RSS
Twitter
Wireless Speaker Patent Holder Sues Slingbox Over Place Shifting
from the not-quite-what-the-patent-system-intended dept
One of the problems with the big patent awards that have been given out lately is that patent holders will look for just about anything that might possibly maybe-if-you-squinted be considered to infringe on a patent they hold. Witness the latest case (of course, filed in the Easter Texas court that patent holders flock to), where the guy who holds a patent on wireless speakers is suing place shifting device maker, Sling Media. Sling Media's Slingbox is a very useful little device that hooks up to your TV and lets you access the content on your TV (or DVR) via any internet connection. If that seems a lot more advanced than wireless speakers, you'd be correct. It certainly sounds like the guy is claiming that his patent on wireless speakers basically applies to place shifting any content -- which is a huge stretch. Of course, with the way some courts have been handing out huge prizes to patent holders, no wonder he thinks it's worth a shot.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
thats funny very soon it would be wirless headsets too
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Prior art
My understanding is that this also counts as "place shifting."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
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 comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment