Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Chris, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 11:53am

   
   

   What's next?

   I wonder if he's given any thought to those wonderful little FM modulator / transmitter's for iPod, Sirius, XM, etc....

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Chris, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 11:55am

   
   

   or...

   ... or to take things to even more of an extreme, remote controls. Isn't that effectively place-shifting your finger to the buttons on the TV / VCR / PVR / DVD / Sat / etc? :P

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 11:56am

   
   

   thats funny very soon it would be wirless headsets too

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   The infamous Joe, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 12:09pm

   
   

   Math

   That last line pretty much sums up what is wrong with patent legal cases.
   
   I don't blame the bottomfeeders-- they are just following their nature of bottomfeeding, I blame the people who make it "worth a shot" for them to do so.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Sanguine Dream, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 1:21pm

   
   

   Good point Joe

   There are way too many bottomfeeders to try to take them all out. On the other hand there aren't as many people that make it "worth a shot", which is why patent holders flock to certain friendly courts.
   
   So if I understand this right place shifting is simply moving content from one device to another? If so then internet itself is violating this guy's patent.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   DV Henkel-Wallace, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 1:45pm

   
   

   Prior art

   My understanding is that this also counts as "place shifting."

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Anonymous of Course, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 3:12pm

   
   

   I wouldn't call it innovative

   The patent is 6,212,282 and it begins with the
   premise that wireless speakers/hadphones are
   of limited range at 900Mhz and cites some prior
   art.
   
   So he does the A/D and D/A thing and also uses
   the link for control of the source device.
   
   It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with FCC
   part 15 that for increased range you have to
   move to spread spectrum and run more power,
   like cordless telephones have already done /and
   some other audio devices as well./
   
   Slingbox is not a speaker, this guy is grasping at straws.
   His patent is pretty shakey as well if prior art matters
   a jot.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Dosquatch, Feb 16th, 2007 @ 5:21pm

   
   

   Re: Prior art

   Thank you for that. I was going to post pretty much exactly the same point - radio and television are prior art.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Gregory, Mar 15th, 2013 @ 6:27am

   
   

   Wow i wonder how that court case went with this case. You know, some people think they are entitled to some things. The wireless speaker system is an ingenious idea and I do think other companies should be entitled to have the choice to develop products like these, that is if he wanted to close that option? Wireless speakers today have improved alot, with some you would'nt even know they are wireless because of the quality of sound they produce today. Thanks for informing us.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment