After all these years I gave up and had to get some other DAWs to augment my Cakewalk DAW.
 
After spending a month or so learning the new stuff I think I am starting to appreciate how many common experiences I have encountered.
 
For example; the "Radius" branded technology that seems to underlie some of the "audio snap" (if you will) types of technology. I am finding that even when the snapping features have a slightly different implementation that you can discover similar quirks and unexpected behaviors that immediately seem familiar and ultimately, frustrating.
 
It got me wondering. Is some patent holder making revenue while the DAW makers are prevented from making improvement to the technology?
 
How about convolution and dynamic convolution effects like modeled rack gear and amp sims?
 
Are companies "partnering" by selling each other snippets of technology like a dsp engine? Is that why everyone seems to be running in circles and making the same stuff over and over and over again?
 
Have companies forgone the flexibility of owning their own technology and expedited the inclusion of *features* by partnering with each other in such a way that everyone is now trapped to sell what they are stuck with selling?
 
I don't expect a guy like me could find the answer, but it occurs to me that industry insiders must know what's up.
 
If a music tech periodical ferreted out this sort of info and wrote about it in a way that provided context to prospective owner operator customers like me, I'd probably buy a subscription.
 
The availability of high quality outboard rack gear ballooned in the 1990's when any body became capable of implementing the best ideas from the late 1960's and early 1970's. It occurs to me that it will be nice to learn when the DAW patents will run out and the next wave of actual, tangible improvements can take place. 
 
Any industry insiders care to comment? :-)
 
best regards,
mike
 
 
 
edit spelling 

Hi,
 
I doubt that any "insiders" will comment on that.
 
It's like asking Apple to comment on Samsung! Or Microsoft!
 
The biggest issue is that the law allows for that crap to continue, and this where the Copyright Laws need to change a little ... and differentiate from the arts, for example.  Software is a goner a few years later and that Copyright is tieing up precious resources.
 
I suppose that Craig will probably disagree here, as he would like to copyright his applet that shows him playing his guitar with his toe nails and they do not have compression! And he won't allow Cakewalk to use it, because they won't pay him a million dollahs!

Patents have relatively short lives. Eighteen years at best I think. Let's talk about copyright!

If intellectual property didn't exist, we'd all be using a better version of Linux Ubuntu studio with Mickey Mouse as the mascot .

LOL!
 
:-)

gswitz Patents have relatively short lives. Eighteen years at best I think. Let's talk about copyright!

If intellectual property didn't exist, we'd all be using a better version of Linux Ubuntu studio with Mickey Mouse as the mascot .

 
I'm afraid you didn't read the response!
 
" and differentiate from the arts, for example" ...  I would think that Mickey and his pals belong to the arts, not to your example! So go ahead and mix Apples and Oranges and I'm going to listen to Pink Floyd!

A good patent is written such that the art (i.e., implementation) of the technology described in the patent is NOT easily circumvented.  In other words, the patent author will attempt to write a broad patent that encompasses not only the specific example of the technology described BUT will also show (1) how the technology can be incorporated into or combined with existing technology (2) predict use and application both current and future.
 
Writing a GOOD patent is very hard and usually very expensive.  Major technology companies typically have more patent attorneys than they have product development people (I know from personal experience).
 
It’s not so much that companies have (as Mike says) “forgone the flexibility of owning their own technology”, it is more likely there is a well written (good) patent in place protecting the technology of interest and … developing technology from the ground up that circumvents the said technology may not be technically feasible at this point in time or simply too expensive.
 
This one is mine:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=3&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,242,679&OS=6,242,679&RS=6,242,679
 

Who has the patent on Bapu?

Thanks for taking part in the discussion Dave!
 
Fascinating, to me at least, stuff.
 
 
all the best,
mike 

Mooch4056
Who has the patent on Bapu?

The Bouy Holding Company Ltd.?

mike_mccue
 For example; the "Radius" branded technology that seems to underlie some of the "audio snap" (if you will) types of technology. I am finding that even when the snapping features have a slightly different implementation that you can discover similar quirks and unexpected behaviors that immediately seem familiar and ultimately, frustrating.
 
It got me wondering. Is some patent holder making revenue while the DAW makers are prevented from making improvement to the technology?
 
How about convolution and dynamic convolution effects like modeled rack gear and amp sims?
 
Are companies "partnering" by selling it each other snippets of technology like a dsp engine? Is that why everyone seems to be running in circles and making the same stuff over and over and over again?
 

 
Though there may be patents on some things, there's also theoretical limitations on what you can do. And if there are patents there, they may not come from the DAW world.
 
And some of the licensed technology might be used as much for marketing reasons as technology reasons. For instance the difference between most noise-shaping dither algorithms with fancy, impressive sounding technical names is just, wait for it, a different EQ curve in the noise shaping filter and little or nothing else.
 
And what do you want to make? It may not be terribly CPU efficient, but you can probably roll your own in Reaktor. 
 
 

The availability of high quality outboard rack gear ballooned in the 1990's when any body became capable of implementing the best ideas from the late 1960's and early 1970's.
Any industry insiders care to comment? :-)
 

Some might argue it ballooned because the project studio market created a demand that didn't exist before then. And some of those products were also based on relatively new, high quality IC's instead of discrete components.