On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 18:25 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 14:43 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: > > Anyone intersted in further study could easily discover the U.S. > > patent numbers that were originally licensed to NemeSys. (Not Tascam!) > > If someone cannot do that for themselves then they probably could > > figure out someone who does know the numbers and ask so they could > > read the patents for themselves. The patent was licensed to NemeSys, but it is owned by Conexant. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6008446.WKU.&OS=PN/6008446&RS=PN/6008446 > If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a > software patent and 2) obvious and therefore invalid, wouldn't this be > the first case where a corporation went after a free software project > for software patent infringement? And if this were the case shouldn't > there be a huge uproar going on? The patent is very obvious - I came up with the same idea about 30 seconds after hearing about the problem of a low latency sampler with huge samples, and I'm not even particularly clever. I don't know enough about US patent law to know how complex or original something has to be in order to be a valid patent, but if I was a US citizen I would definitely write some angry mails to the patent and trademark office. -- Lars Luthman PGP key: http://www.d.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20051209/e52d0619/attachment.bin
