Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!ut-sally!crandell From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) Newsgroups: net.music.synth,net.legal Subject: Re: Marble Madness & FM Music Synthesis Message-ID: <2953@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 18:18:56 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2953 Posted: Fri Sep 20 18:18:56 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 22-Sep-85 05:17:03 EDT References: <2614@ihnss.UUCP> <267@weitek.UUCP> <2882@ut-sally.UUCP> <269@weitek.UUCP> Reply-To: crandell@sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 103 Xref: watmath net.music.synth:526 net.legal:2371 In article <269@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: >In article <2882@ut-sally.UUCP>, crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) writes: >> In article <267@weitek.UUCP> mahar@weitek.UUCP (mahar) writes: >> >In article <2614@ihnss.UUCP>, knudsen@ihnss.UUCP writes: >> >> FM chip should be pretty easy to build. >> >Your right. FM chips are not that hard to build. However, Yamaha >> >has the basic patent on FM sound generation. Atari's lawyers >> >didn't want to fight it so they just bought the chips from Yamaha. >> >> Uh -- wait a minute. Exar was making an FM-able waveform generator >> chip (XR206, I think) fifteen years ago. Aren't you leaving out a >> significant part of the story? > >Patenting FM synthesis is a lot like patenting the color blue to my mind. >I'm well aware that others were there first. They didn't get that patent >however. There exists a feature of patent law which makes an idea unpatentable >if "it is obvious to anyone skilled in the art." I think FM qualifys here. >Yamaha's lawyers have big teeth however, and Atari didn't want to mess >with them. This seems to be a good example of a type of incident that one hears about now and then and which usually leaves me with a profound sinking feeling. I am assuming, of course, that Yamaha has a US patent, else much of this will seem rather silly. The operative clause, the one about denying patent protection to any idea ``obvious to anyone skilled in the art'', is clearly designed to prevent unscrupulous moguls (or entrepreneurs, for that matter) from taking unfair advantage of patent laws, since there are obviously many good, potentially marketable technical ideas which have been in the public domain for a long time but have never been explicitly identified as such, despite (or perhaps because of) their familiarity. It often seems that the Patent Office staff is easily snowed where certain kinds of technology are concerned, and of course patent attorneys, like their more generally practicing cousins, seldom miss a trick. But I dimly recall reading about incidents in patent proceedings where legally issued patents have been successfully challenged on the obviousness clause and subsequently thrown out. I also have a general impression that the interests of ethical propriety would be better served if such challenges were more common than they currently are. (Can anyone present a solid statistical case against this opinion? Frankly, I'd like to be proved wrong on that one.) The reason they aren't more common is fairly clear: manufacturers and inventors are in business to make a profit, and legal proceedings are expensive. No one can afford to press a case if there's ``no percentage in it''. Okay; such is life. Them's the facts, warts and all. Eventually, however, we come around to the case that started all this. Now I don't pretend to know all the facts that motivated Atari's decision not to compete with Yamaha, but I can't help observing that Yamaha's patent, if it really is a general patent covering essentially all forms of FM sound synthesis, sounds like a Certified Grade-A sitting duck. Another thing I can't help observing is that Atari surely isn't taking on this particular manufacturing project for the amusement value. The conclusion that forces itself upon me -- and it's a rather unsettling one -- is that Yamaha is successfully using this highly questionable patent to prevent Atari (and probably others) from fairly and legitimately competing in this marketplace, by this simple ploy. That is, Yamaha can't (or doesn't wish to) sell the product at a price that will effectively undercut all the competition, so the patent is raised as an impediment to those who would compete, since although they might easily beat Yamaha's price in an even match, they can't if they have to shell out the cash and take the schedule ``hit'' that challenging the silly patent would necessitate. Now this technique, more generally applied, could lead to some interesting scenarios. Let's set the clock back a little and imagine John DeLorean, still in the automotive business, but starting to flounder big-time. Let's suppose he gets this bright idea: ``Hmmmmm. I wonder who owns the patent on the windshield?'' Checking around, he finds that there is none. So he gets the sharpest lawyer he can find (he's going to need one, anyway, right?) and goes right to the Patent Office and obtains a patent on the windshield. Now, everyone in Detroit (everyone who makes cars, that is) has to make a choice: either pay an outrageous royalty to DeLorean for the privilege of making windshields (assuming he permits that option) or buy windshields from him. Now it turns out that windshields from DeLorean cost just a little more than it used to cost Ford to make them. So what's Ford going to do? (Cocaine? What's that?) Now if I have made a grave mistake in fact, then I sincerely apologize to anyone whom I may have offended. But the way I see it, this (the outrageous DeLorean scenario) is exactly what Yamaha is doing. I can't really deny that such a claim seems pretty far-fetched at first glance. But I keep hearing reports of things that somehow render it increasingly plausible. Anyone remember the reports (some of them well documented) from a year or two ago of Japanese manufacturers ``dumping'' shiploads of consumer products -- mostly TV sets -- in the USA and western Europe? Someone told me that such practices were illegal. (Say, that law is really well enforced, isn't it! If I had to guess, I'd say we've got the Keystone Kops working overtime on it.) And of course, the Japanese government's subsidized-export policy is hardly news. To me, this practice more than casually resembles restraint of trade, and since it was accomplished with the indispensable aid of a legal proceeding (granting of a patent), it may constitute abuse of process, as well. If my perception is correct, then what I want to know is, why aren't we doing anything about it? Maybe this case is just a grain of sand in a vast dessert; we have to start somewhere. Maybe Atari alone can't afford to fight the bullies, but surely some kind of consortium could. Am I the only person in the world who sees it this way? Am I totally off the wall? What is happening, anyway? -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com