Death of Audirvana?

[flatmap]

Regardless of the lamentable US patent system, a company needs to patent everything they can. Otherwise they are unprotected when sued by others for infringement. Armed with your own patents you may have ammunition to ward off suits brought against you.

 

Unless someone has information to the contrary, it looks to me like Channel D is exercising normal business prudence.

[Pol]

There is a big difference between US and EU for patents.

 

In Europe, "computer programs as such" are excluded from patentability and European Patent Office policy is consequently that a program for a computer is not patentable if it does not have the potential to cause a "further technical effect" beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software.

 

this patent is just for "marketing" and to try to protect their business in the US market from new comers.

Going on court will ruin them with very low chance to win.

[wappinghigh]

^Sure.

 

I thoroughly agree..

 

So seriously who cares?

 

iTunes is dead anyway.

 

This thread is a big yawn..

 

Anyway..like Jud says...everybody is an expert..

 

Let em try sue Damien if they want to..

 

And nobody knows if they really can, or even want to....

 

It's all hypothetical..

 

Even if they *could*, I bet that would be real poplular around here..

 

So it aint go to happen (that would be my judgement).. but WTF do I or anybody know??...

 

Can this thread just die so Damien can just get on with A+ 2.0..?

[wappinghigh]

^ ...then nobody has to worry anymore about itunes and we can all go on being happy (without it)...

[Le Concombre Masqué]

would be funny to see you guys using proxies and paying PayPal to buy French sw

 

Just kidding. PM is worthless to me and I don't use iTunes anyway. I'm not even sure I'm interested in a database

[Le Concombre Masqué]

F.u.b.a.r.

yes, it is stupid, but you have to consider: Channeld on its own cannot patent a thing: There is a judging party which issues the patents. The whole system is broken beyond recognition.

[Leonardo Piras]

^ ...then nobody has to worry anymore about itunes and we can all go on being happy (without it)...

 

I agree 100% that streaming is the future. I personally have tried all streaming services including Qobuz (i'm trying to find a way to test Wimp).

 

But somehow we still need the "old fashioned" complex library management because of some problems:

- No really viable Hi-res "plug and play" streaming service, so we need to stick with local storage.

- Qobuz is very promising, but still has lots of quirks and limited library (for my tastes)...and again, poor design and software

- Spotify and the likes don't excel in sound quality. Let's see what Amarra comes up with in the next version as i understand they have developed something for the purpose.

 

All of the above only makes patenting useless software methods as proxy files completely out of time.

Again, pointless and short sighted.

[miguelito]

I agree 100% that streaming is the future.

Yes, quite possibly. I look forward to a good hires streaming service in the US, mainly for the purpose of music discovery. But I don't expect that this would replace my music collection since I don't expect to find rare pieces streamed.

 

Hires purchases have the disadvantage of not being able to resell the albums you've bought (as others have pointed out elsewhere). So a music discovery service that is hires enough to convey the whole of the music to a hires system would be awesome. And btw, cd quality is good enough for this IMHO.

 

Additionally, given that we can legitimately hear differences from power supplies, fw vs ssd vs thunderbolt vs ram sourcing, usb cables, etc, it is hard to imagine getting a streaming service that could deliver the quality that an optimized system can.

 

Miguel

[Le Concombre Masqué]

Yes, quite possibly. I look forward to a good hires streaming service in the US, mainly for the purpose of music discovery. But I don't expect that this would replace my music collection since I don't expect to find rare pieces streamed.

 

Hires purchases have the disadvantage of not being able to resell the albums you've bought (as others have pointed out elsewhere). So a music discovery service that is hires enough to convey the whole of the music to a hires system would be awesome. And btw, cd quality is good enough for this IMHO.

 

Additionally, given that we can legitimately hear differences from power supplies, fw vs ssd vs thunderbolt vs ram sourcing, usb cables, etc, it is hard to imagine getting a streaming service that could deliver the quality that an optimized system can.

 

Miguel

I agree. Streaming from my box is already unbearable to my ears ; so is playing an uncut (iso) sacd for it keeps transferring data to RAM

[YashN]

And you know it is a legitimate example of the broken software patent system based on your patent law expertise, audio software programming expertise, or a combination of the two?

 

With regard to "profiteering," do you have an actual occurrence of this to report, within just days from the granting of the patent? Do you have an understanding of the code used by A+ or other audio player software plus the legal expertise that allows you to say whether and how far any other software infringes the precise scope of this patent?

 

There's no need to be a patent law expert to have noticed a ton of other examples of ludicrous patenting, this one included.

 

And yes, I could understand the code if I looked at it, I doubt you could, so if you need help, ask politely - I am qualified.

 

This particular case is an example of a larger rampant issue, even if you don't get it.

 

More info here:

 

- http://patentabsurdity.com/

- https://www.eff.org/patent

 

Hopefully, nothing happens to Damien and Audirvana, but I do not appreciate the patent filing.

 

If you read the EFF piece carefully, it is readily apparent that what Channel D could be considered a 'patent troll'.

[YashN]

And you know it is a legitimate example of the broken software patent system based on your patent law expertise, audio software programming expertise, or a combination of the two?

 

Someone else in the thread already mentioned the precise thing that makes this a ridiculous action: "it is similar to patenting symbolic linking".

 

The proxy file implementation is a similar thing indeed (not saying exactly the same thing here).

 

My perspective is from Systems Engineering (that's larger than just software, and larger than just 'programming' or' developing' - there are differences).

[Leonardo Piras]

Additionally, given that we can legitimately hear differences from power supplies, fw vs ssd vs thunderbolt vs ram sourcing, usb cables, etc, it is hard to imagine getting a streaming service that could deliver the quality that an optimized system can.

 

Miguel

 

Fortunate those who can hear all those subtle differences.

I have a pretty decent system but I can't hear a difference btw ssd vs spinning hard drives or ram disks

It's very hard to hear a difference btw 16/44 and hires.

I can though hear some difference between qobuz streaming and local files. I guess mostly because qobuz desktop app is not so refined like the dedicated players.

But this is another story anyway

[YashN]

Regardless of the lamentable US patent system, a company needs to patent everything they can. Otherwise they are unprotected when sued by others for infringement. Armed with your own patents you may have ammunition to ward off suits brought against you.

 

Unless someone has information to the contrary, it looks to me like Channel D is exercising normal business prudence.

 

A defensive, pre-emptive step. Yes, you could have a point. Time will tell, I suppose.

[YashN]

There is a big difference between US and EU for patents.

 

In Europe, "computer programs as such" are excluded from patentability and European Patent Office policy is consequently that a program for a computer is not patentable if it does not have the potential to cause a "further technical effect" beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and software.

 

This sounds sane indeed.

[YashN]

I agree 100% that streaming is the future.

 

Personally, I don't see streaming as a big advantage. Perhaps because of the high cost of bandwidth here, and current low storage cost and ease of using hi-res audio with storage, I much prefer owning and storing my own files at my place instead of streaming from a third-party on a subscription basis. The cost would be too high with the latter.

[YashN]

More background info:

 

The patent was filed in 2011 according to PatentScope.

[Teresa]

Personally, I don't see streaming as a big advantage. Perhaps because of the high cost of bandwidth here, and current low storage cost and ease of using hi-res audio with storage, I much prefer owning and storing my own files at my place instead of streaming from a third-party on a subscription basis. The cost would be too high with the latter.

 

1+

 

I agree completely, I want to own the music I listen to and NOT be dependent on being connected to the internet to enjoy music. I listen mostly when my Wi-Fi is turned off. You are correct memory is cheap and I feel much, much safer with music on my computer instead of out there in the cloud on someone's server.

 

I'm only on the internet a couple of hours per day, and would like to cut that down to less than 30 minutes if possible. I am doing better, I just check my email and Computer Audiophile for news on high resolution digital and ignore the other sites. If I had the courage I would go cold turkey on the internet. Streaming is a way to make people more dependent on the internet in my humble opinion.

[flatmap]

In my opinion, it's unfair to call Channel D a troll. Trolls just have a bunch of patents and they have no intention of ever building anything. Channel D is a company that has a real product sold in the US. If they don't patent whatever they can, then they can be put out of business overnight. Their product line goes down the drain and they no longer have a livelihood.

 

I fail to see what's wrong with this. US patent law is crazy for sure, but you can't ignore it if you want to stay in business.

[CoolHand]

Straight from the horses mouth (so to speak :-) HERE IS THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER which will hopefully put an end to all the highly contentious debate which was inevitable given this threads flame-worthy attention grabbing title !!!

 

"Fortunately the USPTO has made the proper investigations and has reduced strongly the claims of this patent that was initially reusing public domain ideas.

It is basically limited to the exact proxy type Pure Music is using (proxy file with a silent block of the exact duration of the original file).

Thus Audirvana Plus is NOT infringing this patent."

[dallasjustice]

I am looking forward to more audiophile litigation. The last interesting case was the Bel Canto lawsuit against the audio pimp, MSS HIFI. I don't think anything could compete with that one.

 

Someone let me know when Rob files his suit. I'll post everything off of PACER here.

[CoolHand]

I can think of one which beats that litigious debacle, although the checkered history of the audio pimp was well worthy of its own cartoon strip, TV mini-series and peep show.....:^]

 

I'm talking about MONSTER.

But don't get me started on how low a man can go...

This is a nice forum with lots of intelligent and rational posters (most of the time) !

[kennyb123]

"Fortunately the USPTO has made the proper investigations and has reduced strongly the claims of this patent that was initially reusing public domain ideas.

It is basically limited to the exact proxy type Pure Music is using (proxy file with a silent block of the exact duration of the original file).

Thus Audirvana Plus is NOT infringing this patent."

 

Great news!!!

 

In terms of the "proxy file with a silent block...", this sounds like the proxy file A+ used to create with the "no sound" option. This ability was removed in the last update. I wonder if this had something to do with it.

[Leonardo Piras]

In terms of the "proxy file with a silent block...", this sounds like the proxy file A+ used to create with the "no sound" option. This ability was removed in the last update. I wonder if this had something to do with it.

 

Yeah, by far the most useful kind of proxy.

Creating uber-lossy files takes forever with a mid sized library.

[Jud]

There's no need to be a patent law expert to have noticed a ton of other examples of ludicrous patenting, this one included.

 

And yes, I could understand the code if I looked at it, I doubt you could, so if you need help, ask politely - I am qualified.

 

This particular case is an example of a larger rampant issue, even if you don't get it.

 

More info here:

 

- Patent Absurdity — How software patents broke the system

- https://www.eff.org/patent

 

Hopefully, nothing happens to Damien and Audirvana, but I do not appreciate the patent filing.

 

If you read the EFF piece carefully, it is readily apparent that what Channel D could be considered a 'patent troll'.

 

Someone else in the thread already mentioned the precise thing that makes this a ridiculous action: "it is similar to patenting symbolic linking".

 

The proxy file implementation is a similar thing indeed (not saying exactly the same thing here).

 

My perspective is from Systems Engineering (that's larger than just software, and larger than just 'programming' or' developing' - there are differences).

 

Hi, YashN. There are many things I'm interested in and I've only had time to try to keep up with a few. To my regret, coding is not among them. So yes, you're absolutely right, I would not understand what was going on with the code if I looked at it. (The best I was able to do back when the code was open source and I used to compile Audirvana for myself was that I found a couple of instances where it wouldn't compile and identified the cause as references in the code to Damien's own system/directories. But of course that is not nearly the same as knowing what the code does when it is functioning properly.) And I have little doubt you would be able to understand it if you saw it. But you haven't, and so prior to what CoolHand has said there was no way you or anyone else here could definitively say whether this would be a problem for Audirvana Plus, much less its death, to use the inflamed rhetoric of the thread title. However, I note that Bob Stern focused on specifics, which I think is generally a good thing, and said something that turned out to be along the same lines as CoolHand. So that's what I'm trying to do here: Have people focus on specifics, on what is actually known, rather than have some general political dissatisfaction with the US patent system become focused on Channel D's patent as a proxy (heh).

[Jud]

I fail to see what's wrong with this. US patent law is crazy for sure, but you can't ignore it if you want to stay in business.

 

Folks are assuming the very concept of software patents is bad, but not on the basis of first hand knowledge of, or even great familiarity with, the US intellectual property law system. There are advantages and disadvantages to allowing software to be patented. Copyright is nice, but as soon as someone accomplishes the same function with slightly different code (let's say the idea of using a mouse, or a windowing OS), you have no protection. The alternative is secrecy. The problem with that from the code author's point of view is reverse engineering. But the bigger problem from society's point of view is that it diminishes a potentially fertile interchange of ideas, which is one of the concepts that has helped to drive the open source movement. Yes, there are patent trolls (which by the way is usually not used to refer to someone who has invented a technology she has patented, but rather someone who acquires rafts of patents from inventors for purposes of profit through the threat or reality of litigation), and they exist in many other fields of technology besides software. But it is interesting that the EFF and other organizations which promote the idea of widespread sharing of code are against the type of intellectual property protection that most aids in that goal, for fear that patents will be misused.