linuxaudio.org

On Thu, 2005-12-08 at 18:25 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:

quoted text
> 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=3DPTO1&Sect2=3DHITOFF&d=...

ALL&p=3D1&u=3D/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=3D1&f=3DG&l=3D50&s1=3D6008446.WKU.&OS=

=3DPN/6008446&RS=3DPN/6008446
> If the issue really is a patent dispute involving a patent that is 1) a

quoted text
> 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.
--=20

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