|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: GDC sues Dolby over TMS and 3D audio interoperability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 11-03-2016 08:22 PM
It's over - and guess who won?
http://www.dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=4574
---------
Hong Kong & San Francisco—Nov 1, 2016
GDC and Dolby Resolve Litigation
GDC Technology Limited (“GDC”) and Dolby Laboratories, Inc. (“Dolby”) have reached an agreement to resolve the litigation filed by GDC against Dolby.
As part of the resolution, GDC will dismiss its lawsuit against Dolby, and GDC and Dolby will grant each other licenses that will allow their respective theater management systems to interoperate with the other party’s digital cinema servers. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential.
* * * * *
About GDC Technology Limited
GDC Technology Limited (“GDC”) is a digital cinema solutions provider. GDC develops, manufactures and sells media servers, content storage systems, theatre management systems and network operations center software for digital cinema. GDC is a licensee of the DTS:X object-based immersive sound technology from DTS, Inc. for the development of its media servers. In addition, GDC also provides a suite of digital cinema products and services, including integrated projection systems, 3D products, projector lamps and silver screens. GDC’s subsidiary, GDC Digital Cinema Network Limited, manages VPF for approximately 5,000 theater screens and 250 motion picture distributors worldwide. For more information, please visit www.gdc-tech.com.
---------
As always, the lawyers ...
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 11-04-2016 11:39 AM
...especially the exhibitor.
quote: David Buckley
Often potential jurors who know about stuff are deselected. In the Oracle trial mentioned at the start of the article, the only juror who had an IT background was objected to and removed.
If this went to trial and they eliminated tech people, the general population pool, i.e., Joe Remote-control-user will very easily understand the annoying concept incompatibility (he pictures the five remote controls sitting on his coffee table because none are compatible with different manufactures equipment). Now tell him that the plaintiff wants to prevent the company making the universal/learning from workin with their equipment and possibly with others manufactures as well and it's because of copyright infringement issues, and now Mr. consumer/juror pictures even more remote controls on his coffee table. Who do you think he's going to side with, the defendant who wants to vacate the copyright issue so that Joe's universal remote control can work with any number of pieces of equipment, or the plaintiff who wants to stop his universal remote from working?
And let's face it, copyright is not a favorite concept to the public at large and it wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that most of the public would come to court with a negative bias against most copyright issues...most cases copyright is seen as being in an adversarial position with the public, as in Copyright vs. Public Domain. I'm just saying...they were smart to settle. And of course it's all about money any way, which is what Dolby was after in the first place so no doubt the settlement included plenty of money changing hands. Now everyone is happy again.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 11-05-2016 12:00 AM
I am NOT a lawyer, but I read all the court documents. As I read it, GDC sued Dolby in state court saying Dolby interfered with their business by telling GDC customers that they were not authorized to use Dolby "interoperability codes" (TMS interface). Dolby replied that the "interoperability codes" are copyrighted, and the state court has no jurisdiction in copyright cases and asked for dismissal on that basis. GDC argues the opposite. GDC argues the codes are not copyrightable or, if copyrightable, their use is fair use. GDC argues that they are not seeking relief that a copyright claim would provide. There's a lot more there, but I think it can be summarized as GDC sues in state court claiming business interference. Dolby replies it's a copyright case which the state court cannot address. GDC argues it is not a copyright case, so the state court can address the issues. In the end, the sides settle, granting each other licenses to allow their TMSs to operate with the servers of the other.
Harold
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-05-2016 06:09 PM
Add another "I am not a lawyer" (or a Constitutional scholar!) disclaimer, but I think I can guess why Dolby wanted to drag this into the realm of intellectual property, but GDC wanted to pursue this under the heading of business interference. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution is very clear that everything to do with IP law is federal (specifically, the responsibility of Congress), and there is no mention of it whatsoever in the states' rights provisions of the Constitution. Given that an assload of both statute and case law has already established that program code is copyrightable, GDC's case would presumably have been stillborn if it had been taken to a federal court and argued as a copyright issue.
I guess GDC believed that they had a solid case under the laws of California dealing with business interference. In any case, they seem to have achieved their aim, which is to be able to carry on integrating the automated operation of their products with Dolby's - in California, at least!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 11-06-2016 11:56 AM
I do not believe DCI addresses equipment interoperability other than the requirement that audio outputs be AES3. For example, at http://dcimovies.com/specification/DCI_DCSS_v12_with_errata_2012-1010.pdf#page=112 regarding intratheater messages, it says " Transactions need not be standardized. In assembling ransactions, the sequences of RRPs used may vary according to the equipment vendor or facility configuration." A standard would be nice, but we don't have one yet. As such, TMS vendors have to write interfaces to each server. While server manufacturers want support from every TMS vendor, in this case we have one supplier providing both the server and the TMS and did not want a particular TMS vendor to connect to their server, potentially locking in existing server customers to their TMS. It would be nice if a widely deployed interface were made open so everyone could write their code to the same thing. At this point, it would probably be an interface defined by one of the server manufacturers that all the TMS vendors have implemented. Server companies could implement this and have instant TMS compatibility. It would eliminate a lot of work for TMS vendors. But, are any of the server companies that have wide TMS support willing to freely license their interface? Then, are other server companies willing to adopt it?
Harold
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic