There is nothing to gain by suing a company with no money. They are doing the right thing for their stockholders at this time. Besides, Apple may simply settle once Beats is in the fold. However, Apple should further negotiate the company sale price down accordingly until it hurts.
So why not sue Beats before they get any kind of marketshare? I haven't seen any inklings that Bose has consistently warned them of patent infringement.
Well, no more Bose purchases for me. And, I've bought several in the past including LifeStyle 535 and SoundTouch 20
What strikes me is how awful these products are. My LifeStyle535, their top-of-the-line TV surround system, does not even have WiFi built in. Crazy. And my SoundTouch came with the absolute worst Mac app I've ever used. The company is incapable of doing software
Why did you buy these even before this lawsuit, given these issues?
Apple needs to have some kind of clause in the contract, that Beats is liable for all copyright infringements and any other lawsuits that might happen, relating to all Beats operations and products before the date that Apple officially buys them.
If Apple buys Beats, it buys Beats' liabilities. Who else do you imagine would pay any settlement? Even if Apple set aside all of Beats's cash (which it could certainly do without), a settlement that exceeded the cash available would go against the value generated by Beats's former assets.
It's always buyer beware in corporate acquisitions, as Chevron has learned to its cost in Ecuador. Fortunately, there's much less in the way of politics in the Bose-Beats/Apple suit.
There is nothing to gain by suing a company with no money. They are doing the right thing for their stockholders at this time. Besides, Apple may simply settle once Beats is in the fold. However, Apple should further negotiate the company sale price down accordingly until it hurts.
I don't have the exact figures, but I recall Beats being a reasonably profitable company, especially in terms of headphone sales. What gives the impression that they would not be able to pay up? As I said before, it seems like dealing with Apple's legal department would be a much bigger obstacle and possibly much more expensive.
Perhaps your ears are better at picking up variations in deep bass sounds than mine, but I find it extremely difficult to tell apart a (decent) $400 v. $4000 subwoofer.
The biggest difference between a (decent) $400 subwoofer and a $4000 subwoofer is not what you can hear but what you can feel. The bass frequencies that a $4000 subwoofer does better than a $400 subwoofer are below what most of us can hear. But that doesn't mean that we can't feel the air moving as those bass waves pass by.
I'm missing something with regard to Bose waiting to file. Multiple people have said "that's normal." But in other threads about patent suits, people regularly defend them by saying "you have to defend your IP or you'll lose them." This implies that if you wait or don't sue, then the defendant can petition the court "it must not have been that important to them; look how they sat on their heels." How does that not apply here? Can't Beats tell the court "they waited 10 years to sue; toss this out"?
That's with trademarks. Patents don't fall into a use or lose scenario. (Copyrights either).
It takes some time to pick apart the electronics of another company and see if they infringe on patents.
And I guess Bose didn't even consider that possibility before Beats suddenly became popular. Don't forget how fast beats rose from invisible to important in the industry. It's doubtful Bose 'waited' or is using the opportunity, this looks more like Beats just wasn't a big enough player before and they didn't even check if they infringed on patents. I've been using QuietComfort for years, I've tried Beats several times and the sound quality / distortion is so bad, Bose might not have considered it to be worth it, because it was unimaginable these Headphones would become popular.
It takes some time to pick apart the electronics of another company and see if they infringe on patents.
And I guess Bose didn't even consider that possibility before Beats suddenly became popular. Don't forget how fast beats rose from invisible to important in the industry. It's doubtful Bose 'waited' or is using the opportunity, this looks more like Beats just wasn't a big enough player before and they didn't even check if they infringed on patents. I've been using QuietComfort for years, I've tried Beats several times and the sound quality / distortion is so bad, Bose might not have considered it to be worth it, because it was unimaginable these Headphones would become popular.
Could it be that Beat NC headphones sound quality/distortion is so bad is because they are not using Bose patents? And now that Apple is buying out Beat, maybe Bose is hoping that Apple will just settle by offering some "get lost" money rather, than to go through the expense of a trial.
Could it be that Beat NC headphones sound quality/distortion is so bad is because they are not using Bose patents? And now that Apple is buying out Beat, maybe Bose is hoping that Apple will just settle by offering some "get lost" money rather, than to go through the expense of a trial.
Totally ridiculous and entirely possible. I find it disturbing this practice has become so standard that we assume it to be the case from the beginning…
Beats has been around for how long? They wait until Apple is in the process of buying Beats to sue?
They're suing before Beats falls under the Apple umbrella and probably protected from any litigation. Apple has many patents related to noise cancellation (44). By suing now, Beats won't be able to claim any Apple IP.
I'm tired of every article about Beats/Apple devolving immediately into a bash-fest about the quality of the headphones.
Folks, these were designed for a specific customer... techno/hip-hop fans who want the bass to rattle their bodies, and who are listening to music that doesn't have much harmonic complexity.
In short, if you're an audiophile, THEY WEREN'T DESIGNED FOR YOU!
Get over it and buy another brand.
If/when these become the flagship headphones for Apple, I'm sure there will be a broadening of their sonic footprint. Ain't exactly rocket science for a company with Apple's resources.
But I still think the deal was about the music service. I just subscribed after the trial period, and I'm really impressed with the catalog and the algorithms.
We'll see.
Emphasising the bass goes way back to the eighties when cassette tape Walkman type players had bass boost, extra bass, mega super duper extra bass etc, whatever the marketers could think of.
While I won't pretend to know Bose's specific patented implementation, noise-cancellation is usually done by having a microphone pick up the ambient noise and then feeding that signal out of phase into the headphone. The actual noise and the inverted noise cancel each other out. The only thing special and unique is how you process the signal coming through the microphone to match the sound of the noise heard through the pads of the headphones.
- snip -=
If you take a stereo recording, take the stereo output and reverse the phase of one channel and then combine it into mono, everything that's mono on the stereo recording will disappear, usually low bass and most of the vocals except for the stereo echo return. Same principle.
So there's definitely prior art out there.
Very true. Phase reversal has been around since man has been able to make stereo recordings. At it's most basic it's swapping a single wire. There are a variety of approaches to noise canceling, simple phase reversal being the easiest and most commonly used. Even in more complex approaches reversal of phase is often the final component, with the rest often used to enable what you desire to not cancel to be clearer and with less artifacts.
But patents are granted for how a system (especially a non-patentable one) is applied in a new manner, so even though Bose does have an R & D dept it's not unlikely most of their patents are of this nature and not that they've created a new technology. I think it's pretty safe to assume the that none of the patents held by Beats or 80% of headphone manufacturers are of original technology.
Bose is right, though. Their noise canceling technology is the best in the industry. I first saw it in their aviation headsets many years ago. I ended up choosing Lightspeed, though, for overall sound quality. And, well, Lightspeed was cheaper, primarily because I worked at a place that was a Lightspeed dealer.
Sorry, but if Beats is infringing, then Bose should move to protect their patents. Some people here seem to think that patents and copyrights are not worth having at all. If you believe that, then consider the lack of innovation in places where intellectual property rights are weak. The entire economy of China is built on imitation, for example, but they invent practically nothing.
Sorry, but if Beats is infringing, then Bose should move to protect their patents. Some people here seem to think that patents and copyrights are not worth having at all. If you believe that, then consider the lack of innovation in places where intellectual property rights are weak. The entire economy of China is built on imitation, for example, but they invent practically nothing.
Absolutely, it's only a problem here because the company in question happens to be owned by Apple.
The Consumer Reports suit was just harassment to try and force more positive coverage. Unfortunately, it worked, as CR made special accommodations for Bose in their speaker testing, which not surprisingly boosted their ratings considerably.
Absolutely, it's only a problem here because the company in question happens to be owned by Apple.
They are not owned by Apple - the acquisition is still in progress. And that's not even why people are up in arms about it. It's odd that after all these years of being on the market, Bose has just NOW decided to sue Beats. Timing seems a little peculiar, don't you think?
Although I tend to think that Bose is attempting to drag Beats in court before the acquisition finalizes. They might fear that once Apple owns Beats, there won't be such a clear cut path to litigation, seeing how Apple itself holds many patents related to noise cancellation.
They are not owned by Apple - the acquisition is still in progress. And that's not even why people are up in arms about it. It's odd that after all these years of being on the market, Bose has just NOW decided to sue Beats. Timing seems a little peculiar, don't you think?
Although I tend to think that Bose is attempting to drag Beats in court before the acquisition finalizes. They might fear that once Apple owns Beats, there won't be such a clear cut path to litigation, seeing how Apple itself holds many patents related to noise cancellation.
I think you answered your own question : )
Naturally he acquisition has something to do with it, but it's not at all peculiar or bad style. Very likely Bose has been keeping an eye on this for years and given it wait-and -see status depending on the arc of Beats as an entity. Keep in mind that Iovine's made his millions by selling and buying companies (in fact he sold and bought back Interscope several times at startling profits each time) much moreso than he ever has selling product, which is saying something. Bose I'm sure knew that Beats was due to be purchased for the moon by someone at some point rather than simply exist as a headphone maker (and music streaming vendor), because that's not Iovine's way, to make X million running a company for long rather than selling it for 500X million. Beats' acquisition by a giant, in hindsight for us, has been inevitable.
I agree that the most likely scenario is that Bose considers suing Apple to have a less positive outcome but I don't think it has to do with any of Apple's noise canceling patents. Apple is one of those companies that, aside from their legal experience, has so much money that legal bills are never a consideration. They can lose and appeal until everyone turns blue as far as the system would let them, far beyond where Beats would take it. A certain percentage of this part of the legal system is facts and research and the rest is a game of chicken.
Comments
So why not sue Beats before they get any kind of marketshare? I haven't seen any inklings that Bose has consistently warned them of patent infringement.
Well, no more Bose purchases for me. And, I've bought several in the past including LifeStyle 535 and SoundTouch 20
What strikes me is how awful these products are. My LifeStyle535, their top-of-the-line TV surround system, does not even have WiFi built in. Crazy. And my SoundTouch came with the absolute worst Mac app I've ever used. The company is incapable of doing software
Why did you buy these even before this lawsuit, given these issues?
Apple needs to have some kind of clause in the contract, that Beats is liable for all copyright infringements and any other lawsuits that might happen, relating to all Beats operations and products before the date that Apple officially buys them.
If Apple buys Beats, it buys Beats' liabilities. Who else do you imagine would pay any settlement? Even if Apple set aside all of Beats's cash (which it could certainly do without), a settlement that exceeded the cash available would go against the value generated by Beats's former assets.
It's always buyer beware in corporate acquisitions, as Chevron has learned to its cost in Ecuador. Fortunately, there's much less in the way of politics in the Bose-Beats/Apple suit.
There is nothing to gain by suing a company with no money. They are doing the right thing for their stockholders at this time. Besides, Apple may simply settle once Beats is in the fold. However, Apple should further negotiate the company sale price down accordingly until it hurts.
I don't have the exact figures, but I recall Beats being a reasonably profitable company, especially in terms of headphone sales. What gives the impression that they would not be able to pay up? As I said before, it seems like dealing with Apple's legal department would be a much bigger obstacle and possibly much more expensive.
Perhaps your ears are better at picking up variations in deep bass sounds than mine, but I find it extremely difficult to tell apart a (decent) $400 v. $4000 subwoofer.
The biggest difference between a (decent) $400 subwoofer and a $4000 subwoofer is not what you can hear but what you can feel. The bass frequencies that a $4000 subwoofer does better than a $400 subwoofer are below what most of us can hear. But that doesn't mean that we can't feel the air moving as those bass waves pass by.
I'm missing something with regard to Bose waiting to file. Multiple people have said "that's normal." But in other threads about patent suits, people regularly defend them by saying "you have to defend your IP or you'll lose them." This implies that if you wait or don't sue, then the defendant can petition the court "it must not have been that important to them; look how they sat on their heels." How does that not apply here? Can't Beats tell the court "they waited 10 years to sue; toss this out"?
That's with trademarks. Patents don't fall into a use or lose scenario. (Copyrights either).
And I guess Bose didn't even consider that possibility before Beats suddenly became popular. Don't forget how fast beats rose from invisible to important in the industry. It's doubtful Bose 'waited' or is using the opportunity, this looks more like Beats just wasn't a big enough player before and they didn't even check if they infringed on patents. I've been using QuietComfort for years, I've tried Beats several times and the sound quality / distortion is so bad, Bose might not have considered it to be worth it, because it was unimaginable these Headphones would become popular.
It takes some time to pick apart the electronics of another company and see if they infringe on patents.
And I guess Bose didn't even consider that possibility before Beats suddenly became popular. Don't forget how fast beats rose from invisible to important in the industry. It's doubtful Bose 'waited' or is using the opportunity, this looks more like Beats just wasn't a big enough player before and they didn't even check if they infringed on patents. I've been using QuietComfort for years, I've tried Beats several times and the sound quality / distortion is so bad, Bose might not have considered it to be worth it, because it was unimaginable these Headphones would become popular.
Could it be that Beat NC headphones sound quality/distortion is so bad is because they are not using Bose patents? And now that Apple is buying out Beat, maybe Bose is hoping that Apple will just settle by offering some "get lost" money rather, than to go through the expense of a trial.
Totally ridiculous and entirely possible. I find it disturbing this practice has become so standard that we assume it to be the case from the beginning…
Beats has been around for how long? They wait until Apple is in the process of buying Beats to sue?
They're suing before Beats falls under the Apple umbrella and probably protected from any litigation. Apple has many patents related to noise cancellation (44). By suing now, Beats won't be able to claim any Apple IP.
Emphasising the bass goes way back to the eighties when cassette tape Walkman type players had bass boost, extra bass, mega super duper extra bass etc, whatever the marketers could think of.
Of these:-
The Beats win hands down and are not all bass.
While I won't pretend to know Bose's specific patented implementation, noise-cancellation is usually done by having a microphone pick up the ambient noise and then feeding that signal out of phase into the headphone. The actual noise and the inverted noise cancel each other out. The only thing special and unique is how you process the signal coming through the microphone to match the sound of the noise heard through the pads of the headphones.
- snip -=
If you take a stereo recording, take the stereo output and reverse the phase of one channel and then combine it into mono, everything that's mono on the stereo recording will disappear, usually low bass and most of the vocals except for the stereo echo return. Same principle.
So there's definitely prior art out there.
Very true. Phase reversal has been around since man has been able to make stereo recordings. At it's most basic it's swapping a single wire. There are a variety of approaches to noise canceling, simple phase reversal being the easiest and most commonly used. Even in more complex approaches reversal of phase is often the final component, with the rest often used to enable what you desire to not cancel to be clearer and with less artifacts.
But patents are granted for how a system (especially a non-patentable one) is applied in a new manner, so even though Bose does have an R & D dept it's not unlikely most of their patents are of this nature and not that they've created a new technology. I think it's pretty safe to assume the that none of the patents held by Beats or 80% of headphone manufacturers are of original technology.
Sorry, but if Beats is infringing, then Bose should move to protect their patents. Some people here seem to think that patents and copyrights are not worth having at all. If you believe that, then consider the lack of innovation in places where intellectual property rights are weak. The entire economy of China is built on imitation, for example, but they invent practically nothing.
Yet another reason not to buy Bose junk. Yes, I said junk. It's overpriced junk.
So are Beat's, what's your point.
Sorry, but if Beats is infringing, then Bose should move to protect their patents. Some people here seem to think that patents and copyrights are not worth having at all. If you believe that, then consider the lack of innovation in places where intellectual property rights are weak. The entire economy of China is built on imitation, for example, but they invent practically nothing.
Absolutely, it's only a problem here because the company in question happens to be owned by Apple.
It doesn't fool my ears.
Absolutely, it's only a problem here because the company in question happens to be owned by Apple.
They are not owned by Apple - the acquisition is still in progress. And that's not even why people are up in arms about it. It's odd that after all these years of being on the market, Bose has just NOW decided to sue Beats. Timing seems a little peculiar, don't you think?
Although I tend to think that Bose is attempting to drag Beats in court before the acquisition finalizes. They might fear that once Apple owns Beats, there won't be such a clear cut path to litigation, seeing how Apple itself holds many patents related to noise cancellation.
They are not owned by Apple - the acquisition is still in progress. And that's not even why people are up in arms about it. It's odd that after all these years of being on the market, Bose has just NOW decided to sue Beats. Timing seems a little peculiar, don't you think?
Although I tend to think that Bose is attempting to drag Beats in court before the acquisition finalizes. They might fear that once Apple owns Beats, there won't be such a clear cut path to litigation, seeing how Apple itself holds many patents related to noise cancellation.
I think you answered your own question : )
Naturally he acquisition has something to do with it, but it's not at all peculiar or bad style. Very likely Bose has been keeping an eye on this for years and given it wait-and -see status depending on the arc of Beats as an entity. Keep in mind that Iovine's made his millions by selling and buying companies (in fact he sold and bought back Interscope several times at startling profits each time) much moreso than he ever has selling product, which is saying something. Bose I'm sure knew that Beats was due to be purchased for the moon by someone at some point rather than simply exist as a headphone maker (and music streaming vendor), because that's not Iovine's way, to make X million running a company for long rather than selling it for 500X million. Beats' acquisition by a giant, in hindsight for us, has been inevitable.
I agree that the most likely scenario is that Bose considers suing Apple to have a less positive outcome but I don't think it has to do with any of Apple's noise canceling patents. Apple is one of those companies that, aside from their legal experience, has so much money that legal bills are never a consideration. They can lose and appeal until everyone turns blue as far as the system would let them, far beyond where Beats would take it. A certain percentage of this part of the legal system is facts and research and the rest is a game of chicken.