If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Hertz Ordered To Tell Court How Many Thousands Of Renters It Falsely Accuses Of Theft Every Year
- Even As Trump Relies On Section 230 For Truth Social, He's Claiming In Lawsuits That It's Unconstitutional
- Letter From High-Ranking FBI Lawyer Tells Prosecutors How To Avoid Court Scrutiny Of Firearms Analysis Junk Science
- FTC Promises To Play Hardball With Robocall-Enabling VOIP Providers
- FOIA Lawsuit Featuring A DC Police Whistleblower Says PD Conspired To Screw Requesters It Didn't Like
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's next?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
or...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Math
I don't blame the bottomfeeders-- they are just following their nature of bottomfeeding, I blame the people who make it "worth a shot" for them to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good point Joe
So if I understand this right place shifting is simply moving content from one device to another? If so then internet itself is violating this guy's patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prior art
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wouldn't call it innovative
premise that wireless speakers/hadphones are
of limited range at 900Mhz and cites some prior
art.
So he does the A/D and D/A thing and also uses
the link for control of the source device.
It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with FCC
part 15 that for increased range you have to
move to spread spectrum and run more power,
like cordless telephones have already done /and
some other audio devices as well./
Slingbox is not a speaker, this guy is grasping at straws.
His patent is pretty shakey as well if prior art matters
a jot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prior art
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]