The CNFB Method

Software patenting is easier to enforce when it's like a novel visualisation or something. It's very hard to defend system modelling algos, particularly when so many of the processing steps are effectively public domain and available in matlab/python.
 
Worked for MP3 encoding/decoding. Applying for a patent for algorithms is easier than software stacks because of their well defined boundaries. Enforcement is close to impossible unless you have an industrial level lawyer department. But having the patent and not enforcing it protects you from others trying to drag your butt in front of a court.
 
My company has an army of lawyers and we still don't often try to defend patent infringement. Often we just quietly ask to use the offending parties IP in exchange for not fighting them.
Smart move. The company I work for went through one of the more prominent cases (being accused). Took years, armies of lawyers, and most likely millions of dollars. I pitty the judges that have to deal with this sh...
 
We decided against that. Software patents are extremely difficult to enforce.
Do you consider to develop a software product beyond MI to make use of your CNFB algorithm in the engineering domain? e.g. System model simulation like Simulink, Simscape, Altair, Siemens, etc…
 
I look at the FM3 on my desk. And, I am amazed at what a miracle of sound it is. And then, I think of the creativity, the innovation and the dedicated work to simply produce the working software concepts. And then, the design and production efforts to create the hardware. And then, the amazing number of really important and valuable firmware upgrades. And then, to think that all this is being accomplished in the sharkey business waters of software piracy. The thought of it all truly overwhelms me. It almost paralyzes me just to think of it. And now, a faster and more efficient numerical method to solve differential equations in nonlinear network modeling? It is beyond saying. Cult status well-earned. As much as I really do wish there was a magical "compiler" (besides you) to turn spice schematics into Fractal amp models; as much as I wish there were 10,000 more model tweaks and adjustable parameters -- more than any sane person would ever need; I would much rather be assured that your hard work and intellectual property were being safeguarded. Congratulations, well done. Well done.
 
Worked for MP3 encoding/decoding. Applying for a patent for algorithms is easier than software stacks because of their well defined boundaries. Enforcement is close to impossible unless you have an industrial level lawyer department. But having the patent and not enforcing it protects you from others trying to drag your butt in front of a court.
I know a guy… 700 attorneys on staff; business model is all patent enforcement.

Pretty freaking weird business. They buy up patents and sue/blackmail the shit out of “violators”.

He’s a billionaire; was prior to doing this stuff.
 
Worked for MP3 encoding/decoding. Applying for a patent for algorithms is easier than software stacks because of their well defined boundaries. Enforcement is close to impossible unless you have an industrial level lawyer department. But having the patent and not enforcing it protects you from others trying to drag your butt in front of a court.
The only patent our business maintains is a pretty simple fluid mechanical design one, I'm listed as a co-inventor (pretty sure I did it on my own, but it was a while back ;) ). Almost all our competitors infringe it in one way or another, but there is a single specific disclosure in it that hardly any of them could do without. I was a bit surprised the UK patent office granted that particular element of the claim, as I hadn't at the time thought it was anything special. I later realised there was no prior art, and it's a kind of "enabling feature" that I thought too obvious, but actually most designs since couldn't really work properly without.

I don't have the mind-set or patience to get involved in protracted and expensive legal battles, and I always think of patent cases as the worst waste of time and money. Everyone gets to spend a lot of money with lawyers, defence is generally successful, but going back to court to try to recover costs is too risky, so everyone loses. However, should an extremely well-funded competitor ever decide to get punchy about any of their own IP, I'll very happily do a quid pro quo on an IP royalty, because they'll owe us a lot more than we owe them. Like you say, can be very useful for defence. For the aggressive patent holder, you need deep pockets, and a pathological tolerance for high risk if you're going to chase down infringements.

Liam
 
Would it still be worth doing in case somebody else also figures it out / gets hold of it and patents it out from under you?
The thing about patents is that, to get one, you need to lay out exactly what you’re patenting in your patent application. And everyone in the world can read patent applications. When you apply for a patent, you tell your trade secrets to the world.
 
So give the algorithm to competitors on a silver platter?
Just curious - wouldn't amp designers who create schematics feel the same way about companies like Fractal modelling their amplifiers?

I mean what does a schematic (for a recently posted Prosonic for example) that says "This document contains information which is proprietary to and is the property of the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation and may not be used, reproduced or disclosed in any manner without the expressed written consent from Fender Amp Custom Shop" actually mean?

Aren't schematics "used" for modelling?
 
Just curious - wouldn't amp designers who create schematics feel the same way about companies like Fractal modelling their amplifiers?

I mean what does a schematic (for a recently posted Prosonic for example) that says "This document contains information which is proprietary to and is the property of the Fender Musical Instruments Corporation and may not be used, reproduced or disclosed in any manner without the expressed written consent from Fender Amp Custom Shop" actually mean?

Aren't schematics "used" for modelling?

It means the author of the document might sue you if you took it to create and sell your own amps or he might decide it's not worth it because the real value is his brand name. Especially tube amps are sufficiently simple to invite others to try to copy them. That's how the Marshall JTM 45 was created.

Don't think anyone is going to try to reverse engineer modeller firmware except maybe other modeller manufacturers.
 
Just curious - wouldn't amp designers who create schematics feel the same way about companies like Fractal modelling their amplifiers?
Most of the genuine IP was in data sheets freely issued by the businesses making the tubes back in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Tone stacks were relatively well known filter circuits adapted to work well. Not sure how anyone has ever got on with patenting a tube amp design, but I'd be surprised if "prior art" in electronic amplifiers for other purposes ever made it a realistic proposition. Very hard to patent the detail unless the innovation can be clearly defined in a patent claim.

Liam
 
This ↑. You can't just change a few component values to well known circuits and then claim them as your own. Many of the same circuit elements have been used since the early days of tube radios. Companies can copyright things like PCB layouts and schematic drawings and can trademark names and logos. That's why modelers are full of suggestive names like Double Verb instead of Twin Reverb.
 
And if they do, how do you find out that they did?
If they have enough material to convince a judge they will take it to court claiming you stole their IP and then you'll be required to provide evidence that you did not by showing your source code and change history so that you prove your code is actually prior art or sufficiently different to rule out theft.
 
If they have enough material to convince a judge they will take it to court claiming you stole their IP and then you'll be required to provide evidence that you did not by showing your source code and change history so that you prove your code is actually prior art or sufficiently different to rule out theft.
I understand that part, my question is different - how do you even find out that someone is using your algorithm when it comes to amp modeling?
 
Back
Top Bottom