|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.67.143.105
Let's hope Bose wins as it is a pioneering company with many achievements.
Follow Ups:
and always will
I wasn't sure if Bose was a private company or traded on an exchange. I searched Google for "Bose Stock Symbol" and the first sentence from the first 'hit' from my search says,
"Bose has been making noise in the audio products business since 1964......"
That pretty much sums it up. ;-)
nt
As much as they sue others I figured they had their own.
Give their lawyers something to do between suits.
They're ALL suing each other they ALL try to gain home field advantage.
Smaller companies will sometimes sue larger ones out of desperation.
Many companies that are on the brink of going belly up will sue larger corporations in a last ditch effort to bring in much needed cash. I'm not saying this about Bose specifically, but we see that all the time.
I recall Motorola suing a bunch of cellphone and cell technology firms for patent infringement as they struggled to stay afloat before they were bought out by Google.... Google bought Moto mainly for their patent portfolio so they can sue other companies that use the technology.
Google has recently sold Moto to Lenovo but Google keeps the patent portfolio.
It's ALL a big corporate game!
or as my uncle Bill would always remark in situations like this, "Never wise up a chump."
I mean really, what comes to mind when you see some schmuck hipster wearing those fashionable colored headphones. MOOo…
Did those nebs at MIT wait for the Apple purchase before filing?
If only I could insert one of those big red hearts in place of the word "love" in the above sentence. It would make such a cool bumper sticker.
I'm relentlessly trying to get my family members who seek a table radio/cd unit type thing to look at other alternatives like Cambridge Soundworks and another one that now escapes me - rather than be suckered into a payment plan for a Bose Wave unit that is morbidly overpriced due to their ridiculous advertising budget designed to reel in people readily duped by that kind of stuff.
(How's that for a run-on sentence?)
> > So why is it then that Bose is singled out for its marketing of "easy payments" and the "exorbitant" price of what amounts to a table radio when you have magical speaker makers overbuilding boxes over and above the level of brick shithouses and asking over 100k and they get a pass with the usual "who are YOU to decide how a person spends his money" and the "you simply don't understand that the law of diminishing returns will never make a real moneyed audiophile blink" whereas the average person that buys Bose and is subjectively satisfied with it is required to be protected against exploitation? < <
I am in awe, as should you be...
-RW-
"The mere fact that a sentence is long does not make it a run-on sentence; sentences are run-ons only when they contain more than one independent clause. A run-on sentence can be as short as four words—for instance: I drive she walks. In this case there are two independent clauses: two subjects paired with two intransitive verbs. So as long as clauses are punctuated appropriately, a writer can assemble multiple independent clauses in a single sentence; in fact, a properly constructed sentence can be extended indefinitely." From Wikipedia.
I think I forgot one comma. Here it is: ",". Use it well.
How is your French grammar BTW?
You know one of the strangest things is that whenever I just as much as harrumph when someone extolls the virtue of the First Commandment of subjective high-end audio: "More money equals better sound ad infinitum", there is a general outcry that I am incapable of understanding that people with money know what they are doing when buying 40k preamps or 120k speakers and that they are simply enjoying their freedom and the rewards of the great free market economy.
So why is it then that Bose is singled out for its marketing of "easy payments" and the "exorbitant" price of what amounts to a table radio when you have magical speaker makers overbuilding boxes over and above the level of brick shithouses and asking over 100k and they get a pass with the usual "who are YOU to decide how a person spends his money" and the "you simply don't understand that the law of diminishing returns will never make a real moneyed audiophile blink" whereas the average person that buys Bose and is subjectively satisfied with it is required to be protected against exploitation?
Deux poids deux mesures.
A lot depends on what is actually patented. For example the original Dahlquist speaker had a patent. I assumed it had something to do with the phased array, either the small baffles for early diffraction or the set backs for phase alignment. Makes sense doesn't it?
Well it wasn't. A friend showed me the patent. It was for the metal angles that held the individual baffles onto the main bass module. And to top it off some of these angles rang at about 115 Hz as shown in the measurements in the Hi Fi News review.
So 1st you need to know what the patents in question are.
Hearing aids use this too and Bose didn't invent phase cancellation. I hope they both lose lots of money. Neither are good valued products like most things with a huge marketing budget.
ET
"Let's hope Bose wins as it is a pioneering company with many achievements."
Ahhh so, what does that have to do with the case? All that's at issue is the scope, priority and obviousness of whatever their claims are and how "blatant" is the putative infringement.
My hope is that a clear, just decision can be made. Occasionally that happens. Lacking any knowledge I have no opinion regarding the merits of the filing but since both parties have virtually infinite money I'm sure that none shall be spared when enriching their lawyers.
Unless you happen to be familiar with the details of the case and the prior art and have read all the patents and their wrappers then you have no basis to form a reasoned opinion and instead have just substituted your own prejudices. Nothing wrong with that, it's traditional!
I vaguely think that Bose may have been the first outfit to offer noise canceling headphones aimed at consumers listening to music in commercial airplanes. I don't know. But whether they were or not really doesn't matter very much since the devil is in the details. If the case is sufficiently strong and yet fuzzy they may manage to squeeze significant licensing fees from Apple as that might wind up being cheaper than defending the case. I doubt that this is a big moral issue, it's probably all about bucks.
So, does that make me Bose hater? I really wasn't aware that we were so riddled with them but it could be. Over the years I've heard a number of Bose systems of various ilks and haven't cared for any of them. Well with the exception of a little bookshelf unit they once had. On the other hand a friend gave me one of their tiny Bluetooth, battery-powered speakers and I think it is quite pleasing for background music. It's weird, it doesn't reproduce the recording so much as it uses the input as a suggestion of what sounds to make with it's DSP and various resonators. The amazing thing is a lot of the time is sounds more "alive" and like there are real musicians in the room than does a more "accurate" system in the normal sense. A strange little product, but fun...
Rick
I never said my opinion on this was reasoned, I am just tired of "audiophiles" using Bose as the embodiement of eeeeeevil in audio so wish them well.
As the Apple/Beats deal is yet to close, it remains possible that Apple may decide to reduce its offer by some amount based on its estimate of the cost to defend, win, lose or settle, which could end up being a substantial number.
And Dr. Dre might not end up being the first Billionaire Hip Hop Artist after all. :-(
Another company I'm sure love. ;-)
There seems to be a word missing in your post.
BTW I knew that Monster's name would be brought up.
Do you seriously think Mr. Lee reaches Dr. Amar Bose's ankle technologically speaking?
If audio is in its essence subjective, why is it the millions of satisfied Bose customers' subjective appraisal of their speakers does not count?
At any rate, the parties will argue it out before the authorities and que sera sera... but the Bose haters on sites such as these will go on hating.
...both have many achievements.
Monster popularized the "audiophile cable" market.
Bose is very popular in the senior community with their tremendous marketing and advertising budget.
In common neither have very good products for the money.
STOP THAT RIGHT NOW!
Monster Cable, bleh. Evil corporate scum!
Bose did a lot of fundamental research into noise cancellation in the 1980's when I was an undergraduate. I did a couple of projects in a lab that was largely funded by Bose, too.
When it comes to active noise cancelling, Bose really did do the work, and secured the patents. They also make some of the best noise cancellers on the market, too. They might not be to audiophile levels of sound quality, they sure do work well for what they are designed to do.
============================
As audiophiles, we take what's obsolete, make it beautiful, and keep it forever.
Hey! I have a blog now: http://mancave-stereo.blogspot.com or "like" us at https://www.facebook.com/mancave.stereo
Yup, quite right, but the Bose haters will continue blindly.
Bose sues Beats over patent for Coolness Factor.
Yep, I think Beats beat Bose over that one.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: