Print  RSS 
Jul 20

Paul McLane
7/20/2012 5:55:00 PM 


Paul McLane is editor in chief.

A note in the latest newsletter of the New Jersey Broadcasters Association catches my eye. The group is updating its members about the Mission Abstract Data/DigiMedia legal fight over automation licensing, which RW has been covering.

MAD recently urged the court to lift a “stay” in its patent infringement litigation, as RW too has reported. The NJBA summarized: “In its reply, MAD states: ‘The defendants and their industry appear to have taken a sophisticated and multi-pronged approach to derail DigiMedia’s licensing program. Apparently through coordination with state and national broadcaster associations, the defendants have engineered a licensing blockade, working with [Broadcast Electronics] to attack the asserted patents in the PTO, and petitioned this court to delay the resolution of this litigation pending multiple reexamination requests.’”

It’s interesting to me that MAD is arguing that broadcasters have fought a coordinated effort. A “sophisticated and multi-pronged approach” seems exactly opposite to what I’ve witnessed from my perch. Certainly, people I’ve talked to throughout radio are concerned about MAD’s efforts; and I’ve yet to find one (user or supplier) who considers the claim to have any merit, which is saying a lot in this industry full of competitors. But if anything, the gripe I’ve heard generally is that the associations have not been sufficiently involved and that broadcaster efforts have not been coordinated at all.

Interestingly, the NJBA newsletter continued thus: “QuickNews has confirmed that no state broadcasters association has taken, or intends to take, any action urging its member stations to engage in concerted action to refuse to deal with MAD. Nor has the NAB taken, or intends to take, any such action. Accordingly, MAD’s suggestion of a trade association, coordinated blockade has no basis whatsoever.”

The repeated phrase “intends to take” is notable. If NJBA is correct, stations and interested manufacturers certainly shouldn’t expect any kind of coordinated industry defense. The oft-repeated advice we have heard from communications lawyers seems more appropriate than ever: If your station is approached about automation licensing payments, talk to your legal counsel.

Comments

Thank you for your comment. Please note that posts are reviewed for suitability and may not appear until the next business day.

Archive

July 2016 (4)
June 2016 (3)
May 2016 (4)
April 2016 (3)
March 2016 (6)
February 2016 (4)
January 2016 (6)
December 2015 (7)
November 2015 (6)
October 2015 (11)
September 2015 (7)
August 2015 (8)
July 2015 (10)
June 2015 (14)
May 2015 (5)
April 2015 (6)
March 2015 (6)
February 2015 (4)
January 2015 (5)
December 2014 (7)
November 2014 (6)
October 2014 (10)
September 2014 (11)
August 2014 (14)
July 2014 (4)
June 2014 (2)
May 2014 (5)
April 2014 (4)
March 2014 (6)
February 2014 (7)
January 2014 (8)
December 2013 (9)
November 2013 (11)
October 2013 (9)
September 2013 (6)
August 2013 (5)
July 2013 (1)
June 2013 (4)
May 2013 (3)
April 2013 (2)
March 2013 (8)
February 2013 (8)
January 2013 (7)
December 2012 (3)
November 2012 (4)
October 2012 (7)
September 2012 (10)
August 2012 (4)
July 2012 (7)
June 2012 (4)
May 2012 (5)
April 2012 (10)
March 2012 (5)
February 2012 (6)
January 2012 (5)
December 2011 (5)
November 2011 (5)
October 2011 (8)
September 2011 (9)
August 2011 (10)
July 2011 (6)
June 2011 (5)
May 2011 (7)
April 2011 (3)
March 2011 (9)
February 2011 (6)
January 2011 (7)
December 2010 (2)
November 2010 (3)
October 2010 (6)
September 2010 (10)
August 2010 (8)
July 2010 (7)
June 2010 (5)
May 2010 (5)
April 2010 (11)
March 2010 (7)
February 2010 (5)
January 2010 (4)
December 2009 (2)
November 2009 (4)
October 2009 (5)
September 2009 (6)
August 2009 (4)
July 2009 (3)
June 2009 (15)
May 2009 (8)
April 2009 (6)
March 2009 (2)
February 2009 (2)
January 2009 (1)
December 2008 (5)