Thomas Jefferson was a man of ideas, both about government and the advancement of overall human progress. He oversaw the creation of the US Patent Office in 1790 (adapting concepts of patent law that had existed for several centuries prior in England).  Patents in the United States exist as a legal, exclusive right, to encourage people to invest in creating inventions and ultimately allowing others to use and build upon those inventions after a limited period of time ; that process almost never begins with building things by hand, it most commonly begins by imagining them in the mind, in notebooks or on whiteboards. Patent law exists to protect the work product of what has been referred to as “ideation”; it protects the inventor from others profiting from the status of private property the Patent office has conferred upon an idea, but it does something else of value for the marketplace: if others practice the invention, it allows the inventor who worked to develop it, and whom paid considerable money to obtain a Patent, to receive fair value when used by others.  

The radio stations we all enjoy today were built upon Thomas Jefferson’s belief that an invention, properly documented as unique and original, is private property. The radio industry was built on the technological breakthrough of radio transmissions and receivers in the early 1900’s.  In the early days of radio, while the market was achieving rapid, broad use, there were several patent licensing programs and litigation… the most notable being RCA, which at first sought to exclusively control, via its patent rights, the ability to manufacture radios and then moved to a patent licensing program with a royalty of 7.5% to competing radio (receiver) manufacturers.  Radio was truly a breakthrough technology enabling information and entertainment to be delivered much more efficiently than previous methods available… and this huge increase in productivity led to wealth creation for the early industry players and investors. RCA built product, but it also marketed its Patent rights for license.

Technology from the 1990s to today, such as the hard drive, computing power (both at very cost effective prices due to the economies of scale of the PC industry), improvements in audio compression, plus the Internet has enabled a technology-led generation of wealth creation in the form of significant cost savings for the radio station owners.  Those owners pocketed that profit, resulting from reduced cost and increased operating efficiencies, in the past, today, and for the foreseeable future.  However, not all Patent rights used were secured or paid for. Mission Abstract Data is seeking to license its patent rights on fair and reasonable terms to the parties who have benefited, are benefiting and will benefit from the cost savings and efficiencies enjoyed by using its patented inventions. 

The Mission Abstract Data, LLC team has respect for all the participants in the radio industry that create and deliver the valuable service of radio for the customer, from the musicians that create the music (and license it as an intellectual property right to radio stations), the on-air talent that connects with audiences, the technology staff at the radio station, and the technology companies providing components, products and solutions to the marketplace.  And we understand and value the contributions that all the different parties (past, present and future) contribute. 

• The radio automation technology products build on many component technologies, including personal computers running Windows, Mac OS or Linux.

• These technology products use sound cards.  And the devices likely have licensed audio compression technology (and associated patent rights) from companies such as Dolby, Sony, ATT, Fraunhoffer, Thomson, and Philips.

• So it’s quite common for products and services to use technologies and intellectual property rights from 3rd parties, incorporated into the final product or service.  In most cases, the participants are compensated for their contributions.

Radio is in the intellectual property business, creating unique copyrights (the broadcast) based on aggregating and incorporating the intellectual property of others (copyrights and  trademarks) such as music, talk, interviews, sports rights…etc.  So it’s not a unique concept for the radio industry to pay for intellectual property rights.

The radio station groups named in the lawsuit are practicing the claims set forth in the patents, whether by using commercial systems or component technologies integrated in a custom manner, or some combination thereof.  The reason that Mission Abstract Data is seeking to license radio stations is that is where the economic gain (cost savings of several types) has resulted from implementing the invention, and that there are diverse sets of approaches technically being used to accomplish the solution.   We understand that radio station owners would rather have someone else pay for the patented inventions they use.  However, it is not the automation software provider, nor the computer hard disc manufacturer that directly infringes the patents of Mission Abstract Data, it is the radio station..

Finally, Mission Abstract Data, LLC seeks only to license valid patent rights and is not seeking to collect value to which it is not entitled.   In addition to the extensive patent prosecution the patents underwent with the Patent and Trademark Office including the referencing of prior art by both the inventor and the examiner, Mission Abstract Data, and its law firm Hagens Berman, did a prior art search prior to launching the licensing program and initiating litigation.   

Rather than speculate (as has been the case so far in the RBR articles and accompanying quotes), it is in the interest of all parties to understand, as soon as is feasible, if there really is valid, documented prior art and to minimize the amount of money spent on legal bills by all parties. If the claims being asserted are proven to be invalid, due to prior art, from Scott Studios, ENCO or someone else, then there will be no licensing program and the litigation will be dropped.  If no prior art surfaces, then the licensing efforts will proceed until the radio station owners enter into reasonable patent licenses or a jury decides for them what a reasonable royalty rate will be.

Mission Abstract Data, and Hagens Berman, are ready to review, analyze and discuss any art put forth which might effect the claims.  We thank you for your consideration and look forward to working in a professional manner with the radio industry.

DigiMedia, LLC vs. Beasley, CBS Radio, et al

As noted on RBR.com, Mission Abstract Data (which also does business under the name Mission Abstract Data ), filed suit against several broadcasters for infringement of the company’s intellectual property, namely, broadcasting music from a hard-drive (or hard drives) that contains at least several hundred songs. This week, CBS Radio, asked for an extension to file their response which was granted by the court without any objection on behalf of Mission Abstract Data. 

Mr.Dave Scott, CEO of Dave Scott Companies was quoted in RBR about the litigation. The article is an interesting read.

To quote Mr. Scott:

“I know for a personal fact that my Scott Studios Corp was making and had sold dozens (if not hundreds) of radio studio automation systems with music on hard drive capabilities prior to his 1994 application.”

Mr. Scott also mentioned as that he is not well versed in the details of IP Law. The details, while cumbersome and sometimes confusing, really do matter. For instance, RBR quotes from a patent in their article that has nothing to do with the music on hard drive issue; they seem to mistake that patent, which covers transmission of music over a communications system, with the core issue of music on a hard drive in the patent being enforced with CBS Radio, Cumulus and other broadcasters, which covers broadcast radio. Yes, it’s confusing.

Mr. Scott’s assertion that his firm provided music on hard drive capabilities prior to 1994, while interesting, does not invalidate Mission Abstract Data’s patents, which are clear and specific in nature. To wit: the patent in question was specifically granted based upon a system with: “computer hard drive(s) containing at least several hundred songs”


Mr. Scott may well have sold systems that could put a limited amount of jingles, zinger, transitions or other musical works on a hard drive, but, prior to the development of audio-encoding technologies of sufficient compression with sufficient quality, the amount of music that could fit on hard drives in a cost efficient manner was severely limited. It was not until at least 1994 that audio compression and hard drive capacities developed sufficiently. Prior to that time hard drives were incapable of economically housing much more than one CD’s worth of songs. Given the limitation of technologies at the time, it is far more likely that the systems of which Mr. Scott speaks housed short low fidelity music clips for on air transitions and zingers. But, does several hundred songs versus ten or twelve really make all that much difference in the CBS Radio, Mission Abstract Data, LLC patent infringement suit and the company’s concurrent effort to offer voluntary, non-litigation based licenses? It does and that is where the dry-reading under which IP licensing people suffer, comes into play.

The most relevant patent (US 5,629,867) was granted after the Patent Office examiner looked at the state of published radio technologies as they existed prior to its issuance. It was the determination of the Patent Office that
no one had previously published materials that described a system in which at least several hundred songs were stored in a database resident on one or more computer hard drives in an array that could be played using software on a computer (no particular kind of software, no particular features for automation being required) over a radio broadcast At the time of the patent application’s filing, the Patent Office determined that the invention met all
of the criteria for issuance of a patent including the question of obviousness in view of prior existing systems and documents and the question of inventive step or that the proposed claimed invention was in fact a real invention.
Now, over 15 years later, with our 20/20 hindsight, we might well think it obvious that several hundred songs would fit on a hard drive (after all, an iPod carries that, and then some). But, the US Patent Office examination occured at
a time before MP3 was released, and certainly before MP3 enabled hard drive systems were published and sold for radio stations. At that time, the twelve songs of a CD --a CD has a maximum capacity of around 600 megabytes
would max-out a hard drive, at the time that size drive was a very expensive proposition for a computer hard drive-- and, Michael Jackson was married to Lisa Marie Presley, but that’s another story. The US Patent Office
did not make a mistake here, they examined the state of technology in 1994 and the Patent was granted because no prior art existed and the invention claimed was not obvious.

If Mr. Scott, or another technology supplier did publish and sell a computer system that had computer hard drives that stored at least several hundred songs on a hard drive at least one year prior to filing of the patent application
in1994, that information was not available in spite of a thorough search for such information. Many documents that did predate the patent application were considered by the Patent Office. In addition to 13 prior issued US Patents,
articles about the acquisition of Decision Inc. by RCS, a BPI Communications article about “Radio Station Software” an article about “The Tapeless Revolution Comes to Radio” and two IBM press releases were cited during the
prosecution of the patent. You can find this information on the first page of the patent itself.

All of the world’s best inventions seem obvious, because they are universally used. Those best inventions are used by everyone because they are better than what we previously had. The telephone, the television, and radio itself are
all inventions that seem obvious now but certainly were not at the time of their invention. The invention claimed in these patents, the storage of several hundred songs on a computer hard drive(s) in an array and, using software on
a computer, broadcasting songs from those computer hard drives to the air, represented a huge advancement for radio stations. Gone were many costs in terms of maintenance and operation of CD (and yes even record) vaults and
libraries, those were some of the benefits that were described in the patent specification itself, but there were also unexpected benefits from computerizing music. Radio stations could pre-record on air talent introductions and run a
completely unattended broadcast overnight. On-air talent could easily modify the playlist and still maintain accurate record keeping. Station program directors  could program more aggressive formats, tailoring music to different
times of the day, because playing individual songs from many different album sources was free. 

No one would ever think of getting rid of their computer hard drives and going back to carts or CDs or vinyl discs. Why? Because this invention of putting several hundred songs on a hard drive and using that to run a radio station is both genius and an economic boom to the radio industry.