Well Now lets see how the persue the copy cats B) As I posted in our "mobile eletronic News" Forum kicker has been grated their patents on the Sqaure Spreaker Technologies and plans to persue some of the copy-cats using some of their technology Should be interesting indeed
well actually I think they need to take LONGER in some respect, not really LONGER but then need to investigate things more Not to Change the Subject but recently their have been patents issused that should have never been issued, but that us niether here nor there
really? I know of a few that should have never passed...who's do you think should not have. You can PM me if you want to keep it off the board for political reasons. Personally....one name in particular comes to mind that starts with a C. Lemme know.
really? I know of a few that should have never passed...who's do you think should not have. You can PM me if you want to keep it off the board for political reasons. Personally....one name in particular comes to mind that starts with a C. Lemme know. [/b][/quote] Well the Carver Ones, while I am I sure they should not have been issued, was not the ones I was referring to There are patents in all aspects of the world for instance there are certin Web Applications that were pateneted by some of the bigger Ecom Compaines, that should never have been patened Audio is just one aspect as technology progress's it will only get worse the Patent office is not equiped for these types of patents
someone patented a short string of code for Y2K compliance software....i forget what it was but it was somewhere along the lines of if the year was 2000 or above, then...whatever it was...or it was a way to add to 2000...either way it was stupid someone in australia patented the wheel
I dont know what ever Came of it, but there was a New Artical I read once where some company Claimed to have a Patent on any "ecommerce" shopping cart program and were actually sueing web site that sold via a electronic catalog
I'm not sure I'm a supporter of the patent, for two reasons: 1) it's just a square. It's a shape. Almost like patenting the square itself, or a circle shape itself. I'm thinking of it in terms like "I wonder if anyone has patented electrical wire who's insulating jacket is round in cross section? Hmm.. maybe square too, while I'm at it..." Almost Carver-esque, since you mention it... although at least with the Kicker patent, there really wasn't any prior art. 2) I'm not sure they really needed the patent, if licensing the technology was an issue... unless the cost to license was prohibitive, and that's a simple economics fundamental indicating that explicitly. B) In order to use a square cone, you need a few other custom parts... fabricating a square surround and cone are inexpensive enough, but that basket can be a bear, particularly cast baskets. I know, some companies can dump $10K on a cast basket mold for a specific size of woofer without a thought, but most - particularly those looking for a competitive advantage - couldn't. And I don't see the big-boys being the ones with the copycat operations... it's these little one-off flea-market brands, really. Again, getting back to the licensing... if Kicker sold the square baskets, and square parts, at realistic prices, I think they'd stand to gain more financially, even without a patent in place. These little fle-market one-offs and whoever else would have a source, significantly cheaper (and higher quality) than the prospects of developing and forging their own.
1> Polecat has stated a Number of time that the Patent IS NOT THE SHAPE, but more of the PARTS they advanced to make the sqaure design work, like the Surround, Spider and other Parts of the speaker that if you remember had problems with the GEN 1 versions of the Square SOLO's Sqaure subs were around long before Kicker, but they made them marketable and useable buy advancing the design, what you just said is like sayng Adire should have have a patented on XBL2 after all it is a circle speaker 2> When they already have people Reverse engineering the techology they have spent millions developing, they definatly need a patent that is like TC Sounds taking the XBL2 motor coping it, and calling XBL3 and not give adire any money or credit
here is the Link http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...S/OK+AND+Square there are a few conditions in there other than the speaker being sqaure..
Well, I haven't read up on the patent, but i'm just presuming (falsely?) that there's inherently more to the patent than just a 'square' speaker - there's probably more technology to it than we normally give it credit for... As for getting the patent, maybe they're premature in doing so... Considering it's quite difficult and costly to make the square speaker in the first place - maybe in the future if it got to the point where it would be a lot easier for other people to copy the design, they would need it, but not right now... If they got the patent later, it would protect the designs for a 'longer' period of time... but perhaps it's just best to cover your interests now, and assume you'll come up with something much better in the future... Besides, having the patent is a good thing as far as marketing goes... So maybe it will pay off for itself in higher sales...
Just breezing through it... The stressed patent points seem to be: - square cone - trusses in the cone (presumably only applicable to square ones) - square and pleated surround - square basket I can't imagine millions were spent developing this. Yes, it's a clever idea... but nothing requiring such great expense, outside of prototype basket casting... and that's thousands. The comparison to Adire's XBL2 is different, IMO... Because it's not just a simple shape, adapted to use.. that would be like patenting a round glass window... that's what I'm saying. XBL2 doesn't have anything to do with driver shape... in fact it assumes you could use it regardless of shape... and FWIW, that could theoretically apply to VC/pole piece shape! XBL2 is a method, a technique, that is a means to and end of flattening the BL curve like other VC geometries cannot do... but like most anyone would like to do (at least for SQ applications). That's something that does seem inherently patentable, something it makes sense to patent... a new approach. The square cone is clever, as I said, for increasing SD... but it's something I would have always assumed to have been 'just out there', that people didn't do due to some practical limitations, with little benefit, none, outside of SPL, in fact. It just seems incredibly simple, for a patent. But the way the patent document is worded, it does make sense... They aren't patenting just the square cone, per se... but rather the things that make it work well... without which the square cone truly would suck. That makes sense to me. B)
right and that is far from thre Caver Type, which is I remeber right is basicly so board that all amps fall under this patent
