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...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.
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…We decided against that. Software patents are extremely difficult to enforce.
I know a guy… 700 attorneys on staff; business model is all patent enforcement.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.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 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.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?
Agree with you, is more secure to do nothing that apply for a patent. Anyway is more difficult to learn something from assembly language decompiled that learn it from patentSo give the algorithm to competitors on a silver platter?
It’s coming in the next firmware 5 beta/release. Probably next week.Sorry for asking here, but is there any chance that FM3 would also benefit by this new method?
Just curious - wouldn't amp designers who create schematics feel the same way about companies like Fractal modelling their amplifiers?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?
And if they do, how do you find out that they did?Don't think anyone is going to try to reverse engineer modeller firmware except maybe other modeller manufacturers.
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.Just curious - wouldn't amp designers who create schematics feel the same way about companies like Fractal modelling their amplifiers?
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.And if they do, how do you find out that they did?
I got back all of my K. profiles into the Axe-Fx using online videos of those profiles + Tone Match.Just curious - wouldn't amp designers who create schematics feel the same way about companies like Fractal modelling their amplifiers?
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?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.