie40]

People, we need to boycott Pure Music. It is an overpriced very weak product that people should run, not walk, from. DSD does not play gapless, it doesn't have it's own database and is nothing to brag about. Look at JRiver or wait for Audirvana 2.0.

 

Dave

[YashN]

Sadly this will place more pressure on Damien to release a hurried Version 2.0 of Audirvana, not to sure if there is a grace period with patent introduction.

 

Hopefully Damien doesn't feel pressured to rush anything but rather does make a great early release, and secondly makes the new version totally free.

[kennyb123]

People, we need to boycott Pure Music.

 

I made the decision to do that a while ago - just after he misrepresented the thread on A+ Direct Mode. Keep in mind that he warned against using Direct Mode because some folks reported having kernel faults in early betas. Damien stabilized Direct Mode and embarrassed Rob by making that advice seem awfully foolish.

 

What Rob misses is that these moves go against those who are his customers too. Many here have licenses for PM & A+. I purchased licenses for both Pure Vinyl and Pure Music. Never again.

[Musicophile]

+1

 

Besides, the whole "proxy" concept is very old and it's just like someone trying to patent symbolic links, as someone earlier in this thread already stated. Very, very short sighted. The best way to help sales of your software is making it better than the competition.

+2

[wwaldmanfan]

Hopefully Damien doesn't feel pressured to rush anything but rather does make a great early release, and secondly makes the new version totally free.

 

Actually, this bolsters my incentive to pay for an upgrade to Audirvana Plus.

[kennyb123]

Damien has been a step ahead of Rob on terms of his software development skills. iTunes integration, gapless playback, proxy file generation, UI design in A+: these all demonstrate the work of a better skilled developer.

 

If you can't beat your competitor by writing better software, then I guess all you're left with is to try to slow them down by other means.

[miguelito]

Hopefully Damien doesn't feel pressured to rush anything but rather does make a great early release, and secondly makes the new version totally free.

Actually, I would pay good money for a great A2. Noone should expect it for free. Lets put our money where our mouth is.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Patent litigation is so expensive I'd be amazed if anything happens because of this Patent. Two companies selling inexpensive software to a niche market have no business fighting it out in a court room for Patent infringement.

[Audio_ELF]

Angry people are making rash statements still!

[Savage]

Angry people are making rash statements still!

 

Are you talking about the entire internet or just this thread?

 

Yes, going the full court battle is expensive but hiring counsel and trying to gain traction before it gets that far is much less expensive.

Speculation here, but if Pure Music hadn't intended to litigate, why did they file for the patent?

[kennyb123]

Angry people are making rash statements still!

 

That would only be a problem if folks don't have good reasons for being angry. Customers shouldn't be forced to remain quiet and just take it when moves are made that might significantly impact them.

 

If Damien is forced to pull this feature, many A+ users will be negatively impacted. While I look forward to 2.0, iTunes integration remains a big deal to me, as I have a lot invested in my iTunes library (smart playlists based on rating, number of plays and skips, etc.).

 

Some blowback may very well be the appropriate response here, as that may encourage this to go no further.

[kennyb123]

Speculation here, but if Pure Music hadn't intended to litigate, why did they file for the patent?

 

Exactly. But even the threat of litigation might be enough. It wouldn't be expensive to retain a lawyer and have that lawyer mail out a cease and desist letter that threatens litigation. If a lawyer had to be retained to secure this patent, this may already be in the works. And if so, we will all lose as profits that could be put into improving these products will go to legal fees instead.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Speculation here, but if Pure Music hadn't intended to litigate, why did they file for the patent?

Publicity?

[jtwrace]

Publicity?

 

Good point!

 

[Savage]

Publicity?

 

With that kind of publicity, who needs detractors. It could be just the thing to make people stop associating PM with being buggy.

 

[miguelito]

Damien has been a step ahead of Rob on terms of his software development skills. iTunes integration, gapless playback, proxy file generation, UI design in A+: these all demonstrate the work of a better skilled developer.

 

If you can't beat your competitor by writing better software, then I guess all you're left with is to try to slow them down by other means.

Yes