AfterDawn: Tech news

EFF challenges Clear Channel Recording Patent

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 15 Feb 2006 0:43 User comments (6)

EFF challenges Clear Channel Recording Patent The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has challenged a patent held by Clear Channel Recording because the foundation believes it is "illegitimate". The patent - for a system and method of creating digital recordings of live performances - effectively locks musical acts into using Clear Channel technology and blocks innovations by others, the EFF claims on its site. Clear Channel is using the patent to bands like The Pixies into using the company's proprietary technology for making like recordings.
It has threatened to sue anybody who makes a recording using different technology. "Clear Channel shouldn't be able to intimidate artists with bogus intellectual property," said EFF Staff Attorney Jason Schultz. "We hope the Patent Office will take a hard look at Clear Channel's patent and agree that it should be revoked." The EFF's request for re-examination filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office shows that a company had already developed similar technology.

This company, Telex, apparently developed the technology over a year before Clear Channel filed its patent request. The challenge to the patent is part of the EFF's Patent Busting Project, which aims to combat the chilling effects bad patents have on public and consumer interests. Illegitimate patents currently in effect could prevent you from building a hobbyist website or even streaming a wedding video to your friends. The Patent Busting Project seeks to document the threats and fight back by filing requests for reexamination against the worst offenders.

"The patent system serves an important public purpose in our economy," said Schultz. "Keeping illegitimate patents out of that system helps up-and-coming artists and entrepreneurs succeed for all of us." The EFF along with Theodore C. McCullough of the Lemaire Patent Law Firm and with the help of students at the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Clinic at American University's Washington College of Law, wants the patent office to revoke the patent based on this and other extensive evidence.

Source:
EFF

Previous Next  

6 user comments

115.2.2006 18:32

its about time soemoen stood up to Clear channle they ahve destroied almost all the radio channles in chattanooga TN >< the Radio monopalies have been over looked by the feds..... this also remeinds me of the whole Radio over the internet thing the RIAA managed to kill years ago...the bastards....

216.2.2006 11:43

Clear channel is the armpit of the earth...commie bastards die.

316.2.2006 14:29

when clear channel bought out the radio station that my bother-in-law work at they laid him off and most the employees quit that worked there.Clear channel sucks.

416.2.2006 21:33

Its good they run after bad patents on computer softwarwe. But that thing there are thousands of others of these bad patents the US patent office should have never granted in the first place. Its very simple in the US and Europe we need MORE stricture legislation so the patent offices can just stuff patents in the garbage can. But looking at what kind of broad patents are being awarded on "inventions" that are not novell. You realy wonder how thight that legislation then would have to be ? Just like the infamous Amazon patent 1 click buy patent. It should have been never awarded in the first place. And it has nothing todo with it that patent office is busy. The reviewers at the patent offices just seem to not even look serious at simple IT patents. And again the Amazon one click patent is not the only computer patent the US patent office should have not had awarded.

517.2.2006 9:24

The USPTO doesn't make nearly as much money if they refuse to issue a patent as when they do. Not only is the patent fee based on how much money they THINK you might make off YOUR patent; they also charge "maintenance fees" based on how much you ARE making off YOUR patent. And if they find out you made more last year than they thought you would, they BACKCHARGE you for the fees you SHOULD have paid. And they're not legally responsible if they issue you a patent that's not enforceable, or if it infringes on someone else's patent. So if you sue someone for infringing on your patent, or someone sues you for infringing on theirs, it's ALL on you. If you lose, either way, they don't give you ANY of your money back. So why shouldn't they issue vague patents? It's win-win for them!

621.2.2006 15:35

thank god we have a Midwest Family group here to beat up on clear channel. Then you always have knac.com. the loudest dot com on the planet.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive