Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha - Page 16

post #226 of 493
Originally Posted by jude View Post

Originally Posted by JuanseAmador View Post

Actually, these ([URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8 margin:0px !important;">
) came out in 2004.

JuanseAmador, I know that it says that in the Amazon entry, in the "Date first available at Amazon.com" field, but that date looks like an error to me. If you look at the date of the first review for that product on Amazon, it's in 2009. And the first post anywhere revealing pricing of the SRH240, SRH440, and SRH840 was on April 20, 2009, on Head-Fi--I know because I made that post (and I remember because I announced it a day before the prices were announced by Shure at NAB that year).

Here's Shure's press release on one of the wires, dated July 20, 2009...


...and the release on Shure's website...


Oh, I thought it was released on 2004 because of that, they should fix it.
post #227 of 493
Originally Posted by JuanseAmador View Post

Oh, I thought it was released on 2004 because of that, they should fix it.


I agree, I would've thought the same thing. I also use that field when I'm trying to verify music and movie reissue dates.

post #228 of 493

They look like headphones, both of them.  What can any reasonable person expect them to look like?  Form follows function, and so any reasonable design is pretty much going to follow that rule and wind up looking, in general, the same.  Outlandish design approaches merely to catch the eye or the sales dollar of the unconventional buyer aside, a pair of headphones is going to look like a pair of headphones.  They have the Yamaha logo on them, not the Beats logo.  I don't think anyone is going to be confused.


I didn't think much of the Beats phones when I heard them once, muddy mushy over EQ'd bass, and now this?  Not only do I fail to see any reasonable argument in Beat's favor, I think they deserve to be thrown out of court on the general grounds of wasting the court's time.  If I was an Judge I would rule for a demurrer.

post #229 of 493

yep,that looks very similar to the pros,yamaha! btw yamaha,your headphones suck frown.gif

post #230 of 493

Someone should sue Beats for failing to produce the sound as the artist wanted...

post #231 of 493
Originally Posted by Contrails View Post

Someone should sue Beats for failing to produce the sound as the artist wanted...

LOLbiggrin.gif that would be interesting though

post #232 of 493

Have to wonder at the timing here. Dre sells off a large portion of his holdings in Beats and they do not renew their relationship with Monster. I have to wonder if this is some kind of pr nonsense to show Beats can in fact exist without Monster.



BTW Beats, the only headphone that sounds better as a Chinese knock off.

post #233 of 493
i don't really care about Beats or Yamaha. So from a neutral standpoint, beats are clearly in the right here. Yamaha might as well buy the Beats and slap their own logo on it.
post #234 of 493
The trademark is the logo.
All headphones will have similarities.
Yamaha has a much more different logo imprinted.
There is no confusion on difference.
Thats like saying GE can sue Philips because their 60watt light bulb has same shape.
Too bad for beats.
Their "b" symbol will be their downfall in this.
post #235 of 493
Wow this is a great post:
Originally Posted by guerillaw View Post

This community has added so much to my enjoyment of music and I seldom get to contribute much back. As a lawyer I will thus ignore my instinct not to get involved in legal issues I am not a party to because I think I can shed some light on some of the questions and concerns raised in this thread, in particular as it relates to our beloved hobby.

The fact of the matter is our current legal system provides anyone with enough resources the opportunity to start a lawsuit whether it is meritorious or not. That is just the reality. This has negative consequences for both folks with limited means as well as huge corporations with almost limitless funds.

Often times under resourced parties will lose cases they should when or not even be able to go to court at all because of their limitations. Parties with lots of resources, "deep pockets", oftentimes suffer in the reverse where they will be the victims of a suit simply because they have enough money to pay. For example if there is a case with a very weak argument that company X owes $1 million in attorney may take that case and sue because the company will not want to waste time and attorneys fees even if they know they can beat a weak case when they can just pay a set amount upfront and be done with it.

In that context, the true motivations for any given lawsuit are very difficult to determine. The fact is we will never know why Beats has chosen to go to court. It could be out of principle, for strategic reasons, because they think Yamaha will settle quickly, or for some reason that has yet to be revealed.

As for the merit of the lawsuit itself a lot of posts explaining the nature of patents have actually been right on point. Whether or not an individual patent is reasonable to the average person is irrelevant. Once it is filed and granted it has the force of law. If the party who owns the patent can prove that it has been violated they are entitled to damages caused by that violation.


Going forward then, the issue is not whether the patent was reasonable but rather whether BEATS can prove it was violated. If so, Yamaha will be liable. More likely though, Yamaha will let it play out for a while because it is free publicity and eventually settle the case as long as they can keep producing the headphones. For a global conglomerate like Yamaha it will be a strict cost-benefit analysis. Even if they have to pay to settle the lawsuit that money just gets added to the ledger as a cost of doing business. As long as that amount doesn't make the entire project lose money it's good business.


The implications for our hobby are very interesting. In light of the above, one could make the case that Yamaha purposely violated the patent as a sound business strategy. Why not copy the most popular product on the market? Worst case scenario they will be sued but whatever that lawsuit ultimately costs will be worth the profits they can make off the copy plus the bonus of the free publicity from the lawsuit.

On the other side of the suit BEATS is very intelligent to go after Yamaha because if they can win a case against a corporation with a lot of resources it will scare off other patent infringers and set a precedent that their design is legally protected.

The really fascinating part is that this all arises from a patent application and its acceptance several years ago. The validity of that patent for the beats Corporation (under another company at that time obviously) was decided by a random patent clerk. I would love to know whether that person even owns a pair of real headphones and has any expertise into what really makes one pair of headphones or another "unique".

If we really want to get crazy with the speculation my dream scenario would be if the suit doesn't settle and gets really heated they're going to need experts on either side. I would love to hear those depositions and testimony as to who is a supposedly expert on headphone technology. Will it be science folks from the companies? Will it be employees of other companies? Will it be experienced reviewers on this site and others? Now that would be fun.

post #236 of 493

Of course its free publicity, however, its bad publicity, since it does not show your product as a good one, but rather atack another.

This is the same reason why politicians atack each other, becouse they can say nothing good about themsleves.

Its true that for now, this strategy seems to work, but its getting less and less effective.

Especially with people like the ones in this comunity. People who can educate others into not buying beats or yamaha, but hifiman and sennhesier.


Its a stupid move by yamaha, as simple as that.

post #237 of 493

that was a good post, and yea... that makes the most sense. Pubcility on both sides.

post #238 of 493

Yes, in response to the lawyer from NYC, all the Head-Fiers can march up to the courthouse and besiege the place as expert witnesses.  That would be a lot of fun.

post #239 of 493
Originally Posted by King of Pangaea View Post

Yes, in response to the lawyer from NYC, all the Head-Fiers can march up to the courthouse and besiege the place as expert witnesses.  That would be a lot of fun.

omg a Head-Fi walking Protest... that would b cool... we could just sit on the courthouse steps with our portable rigs... have a good ole sit in or a SPUR OF THE MOMENT. Head Fi meet right out side lawl

post #240 of 493

Beats has a point. They look very simaler. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Head-Fi Network & Industry News
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › NEWS: Beats in a lawsuit with Yamaha