Comments on: Legal Trouble? M-audio is deep N2IT

By: Calkutta

Calkutta — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:01:00 +0000

man,i hope this gets cleared up.i remember when ‘final scratch’ came out.me and my friends were making crazy scratch records with illegal samples and super ill tomes.before that,we were at the mercy of whatever dirtstyle or others were using.i dont remember anything like this before final scratch,and im 39 years old and have been scratching since my teens.not that im an ‘authority’,i jus think its only fare to give the true creator,whoever he or she is,there legal share of the product.i hope they bring turntables to court and kut shit up like crazy to demonstrate ‘turntablism’ to the judge.that would be a first.anyway,i hope this gets cleared up and scratch dj’s can always make their own crazy records without a $ 3000 record cutter.
my 2 cents.
calkutta

By: djtechtools.com

djtechtools.com — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:56:15 +0000

[...] to have settled its complaint against M-Audio and their Torq technology. On November 17, their original civil action was dismissed “with prejudice”. It was widely speculated that N2IT would pick the [...]

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:47:39 +0000

I bet Seratos lawers will how the judge completely ascertain the softwares source code – bring in a hole bunch of techs and just shoot tech-talk over his head until hes/or shes heard every little difference and addition they have made to N2ITs set up…hoping to stretch it out for so long he/or she figures *shit it must be different* – but with the hole idea in general, they all should have cut N2IT some royalties…

They came up with the Concept, and figured out how to make it happen///
well have to wait and see.., over n out – S

By: Hertzy

Hertzy — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:37:54 +0000

RZA should sue N2it. He claims he invented digital vinyl. No joke you can hear his statement on youtube somewhere. lol

[quote comment=""][...] Legal Trouble? M-audio is deep N2IT at djtechtools.com. [...][/quote]

By: Lukas

Lukas — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:54:56 +0000

[quote post="1344"]Point is, if the patent is public, how can you proof that you didn’t get inspiration, but you just happened to have the same idea? In general, an idea is patentable (?), only if it’s not obvius based on current knowledge, so should be quite rare that someone else have exactly the same idea[/quote]

If the patent is valid, then all you can hope for is that nobody else can proof that you knowingly violated. You are guilty either way, even if you never heard about the patent.

By: dani

dani — Tue, 12 May 2009 15:45:26 +0000

[quote post="1344"]If that is the case, then the patent system obviously failed, because society did not have a benefit from getting this idea into a patent, yet companies that worked out the same idea now have to pay for it.[/quote]

Totally agree. Point is, if the patent is public, how can you proof that you didn’t get inspiration, but you just happened to have the same idea? In general, an idea is patentable (?), only if it’s not obvius based on current knowledge, so should be quite rare that someone else have exactly the same idea

By: Lukas

Lukas — Tue, 12 May 2009 13:25:05 +0000

Right the trouble in all of this is that most likely none of the companies being sued even looked at the patent. If that is the case, then the patent system obviously failed, because society did not have a benefit from getting this idea into a patent, yet companies that worked out the same idea now have to pay for it. If that is the case, then the question is why didn’t these companies do a patent search etc? See my above comments for some answers.

Now if indeed they were aware of the patent and they did build their ideas on top of the patented idea, then of course they should be sued for ripping off someone elses idea without paying licensing fees.

It will be up to the lawyers to proof either or, of course if the patent is upheld they will have to pay 3x the damages if they knowingly violated. And of course not knowingly violating a patent will mean they have to pay 1x the damages.

By: dani

dani — Tue, 12 May 2009 09:31:26 +0000

[quote post="1344"]Its worth mentioning though that actually getting an enforceable patent (a non-provisional patent) takes many years and a lot of cash. So that is really not even a option for many small inventors. The provisional is easy to obtain but is very, very weak in the face of a good lawyer or a company with lots of cash.[/quote]

True, but chances are two:
you’re either a relatively small company with technological know how but with no production and distribution capacity, in which case you can probably afford to take the patent forward if you really believe in it; or you’re a private inventor with limited funds, in which case I would start by depositing a provisional and then seek for investors for the further steps.

But I totally agree that is not easy for small players, reason more to support them when they have a patent and a big company is using it without an agreement