backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 18 comment(s) - last by GoatMonkey.. on Mar 22 at 7:35 AM
More trouble stands in the way of the Sirius and XM satellite radio merger

The times over at satellite radio companies Sirius and XM have been less than celebrative. Both companies are under fire from various industry organizations and the public in general for their upcoming merger.

Earlier last month, the two companies agreed to merge in a $13 billion deal that would create the largest satellite radio entity in North America. The FCC stepped in and indicated that such a merger would not go through easily, and that an approval would be highly unlikely.

Trouble doesn't end there for Sirius and XM. This week, Austin, Texas-based company Keystone Autonics filed a patent infringement suit against both Sirius and XM, claiming that technology used by both companies is being taken directly from patents that belong to Keystone Autonics. The patent in question was awarded to George Hindman of Keystone Autonics just back in January of this year.

So far, none of the companies involved in the case have responded to questions from the press, but it's more than likely that the case will go to court.

Aside the latest in patent infringement cases, both Sirius and XM have found themselves in the crosshairs of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) -- much like most other music companies. The RIAA is lobbying for support of a bill that would restrict users from being able to locally store and record songs aired over satellite radio. XM voiced its opinion against the RIAA and said that such restrictions would harm consumers' recording rights.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Where's the FCC when you need em?
By osalcido on 3/20/2007 6:46:22 PM , Rating: 4
Let me get this straight, you FCC nutjobs...

Two Companies merging for mere survival in a profitless industry = bad

Several Ginormous Companies merging to dominate the entire Nation = good? see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

quote:
The Federal Communications Commission yesterday approved two huge telephone mergers with limited conditions in the belief that new technologies will give consumers choice in an industry that is rapidly consolidating into a few large players.


It all makes sense to those idiots...




By lemonadesoda on 3/20/2007 9:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Money talks. There is a lot of backscratching, money greasing palms, and backhanders behind the scenes. Not nuts. Just corruptables.


RE: Where's the FCC when you need em?
By Targon on 3/21/2007 9:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
The idiots seem to feel that as long as there is ONE company that is in competition with the largest player, all is fine. So, 2 or 3 players in an industry is acceptable to them, even if one is a huge dominating force while 5 players is too many.

At this point though, is there any other company out there that has shown ANY interest in going into the sat radio industry? At this stage, there probably would be a benefit to the merger for everyone since the ONLY players have decided to merge in order to survive. Having both players in the industry go out of business would only hurt the consumers.

Another interesting thing about the situation here is that you never hear about how many people want their sat radio because of the uncensored material found in comparison to broadcast radio. Many adults are tired of things being toned down for younger audiences when THEY are the ones who pay for a lot of the stuff out there.


By darkpaw on 3/21/2007 5:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
The lack of censorship was reason number one for me to buy a satalite radio in the first place. Much love for XM Comedy.

Not having 40 minutes of auto dealer adds for every 20 minutes of music was a nice bonus.


RE: Where's the FCC when you need em?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2007 9:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
> "Let me get this straight, you FCC nutjobs..."

You don't quite have it. The actual situation is that a merger that eliminates all competition in a given marketplace (Sirus/XM) is considered bad for consumers, whereas one in which plenty of competition remains after the merger (Verizon/MCI and SBC/AT&T) is less of a problem.

The size and/or proftitability of the companies involved is irrelevant. It's the state of the market that the FCC considers.

A silly rule? Perhaps...but its due to Congressional legislation, and represents the American public's wishes for competition. It's not the result of "backscratching and corruption".


By RyanLM on 3/22/2007 12:17:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't quite have it. The actual situation is that a merger that eliminates all competition in a given marketplace (Sirus/XM) is considered bad for consumers, whereas one in which plenty of competition remains after the merger (Verizon/MCI and SBC/AT&T) is less of a problem.


Actually it doesn't. AM is to FM is to XM. Sat competes with regular radio. Find me a car that has Sat but not normal radio. In fact, if you look at filings by clear channel, and other major players in the Radio industry they will all mention Sat as a major competitor.

quote:
A silly rule? Perhaps...but its due to Congressional legislation, and represents the American public's wishes for competition. It's not the result of "backscratching and corruption".


Again, there is compeition. The more interesting thing here is who is against it. I will give you a clue, it isnt comsumers, its the NAB - basically - Radios RIAA. Why? they fear Sat. Combined you have 10 million users on Sat, paying money - bypassing free alternatives. People are making a choice. Where traditional radio cant compete is censorship.


Ugh.
By KeithTalent on 3/20/2007 6:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
I feel as if one of these days I am going to be taken to court by the RIAA for whistling my favourite song.

I think I still have tapes lying around of songs I used to tape off the radio, I better burn them quick.




RE: Ugh.
By MrBungle123 on 3/20/2007 7:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
im sure if they heard you whistling that song without their explicit authorization they would add a couple hundred bucks to their law suit.


RE: Ugh.
By Mitch101 on 3/20/2007 7:32:28 PM , Rating: 5
If it makes you feel better.

Blockbuster charges me for not rewinding my DVD's.


RE: Ugh.
By Samus on 3/20/2007 11:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
They charge me for returning my DVD's early...


RE: Ugh.
By JonB on 3/21/2007 9:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
As long as you don't hear your own whistling and nobody else can hear it (because then they might not buy the music), you are within the definition of Fair Abuse.


Screw the RIAA!!!
By RjBass on 3/20/2007 6:40:21 PM , Rating: 3
The RIAA continues to be the annoying thorn in everybody's side. Their day of usefulness has run dry. Just because they can't keep up with modern technology doesn't mean they have the right to keep us from it.

As for the patent infringement, what technology are they claiming was taken? If the guy just got his patent this year, and satellite radio players have been around for multiple years, then isn't the guy a little off in his judgement?




RE: Screw the RIAA!!!
By thestereotype on 3/20/2007 9:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the patent in question was "pending" for sometime. Often a product is released before the patent is actually awarded; this saves a lot of money and time.


RE: Screw the RIAA!!!
By GoatMonkey on 3/21/2007 4:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to be the new business model though.

1. Wait for a company to develop and market a product.
2. Create a patent based on that company's product.
3. Sue the other company.
4. Profit!!!


RE: Screw the RIAA!!!
By masher2 (blog) on 3/21/2007 4:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about? You can't patent prior art. If someone already has a product out, you can't patent the technology in it.

This patent may have only been awarded this year, but it was filed many, many years earlier.


RE: Screw the RIAA!!!
By GoatMonkey on 3/22/2007 7:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably true in this case, I don't really care either way. But it seems all to common now for some company to sit on a patent for some little thing that is a really obvious development in a product until they see dollar signs and start suing other companies. Maybe my list wasn't exactly right, but you get the idea.


Hmm, a patent from January?
By krotchy on 3/20/2007 9:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
This sounds like that other Texas company suing everyone making an MP3 player after they were awarded a patent for a "Digital Music Deliver Device" or something like that.

Wheres the part of the article about the Texas electronics companies that have more Lawyers than real engineers claiming patents on everything under the sun.




2 findings
By AntDX316 on 3/21/2007 12:52:33 PM , Rating: 2
2 finding i get from this is

1. XM and Sirrus has been out before the patent so the person who patented the technology after is going to be rich

2. the government finds way to pay the government Debt

both of those r ways of income at the expense of XM Sirrus savings




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki