Death of Audirvana?

[YashN]

"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."

 

Thanks for the additional info, CoolHand. Looks like there are some good people doing proper work at the USPTO after all.

 

We'll leave the larger debate for another time or another place.

[YashN]

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

 

Correct, it was all going to be dependent on the intention of those who filed the patent.

 

Inevitably, people will get worked up about frivolous patent filing and in the software world, this happens too often.

 

Audirvana 2.0 will make all this a moot point hopefully.

 

become focused on Channel D's patent as a proxy (heh).

 

Ha, nice one, Jud. Peace.

[YashN]

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.

 

All right, I may have to take that back. On the other hand, I still do not believe this idea is so innovative it should warrant a patent, but that's just me as if I had to code the same workaround, it would probably have been implemented the same way.

 

Actually, Damien also has something up his sleeves: '0-' size proxies. This was disabled in the last updates because of some bugs with playlist and probably some of those I reported with DSD within ISO, or something to that effect, but it may turn up again. This way, he isn't using a 'silent file of the same length as the original file format'.

 

Cheers.

[Superdad]

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.

 

Well put Jud. It is a real conundrum.

 

Whether s/w or h/w, the patent process and system can be a challenging one--especially for the small inventor. Examples of this abound, but even I have wondered about trying to navigate the waters.

About 18 months ago, John Swenson and I hatched an idea for a product--including most of the methods and technical details--that would be the first of its kind. A lot of original code would be written, but the chips it would run on are of course widely available. Once the product is released, it would not be terribly hard for a larger firm to look at what we did and copy it. And while I always thought that being first-to-market was the key thing, it is easy to get buried by a larger firm's marketing, to the point it would be almost as if our product never existed.

 

One might think that a patent would be the way to go. While the process does not have to be expensive, it often is, and the time it takes to secure a patent adds to that. But the real downside is that in patenting, you have to disclose the techniques used. That then becomes a road map for others to copy--or riff on with some variations. So it means you have to then be willing to defend your patent. And THAT is what it wildly expensive and a huge headache.

 

In the end, we, and a lot of other small time designers, just decide that it is better to continuously innovate than to get caught forever protecting a single innovation. Looking around the high-end audio field, I think that is the norm. You do not see a ton of patents on unique audio circuits (and while most circuits are variations/evolutions of many classic topologies, there are in fact some entirely original designs in a number of today's components). So while NAD or Meridian or many of the well established firms have the financial and staff resources to file and defend patents, for the rest of us, that way lies madness.

 

In conclusion, I make no judgement on Channel-D's decision to patent what he feels is original work. And as you in particular know Jud, Damien himself experienced some loss of IP from the early days of Audirvana being public. A bit ironic I suppose.

 

Ciao,

Alex C.

[miguelito]

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."

Thx. This makes a lot of sense. I would definitely consider proxying as a general concept in the public domain. Once narrowed down to a file with silent audio data, then it becomes specific enough that I think it is feasable to patent. "You know it when you see it" as some judge said of other things.

 

Just for the record: I do think software should be patentable, although there have to be truly original work to be patented. I would expect parts of Pure Vinyl or Pure Music might fall into this category. I cannot judge that.

 

Incidentally, given that I only proxy dsd files, I find the 24bit/44.1KHz ALAC in Audirvana perfect for having a playable version of my dsd files (for my Fiio X3 player for example). All my other files are AIFF.