You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jerry Harvey Granted Dual High Frequency Canalphone Patent
- Thread starter jaimeharvey
- Start date
It looks like he patented something he hadn't built yet and then sued 64Audio for using a technique that many are using citing the patent for the design he hadn't built. I see no reason to buy any JH gear. The lawsuit feels very unsavoury.
Is it safe to say that 1964 dodged a JH bullet by phasing into Adel line ? I understand if Vitaliy doesn't comment
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Posts
- 8,807
- Likes
- 3,488
No, it is not safe to say that.
Bear in mind that this case is still ongoing, and no ruling has yet been made.
As I see it that has implications in terms of whether or not JHA's case holds water, whether the patent itself was fairly awarded, and in terms of it being unwise for pundits outside the case to publicly pass personal judgment on whether 64 infringed anything.
In short, it's better to watch & wait, and be careful what one says, until after a legal ruling has been made.
Bear in mind that this case is still ongoing, and no ruling has yet been made.
As I see it that has implications in terms of whether or not JHA's case holds water, whether the patent itself was fairly awarded, and in terms of it being unwise for pundits outside the case to publicly pass personal judgment on whether 64 infringed anything.
In short, it's better to watch & wait, and be careful what one says, until after a legal ruling has been made.
Jerry Harvey got shafted before by UE so he is not taking any chances besides you can submit an idea or a proof of concept to be granted a patent and later bring it to market.
Jerry Harvey got shafted before by UE so he is not taking any chances besides you can submit an idea or a proof of concept to be granted a patent and later bring it to market
If he had a prototype for the patent, I buy proof of concept. If he came up with some new balanced armature design, I buy it being new IP. But if his patent is just having a certain number of high drivers in a general area, I call BS. What it appears he is doing is trying to patent a production technique, and not a unique one. I don't think he invented the Bessemer process, or anything that revolutionizes an industry and creates a natural monopoly.
This isn't 'rectangle with rounded corners,' but it stinks more because the other producers can't really afford the litigation. Samsung was able to trade blows with Apple, 64Ears isn't in anywhere near the same market position. It's lousy anti-competitive behaviour against a product that has it's own very different set-up and a new technology that could be a threat to all other high-end IEM manufacturers in the ADEL tech. This stinks of trying to knock out a competitor before they can get going and delay the entry of their product to market, or extort money from them.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2008
- Posts
- 8,807
- Likes
- 3,488
I don't believe the litigation is aimed at the ADEL aspect.
I don't believe the litigation is aimed at the ADEL aspect.
You are right, as ADEL is patented by Asius technology and is actually groundbreaking. Jerry Harvey Holdings LLC is suing for using a matched set of high frequency BA inside a plastic case that produce sound in the high frequency range, according to the official complaint. In other words they are suing for 64Audio making a high end headphone. This suit could just as easily apply to any number of Jerry's competitors.
I was wrong. It is 'rectangle with rounded corners.' I'm sorry that Jerry didn't patent his stuff in the past and got burned. That wasn't cool of Westone or UE, I'll not support them out of principle too. I'm not cool with him filing suits that say that everyone should pay him if they want to use two identical high frequency drivers in a plastic shell.
MuZo2
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Posts
- 2,823
- Likes
- 413
????
MuZo2
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Posts
- 2,823
- Likes
- 413
Seems its US only patent, so cannot be forced elsewhere ?
Verloren
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Posts
- 169
- Likes
- 27
Seems its US only patent, so cannot be forced elsewhere ?
Not for the US patent. However, it's likely that the same application was filed in other jurisdictions.
MuZo2
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Posts
- 2,823
- Likes
- 413
Worldwide patents are more expensive.
Cotnijoe
Sponsor: iFi AudioFormerly with Unique Melody
From JH's facebook page:
"Did you buy 1964 Adel custom in-ear monitors and you are unhappy with them? Take advantage of this one-time, limited offer...
The first five people to call us and send in their Adel CIEM will receive a replacement state of the art Jerry Harvey Layla CIEM. This multi-award winning piece is the number one choice of the biggest touring professionals.
Be the first to take advantage of this offer!"
Thoughts?
"Did you buy 1964 Adel custom in-ear monitors and you are unhappy with them? Take advantage of this one-time, limited offer...
The first five people to call us and send in their Adel CIEM will receive a replacement state of the art Jerry Harvey Layla CIEM. This multi-award winning piece is the number one choice of the biggest touring professionals.
Be the first to take advantage of this offer!"
Thoughts?
vwinter
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Posts
- 4,651
- Likes
- 405
^ Wow. There has got to be some sordid backstory here.
Welcome to Capitalism.
Dammit I almost ordered A12 but went with the JH16.
Dammit I almost ordered A12 but went with the JH16.
Users who are viewing this thread
Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)