[threelury]

That is so cute of Yamaha

. I guess Beats must be really worried that yamaha may steal their customers.
 
Yamaha's PRO headphones looks nicer than beats imo.

 

[rock&rollfrenchfries]

guess who the highest paid musician was in 2012? and without even releasing an album in that year.

 

[DJINFERNO806]

Quote:

guess who the highest paid musician was in 2012? and without even releasing an album in that year.

Was it Chris Brown?
 

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

P.S.  Thor was created by Marvel Comics that is brought to you by America.

 
Yes. Marvel Comics invented Thor...

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

guess who the highest paid musician was in 2012? and without even releasing an album in that year.

 
Probably Lou Reed and Metallica - everyone I know was willing to give them $5 if they promised never to make another album together:
 

 

[pokpokgei]

the slogan from this yamaha advertisement pretty much says it's a calculated risk and yamaha has gone ahead with it knowing what waters they are entering here.

yamaha probably sees more benefit over the cons of the lawsuit in this specific case and the yamaha guys behind this are probably laughing their way to the end of this episode. 

 

[scuttle]

Quote:

 
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.

 
I'm not a lawyer, but I have worked with IP rights in the tech industry and the above is misleading for a layman I think: it makes it sound as if Beats could have lucked into a patent that should never have been granted, and if so there is nothing Yamaha can do. This is far, far, very far from the truth: getting a patent is relatively easy, but defending it is very hard. Getting the patent only requires that your claims pass a relatively cursory examination on uniqueness, etc. Defending requires a much higher level of proof against a determined opponent, because they will countersuit to show that the patent should not have been granted. E.g.
 
Quote:

 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Enforcement
 
An accused infringer has the right to challenge the validity of the patent allegedly being infringed in a countersuit. A patent can be found invalid on grounds described in the relevant patent laws, which vary between countries. Often, the grounds are a subset of requirements for patentability in the relevant country.

 
This is very important because often the originality/significance grounds of the patent are complete bs and the Patent Office has failed to notice this. For example, I saw an example for an audioprocessing techology that attempted to restrict any competing technology from being based on ANY psychoasoustic model. This is, of course, insane.

 

[Niyologist]

Come on Yamaha. You guys are better than this. Why couldn't you guys just make your own headphone housing instead?

 

[streetdragon]

Quote:

Come on Yamaha. You guys are better than this. Why couldn't you guys just make your own headphone housing instead?

preferably an open backed housing

 

[yliu]

From the advertisement, it is obvious that Yamaha was copying Dr.Dre, which is quite sad.
 
Yamaha's reputation will probably take a hit after this (at least for me) .

 

[fatcat28037]

Quote:

As a reminder, Monster and Beats split off some time ago into two separate and distinct companies.

 
Point takes, Possibly the Monster culture has carried over the now Independent Beats.  
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy /img/forum/go_quote.gif

 

Yamaha should hire Kurt Denke of Blue Jeans Cable to deal with this.
 
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/index.htm
 
Classic!
 
se

I remember this, classic indeed.

 

[Lifted Andreas]

Well since the Yamaha's would no doubt have better sound I'm not surprised.
 
Beats was right to sue them, otherwise everyone would have realized that Yamahas sound better and Beats would have gone bust from loosing all their customers lol

 

[cravenz]

Disclaimer: I never bothered with the Apple and Samsung law suits. 
 
I'm not sure they will have much on Yamaha if they are gunning for patent infringement (I've not been reading up on the case). 
 
What they should be going for is looking at designs law in intellectual property.
 
Also, if the issue of a patent challenge has come up, that's the usual counter by anyone who has been accused of infringement. It's more or less general protocol. If Beats get over the line, then the have a case. If they don't, then Yamaha are off the hook. But to prove infringement is a whole other hurdle altogether. You need to find some definitive proof that they have used Beat's technology, some connection that brings them together, to show that they didn't just build the whole thing themselves. 
 
The whole idea behind intellectual property is to protect the process of the idea, at least in patents. But the idea itself is not protected because they don't want to stop "competition" and "innovation" so to speak. 
 
One thing I will say though, if they go for designs, they will have to show that there are a gazillion different ways of making a headphone. And honestly, there are only so many ways you can make a headphone. Sure, Yamaha's ad campaign was targeted at Beats, but you see so many different companies do it, and this doesn't just apply in the audio industry. It applies globally. Alternatively, Yamaha could take the fall back option of a defence based on satire, to some extent. Not sure it is a defence in the country the suit is being brought up. 
 
My little few pence worth. 

 

[AHorseNamedJeff]

You can only make headphones  a couple of ways.... I'm gonna say NOPE, because the YAMAHA's are very clearly marked as yamaha, the logo is HUGE, looks nothing like the b, and the yamaha's do look more curved. Nice try monster, you're turning into apple.

 

[FullCircle]

Quote:

Nothing is new in this world, that shape has surely been used before. Watch out if Apple launches some headphones, they're going to patent headphones with sound going to both ears.

 
 
       That has probably already been done.