gareth Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Anyone know why the multi-programming feature in the latest beta of Chamsys MagicQ is forbidden from use in the USA? The software changes log makes a big deal about not using it in the USA lest one finds oneself subject to legal action. From whom would this legal action originate?! Is there some sort of patent issue at work here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 PM Sent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyJones Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Are we not allowed to know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peza2010 Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Are we not allowed to know?That's what I was thinking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Without knowing the story (not even a little bit) I would surmise that its related to a standing patent. Invariably, these features would be something that could get Chamsys sued, should they be held by a patent holder in the US. With the litigious nature of American Corporate and the fact that the 'Prior Art' loopholes are a real pain to jump through (see the great LED Debacle in recent times), it's often safer to just restrict access to certain functionality. All that said, it would be interesting to know the exact in's and outs. Cheers Smiffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modge Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Also you can patent software in the USA, something that just plain can't be done in the rest of the world. Disclaimer: there are some very complex points of law behind all this that I don't fully understand, but that's the gist as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 Under the circumstances, I suspect Wol simply cannot comment publicly - so any info here is going to be coming from alternative sources, isn't it, Gareth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth Posted January 2, 2011 Author Share Posted January 2, 2011 All I've been able to find out so far is that it's probably related to some sort of patent problem. Just seems a little odd to me - the multi-programming feature of MagciQ sounds exactly like what Strand users have been able to do for years, in terms of linking remote consoles to a main console, and partitioning channels and fixtures onto one console or another with all desks working on a master show file in the main desk ; and I've never heard of anyone threatening Strand users with legal action for doing this in the USofA ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffy Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Which could perhaps imply that if the new owners of Strand were some massive corporation with a strong legal division that actually owned that patent then we are all in trouble. Offhand I can think of at least three consoles that let you do that. Cheers Smiffy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wol Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 As far as I understand, it's a patent issue with someone over there, but I've not been dealing with that side of the code so don't know the specific ins and outs of it which is why I didn't originally reply in here as I wasn't contributing anything useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelgrian Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Which could perhaps imply that if the new owners of Strand were some massive corporation with a strong legal division that actually owned that patent then we are all in trouble. Offhand I can think of at least three consoles that let you do that. Due to the wilful infringement causes treble damages rules in the states, the best cause of action is usually not to do a patent search then settle if and when you get sued by a holder. Remember patent infringement is still a civil action and the only person who has standing to sue is the holder. A quick grobble comes up with a few patents that it could be however none of them seem to belong to Strand and all of them seem to be challengable on prior art grounds using stuff that Strand were doing in the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 ... challengable on prior art grounds using stuff that Strand were doing in the 90s.Having been involved in a major landmark patent case I can safely say that using prior art as a defence is not to be relied upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelgrian Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Having been involved in a major landmark patent case I can safely say that using prior art as a defence is not to be relied upon. Unfortunately the system is utterly broken and in some cases you can't get a obviously invalid patent invalidated. It is also horribly skewed towards those who already have money, there are a lot of cases where people who are sued using bogus patents just settle because they can't afford to defend the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keeper of the Keys Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Thank god SW patents aren't valid in Europe, let's hope it stays that way and that they will finally follow suit and see some sense in the US (though the chance seems low). BTW: nice new forum platform, I'm very happy the editor doesn't have the stupid JS bug anymore that prevented proper editing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chelgrian Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Thank god SW patents aren't valid in Europe, let's hope it stays that way and that they will finally follow suit and see some sense in the US (though the chance seems low). Although software patents aren't supposed to be strictly allowed in Europe the EPO guidelines have been allowing things which are effectively software patents through for years. What we really don't have are business method patents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.