did anyone actually see the API knobs trademark patent?
- Thread starter 1954U1
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
keefaz
Well-known member
http://www.apiaudio.com/nw_820.html
This has to be a joke...I dunno who is responsible for their communication management
desol
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,129
Well, it seems rather petty...but...like they said, they didn't want the distinction to become
'blurred' by possibly thousands of knock offs. Overseas knock offs? I don't know...
I dig API. I wouldn't want to see this happen to them either?
I DO see their point....even if it seems unreasonable.
By the same token, small DIY, shouldn't really present a major threat...
Maybe if a small, reasonable contract was proposed to API, that cleared up a few design and market objectives...they would be more comfortable, and all would be cool?
The knob i need for my real API's....isn't available?
'blurred' by possibly thousands of knock offs. Overseas knock offs? I don't know...
I dig API. I wouldn't want to see this happen to them either?
I DO see their point....even if it seems unreasonable.
By the same token, small DIY, shouldn't really present a major threat...
Maybe if a small, reasonable contract was proposed to API, that cleared up a few design and market objectives...they would be more comfortable, and all would be cool?
The knob i need for my real API's....isn't available?
keefaz
Well-known member
I see their point too, no problem 
Maybe it is a commercial thing, look at the logo with the knob on the Waves API Plug-In package:
http://www.apiaudio.com/nw_740.html
But still, they not issued a visual content copyright protection for the knob, it is trademark registration.
And API is not a knob manufacturer trademark. I don't know the US laws though, that's certainly why I don't follow the logic
Maybe it is a commercial thing, look at the logo with the knob on the Waves API Plug-In package:
http://www.apiaudio.com/nw_740.html
But still, they not issued a visual content copyright protection for the knob, it is trademark registration.
And API is not a knob manufacturer trademark. I don't know the US laws though, that's certainly why I don't follow the logic
owel
Well-known member
If I'm not mistaken, some software plugin company changed the knobs on their virtual plugins because they show knobs that are stackable. ... and the software plugin was supposed to emulate an API hardware.
It most definitely is available. It is a quantity thing. Plus, I chose to go black to be different than the clear natural API knobs.desol said:
You can try emailing API service for 1 piece. I was told that is what I should have done for my console restore, which is how this whole thing got started. I have a friend who did that for his vintage 1604 restore and he got no response.
Let us know what they say.
Regards, Jeff
MartyMart
Well-known member
owel said:
I think that was URS plugins, which are superb BTW
MM.
So, its happened that the major symbol of the API's recognizability is a knob designed by another company.
What I 'm not able to follow is the supposed obvious legal consequence of this:
API has now the Intellectual Property of the knob's design.
[or of all the dual concentric knobs designs]
Its unfair.
What I 'm not able to follow is the supposed obvious legal consequence of this:
API has now the Intellectual Property of the knob's design.
[or of all the dual concentric knobs designs]
Its unfair.
Were they merely "stackable dual-concentric" or did they first look like actual, virtual API pointer knobs? I don't follow software for recording but isn't Waves the one that currently looks like the actual API knobs? I guess they have paid/are paying for those rights? I would assume this is where this trademark thing came from.MartyMart said:
owel
Well-known member
Yes to both.
They were, before, exactly like API knobs.
before:
after:
In all the letters "evidences":
I associate that particular control knob color and shape only with API audio equipment and no other manufacturer of professional audio equipment.
If the above plugin was in existence before 2007 [the letters dates], and if it is a "professional audio equipment", then the evidences are wrong.
before:
after:
In all the letters "evidences":
I associate that particular control knob color and shape only with API audio equipment and no other manufacturer of professional audio equipment.
If the above plugin was in existence before 2007 [the letters dates], and if it is a "professional audio equipment", then the evidences are wrong.
I guess we can assume that URS received a Cease and Desist letter from API's attorneys. Maybe they should have fought them. I'm sure they have the money.
desol
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,129
jsteiger said:
From API? Or someone else?
I've placed a few orders from API(opamps and knobs(3mm mistake))...talked to Angel(very nice) at the order desk...and even left a few messages for Mark, none of which were returned.
I just assumed the 6mm hole wasn't available, and left it at that.
Wow, so you can buy the knob, but you can't sell the knob? That says a lot right there. Which probably holds up legally on your side if API drags you into court. I mean, if they can make the knob, and sell you the knob, then WTH is API talking about?
I just love finding and pointing out prior art.
I just love finding and pointing out prior art.
If you already have a knob but it's a 3mm hole, some careful clamping, a drill press and a 6mm drill bit and you are set. You will have to replace or grind down the 2 set screws. Clean up the threads a little if you grind them.desol said:
I haven't done this yet but it's aluminum. Pretty soft and easy to cut.
Cheers, Jeff
burdij
Well-known member
Perhaps you may be reading too much into some of the statements in this trademark registration. The only rights that they have been granted is to use the design of a stack of two knobs of this specific form, that is, the form that is represented by the drawing they submitted. It doesn't give them any rights to any other stack of two knobs of a different shape, nor does it give them any rights to a stack of knobs of this shape where one knob doesn't have a pointer, or a single knob of this shape. The language of the patent office is very specific. If they want to test it, they have to start an action against someone and they probably don't want to do that for fear of losing the whole thing so they resort to a common legal bullying tactic of having their attorney draft a letter.
In reviewing their history as a company, I noticed that at some point, the company appears to have gone bankrupt. Rights to intellectual properties may become part of the transfer of assets to another company that acquires them, in this case when Datatronix acquired those assets, but they would have to have been specifically identified as an intellectual property at the time. Somehow, I don't think it would have occurred to them to identify a knob shape as an intellectual property particularly when they were buying them by the boat-load from another company. In this registration application, it says that the knob configuration has been used as a trademark since 1968. This statement may not be accurate.
The validity of the current trademark application is enhanced by two things. One is that they have used this specific configuration for more than 5 years in the course of their business, the scope that the patent office requires. The second is that no one objected to the registration or claimed ownership during the six month window the patent office gave for objections. They are good to go with this registration but only in this specific form.
Again, my legal advice is worth what you are paying for it.
In reviewing their history as a company, I noticed that at some point, the company appears to have gone bankrupt. Rights to intellectual properties may become part of the transfer of assets to another company that acquires them, in this case when Datatronix acquired those assets, but they would have to have been specifically identified as an intellectual property at the time. Somehow, I don't think it would have occurred to them to identify a knob shape as an intellectual property particularly when they were buying them by the boat-load from another company. In this registration application, it says that the knob configuration has been used as a trademark since 1968. This statement may not be accurate.
The validity of the current trademark application is enhanced by two things. One is that they have used this specific configuration for more than 5 years in the course of their business, the scope that the patent office requires. The second is that no one objected to the registration or claimed ownership during the six month window the patent office gave for objections. They are good to go with this registration but only in this specific form.
Again, my legal advice is worth what you are paying for it.
Skylar
Well-known member
burdij,
That all sounds very logical to me; I agree.
That all sounds very logical to me; I agree.
A bit after I opened the store and made sure things were working properly, I started a thread in the new Products forum over at GS to advertise Ed's transformers. Not 20 minutes later and I had the email from Mr. Droppa.
I have 2-50pc batches of Ed's 2622's coming in about 2 weeks. I want to give everyone here ample time to get what they want. When sales slow down and our fellow DIY's first tastes are satisified, I will start a new thread over at GS again. I have half a mind to put all my knob qty's to 500 or something and sit back to see what happens.
It may be like throwing apples at a hornets nest! I'm sure I will find out how much water their "trademark" holds at that point. For me, it is not at all worth paying for any legal advice.
I prefer the free advise I'm getting here. 8)
Cheers, Jeff
I have 2-50pc batches of Ed's 2622's coming in about 2 weeks. I want to give everyone here ample time to get what they want. When sales slow down and our fellow DIY's first tastes are satisified, I will start a new thread over at GS again. I have half a mind to put all my knob qty's to 500 or something and sit back to see what happens.
It may be like throwing apples at a hornets nest! I'm sure I will find out how much water their "trademark" holds at that point. For me, it is not at all worth paying for any legal advice.
I prefer the free advise I'm getting here.
8)Cheers, Jeff
desol
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,129
jsteiger said:
I thought about it before, but figured i'd mess em up. Can't hurt to try one!
I actually placed two seperate orders from API for knobs(totalling over $100) and both were wrong.
Not Angel's fault, she did her best...but i'm thinking she should have been able to pass it off to someone, when the technical stuff couldn't be answered? There's clear part numbers for the knob types, sizes etc...
I left a few messages for both Ray and Mark to clear it up. No answer...no return calls which i thought
was rather rude, but whatever. Customer service should be customer service whether it's a 150k console, an
opamp or a single knob...imo.
