Posted on : 17-11-2010 | By : admin | In : Seer History
Though supported by no expert testimony, be assured Cohn’s ‘doubts’ prove she knows more about MIDI, music, and audio than the USPTO. Clearly too upset to be candid, you don’t read about the seven years of EFF’s resources squandered by her ignorance about her centerpiece argument on prior art; which USPTO dismissed without hesitation. And only in such a bewildered mind does the addition of six new claims result in an unequivocal ‘narrowing.’ A professional loser to the end, instead of acknowledging the decision and recommending fair-market licensing, she calls for ‘workarounds.’ I agreeably encourage all competitors to bet their future on Cohn’s technical chops, strategic wisdom, and curious speculative outbursts.
“Patent Bust” of Seer Systems’ Electronic Music Patent Sunk By USPTO Action
San Francisco, CA – October 29, 2010 – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the EFF’s “Patent Busting” re-examination attack on Seer Systems’ patent #5,886,274. According to the EFF’s website, Seer and its ‘274 patent were “Wanted by EFF Marshalls” for “Crimes Against the Public Domain; Willful Ignorance of Prior Art; Eggregious Display of Obviousness.” The USPTO disagreed, ruling that the core original claims of the ‘274 patent are valid, as are six newly-added claims. From a technical standpoint the entire affair cost Seer only a few minor amendments of wording that rendered three of the original claims in the ‘274 patent no longer necessary.
Founder and Chairman Stanley Jungleib, responds: “Seer’s ‘274 Patent inventing scalable digital audio distribution has now withstood all reasonable tests and challenges. Seer Systems has already settled litigation with Microsoft, Yamaha, and Beatnik. Thanks to EFF this Patent has now received enough attention that no one in the MIDI or audio domain can claim ignorance of its validity and implications. Seer Systems looks forward to licensing responsible customers under fair terms. And, as necessary, we will continue defending our intellectual property consistent with our substantial record.”
Seer’s outside litigation counsel, Alex Weyand of the Weyand Law Firm, San Francisco, commented: “Why the EFF did not contact our client first, and instead chose to learn the hard way, remains a mystery.”