[ponzio]

Bose received a judgment against JBL & Infinite to the tune of approximately $7.6 million in a patent case, which was recently upheld on appeal. The case hinged on Bose's patented elliptical port tube found in Lifestyle and Acoustimass Bass modules.

Big money over big crappy sound?

Appeal decision: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/Fed-Ct/...s/01-1054.html

 

[gloom]

"Bose - better sound through litigation!"

(rather than "Bose - better sound through research!", as they claim)

 

[eric343]

Although if you read it, it does seem like Bose *was* in the right, as useless as the technology might be. Not that I'm defending Boze or anything...

 

[Xander]

Better sound though wide range 2" drivers and dual 5-1/2" midbass drivers housed in injection molded bandpass 1/2" MDF. Everyone should have a midrange dip the size of the grand canyon!

Oh, did I mention vocals eminate from the sub cabinate, and theres no crossover control? o_O

 

[BenG]

I think B**E is in the right on this one, if you follow patent law.

I do, however, have a beef against some of their other litigations.

As far as Bose products, why beat a dead horse? Or in this case, a resonant enclosure

 

[cajunchrist]

I encourage refering to it as the Bose ButtTrumpet.

 

[skippy]

bose in the right? sometimes i wonder how they get their patents approved in the first place.

it seems to me that bose patented the fashion style of their speaker.

 

[BenG]

Quote:

Originally posted by skippy sometimes i wonder how they get their patents approved in the first place.

That's another issue. But as far as this case is concerned, they had the damn patent.

Why I'm defending ****?

 

[MacDEF]

Interestingly enough, one of JBL/Infinity's arguments in the case is that Bose never should have been awarded the patent in the first place...

 

[KR...]

Quote:

Why I'm defending ****?

Why do I get the feeling that those stars do not represent the name Bose?

 

[ponzio]

Quote:

Originally posted by MacDEF Interestingly enough, one of JBL/Infinity's arguments in the case is that Bose never should have been awarded the patent in the first place...

The patent invalidity argument is almost always raised by a defendant in a patent suit. (If they don't have a valid patent, then they can't sue us.)

I thought the case was interesting because it brought to light the large monetary value of a product(s) that none of us here, and many other places, would even remotely consider purchasing.


In a related note: This weekend I went with my father to a large electronics store that had SACD on display with Billy Joel playing through a 5.1 piece satellite system. Because I work with that technology, I gave him a rough explanation of the differences between CD and SACD before we arrived. He could hear definite differences between the store set up and our home set up, but wasn't sure if he could attribute the difference to the source or the speakers.

"Does your system at home sound this good?", he asked.
"My headphones, you mean?"
"Yes, your headphone system."
"No, it sounds much, much better," I said.
And for a split second, I thought I got the feeling that just maybe I had a toy that my dad thought was cool.