Behringer *were* copying. The UK Court judgement
Eeyore
CH 1997 M 6568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
Mr Justice Pumfrey
BETWEEN
MACKIE DESIGNS INC.
Plaintiff
? and ?
(1) BEHRINGER SPECIALISED STUDIO EQUIPEMENT (UK) LIMITED
(2) ULRICH BERNHARD BEHRINGER
(3) BEHRINGER SPEZIELLE STUDIOTECHNIK GmbH
Defendants
Henry Whittle instructed by Shoosmiths & Harrison for the Plaintiff
David Kitchin QC and Lindsay Lane instructed by Linklaters and Paines for the
Defendants
Hearing date(s): 22 January 1999
JUDGMENT
I direct pursuant to RSC Order 68 rule 1 that no official shorthand note shall
be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be
treated as authentic.
DATED 23 April 1999
Introduction
This is an action for infringement of the literary or alternatively the artistic
copyright which is alleged to subsist in circuit diagrams of a piece of
electrical equipment called a mixer. The circuit diagrams were drawn by a
citizen of the United States in 1993. The second Defendant is alleged to have
obtained an example of the plaintiff?s mixer, and to have analysed the circuits
contained in it to produce a "net list" of the components and their
interconnections. From the net list, it is alleged that a computer program was
used to produce layouts for circuit boards to be manufactured by the third
Defendant. The alleged infringements are alleged to be the circuit boards
manufactured by the third Defendant from the net lists.
On 15 December 1998, Master Moncaster directed two questions of law to be
decided:
Whether the circuit diagrams relied on by the Plaintiff are design documents
within the meaning of section 51 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988;
("the CDPA") and
If so, whether the Defendants and each of them have a defence to copyright
infringement by reason of section 51 of the CDPA.
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, the Plaintiff?s action is
to be dismissed. If it is answered in the Plaintiff?s favour, then the
Defendants? defence based on section 51 of the CDPA is to be struck out. The
background facts upon which the validity of the section 51 defence is to be
decided are those deposed to by the Plaintiff?s expert, Mr Epton.
The CDPA introduced a new right into the law of the United Kingdom, called
design right. The unsatisfactory history of copyright in the industrial context
is too well known to require repetition here. Design right was introduced for
the purpose of providing protection of comparatively brief duration to designs
which had been applied industrially. The issue in the present case is of some
importance for two reasons. First, this is the first case concerning copyright
in circuit diagrams which has arisen in respect of diagrams made after the
coming into effect of the CDPA in which the acts of infringement involve making
an article to the design or copying something made to the design. Second, it is
of importance because if the copyright in circuit diagrams originating in the US
is not infringed by acts of the kind complained of here, American authors of
circuit diagrams have no protection in the United Kingdom against persons
copying their circuits at all unless they enjoy patent protection, because the
only other form of protection, by means of registered design, is certainly not
available. If, on the other hand, copyright protection is available the duration
of this copyright (if literary) may be the life of the author and seventy years
thereafter and (if artistic) for 25 years from first marketing rather than the
15 years from first recording or marketing as in the case of design right.
The circuit diagrams in suit
The circuit diagrams are exhibited to the second Defendant?s affidavit as UBB2.
They are circuit diagrams which follow the usual conventions. Conventional signs
are used for discrete components such as diodes, light-emitting diodes,
resistors, variable resistors, capacitors, jack sockets and the like. Certain
components, such as operational amplifiers which come in packages, are depicted
by the conventional sign for an amplifier accompanied by a recognised component
number. Some interconnections are shown explicitly by continuous lines; others
are shown implicitly.
Mr Epton (whose evidence it is common ground I must accept for the purpose of
the following discussion) divides the process of design of an electronic device
into a number of stages: the production of a "functional requirement
specification", the drawing of the circuit diagram or diagrams; the mechanical
design of the device; the design of the printed circuit board; the making and
testing of a prototype or prototypes and modification of the preceding design
materials in response to the results of the tests; and the preparation of final
production drawings.
It is not in dispute that what a circuit diagram shows is (1) the components
that are to be present in the device and (2) the manner in which they are to be
electrically connected together. Any device which contains these components
connected together in this way will be a circuit according to this diagram,
regardless of its physical appearance. The physical article must contain
electrical components having the desired characteristics (regardless of their
appearance or their physical relationship one with another) connected together
by electrical connections (of whatever sort: they may be tracks on a printed
circuit board, or wires) which fulfil the requisite electrical function. That is
all. The circuit diagram does not finally determine either the mechanical
design, or the design of the printed circuit board, for both of which a wide
range of possibilities for implementing a given circuit exists.
Subsistence of copyright in circuit diagrams
There is no doubt that circuit diagrams are artistic works (see section 4 CDPA).
The definition of ?artistic work? contained here is in some respects even wider
than that in the Copyright Act 1956: see the judgment of Jacob J in Anacon
Corporation Ltd v Environmental Research Technology Ltd [1994] FSR 659, a case
concerned with circuit diagrams made before the CDPA came into effect. Section
51 did not apply to the drawings with which Jacob J was concerned at the time of
the hearing before him by virtue of paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 to the CDPA.
In that case, Jacob J held that a circuit diagram is also entitled to copyright
as a literary work, being, in effect, a list of components together with a
special notation for their interconnection. In coming to this conclusion, Jacob
J based himself on section 178 of the CDPA:
?writing? includes any form of notation or code, whether by hand or otherwise
and regardless of the method by which or medium in or on which it is recorded
and ?written? shall be construed accordingly.
Jacob J?s conclusion has been criticised by Laddie J in Electronic Techniques
(Anglia) Ltd v Critchley Components Ltd. [1997] FSR 401 at 412-3. Laddie J takes
the view that only one copyright can subsist in a given work: either information
is communicated graphically or it is communicated by words. Happily, I do not
have to decide whether or not Jacob J is correct, or to decide whether ?any form
or notation or code? can include a drawing made up entirely of conventional
signs. I do not have to decide the issue because section 51, to which I now
turn, plainly relates to all relevant copyrights.
The statutory provisions
Section 51 of the CDPA is as follows:
Design documents and models
51.?(1) It is not an infringement of any copyright in a design document or model
recording or embodying a design for anything other than an artistic work or a
typeface to make an article to the design or to copy an article made to the
design.
(2) Nor is it an infringement of the copyright to issue to the public, or
include in a film, broadcast or cable programme service, anything the making of
which was, by virtue of subsection (1), not an infringement of that copyright.
(3) In this section?
"design" means the design of any aspect of the shape or configuration (whether
internal or external) of the whole or part of an article, other than surface
decoration; and
"design document" means any record of a design, whether in the form of a
drawing, a written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer, or
otherwise.
The definitions of ?design? and ?design document? echo the definitions relating
to design right in sub-s 213(2) and sub-s 263(1). The mutual exclusivity of
design right protection and copyright protection is created by section 236:
236. Where copyright subsists in a work which consists of or includes a design
in which design right subsists, it is not an infringement of design right in the
design to do anything which is an infringement of the copyright in that work.
The basic question is whether a circuit diagram is a design document. It is as
usual helpful to write out the definition substituting the definition of
?design?:
"design document" means any record of a design of any aspect of the shape or
configuration (whether internal or external) of the whole or part of any
article, other than surface decoration, whether in the form of a drawing, a
written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer, or otherwise.
The same definition of ?design? is used for the purpose of design right in
section 213 of the CDPA. Design right is conferred on ?designs? other than those
which are disqualified by the criteria which are set out in sub-section 213(3).
In so far as exploitation by the manufacture of industrial articles is
concerned, the definition is used to demarcate the respective territories of
design and copyright protection.
It seems to me that at first sight the answer to the basic question is almost
too clear for argument if one gives the words ?aspect of the ? configuration??
their ordinary English meaning. Webster gives two relevant primary meanings:
(a) Relative arrangement of parts or elements as (1): SHAPE (2) contour of land
(3): functional arrangement
(b) something (as a figure, contour, pattern or apparatus) produced by such an
arrangement.
The configuration of an article includes its relative arrangement of parts or
elements. An ?aspect? of such an arrangement can be readily identified when
encountered. So far as an electric circuit is concerned, the components present
and their interconnection are, in my view, plainly an aspect of the structure of
the article. Of course they are not the whole story, but they are, in fact, the
most important, being that which differentiates one electronic circuit from
another in terms of function. I do not think it matters whether the circuit
diagram is correctly to be characterised either as a drawing or as a written
description or as having aspects of both. The words of the definition which
characterise the nature of the record constituting the design document ("whether
in the form of?") are plainly not limiting but exemplary of possible ways in
which the record of an aspect of a design may be made.
Mr Whittle submits that the meaning of the word ?configuration? which I have set
out above is too wide. He says that it takes its colour from the word ?shape?:
and that it just means ?physical geometry?. My difficulty with that is that
?physical geometry? is just another term for ?shape?. He reinforces his
submission by saying that since (as I have observed above) section 51 and
section 213 should be complementary, guidance is to be obtained from considering
the test for infringement of design right. Since the infringing act is to ?make
an article according to the design? Mr Whittle submits that the test for
deciding whether or not an article is made according to the design should be
looked at to throw light on what the design consists of. He says that the test
is essentially one of comparing shape. He refers to Parker v Tidball [1997] FSR
680 in the judgment of Mr Englehart QC at pages 703 and 706 and the judgment of
Aldous J (as he then was) in C & H Engineering v F Klucznik & Sons Ltd [1992]
FSR 421. In both cases the relevant comparison was primarily visual and related
to geometrical shape.
Furthermore, Mr Whittle submits that there must be a single design recorded in a
design document. He says, in effect, that a circuit diagram contains many
potential designs of articles but says nothing about their shape: or
alternatively that it is merely a specification which the circuit board has to
achieve. He says that it is really no different in principle from a marketing
specification ("pocket sized and of interest to eighteen-year-olds?"): and a
marketing specification could not form an aspect of a design.
It seems to me that these arguments all depend upon the assumption that
"configuration" means no more than "shape". In my view this assumption is not
correct. While ?design? is concerned with the configuration of articles, it
includes features of that configuration which could not be ascertained without
careful and detailed examination. In Ocular Sciences Ltd v Aspect Vision Care
Ltd [1997] RPC 289 Laddie J was concerned with a series of designs for soft
contact lenses. The plaintiffs in that case were suing on a individual designs
of a series of soft contact lenses of a particular overall diameter, differing
only in their power, and in the detailed dimensions required to achieve that
power. He said this:
"At one stage during the argument, I expressed doubt as to whether the detailed
dimensions on which the plaintiffs were relying could really be ?designs? within
the meaning of the Act. For example, the ?3.00 dioptre and ?3.5 dioptre lenses
in the plaintiffs? D1?Edge III Thin range would appear to any normal observer to
be identical. In fact, it would take sophisticated measuring equipment in the
hands of a skilled technician to tell them apart. Surely they are a single
design. Mr Waugh said this was not so. He said that the use of dimension is just
another way of describing or defining the shape or aspect in issue. He argued
that there is nothing in the Act to indicate that a shape defined by such
detailed dimensions was excluded from protection. On reconsideration, I think Mr
Waugh is right. This is one of those areas in which it is necessary to bear in
mind that the design right provisions are not derived from the Registered
Designs Act 1949. By section 1(1) of the latter Act, the word "design" is
defined as meaning
"features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article by
any industrial process, being features which in the finished article appeal to
and are judged by the eye."
Furthermore, the 1949 Act excludes from consideration features of shape or
configuration which are dictated solely by the function which the article has to
perform. As that Act and numerous decisions under it demonstrate, appearance is
everything where registered design law is concerned. Althought the same word
"design" is used in relation to design right, its meaning is different. There is
no reference in the relevant provisions of the 1988 Act to features which appeal
to and are judged by the eye. The Act was intended to give protection to wholly
functional designs. The worth and ingenuity of a functional design over designs
of similar overall appearance may be due to its detailed relevant dimensions.
Its detailed shape will, because of the different dimensions, be different. The
eye may not be able to distinguish the shapes but that does not mean they are
not different. That being so, it seems to me that it is not possible to exclude
detailed dimensional shapes on the ground that they are not designs. This does
not mean that mere changes in scale produce different designs.
It seems to me that the approach underlying these words applies with equal force
when one is considering that aspect of the design of an article (a printed
circuit board) which gives it its particular merit as a piece of electronics,
that is, the components present and their interconnection. This aspect of the
design does not derive its merit from the particular physical layout of the
components, or their appearance, or their colour. It derives its merit from the
selection of the components and the manner in which they are to be
interconnected. To say that a central feature of a particular piece of
electronic circuitry is not an aspect of its design is in my judgment artificial
and wrong. Essentially, I suppose that the answer to Mr Whittle?s point can be
summarised by observing that it all depends what is meant by shape. I am sure
that if infringement of the design right in an electronic circuit board were
alleged the court would be bound to examine the similarities between the
plaintiff?s and defendant?s circuits. Indeed, it would be strange if the court
examined anything else. Since the design of the circuit would encompass the
circuit design divorced from its particular layout on the board, that would be a
matter which would necessarily have to be examined. I think that to adopt Mr
Whittle?s approach and approach the question of subsistence and disqualification
from copyright by analysis of existing decisions on infringement of design right
puts the cart before the horse.
There are a number of more general considerations which in my judgment support
this conclusion. It was clearly the intention of the framers of the CDPA that
copyright protection was no longer to be available to what can be compendiously
described as ordinary functional commercial articles. This principle applies to
all industrially produced articles whether they be pig fenders, cases for mobile
telephones or printed circuit boards. I would in any event lean against a
construction of section 51 which introduced copyright as an important
consideration in the protection of industrially produced articles, the more so
in a case in which it is arguable that one of the relevant copyrights endures
for the life of the author and seventy years beyond his death. But in my
judgment the simple construction of section 51 is the correct one. The first
preliminary issue must be decided in favour of the defendants.
The answer to the second issue can only be in the plaintiff?s favour if it is
possible to find a pleaded act of infringement of which the plaintiff complains
which is not making an article to the design or copying an article made to the
design. The Statement of Claim alleges indirect copying. It is said that the
Defendants? circuit boards reproduce the circuit diagrams in a material form,
and the Plaintiff relies on the substantial similarity of (i) the components and
(ii) their interconnections. These are precisely the design which I have
identified in the circuit diagrams which fall within section 51. Mr Whittle
submits that the story of what the defendants did is incomplete. They admit for
the purpose of this application that they purchased one of the Plaintiff?s
circuit boards to copy it; and they admit taking the circuit, or a substantial
part of it, and using it in their own board. Given the meaning which I have
given to the word "design" it seems to me that since the since the Plaintiff?s
circuit board has the circuit design shown in the circuit diagrams, the
Defendants have copied an article made according to the design. If they
effectively regenerated the design in the form of a net list, then they made an
article according to that design. Either way, they have a defence under section
51. In my judgment the concluding words of sub-section 51(1) relate to any act
of copying the article whatever the result of the copying, and, in particular
mean that the Defendants? net list and circuit diagrams cannot be infringement
of the copyrights subsisting in the Plaintiff?s circuit diagrams. I agree with
Laddie J? s decision on this point in the Teletubbies case, BBC Worldwide Ltd v
Pally Screen Printing [1998] FSR 665 when he accepted that section 51(1) had
this effect. Although in that case Laddie J needed to find only that the point
was arguable, it seems to me that he came to a clear construction for reasons
which I find compelling.
Order 14A
The Defendants contend that this case is not suitable for resolution under Order
14A. I have left this question until last in my judgment, although it is
logically anterior to providing an answer to the issues. I consider that since
there is no relevant difference between the parties on the relevant facts it is
an appropriate question for resolution now. Had a question of technical
appreciation of the actual circuits in question arisen, the case could not have
been suitable for Order 14A, but since the only technical question arose on the
nature of a circuit diagram and electronic circuits and no further evidence
could carry the matter any further I think that it is necessary and desirable to
dispose of this issue at this stage.
Conclusion
In the result, the action must fail. I do not come to this conclusion with any
great enthusiasm, but the real anomaly, if anomaly it be, is that citizens of
the United States of America are not entitled to design right under the CDPA
unless habitually resident in the European Union or one of the comparatively
limited list of qualifying countries: see section 217 of the CDPA and the Design
Right (Reciprocal Protection) (No 2) Order 1989. The scope of the copyright
protection to which they are entitled has been legislatively adjusted so as to
complement the existence of a design right which they do not possess.
Stipo
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:456B4F77...@hotmail.com...
For the love of God will you stop beating a dead horse? Jesus Keerist what a
waste of bandwidth!
I don't care now if they did or if they didn't, and I truly think no one
else does. Can we agree to call this guy the winner, and ask him to
say "The Last Word" because it's bloody obvious he's going to have it one
way or another. Let's talk about something
to do with AGB subjects and take this crap to the alt.whogivesa.fuck group.
With all due respect.
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
George Gleason
It clear from this document that the closest to a "copy" that was made was
behringer made a inventory of parts(net list) them redesigned circuts from
this list
everyone is away of the importance of board layout in refrence to cross
talk, and other equipment specs
mackie had no propritory designs or parts in the design
the ruleing says
Mackie you have no case , get out of our courts
Mackie brought this case to the only court it felt it could get to
reinterpert existent laws to thier favor
unfortunatly for mackie
the courts did not bastardize established law to allow them to stiffle
legitimate compition\
behriger wins, mackie loses
no matter how many time you post this the facts remain the same
\mackie was thrown out of court for bringing a baseless suit
george
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> It clear from this document that the closest to a "copy" that was made was
> behringer made a inventory of parts(net list) them redesigned circuts from
> this list
That's what copying is, yes !
> everyone is away of the importance of board layout in refrence to cross
> talk, and other equipment specs
I believe Mackie did allege they copied the board layout too in fact.
> mackie had no propritory designs or parts in the design
> the ruleing says
Aside from copyright of course.
> Mackie you have no case , get out of our courts
That's not what the judge said. He made it clear that he'd liked to have ruled
in favour of Mackie, which he could have done had Mackie been a British company.
> Mackie brought this case to the only court it felt it could get to
> reinterpert existent laws to thier favor
I suspect they did it to get Behringer to admit to copying. And they got their
admission.
> unfortunatly for mackie
> the courts did not bastardize established law to allow them to stiffle
> legitimate compition\
It's not legitimate competition. Behringer couldn't do this to a UK company and
get away with it. English Law is quite clear on the point.
> behriger wins, mackie loses
Mackie got an admission from Behringer that Behringer copied them.
> no matter how many time you post this the facts remain the same
> \mackie was thrown out of court for bringing a baseless suit
It wasn't baseless.
Sorry "Stipo" this is why the discussion goes on for never.
The Behringer groupies can't accept that their hero relies on dubious trade
practice.
Graham
Peter Larsen
first of all, I don't want to get into the full detail of this, however
Graham _has_ made a solid point.
Behringer was not convicted because the british laws then reflected the
poor protection the courts of the US of A give to foreigners that want
to sue a US citizens by excempting citizens of the US of A from some of
the protection provided in Britain.
A book about US business practices I printed some years ago specifically
warn foreigners against trying legal action from abroad, it is well
neigh impossible for a foreigner to win in a US court of law, one reason
being that each side bears their own legal costs. If this had not been
the case then I had attempted to find some way of taking legal action
against the group Primus for apparently including some avantgarde music
I had on mp3.com as the base track of a song of theirs without
permission and without paying for the use.
Another example of that is the pirated recording of a danish sting
quartet that was marketed in he US of A, it is well known who it was
that sold the mastertape to a US label but it has not been prosecutable.
It was only by chance that the theft was at all discovered, ie. - as i
recall it - by someone who happened to buy the record in a shop and
bring it to Denmark. I - and a friend of mine - are the only people who
have been allowed to tape a concert of theirs since that theft was
discocered by chance., "quite exceptionally", and it was a great joy,
because that also was how they played that day. When you begin shaking
the rug you will find many other such stories, and Behringers court
proven theft from Mackie must be seen in that context.
That state of the legal system btw. is why Grahams threat of legal
action against you is somewhat ill adviced .... I didn't read this
newsgroup while what appears to have been the substance matter took
place, so this does constitute A commment of Any kind on it.
One example of the lack of reciprocity was that the state of the US of A
copyright legislation was "korean style", a copyright did not exist if
it was not registred, which means that anything foreign that was not
registred in the US of A could be legally copyrighted. At least one US
based video pirate - selling disks with images of poor wemmen that can
not afford clothes - refers to this on his site and makes people aware
that if they are uneasy with that state of affairs, then they should buy
at the original supplier and provides the url's to them.
Reciprocity is the normal state of affairs, so if one country does not
protect the copyrights of citizens from other countries, then those
other countries refuse the rouge state any legal protection, and that
was the state of affairs until the US of A signed the Berne convention.
In this context the US of A behaved like a rogue state for very long,
and the copyright culture still comes across as being that "if it not
registred, then it is public domain. One example of that in action is
all the sites that remarkets usenet content as if it was their own fora.
> It clear from this document that the closest to a "copy" that was made was
> behringer made a inventory of parts(net list) them redesigned circuts from
> this list
The judge sites precedence to the effect that even IF they had done so,
then it had constituted copying because a parts list constitutes the
outcome of a creative process, but - as I recall the judgement - the
similarities went further than just the list of components.
The only good defence Mackie could have used would have been a component
suppliers application note suggesting the circuit in question and thus
making the point of "design height", but such does not seem to have been
presented as such a point is not referred to in the judgement.
The court ruling was: Behringer stole, but are excempted from judgement
due to the state of the law at the time of the crime. The state of the
law was, explained in very popular terms: the US laws allow what we see
as copyright theft, so we do not protect them from copyright theft.
Behringer were specifically not aquitted, they were found to be outside
the reach of the law because the deed was outside the laws jurisdiction.
So if you want to say that they possibly stole based on an asumption
that they would be within the law, well - it actually may well be the
case, and it is no different from the alledged "inspiration" from Phase
400 that Graham seems to have had, and as I recall it admitted with no
qualms of any kind. The legal precedent is Drakes sea ventures ....
stealing from the Spanish was legal in England then ...
As is obvious the advantage of reciprocity eventually dawned on the US
of A, and the Berne convention of copyright protection was signed some
years ago, as for how far the actual implementation of it has gotten in
terms of words of law is unknown to me.
For a comment on the feud: it constitutes plain silly behaviour of all
involved, all of whom I generally like in other contexts and like to
read contributions from, I would appreciate it very much if you all
would please conduct yourselves in a more professinonal manner.
All of the above to the best of my knowledge, errors may have crept in,
the preventive measure of drinking two mugs of coffee has been taken but
may not have sufficed. Here are some spare commas in case too few have
been inserted:
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> george
Peter Larsen
George Gleason
here we are innocent until proven guilty
behringer was not provern guilty and as such no crimke has taken place
without a crime there is no cause for action
in fact all you have is the plantiffs sour grapes at not being smart enough
to reconize how to do business across cultures and borders
such as in some south american countries giveing someone at circle of thumb
and forfinger , which we understand as OK, constituts calling them a asshole
and being shot for doing so is not outside the law
mackie had NO cause for thier suit and as such were thrown out oif court
you simply do not brin g baseless suits and reasonable expect to prevail
Mackie knew thier suit was without merit in the court they brought it, but
it was the only court they felt would basterdize the law to give them
unfair commercial advantage
they were wrong, and as such were sent packing
that is REALLY where this story ought of ended more than a decade ago
george
Peter Larsen
> what I see this as is a very forigen view of "laaw: to the
> law I know here we are innocent until proven guilty
They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done it, but
the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law at that time and
place. That does not make them innocent, it makes them free of legal
consequence.
I make no claim of them being guilty until proven innocent. Anybody can
call them proven thieves and reference the judgement without it being
libel by the definition you posted.
And yes, it is a "foreign view" of the situation, foreign views of
things is what the usenet is about, and we all learn from seeing also
the "other side" of things.
> george
Peter Larsen
Eeyore
Peter Larsen wrote:
Spot on Peter.
Graham
George Gleason
"Peter Larsen" <SPAMSHIEL...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:456EDF00...@mail.tele.dk...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>> what I see this as is a very forigen view of "laaw: to the
>> law I know here we are innocent until proven guilty
>
> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done it, but
> the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law at that time and
> place. That does not make them innocent, it makes them free of legal
> consequence.
no that makes the NOT GUILTY
the opposite of GUILTY
>
I am also obligated to state , if asked, OJ is also NOT GUILTY
as he was JUDGED NOT GUILTY
Peter your playing footloose with some very deep and important ideas onwhich
many justice sytems are based
if one goes to court and is found NOT GUILTY then they are NOT GUILTY
One needs to see the entire picture, which is not available to anyone here
before you go throwing words like Guilty around
one is presumed NOT guilty unless found guilty, behringer was not found
guilty of any crime, hence they are NOT GUILTY
it is my understanding that mackie had the trascripts sealed to prevent
anyone from really knowing how low they stooped to make thier very thin and
suspect case
george
George Gleason
>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done it, but
>> the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
Peter I could be PROVEN "guilty " of painting my house white
some might charge I COPIED my neighboor , who had painted thier house white
before i did
but does that make it a crime to paint my house white?
am I really "guilty " of anything?
Clearly I am not
neither was behringer
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
There is no copyright in painting your house white.
> neither was behringer
Behringer STOLE their mixer design from Mackie and got away with it 'on a
technicality'.
If you think that's 'not guilty' them you must have a very funny view of the
world.
Graham
Peter Larsen
>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done
>> it, but the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
>> at that time and place. That does not make them innocent, it
>> makes them free of legal consequence.
> no that makes the NOT GUILTY
> the opposite of GUILTY
George, it was a not a criminal trial, do not try to apply concepts that
belong in one to this private litigation. It was Mackie against
Behringer, it was not Her Majesty against Behringer.
> I am also obligated to state , if asked, OJ is also NOT GUILTY
> as he was JUDGED NOT GUILTY
Well, if the "not guilty" verdict had been worth anything, then it had
thrown the private litigation out of court. The not guilty verdict was
btw. based on OJ being unable to fit tight leather gloves over sanitary
silk gloves by his own statement and demonstration. I would sure have
had problems fitting any size glove in case my life depended on it. It
was not so that someone else tried to put the glove on his hand, it was
in fact sillier than anything I have seen in a US made detective series.
LAPD probably deserved getting that case thrown out of court, basically
that was what happened, by having taken him to court on something that
was as impermeable as an average hollywood script, but the point that
settled the criminal case was at best highly dubious. Nevertheless he
WAS found not guilty, and I do not expect to be able to understand why
that did not throw the private litigation against him out of court.
> Peter your playing footloose with some very deep and important
> ideas on which many justice sytems are based if one goes to court
> and is found NOT GUILTY then they are NOT GUILTY
You are quite right George, but first get the distinction between
private litigation and criminal proceedings right. The OJ Simpson farce
is an excellent demonstration thereof.
> One needs to see the entire picture, which is not available
> to anyone here before you go throwing words like Guilty around
You miss a non-subtle point, you have not given much thought to what at
least I think about the outcome of that court case. All things
considered I find it correct that Behringer walked out of the courtroom
without having to pay Mackie, not because they didn't steal, but because
the intellectual copyrights of US citizens had been left unprotected by
the state. A case like that of course also makes the point that
legislation that protects also foreigners intellectual copyrights was
direly required.
Admittedly that example is vague, so here is a simpler one. IF Mackie
had patented the circuit in question in some countries, but not in all,
then anyone in any country where a patent has not been applied for and
granted could consider it to constitute knowhow in the public domain.
> one is presumed NOT guilty unless found guilty, behringer
> was not found guilty of any crime, hence they are NOT GUILTY
It was not a criminal case, it was private litigation with the aim being
to obtain damages, so somewhat different concepts apply. One of them is
that it is not about being right, but it is about being found to have
been right.
> it is my understanding that mackie had the trascripts sealed
> to prevent anyone from really knowing how low they stooped
> to make thier very thin and suspect case
I am not aware of this issue, if I get bored enough while looking for
the next job - I have finally been back to my old trade for some months
- then I will try to search for more info about it, but it is not
something I will use time for right now. I just read the judgement and
figured the issue settled therewith and thought that that was it and
that the newsgroup finally could move on.
All that transpired during the case is btw. - as strictly speaking all
that transpired during the criminal case against OJ - irrelevant, what
matters is the judgement, and it was, is and remains - since it was not
taken to the next level and since it was admitted in court - that they
stole the diagram, did not feel bad about doing it, and did not have to
pay up because it was not protected by the law Mackie wanted to bring to
bear. In as much as quality legal counseling is likely sought before
such court cases it is highly probable that the outcome was what both
partees expected prior to the trial.
> george
Peter Larsen
Ty Ford
(in article <456EDF00...@mail.tele.dk>):
Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is right
or wrong.
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Ty Ford
(in article <456EFABF...@hotmail.com>):
>
> Behringer STOLE their mixer design from Mackie and got away with it 'on a
> technicality'.
>
> If you think that's 'not guilty' them you must have a very funny view of the
> world.
>
> Graham
"That depends on what you definition of 'is' is.", Bill Clinton.
Regards,
Peter Larsen
>>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done
>>> it, but the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
> Peter I could be PROVEN "guilty " of painting my house white
> some might charge I COPIED my neighboor , who had painted thier
> house white before i did
Mackie lost the case because the US of A traditionally has failed to
protect the intellectual rights of the citizens of other countries, and
that is all there is to it. There may be another reason for the judge
finding them to be outside the law, but it comes to mind as the obvious
one.
I can't see any benefit in adding more to this thread George, there may
be a few unturned stones left, but nobody is appaprently going to change
their view on anything now - I did however end up seeing this
differently and much more nuanced after having written about it. Things
can of course always look different with a bit of hindsigth for all of
us, if it was a dinner this would be about the time to move on to the
adjoining room for the coffee and a whisky, and something similar would
be usenet decorum about now.
Peter Larsen
Eeyore
Peter Larsen wrote:
I like your approach Peter.
I'm all for forgetting about as it as long as it doesn't continue to be
misrepresented by 'you know who'.
Graham
fade...@gmail.com
years...they are both crappy little mixers! It is like Hyundai filing
suit against Kia. Just fork over $30 more dollars and buy a Yamaha.
It'll sound better, last longer, rent for more and hold more value on
re-sale.
Josh Thompson
George Gleason
> such court cases it is highly probable that the outcome was what both
> partees expected prior to the trial.
>
>> george
>
for admitting that mackie was grandstanding
And behringer was a solid legal footing with anything they did
No cause for action and mackie was rightfully thrown out of the courtroom
case closed
George
> Peter Larsen
George Gleason
"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:g_ednXTNue4RmfLY...@comcast.com...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:39:12 -0500, Peter Larsen wrote
> (in article <456EDF00...@mail.tele.dk>):
>
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>>> what I see this as is a very forigen view of "laaw: to the
>>> law I know here we are innocent until proven guilty
>>
>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done it, but
>> the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law at that time and
>> place. That does not make them innocent, it makes them free of legal
>> consequence.
>>
>> I make no claim of them being guilty until proven innocent. Anybody can
>> call them proven thieves and reference the judgement without it being
>> libel by the definition you posted.
>>
>> And yes, it is a "foreign view" of the situation, foreign views of
>> things is what the usenet is about, and we all learn from seeing also
>> the "other side" of things.
>>
>>> george
>>
>>
>> Peter Larsen
>
> Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is
> right
> or wrong.
>
of law to define it
it was defined against mackie
George
George Gleason
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:37:35 -0500, Eeyore wrote
> (in article <456EFABF...@hotmail.com>):
>
>>
>> Behringer STOLE their mixer design from Mackie and got away with it 'on a
>> technicality'.
>>
>> If you think that's 'not guilty' them you must have a very funny view of
>> the
>> world.
>>
>> Graham
Not guilt is two partys standing before a judge
the judge say NIOT GUILTY\
I have no need to extrapolate anything further fropm that as I am neither
judge or jury
I stand by the renderings of the judge in the suit
behringer- NOT GUILTY
george
George Gleason
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>>>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done
>>>> it, but the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
>
>> Peter I could be PROVEN "guilty " of painting my house white
>> some might charge I COPIED my neighboor , who had painted thier
>> house white before i did
>
> Mackie lost the case because the US of A traditionally has failed to
> protect the intellectual rights of the citizens of other countries, and
> that is all there is to it.
No
Mackie lost beacuse they did not have a case
they in essence we trying to legislate from the bench
create NEW law to stiffle compition
the court choose not to rewrite the law according to mackies wishes
mackie was thrown out of court for having a baseless suit
\end of story
George
liquidator
> Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is
right
> or wrong.
>
A very valid point. Other perspectives can be invaluble.
This whole discussion gets silly when you know Mackie is selling copies of
the QSC.
The company that brought the frivolous legal action is guilty of exactly
the same thing.
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
You still don't get it do you ?
Mackie was not 'thrown out of the courtroom' at all. They got their admission
from Behringer to stealing their circuits.
The judge even expressed his regret he couln't find for them on account of the
absence of reciprocal UK/US copyright agreements ( due to US intransigence ).
" I do not come to this conclusion with any great enthusiasm " said Mr Justice
Pumphrey in his judgement.
Graham
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
> when that grey area between right and wrong comes up we DEPEND on the rule
> of law to define it
> it was defined against mackie
No it wasn't. Behringer were guilty as hell but UK law couldn't help a US
company in this specific case.
Graham
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >Eeyore wrote (in article <456EFABF...@hotmail.com>):
> >
> >> Behringer STOLE their mixer design from Mackie and got away with it 'on a
> >> technicality'.
> >>
> >> If you think that's 'not guilty' them you must have a very funny view of
> >> the
> >> world.
> >>
> >> Graham
>
> Not guilt is two partys standing before a judge
> the judge say NIOT GUILTY\
> I have no need to extrapolate anything further fropm that as I am neither
> judge or jury
> I stand by the renderings of the judge in the suit
> behringer- NOT GUILTY
You don't understand the difference between criminal and civil suits do you ?
The judge said no such thing !
Graham
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" <SPAMSHIEL...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> > George Gleason wrote:
> >
> >>>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done
> >>>> it, but the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
> >
> >> Peter I could be PROVEN "guilty " of painting my house white
> >> some might charge I COPIED my neighboor , who had painted thier
> >> house white before i did
> >
> > Mackie lost the case because the US of A traditionally has failed to
> > protect the intellectual rights of the citizens of other countries, and
> > that is all there is to it.
>
> No
> Mackie lost beacuse they did not have a case
> they in essence we trying to legislate from the bench
> create NEW law to stiffle compition
> the court choose not to rewrite the law according to mackies wishes
> mackie was thrown out of court for having a baseless suit
Complete rubbish.
Mackie were most certainly not thrown out of court and it's clear that the judge
agreed in principle with their action.
As a US company, they had no redress in English law though.
Graham
Eeyore
liquidator wrote:
> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is
> > right or wrong.
> >
>
> A very valid point. Other perspectives can be invaluble.
>
> This whole discussion gets silly when you know Mackie is selling copies of
> the QSC.
And Behringer is too.
> The company that brought the frivolous legal action is guilty of exactly
> the same thing.
They learnt that Behringer could get away with it so why not do it too ?
Graham
Phildo
"Stipo" <co...@newwavecomm.net> wrote in message
news:456e3cc3$0$635$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>Can we agree to call this guy the winner, and ask him to
> say "The Last Word" because it's bloody obvious he's going to have it one
> way or another.
He's more likely to drop dead of a heart attack or have a nice holiday in a
padded cell with one of those nice jackets that do up at the back. He's
obviously under a lot of stress and cracking up.
God knows I know how he feels. I was exactly the same a few years ago.
Phildo
Phildo
"George Gleason" <tbmo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:GGCbh.5663$1s6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Peter your playing footloose with some very deep and important ideas
> onwhich many justice sytems are based
> if one goes to court and is found NOT GUILTY then they are NOT GUILTY
It's not quite as simple as that in some countries George. For instance
Scotland has the judgement "not proven" which means "we know you did it but
we can't prove it so you've got away with it for now until new evidence
comes up". We've also done away with the double jeopardy rule here meaning
you can be tried more than once for the same offence.
Doesn't change a thing about Behringer being found not guilty and the mackie
case being thrown out of court but you should remember not all countries
follow as simple a ruling system as the USA. Then again, some countries it
is even easier to buy the justice you want than it is in the USA, hard as
that is to believe !!!
Phildo
Phildo
> Mackie lost the case because the US of A traditionally has failed to
> protect the intellectual rights of the citizens of other countries, and
> that is all there is to it.
The case was brought in the UK not the US of A. In the USA it would never
have been brought. Mackie brought the case in the only country where they
thought they might have a chance of winning but failed even there.
Phildo
Earl Grey
> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:g_ednXTNue4RmfLY...@comcast.com...
>> Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is
> right
>> or wrong.
>>
>
> A very valid point. Other perspectives can be invaluble.
>
> This whole discussion gets silly when you know Mackie is selling copies of
> the QSC.
>
> The company that brought the frivolous legal action is guilty of exactly
> the same thing.
>
>
>
Now we need some Mackie fanboys to go
"Oh no its an improvement, the circuit boards are made of different
stuff, its completely different apart from the common collector circuit,
the tunnel heatsink, the dipswitches, the back panel layout, and the
chassis layout. There's no other way to make a power amp, it just turns
out that way because its like two tyre companies."
The reality is that QSC evolved a cheap to produce power amp from the MX
line and Behringer and Sekaku couldn't do better from scratch so they
copied all the features that made it a succes, ie just about everything.
Quite legally
Its like all those copies of designer clothes that you see in the high
street chain stores.
Eeyore
Earl Grey wrote:
> liquidator wrote:
> > "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >
'Tis the Chinese way !
Graham
liquidator
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:456EFABF...@hotmail.com...
be guilty of violating a law that doesn't exist.
liquidator
<fade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164905981.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> What is funny to me is that this debate is still raging on after 8
> years...they are both crappy little mixers! It is like Hyundai filing
> suit against Kia. Just fork over $30 more dollars and buy a Yamaha.
> It'll sound better, last longer, rent for more and hold more value on
> re-sale.
>
Actually Hyundai and KIA are the same company. And the POS Yamaha made by
Phonic doesn't sound any better- it's your imagination that it does because
it says Yamaha. you can't get a signiciganly better mixer for $30 more.
liquidator
"Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:456f42a1$1...@clear.net.nz...
> liquidator wrote:
> > "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:g_ednXTNue4RmfLY...@comcast.com...
> >> Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is
> > right
> >> or wrong.
> >>
> >
> > A very valid point. Other perspectives can be invaluble.
> >
> > This whole discussion gets silly when you know Mackie is selling copies
of
> > the QSC.
> >
> > The company that brought the frivolous legal action is guilty of
exactly
> > the same thing.
> >
> >
>
So beyond that, it's all just "holier than thou" postulating.
> Heh
> Now we need some Mackie fanboys to go
> "Oh no its an improvement, the circuit boards are made of different
> stuff, its completely different apart from the common collector circuit,
> the tunnel heatsink, the dipswitches, the back panel layout, and the
> chassis layout. There's no other way to make a power amp, it just turns
> out that way because its like two tyre companies."
>
> The reality is that QSC evolved a cheap to produce power amp from the MX
> line and Behringer and Sekaku couldn't do better from scratch so they
> copied all the features that made it a succes, ie just about everything.
> Quite legally
> Its like all those copies of designer clothes that you see in the high
> street chain stores.
--
Earl Grey
They would have a much harder time selling them without Loud
Technologies and Behringer (and QSC :)) badging them
Earl Grey
> "Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:456f42a1$1...@clear.net.nz...
>> liquidator wrote:
>>> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:g_ednXTNue4RmfLY...@comcast.com...
>>>> Thank you Peter. Thus we see the difference between the law and what is
>>> right
>>>> or wrong.
>>>>
>>> A very valid point. Other perspectives can be invaluble.
>>>
>>> This whole discussion gets silly when you know Mackie is selling copies
> of
>>> the QSC.
>>>
>>> The company that brought the frivolous legal action is guilty of
> exactly
>>> the same thing.
>>>
>>>
> Obviously QSC feels the situation is not actionable. They've stated that.
>
> So beyond that, it's all just "holier than thou" postulating.
Not really, Its good for us end users to know what is in the boxes we buy.
We benefit hugely from a certain level of copying, of Teac copying
Ampex, of Oktava copying Neumann, of Crest copying BGW, of RCF or P
Audio copying JBL, of Ibanez copying Fender, of Roland copying
Sequential Circuits, Moog, ARP etc, of Yamaha copying Steinway, of
Suzuki copying Stradavarius.
Some crappy home studio mixer copying another home studio mixer isn't a
big deal.
QSC make a little more off the same product at the bottom of their line
now because of their name.
It costs the same at the factory gate.
George Gleason
"Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:456f42a1$1...@clear.net.nz...
I do not see where a 6 year warentte is the same as a 1 year warentee nor
where a 30 year history of building ONLY amps(until recently) is the same a
a pair of amps in a very diverse product line
nor is there any copying of the circut layouts or chassis
in fact even the power supplies are diffrent in a very major way\
you can say similar, but to say copy is a lie, nothing more, nothing less
George
George Gleason
seiers amps
they have very little in common with the MX
George
George Gleason
"liquidator" <liqui...@collide.org> wrote in message
news:456f3846$0$10019$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:456EFABF...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>> > >> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done it,
> but
>> > >> the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
>> >
>> > Peter I could be PROVEN "guilty " of painting my house white
>> > some might charge I COPIED my neighboor , who had painted thier house
> white
>> > before i did
>> > but does that make it a crime to paint my house white?
>> > am I really "guilty " of anything?
>> >
>> > Clearly I am not
>>
>> There is no copyright in painting your house white.
there was no copyright covering mackie where they choose to contest this
>>
>>
>> > neither was behringer
>>
>> Behringer STOLE their mixer design from Mackie and got away with it 'on a
>> technicality'.
actualI believe they BOUGHT one
and they didn't get "away " with anything on a technicality
unless you consider there was no law against what they did a technicality
I "got away" with painting my house white because there was no law against
it, I guess that is a "technicality" in your eyes
how can you be so freaking stupid?
George
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> in fact even the power supplies are diffrent in a very major way\
Utter nonsense !
Graham
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
Utter nonsense again.
The RMXs are a very obvious MX upgrade. I wonder how they thought that name up ?
Revised MX perhaps ?
Graham
Earl Grey
It only gets _that_ similar by copying, its not an exact copy, its a
convenient copy.
You were careful to say circuit layouts, not circuit.
Thats just weasel words.
Circuit layout is governed by the physical components you select, not
their values.
You want me to believe that warranty period and the company history make
the significant difference that stop it from being a copy ?
Thanks for the laugh !!
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >>
> >> Behringer STOLE their mixer design from Mackie and got away with it 'on a
> >> technicality'.
>
> actualI believe they BOUGHT one
Behringer BOUGHT their design from Mackie for a few hundred bucks ?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha
Graham
George Gleason
"Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:456f6b4f$1...@clear.net.nz...
absoultly not, layout have almost as much effect on the peformance of a
circut as the coponet selection does
its not a "casual" diffrence
> Circuit layout is governed by the physical components you select, not
> their values.
> You want me to believe that warranty period and the company history make
> the significant difference that stop it from being a copy ?
ask qsc they will tell you its not a copy
if behringer could give a competitive warrentte they would , if the amps are
the same which would you choose, the one year or 6 year warrenttee
QSC can offer that because the amps are similar but NOT copys
the qsc has better heat disapation and more robust powersupplies
I don't know about the guage of steel that the chassis is made from but the
rack ears on my behringers bend pretty easily, my qsc's dont
I have qsc's and behringers
I use the Powerlights, i have used the USA , MX and contractor stuff
I am a big qsc supporter and stood face to face with qsc at AES and asked
why don't you sue Behringer,
thier reply, Its not a copy
and I trust QSC knows this better than you
I also can tell you there is propritairy designs in the powerlights
the RMX is a cookbook amp slapped together from common(public domain)
designs with small bits of qsc added(which are not present in the EP's).
nothing a somewhat alert first year EE student couldn't have come up with
when you need a world class amp behringer is not the company you go to
the company of 30 years amp building is
\if you don't think thats worth something you are truley a fool
george
Earl Grey
snip
>
> absoultly not, layout have almost as much effect on the peformance of a
> circut as the coponet selection does
> its not a "casual" diffrence
Yeah, they didn't change it that much.
>
>> Circuit layout is governed by the physical components you select, not
>> their values.
>> You want me to believe that warranty period and the company history make
>> the significant difference that stop it from being a copy ?
>
> ask qsc they will tell you its not a copy
> if behringer could give a competitive warrentte they would , if the amps are
> the same which would you choose, the one year or 6 year warrenttee
> QSC can offer that because the amps are similar but NOT copys
> the qsc has better heat disapation and more robust powersupplies
> I don't know about the guage of steel that the chassis is made from but the
> rack ears on my behringers bend pretty easily, my qsc's dont
>
> I have qsc's and behringers
> I use the Powerlights, i have used the USA , MX and contractor stuff
>
> I am a big qsc supporter and stood face to face with qsc at AES and asked
> why don't you sue Behringer,
> thier reply, Its not a copy
> and I trust QSC knows this better than you
They would have no grounds to sue, unless there was an infringement of
copyright, trademark or patent.
>
> I also can tell you there is propritairy designs in the powerlights
> the RMX is a cookbook amp slapped together from common(public domain)
> designs with small bits of qsc added(which are not present in the EP's).
> nothing a somewhat alert first year EE student couldn't have come up with
> when you need a world class amp behringer is not the company you go to
> the company of 30 years amp building is
No its not a cookbook amp, thats one of the distinguishing characteristics.
Its QSC's original grounded collector design, a design that originated
with Pat Quilter, the Q in QSC and the subject of a patent at the time.
Its probably run out now. A patent lasts for 20 years from the filing
date, and QSC introduced the design in 1978. Its not that common as a
design choice for other amp designers.
But its a good choice for Behringer to copy because it means that the
transistors and the heatsink don't have to be insulated. It simplifies
assembly and quality control, and means that in the event of failure
your driver doesn't get smoked with DC.
I don't believe there is any ethical issue involved, QSC have had the
benefit of the patent lifetime, and good ideas are there to be copied.
To me, knowing that the Behringer amp derives from Quilter's solid work
is a plus, not a minus and makes me more likely to buy it, say if I have
to put together a bi-amp monitor rig for a club install, I can do it for
the cost of a passive rig from anyone else.
I quite agree its not in the Macrotech, Labgruppen, Powerlight Camco
class and as a QSC dealer I'll upsell to the real deal when I can.
BTW The Powerlight power supply patent was granted to QSC in 1996, so
we'll have to wait another 10 years or so before Behringer makes a
lightweight EP2500
:-)
George Gleason
"Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:456fa03c$1...@clear.net.nz...
> George Gleason wrote:
> snip
>>
>> absoultly not, layout have almost as much effect on the peformance of a
>> circut as the coponet selection does
>> its not a "casual" diffrence
>
> Yeah, they didn't change it that much.
n o and dodge stuck with 4 wheels for my car as well
amazing ain't it
>
>
>
>>
>>> Circuit layout is governed by the physical components you select, not
>>> their values.
>>> You want me to believe that warranty period and the company history make
>>> the significant difference that stop it from being a copy ?
>>
>> ask qsc they will tell you its not a copy
>> if behringer could give a competitive warrentte they would , if the amps
>> are the same which would you choose, the one year or 6 year warrenttee
>> QSC can offer that because the amps are similar but NOT copys
>> the qsc has better heat disapation and more robust powersupplies
>> I don't know about the guage of steel that the chassis is made from but
>> the rack ears on my behringers bend pretty easily, my qsc's dont
>>
>> I have qsc's and behringers
>> I use the Powerlights, i have used the USA , MX and contractor stuff
>>
>> I am a big qsc supporter and stood face to face with qsc at AES and asked
>> why don't you sue Behringer,
>> thier reply, Its not a copy
>> and I trust QSC knows this better than you
>
> They would have no grounds to sue, unless there was an infringement of
> copyright, trademark or patent.
If it "was "a "copy" then those would be facts, But its NOT A COPY, so there
is no copyright infringment, trademark or opatent that was violated
this is the very definition of not a copy in the business world
>
>>
>> I also can tell you there is propritairy designs in the powerlights
>> the RMX is a cookbook amp slapped together from common(public domain)
>> designs with small bits of qsc added(which are not present in the EP's).
>> nothing a somewhat alert first year EE student couldn't have come up with
>> when you need a world class amp behringer is not the company you go to
>> the company of 30 years amp building is
>
> No its not a cookbook amp, thats one of the distinguishing
> characteristics.
> Its QSC's original grounded collector design, a design that originated
> with Pat Quilter, the Q in QSC and the subject of a patent at the time.
> Its probably run out now. A patent lasts for 20 years from the filing
> date, and QSC introduced the design in 1978. Its not that common as a
> design choice for other amp designers.
being public domain it protection long since expired
much like me recording "bands of the Ohio"
it has entered into public domain
> But its a good choice for Behringer to copy because it means that the
> transistors and the heatsink don't have to be insulated. It simplifies
> assembly and quality control, and means that in the event of failure your
> driver doesn't get smoked with DC.
Sounds like something I would do if I was building a amp
why would someone ignore a public domain design
ever build a transistor radio? lots of shared stuff there
once the protection is done(which not being a patent lawyer i have no way of
knowing if that is the case, but based on your words that is my ASSUMPTION))
it available to anyone who cares to use it
>
> I don't believe there is any ethical issue involved, QSC have had the
> benefit of the patent lifetime, and good ideas are there to be copied.
>
> To me, knowing that the Behringer amp derives from Quilter's solid work is
> a plus, not a minus and makes me more likely to buy it, say if I have to
> put together a bi-amp monitor rig for a club install, I can do it for the
> cost of a passive rig from anyone else.
>
> I quite agree its not in the Macrotech, Labgruppen, Powerlight Camco
Its better(more reliable) than any macrotech I've owed, more reliable than
crest 8002,ca or fa as well
> class and as a QSC dealer I'll upsell to the real deal when I can.
if its a copy how can you "upsell" a copy is a copy
thier the same is your assertation.
>
> BTW The Powerlight power supply patent was granted to QSC in 1996, so
> we'll have to wait another 10 years or so before Behringer makes a
> lightweight EP2500
> :-)
If i could buy a 15 lb 300$ ep2500 I would be buying 30 amps this year for
my A rig
but
I think power amps will be nothing we would reconize as power amps in 10
years
I bet shortly they will be integrated right on the drivers themselves
George
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> "Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:456fa03c$1...@clear.net.nz...
> > George Gleason wrote:
> >
> >> absoultly not, layout have almost as much effect on the peformance of a
> >> circut as the coponet selection does
> >> its not a "casual" diffrence
> >
> > Yeah, they didn't change it that much.
>
> n o and dodge stuck with 4 wheels for my car as well
> amazing ain't it
Your ability for making absurd 'comparisons' is noted ( again ).
Graham
Eeyore
Earl Grey wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
> >
> > I am a big qsc supporter and stood face to face with qsc at AES and asked
> > why don't you sue Behringer,
> > thier reply, Its not a copy
> > and I trust QSC knows this better than you
>
> They would have no grounds to sue, unless there was an infringement of
> copyright, trademark or patent.
QSC diagrams contain the following statement clearly in large text....
" THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF QSC
AUDIO PRODUCTS, THAT MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED, REPRODUCED OR USED WITHOUT EXPRESS
WRITTEN CONSENT FROM QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS "
I guess Behringer thought that didn't apply to them ?
Graham
Eeyore
Earl Grey wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
> >
> > the RMX is a cookbook amp slapped together from common(public domain)
> > designs with small bits of qsc added(which are not present in the EP's).
> > nothing a somewhat alert first year EE student couldn't have come up with
Totally 100% untrue.
A firrst year EE student probably wouldn't even understand it properly.
> > when you need a world class amp behringer is not the company you go to
> > the company of 30 years amp building is
>
> No its not a cookbook amp, thats one of the distinguishing characteristics.
> Its QSC's original grounded collector design, a design that originated
> with Pat Quilter, the Q in QSC and the subject of a patent at the time.
I'm not sure about the patent. They did have one on the current limiting method
but not the grounded collector arrangement AIUI.
> Its probably run out now. A patent lasts for 20 years from the filing
> date, and QSC introduced the design in 1978. Its not that common as a
> design choice for other amp designers.
Correct.
> But its a good choice for Behringer to copy because it means that the
> transistors and the heatsink don't have to be insulated. It simplifies
> assembly and quality control, and means that in the event of failure
> your driver doesn't get smoked with DC.
It's also cheap to make !
Graham
Phildo
No, they bought a mackie mixer. Are you so off your head you cannot even
understand English now?
Jeez, you really have lost it Graham. Get a grip.
Phildo
Phildo
<fade...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164905981.3...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> What is funny to me is that this debate is still raging on after 8
> years...they are both crappy little mixers! It is like Hyundai filing
> suit against Kia. Just fork over $30 more dollars and buy a Yamaha.
> It'll sound better, last longer, rent for more and hold more value on
> re-sale.
Complete and utter crap. The yamahas are made by phonic and way inferior to
both Behringer and mackie.
Phildo
Phildo
>> rule
>> of law to define it
>> it was defined against mackie
>
> No it wasn't. Behringer were guilty as hell but UK law couldn't help a US
> company in this specific case.
Then why did they bring the case in the UK?
Why not bring it in Germany or in the USA?
Phildo
Arny Krueger
message news:457018DC...@hotmail.com
> QSC diagrams contain the following statement clearly in
> large text....
>
> " THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION WHICH IS
> THE PROPERTY OF QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS, THAT MAY NOT BE
> DISCLOSED, REPRODUCED OR USED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
> CONSENT FROM QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS "
>
> I guess Behringer thought that didn't apply to them ?
The legality of such statements is arguable. It's like putting up a "Not
responsible for damage to cars" sign on a parking lot. The sign may
intimidate small children, but it does not change the law which says that
parking lot owners have a basic legal responsibility to provide safe parking
lots.
When you make documents available to a lot of people who don't sign NDAs in
order to obtain the documents, you lose a lot of control over how those
documents are used.
Getting people to sign NDAs is usually pretty futile, as well. For example,
how many journalists who serve the computer industry have violated NDAs they
signed with certain computer companies, and yet get offered more NDAs to
sign, by the same computer company?
Eeyore
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
I simply assert copyright in my work with the usual (C).
Graham
George Gleason
"Phildo" <Ph...@phildo.net> wrote in message
news:4taq28F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:456F1F65...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>>> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> when that grey area between right and wrong comes up we DEPEND on the
>>> rule
>>> of law to define it
>>> it was defined against mackie
>>
>> No it wasn't. Behringer were guilty as hell but UK law couldn't help a US
>> company in this specific case.
>
you've lost it
please refer to me being "guilty as hell " of painting my house white
george
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> "Phildo" <Ph...@phildo.net> wrote in message
> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> George Gleason wrote:
> >>> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>> >
> >>> when that grey area between right and wrong comes up we DEPEND on the
> >>> rule of law to define it
> >>> it was defined against mackie
> >>
> >> No it wasn't. Behringer were guilty as hell but UK law couldn't help a US
> >> company in this specific case.
> >
> guilty of violating a law THAT DOES NOT EXIST?
> you've lost it
> please refer to me being "guilty as hell " of painting my house white
The Copyright Design and Patents Act.
Specifically 'design right' ( part 213 )
"design document" means any record of a design, whether in the form of a
drawing, a written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer or
otherwise
As defined in part 263
Graham
Ty Ford
(in article <456F056A...@mail.tele.dk>):
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>>>> They were proven guilty of the deed and admitted to having done
>>>> it, but the deed was stated to be outside the reach of the law
>
>> Peter I could be PROVEN "guilty " of painting my house white
>> some might charge I COPIED my neighboor , who had painted thier
>> house white before i did
>
> Mackie lost the case because the US of A traditionally has failed to
> protect the intellectual rights of the citizens of other countries, and
> that is all there is to it. There may be another reason for the judge
> finding them to be outside the law, but it comes to mind as the obvious
> one.
>
> I can't see any benefit in adding more to this thread George, there may
> be a few unturned stones left, but nobody is appaprently going to change
> their view on anything now - I did however end up seeing this
> differently and much more nuanced after having written about it. Things
> can of course always look different with a bit of hindsigth for all of
> us, if it was a dinner this would be about the time to move on to the
> adjoining room for the coffee and a whisky, and something similar would
> be usenet decorum about now.
>
>
> Peter Larsen
Maybe some green tea ice cream and a single malt scotch on the veranda?
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Phildo
Yet the case was thrown out of court so no law could have been violated. Go
figure.
Phildo
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > George Gleason wrote:
> >> "Phildo" <Ph...@phildo.net> wrote in message
> >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> George Gleason wrote:
> >> >>> "Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> when that grey area between right and wrong comes up we DEPEND on the
> >> >>> rule of law to define it
> >> >>> it was defined against mackie
> >> >>
> >> >> No it wasn't. Behringer were guilty as hell but UK law couldn't help a
> >> >> US company in this specific case.
> >> >
> >> guilty of violating a law THAT DOES NOT EXIST?
> >> you've lost it
> >> please refer to me being "guilty as hell " of painting my house white
> >
> > The Copyright Design and Patents Act.
> >
> > Specifically 'design right' ( part 213 )
> >
> > "design document" means any record of a design, whether in the form of a
> > drawing, a written description, a photograph, data stored in a computer or
> > otherwise
> >
> > As defined in part 263
>
> Yet the case was thrown out of court so no law could have been violated. Go
> figure.
The case was *not* thrown out of court. You're making stuff up as usual.
Graham
Earl Grey
deny everything and say that there is a probability that they or some EE
student could come up with it all entirely independently.
QSC would have to pursue the case in a civil action
Eeyore
Earl Grey wrote:
Naturally.
It would be easy to show under the UK CDPA though.
Graham
George Gleason
"Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:4570a0be$1...@clear.net.nz...
> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>
>>> George Gleason wrote:
>>>> I am a big qsc supporter and stood face to face with qsc at AES and
>>>> asked
>>>> why don't you sue Behringer,
>>>> thier reply, Its not a copy
>>>> and I trust QSC knows this better than you
>>> They would have no grounds to sue, unless there was an infringement of
>>> copyright, trademark or patent.
>>
>> QSC diagrams contain the following statement clearly in large text....
>>
>> " THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF
>> QSC
>> AUDIO PRODUCTS, THAT MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED, REPRODUCED OR USED WITHOUT
>> EXPRESS
>> WRITTEN CONSENT FROM QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS "
>>
>> I guess Behringer thought that didn't apply to them ?
>>
>> Graham
>>
expired and as such is open for ANYONE to apply to thier products
copyrights are not eternal rights
you are trying to rewrite all copyright law to fit your own personal
vendetta against the lawful application of OLD technology
you can not make a moral or legal case agaisnt useing something that is now
public domain
the qsc designs have been around"forever" in technology terms and the
copyrights on the technology in the rmx expired YEARS ago
qsc got thier benift from the copyright
now the rest of the world gets benifit from its copyright having expired
george
George Gleason
"George Gleason" <tbmo...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:7I1ch.5760$tM1...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:4570a0be$1...@clear.net.nz...
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>> Earl Grey wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Gleason wrote:
>>>>> I am a big qsc supporter and stood face to face with qsc at AES and
>>>>> asked
>>>>> why don't you sue Behringer,
>>>>> thier reply, Its not a copy
>>>>> and I trust QSC knows this better than you
>>>> They would have no grounds to sue, unless there was an infringement of
>>>> copyright, trademark or patent.
>>>
>>> QSC diagrams contain the following statement clearly in large text....
>>>
>>> " THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION WHICH IS THE PROPERTY
>>> OF QSC
>>> AUDIO PRODUCTS, THAT MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED, REPRODUCED OR USED WITHOUT
>>> EXPRESS
>>> WRITTEN CONSENT FROM QSC AUDIO PRODUCTS "
>>>
>>> I guess Behringer thought that didn't apply to them ?
>>>
>>> Graham
QSC sure dosent feel it applys to the behringer amp.
tell you what when you not too busy sueing me, have a go at behringer for us
george
Peter Larsen
> In regards to qsc rmx/ep2500 debate It appears the copyright
> protection has expired
Patent protection and copyright protection are different beasts, you
appear to mix them up. Patents last 17 years, Copyright 50 or 80 years -
can't remember what the last update was.
Droit Morale rights are a special case of copyright and last eternally.
A Jesus movie was stopped in Denmark some 20+ years ago with the legal
reasoning being that it misrepresented The 4 Testaments and thereby
violated the Droit Morale of their authors.
Patents are special, because if you patent some contraption in some
countries, but not in other countries, then it is by definition in the
public domain whereever it is not patented.
> george
Peter Larsen
George Gleason
"Peter Larsen" <SPAMSHIEL...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
news:4570AE68...@mail.tele.dk...
get hard to keep up onall this crap
the entire point is, if the case violated applicapale laws it would not have
been thrown out
seeing as it was thrown out, there was no case
no case no foul
try again in another more sympathetic court
the laws regarding this are much bigger than anyone not doing
copyright/patent law full time could ever grasp all the minutia of
all we can go by is the courts outcomes
seems rather odd that nobody ever points out all the designs that have begun
with one manufacturer but ended up everywhere
how many copmanies are paying(or did pay) Meyer sound for its trapazoid box?
where is the outrage that Aphex stole the personel designs of employees
plus we have the unspoken area of thrid party oem agreements that contain
NON disclosur clauses
for all we know the amps in question is a oem design of some un-namable
chinese corporation, hidden from us by both qsc and behringer
to make the sweeping accusation of copying( and infereing some moral or
legal shortcoming with this claim) without all(or any) of the proof to back
that up
is IMO Immoral
\and it should be held to the highest scrunity
george
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> where is the outrage that Aphex stole the personel designs of employees
Many companies require employees to assign their design rights to them. That
even applies to stuff they do 'in their own time'. It's very normal practice,
I've had to sign such a document myself.
It's unlikely they legally stole anything.
Graham
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> how many copmanies are paying(or did pay) Meyer sound for its trapazoid box?
A trapezoid is quite probably too generic to be allowed to have any design
rights. There are restrictions.
Graham
Earl Grey
>
> seems rather odd that nobody ever points out all the designs that have begun
> with one manufacturer but ended up everywhere
LOL
Then lets point out again that the design of the RMX2450 and RMX1450
originated at QSC and ended up at Behringer as the EP2500 and 1500, and
at Sekaku being OEM manufactured for Loud Technologies as Tapco and EAW
models.
Its you that seems to think that this is an ethical issue.
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> for all we know the amps in question is a oem design of some un-namable
> chinese corporation, hidden from us by both qsc and behringer
I know something of the history of the RMX development. It's certainly Pat
Quilter's original design.
Graham
George Gleason
"Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:4570c986$1...@clear.net.nz...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>>
>> seems rather odd that nobody ever points out all the designs that have
>> begun with one manufacturer but ended up everywhere
>
> LOL
> Then lets point out again that the design of the RMX2450 and RMX1450
> originated at QSC and ended up at Behringer as the EP2500 and 1500, and at
> Sekaku being OEM manufactured for Loud Technologies as Tapco and EAW
> models.
and you know this because you have privledged insider info as to
international trade agreements?
or is this just another one of your bullshit"behringer uses the same chassis
as qsc" proclaimations
>
no I am pointing out that there is much that is kept privledged in the big
business world, as if either qsc or behringer could be considered"big
business"
you have no idea if the RMX was a open market design with small
modifications by qsc
from everything I have read its a rather simple design, that has been around
for decades in one form or another
george
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> you have no idea if the RMX was a open market design with small
> modifications by qsc
I do though.
> from everything I have read its a rather simple design, that has been around
> for decades in one form or another
Absolutely wrong.
Graham
Phildo
>> Yet the case was thrown out of court so no law could have been violated.
>> Go
>> figure.
>
> The case was *not* thrown out of court. You're making stuff up as usual.
No, the judge ruled in favour of Behringer therefore they didn't break the
law.
Phildo
Earl Grey
> "Earl Grey" <e...@t.pot> wrote in message news:4570c986$1...@clear.net.nz...
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>>> seems rather odd that nobody ever points out all the designs that have
>>> begun with one manufacturer but ended up everywhere
>> LOL
>> Then lets point out again that the design of the RMX2450 and RMX1450
>> originated at QSC and ended up at Behringer as the EP2500 and 1500, and at
>> Sekaku being OEM manufactured for Loud Technologies as Tapco and EAW
>> models.
>
> and you know this because you have privledged insider info as to
> international trade agreements?
> or is this just another one of your bullshit"behringer uses the same chassis
> as qsc" proclaimations
The Behringer does use the chassis layout designed by QSC
>
> no I am pointing out that there is much that is kept privledged in the big
> business world, as if either qsc or behringer could be considered"big
> business"
>
> you have no idea if the RMX was a open market design with small
> modifications by qsc
> from everything I have read its a rather simple design, that has been around
> for decades in one form or another
> george
>
>
Now you say they are both the same design if by a third party, but they
are not the same design if designed by QSC.
The design has been around since QSC designed the RMX range, the circuit
design has been around since Bob Quilter designed the first grounded
collector power amp.
>
Ron(UK)
Is the trap box patented? and if so in what form? They seem to have been
around a lot longer than Mr Meyer.
Ron(UK)
George Gleason
"Ron(UK)" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
news:q5GdnQFB3ocx_OzY...@bt.com...
I recall reading a history of speakers and in fact it was meyer that
produced the first trap box
I seem to recall it was also patented . though reserch would prove me right
or wrong on this
georg
Ron(UK)
Trapezoidal shaped speaker boxes were used on fairground rides for
donkeys years. I come from a fairground family and always heard them
refered to as 'Panatropes' They usually contained a 12" front loaded
speaker in a kind of W rear horn loaded trap shaped box ( does that
make sense?) generally facing downwards over the punters on the ride.
I remember them with DC energised magnets.
Ron(UK)
--
Lune Valley Audio
Public Address Systems
Hire Sales Maintenance
www.lunevalleyaudio.com
Eeyore
Phildo wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> Yet the case was thrown out of court so no law could have been violated.
> >> Go figure.
> >
> > The case was *not* thrown out of court. You're making stuff up as usual.
>
> No, the judge ruled in favour of Behringer therefore they didn't break the
> law.
The judge *didn't* rule 'in favour of Behringer'.
Learn something about civil cases before posting your pop-nonsense.
Graham
Eeyore
"Ron(UK)" wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > George Gleason wrote:
> >
> >> how many copmanies are paying(or did pay) Meyer sound for its trapazoid box?
> >
> > A trapezoid is quite probably too generic to be allowed to have any design
> > rights. There are restrictions.
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> Is the trap box patented? and if so in what form?
It would have to be a *specific ( and novel ) design* to get a patent.
> They seem to have been
> around a lot longer than Mr Meyer.
Actually, since you mention it, I think you're right there. I have a couple of
loudspeaker design books from the 50s that use various shapes to advantage.
Graham
Eeyore
"Ron(UK)" wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
> > "Ron(UK)" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote in message
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> George Gleason wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> how many copmanies are paying(or did pay) Meyer sound for its trapazoid
> >>>> box?
> >>> A trapezoid is quite probably too generic to be allowed to have any
> >>> design rights. There are restrictions.
> >>>
> >>> Graham
> >>>
> >> Is the trap box patented? and if so in what form? They seem to have been
> >> around a lot longer than Mr Meyer.
> >>
> >> Ron(UK)
> >
> > I recall reading a history of speakers and in fact it was meyer that
> > produced the first trap box
> > I seem to recall it was also patented . though reserch would prove me right
> > or wrong on this
> >
> > georg
> >
> >
>
> Trapezoidal shaped speaker boxes were used on fairground rides for
> donkeys years. I come from a fairground family and always heard them
> refered to as 'Panatropes' They usually contained a 12" front loaded
> speaker in a kind of W rear horn loaded trap shaped box ( does that
> make sense?) generally facing downwards over the punters on the ride.
>
> I remember them with DC energised magnets.
In which case any Meyer patent would have been invalid and unenforceable due to
'prior art'.
Graham
George Gleason
Meyer applied for in 1981 and was granted a patent on the trapazoid
loudspeaker in 1983
http://www.meyersound.com/about/patents/
george
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
> "Ron(UK)" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote
> > George Gleason wrote:
> >> "Ron(UK)" <r...@lunevalleyaudio.com> wrote
Their site is grossly misleading. The related patent D271,967 had nothing to do
with the cabinet shape.
It was *NOT* a patent on the trapazoid loudspeaker.
I suggest you look it up.
Graham
Phildo
No, theft is against the law and they illegally stole the design. You
obviously didn't read the repost I made of George Perfect's post so I
suggest you go back and read it again.
Phildo
liquidator
the UK to extend this as much 50's and 60's rock is headed for the public
domain.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
liquidator
liquidator
Earl Grey
>
> Their site is grossly misleading. The related patent D271,967 had nothing to do
> with the cabinet shape.
>
> It was *NOT* a patent on the trapazoid loudspeaker.
>
> I suggest you look it up.
>
> Graham
>
The Meyer site describes a "design patent".
A design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a
functional item.
If it was a patent on the trapezoid shape it would be a "utility patent"
US utility patents protect the functionality of a given item. They are
generally valid for up to 20 years from the date of filing (with some
exceptions).
Design patents protect the ornamental nonfunctional design of an item.
Design patents can be invalidated if the design has practical utility
(e.g. the shape of a gear). Design patents are valid for 14 years from
the date of issue.
Eeyore
liquidator wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" <SPAMSHIEL...@mail.tele.dk> wrote in message
> > George Gleason wrote:
> >
> > > In regards to qsc rmx/ep2500 debate It appears the copyright
> > > protection has expired
> >
> > Patent protection and copyright protection are different beasts, you
> > appear to mix them up. Patents last 17 years, Copyright 50 or 80 years -
> > can't remember what the last update was.
> >
> > Droit Morale rights are a special case of copyright and last eternally.
> > A Jesus movie was stopped in Denmark some 20+ years ago with the legal
> > reasoning being that it misrepresented The 4 Testaments and thereby
> > violated the Droit Morale of their authors.
> >
> > Patents are special, because if you patent some contraption in some
> > countries, but not in other countries, then it is by definition in the
> > public domain whereever it is not patented.
>
> I believe UK and Europe is 50 years, 95 in the US. There's a move afoot in
> the UK to extend this as much 50's and 60's rock is headed for the public
> domain.
That's copyright protection not patents.
Graham
Earl Grey
> if it had been done , no patent was applied for or granted
> Meyer applied for in 1981 and was granted a patent on the trapazoid
> loudspeaker in 1983
>
> http://www.meyersound.com/about/patents/
>
> george
>
>
There are plenty of trapezoidal boxes that pre date the Meyer Ultra
monitor by years
The original RCA W Bin was trapezoidal, so was the Martin 2x15 Bass
Cabinet at least 10 years before Meyer Sound even existed.
CV and JBL both had trapezoidal boxes on the market prior to the
Ultramonitor.
What Meyer was awarded was a design patent which protects the ornamental
design, not a utility patent which protects the functionality.
They would never have been granted a utility patent because of "prior art"
Eeyore
Earl Grey wrote:
The patent in question didn't relate to the shape of the cabinet.
They're easy enough to find online btw.
Graham
Earl Grey
Correct, its a patent on the ornamental design.
Did I not say that in plain enough English ?
liquidator
> >
> > I believe UK and Europe is 50 years, 95 in the US. There's a move afoot
in
> > the UK to extend this as much 50's and 60's rock is headed for the
public
> > domain.
>
> That's copyright protection not patents.
>
Correct- I was addressing Peter's question about copyrights. Sorry if that
was unclear.
Eeyore
Earl Grey wrote:
'Ornamental design' will go right over george's head I reckon.
Graham
George Gleason
>> > if it had been done , no patent was applied for or granted
>> > Meyer applied for in 1981 and was granted a patent on the trapazoid
>> > loudspeaker in 1983
>> >
>> > http://www.meyersound.com/about/patents/
>>
>> Their site is grossly misleading. The related patent D271,967 had nothing
> to do
>> with the cabinet shape.
>>
>> It was *NOT* a patent on the trapazoid loudspeaker.
>>
>> I suggest you look it up.
>>
>> Graham
>>
ok I looked it up
here is the summery
The UPA-1 marked a revolution in the design of small, high-powered sound
reinforcement systems. In addition to being the first professional
loudspeaker with dedicated control electronics, it introduced the industry
to arrayable, trapezoidal loudspeaker cabinets. The trapezoidal shape of the
cabinet is the subject of this design patent. A trapezoidal shape
facilitates precise configuration of horizontal loudspeaker arrays into a
sound source that emulates the radiation characteristics (in the horizontal
plane) of a point source.
now I will pull out the parts that would indicate this was a patent about
trapazoid boxes
" The trapezoidal shape of the cabinet is the subject of this design patent"
Take it up with John Meyer
he has a good reputation for truth and honesty
something you are sorely lacking IMO
george
George Gleason
"liquidator" <liqui...@collide.org> wrote in message
news:4571dc20$0$20524$8826...@free.teranews.com...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4570C906...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>> > where is the outrage that Aphex stole the personel designs of employees
>>
>> Many companies require employees to assign their design rights to them.
> That
>> even applies to stuff they do 'in their own time'. It's very normal
> practice,
>> I've had to sign such a document myself.
>>
>> It's unlikely they legally stole anything.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>>
employees(something designed before he was a employee)
the diffrence between this case and the behringer mackie case is aphex was
found guilty of violating the law, where behringer wasn't
george
Eeyore
George Gleason wrote:
That's the puff on his site.
United States Patent D271,967
Meyer , et al. December 27, 1983
Loudspeaker
Claims
The ornamental design for a loudspeaker, as shown and described.
Inventors: Meyer; John D. (Albany, CA), Yuill-Thornton II; Alexander (Mill
Valley, CA)
Appl. No.: 06/267,640
Filed: May 27, 1981
Ornamental design is virtually worthless.
Graham
Earl Grey
The Meyer site's text has mislead you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
A design patent means that Meyer Sound Labs have some protection from
others building imitation UPA1s
It doesn't confer an exclusive right to license the manufacture of
trapezoidal speaker cabinets, which would be the case if it was a
utility patent (which it could not be because of prior art)
Phildo
>
>
> Phildo wrote:
>
>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Yet the case was thrown out of court so no law could have been
>> >> violated.
>> >> Go figure.
>> >
>> > The case was *not* thrown out of court. You're making stuff up as
>> > usual.
>>
>> No, the judge ruled in favour of Behringer therefore they didn't break
>> the
>> law.
>
> The judge *didn't* rule 'in favour of Behringer'.
No, he ruled against mackie for bringing a baseless lawsuit. End of the day
mackie lost the case, Behringer received no judgement against them, fine,
slap on the wrist, good spanking, burning at the stake, eternity in
purgatory, jail sentence or anything else.
The case was thrown out of court. Mackie lost, Behringer won, no law was
broken, get over it already.
Phildo