or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › FitEar TO GO! & Universal Series --- Suyama's custom IEM, made universal!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FitEar TO GO! & Universal Series --- Suyama's custom IEM, made universal! - Page 115

post #1711 of 4414

Edit: Quoted myself, somehow.


Edited by vwinter - 12/18/12 at 5:25pm
post #1712 of 4414

if you are talking about triple bore, then u shld talk about JH16 or other IEMs instead of blaming this company...u can go sue them if you want. but you are never gonna win this

post #1713 of 4414
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

But it's not obvious. Firstly, you can't infringe on something where it can't be applied. Infringement assumes a valid patent claim. Secondly, patents are tricky in that the wording and any small changes to the design in question could invalidate the claim. For all we know, the wording might not cover all three bore designs but only those with a specific structure or construction. Something as small as alignment or materials or distance to drivers could invalidate a claim. That's why I brought up that his qualification in even asking.

 

Maybe I am reading into it negatively, but it's hard not to when the purpose of this potential issue has nothing to do with sound or measurement, but with legal proceedings. Even if there is infringement, that doesn't change anything about how the IEM measures and every other part of his review still stands on its own. That's why it's a problem. It undermines his other work.

  I would assume Logitech made a valid patent claim. It does sound pretty straightfoward, triple bore, not much else to it. 

 

Again, he's just curious that's all, as there's a potential issue there. A side note concern, nobody is accusing anybody lol, but there may be a potential issue between these companies or perhaps not. 

post #1714 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by chesterljh View Post

if you are talking about triple bore, then u shld talk about JH16 or other IEMs instead of blaming this company...u can go sue them if you want. but you are never gonna win this

 

I didn't really want to start a thing in this thread so before this goes any further:

 

No one's suing anyone. At least they better not before I get to hear this thing!

Let's just assume that either the patent doesn't apply for whatever reason, or that its been licensed seven ways from Sunday and move on.


Edited by vwinter - 12/18/12 at 5:44pm
post #1715 of 4414

FYI, JH audio had that before the patent claim so they should be okay. 

post #1716 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

 I have no idea why he brought up that Logitech patent. I'll make the assumption that this is not his area of expertise and that kind of "oh BTW I wonder" accusation is in poor taste.

I must have missed something, who and where was it brought up?

post #1717 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

FYI, JH audio had that before the patent claim so they should be okay. 

 

There is no claim as far as we know, but why would we. Logitech was apparently awarded a patent that I haven't looked at. They have not made a claim against anyone that anyone has made public.

.

Patents are also invalidated all the time for all manner of reason so if someone decided to fight them on what seems like an overly broad patent to begin with, it might be shot down. Who knows. The fact of the matter at this moment is that there is absolutely nothing that we know about anything in regard to this patent being used for any sort of claim.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saraguie View Post

I must have missed something, who and where was it brought up?

 

http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/12/fit-ear-to-go-334.html last sentence in the review. Posted a couple of pages ago. Don't even bother. Just enjoy the review for the information on how they measure on his equipment with his testing methodology and what he thinks about that.

 

It's a non-issue.


Edited by vwinter - 12/18/12 at 6:00pm
post #1718 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwinter View Post

 

There is no claim as far as we know, but why would we. Logitech was apparently awarded a patent that I haven't looked at. They have not made a claim against anyone that anyone has made public.

.

Patents are also invalidated all the time for all manner of reason so if someone decided to fight them on what seems like an overly broad patent to begin with, it might be shot down. Who knows. The fact of the matter at this moment is that there is absolutely nothing that we know about anything in regard to this patent being used for any sort of claim.

 

 

 

http://rinchoi.blogspot.com/2012/12/fit-ear-to-go-334.html last sentence in the review. Posted a couple of pages ago. Don't even bother. Just enjoy the review for the information on how they measure on his equipment with his testing methodology and what he thinks about that.

 

It's a non-issue.

 

I went to the link when it first appeared, saw the graphs and did not read it.  IMHO, and it is really humble, the 334 is a great IEM. Probably the best universal available today. I have listened to 6 other Universals that count, all costing no more than 1/3 of the 334 price. I do feel that the 334 is worth the multiple over the highest price of the others.

 

And the .98 cent tips I found give the best seal/fit! LOL So ironic, less than a buck to make $1,345 bucks sound and fit terrifically etysmile.gif

post #1719 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post

  I would assume Logitech made a valid patent claim. It does sound pretty straightfoward, triple bore, not much else to it. 

 

Again, he's just curious that's all, as there's a potential issue there. A side note concern, nobody is accusing anybody lol, but there may be a potential issue between these companies or perhaps not. 

 

This is just my curiosity. I know that patent is heavily based on the design. I went through the patent in question and found that not a single design that logitech claim match the description of TG334. The closest one is in fig. 9 with two concentric bores for three BAs. In logitech design, two BAs share the same outer bore. TG334 design is followed that pattern but in stead of sharing bore for two BAs, it separate the outer concentric bore into two separate bore for each BA.

 

This is just my opinion. I'm not patent examiner or patent lawyer just some a materials scientist that love to listen to the music while working, so use your own judgement. 

post #1720 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saraguie View Post

 

I went to the link when it first appeared, saw the graphs and did not read it.  IMHO, and it is really humble, the 334 is a great IEM. Probably the best universal available today. I have listened to 6 other Universals that count, all costing no more than 1/3 of the 334 price. I do feel that the 334 is worth the multiple over the highest price of the others.

 

And the .98 cent tips I found give the best seal/fit! LOL So ironic, less than a buck to make $1,345 bucks sound and fit terrifically etysmile.gif

 

lol.

 

I would like nothing more than to press BUY right now, tell my gf it was $400, and never look back. Unfortunately, unless someone has a heart of gold and wouldn't mind giving me a listen, I'll hope they're still available by the end of next year.

post #1721 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee730 View Post

 

So you are saying they scale very well. I though they sounded really good out of the Studio V but the hiss was an issue (actually on the Studio it wasn't so much in your head due to the Studio Vs wide and airy sound stage). I did get to try it for a few minutes out of my DX100 but mostly using the Studio V since the DX100 was getting some head-time from Sara ;).

 

they actually sound big headphone even when unamped. although not as awesome when amped, almost like a full-sized headphone when i tried it with a lisa3. and yep, they scale very well when amped. *deleted some parts because it might rage other people here like the one below*

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokyung View Post

inb4trolling.

 

im not trolling you noob. i personally know two guys who posts here in this thread and heard their 334s

post #1722 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtthefirst View Post

 

This is just my curiosity. I know that patent is heavily based on the design. I went through the patent in question and found that not a single design that logitech claim match the description of TG334. The closest one is in fig. 9 with two concentric bores for three BAs. In logitech design, two BAs share the same outer bore. TG334 design is followed that pattern but in stead of sharing bore for two BAs, it separate the outer concentric bore into two separate bore for each BA.

 

This is just my opinion. I'm not patent examiner or patent lawyer just some a materials scientist that love to listen to the music while working, so use your own judgement. 


Interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the time.

post #1723 of 4414

Yup, or so it seems to be okay unless Logitech really wants to make a dispute, which I doubt. 

post #1724 of 4414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyaems View Post

 

they actually sound big headphone even when unamped. although not as awesome when amped, almost like a full-sized headphone when i tried it with a lisa3. and yep, they scale very well when amped. *deleted some parts because it might rage other people here like the one below*

 

 

im not trolling you noob. i personally know two guys who posts here in this thread and heard their 334s


I agree the sound-staging I get on the Tralucents on the Triad L3 is phenomenal. Definitely feels more like a full size can. Hard to believe it is so vast, yet layered so well. It just portrays the presentation in a way that you hear everything and with breathing room to spare :).

post #1725 of 4414
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inks View Post  Yup, or so it seems to be okay unless Logitech really wants to make a dispute, which I doubt. 

 

Even if the design of the 334 and the design of the patent were identical, and that Logitech decided to litigate, it would be a non-issue, since they can at most only ban sales of the 334 in the US, since, as far as I know, Logitech has not filed a patent in Japan regarding this design. The only company that would stand to lose out in such a legal tussle would be ALO Audio, since they're the only company authorized to carry FitEar TO GO! products in the US. Furthermore, I presume that sales volumes of the FitEar TO GO! 334 are extremely low, which gives Logitech zero incentive to pursue legal action.

 

I'm with vwinter on this. There's no need to bring up the issue of legality because it's a non-issue and it will remain a non-issue. It has no bearing on the focus of what the main subject of the blog entry was about, and is therefore an extraneous bit of information that serves zero purpose.

 

From: http://www.uspto.gov/smallbusiness/patents/faq.html (Click to show)
How do I protect my patent internationally?

 

Since the rights granted by a U.S. patent extend only throughout the territory of the United States and have no effect in a foreign country, an inventor who wishes patent protection in other countries must apply for a patent in each of the other countries or in regional patent offices. Almost every country has its own patent law, and a person desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the requirements of that country.

 

The laws of many countries differ in various respects from the patent law of the United States. In most foreign countries, publication of the invention before the date of the application will bar the right to a patent. In most foreign countries maintenance fees are required. Most foreign countries require that the patented invention must be manufactured in that country after a certain period, usually three years. If there is no manufacture within this period, the patent may be void in some countries, although in most countries the patent may be subject to the grant of compulsory licenses to any person who may apply for a license.

 

There is a treaty relating to patents which is adhered to by 168 countries, including the United States, and is known as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. It provides that each country guarantees to the citizens of the other countries the same rights in patent and trademark matters that it gives to its own citizens. The treaty also provides for the right of priority in the case of patents, trademarks and industrial designs (design patents). This right means that, on the basis of a regular first application filed in one of the member countries, the applicant may, within a certain period of time, apply for protection in all the other member countries. These later applications will then be regarded as if they had been filed on the same day as the first application. Thus, these later applicants will have priority over applications for the same invention that may have been filed during the same period of time by other persons. Moreover, these later applications, being based on the first application, will not be invalidated by any acts accomplished in the interval, such as, for example, publication or exploitation of the invention, the sale of copies of the design, or use of the trademark. The period of time mentioned above, within which the subsequent applications may be filed in the other countries, is 12 months in the case of first applications for patent and six months in the case of industrial designs and trademarks.

 

Another treaty, known as the Patent Cooperation Treaty, was negotiated at a diplomatic conference in Washington, D.C., in June of 1970. The treaty came into force on January 24, 1978, and is presently (as of December 14, 2004) adhered to by over 124 countries, including the United States. The treaty facilitates the filing of applications for patent on the same invention in member countries by providing, among other things, for centralized filing procedures and a standardized application format.

 

The timely filing of an international application affords applicants an international filing date in each country which is designated in the international application and provides (1) a search of the invention and (2) a later time period within which the national applications for patent must be filed. A number of patent attorneys specialize in obtaining patents in foreign countries.

Under U.S. law it is necessary, in the case of inventions made in the United States, to obtain a license from the Director of the USPTO before applying for a patent in a foreign country. Such a license is required if the foreign application is to be filed before an application is filed in the United States or before the expiration of six months from the filing of an application in the United States unless a filing receipt with a license grant issued earlier. The filing of an application for patent constitutes the request for a license and the granting or denial of such request is indicated in the filing receipt mailed to each applicant. After six months from the U.S. filing, a license is not required unless the invention has been ordered to be kept secret. If the invention has been ordered to be kept secret, the consent to the filing abroad must be obtained from the Director of the USPTO during the period the order of secrecy is in effect.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Headphones, Earphones and In-Ear Monitors › FitEar TO GO! & Universal Series --- Suyama's custom IEM, made universal!