original designs vs copies and the law

[pucho812]

how much original design is out there vs copies vs semi copies of circuits.  What is acceptable, what is allowed not allowed by law., what is allowed by law? how do these companies get away with it? Anyone?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Haven't we beat this to death yet?

Some people think copying is original work.  ;D

JR

 

[pucho812]

I am sure we have but lets say for example I borrowed a LPF from one design and and combo it with high pass filter from another design then add to that the ability  have  a resonance peak on both high and low pass.  is it grounds for legal action should it go out into the ether for money?

 

[bruno2000]

Only if the original designer has stupidly deep pockets (which in this business I seriously doubt).
My $0.02.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[JohnRoberts]

I am sure we have but lets say for example I borrowed a LPF from one design and and combo it with high pass filter from another design then add to that the ability  have  a resonance peak on both high and low pass.  is it grounds for legal action should it go out into the ether for money?

Maybe if the HPF or LPF were patented or protected designs, but basic filters are very mature circuit design so many are public domain and free to use.

I have used Baxandall tone control circuits in many products. One could argue that I copied that from Mr Baxandall and I don't disagree... if the best way I can figure out to accomplish something is a published public domain circuit I am not opposed to using it.

That said I have often added minor tweaks to otherwise similar circuits that improve some aspect of the performance. Life it too short to patent every unique circuit, and I have even had patented work copied before  without recourse (They didn't lose in court when sued).

I trust Karma to punish the most offensive. It's not worth me losing sleep about. 

JR


PS: When I designed my first automatic mixer for Peavey, the Dugan patent which protected the best way to do that was expiring, so I used the newly public domain approach when his patent ran it's course and expired..

 

[ruffrecords]

I think the rules covering intellectual property are very simple.

If you design and build something and put it on the market, then, if you have not taken steps to protect the intellectual property in it then it is public domain.

You can protect your intellectual property in several ways, such as patents, registered designs and copyright. If you discover someone infringing these you can sue them.

That is basically all there is to it.

So if you build a Pultec EQP1A clone:

The circuit is so old that even if it were patented the patents will have run out

The logo and front panel layout might be a registered design. I am not sure of the time limits on these but there may be none so if you copy the front panel verbatim your might be infringing.

Cheers

Ian

 

[MicDaddy]

Trademarks have to be kept current.

Patents expire and cannot be renewed, though you can "improve upon" something that had been patented and claim new protections but I think the older stuff can still be used just not your "improvements".

EV launched some new microphones not too long ago and claimed some "patented/exclusive" technologies.  I asked our product manager what new patents we applied for, and he got back to me that "it was some old stuff EV had from way back"...  I brought up every patent I had known about (relating to these products) that the most recent filed had already expired in the '80s.  They removed "patented" from the literature.  The patent protecting the variable-d technology has long expired and is public domain, yet the Variable-D™ is a currently registered trademark, and so just steer clear of printing that or using that term...  maybe I pull a Manley and call it Vari-Delay... 

I'm still waiting to see these rumored protections Neumann has on a headbasket design.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Trademarks have to be kept current.

Patents expire and cannot be renewed, though you can "improve upon" something that had been patented and claim new protections but I think the older stuff can still be used just not your "improvements".

EV launched some new microphones not too long ago and claimed some "patented/exclusive" technologies.  I asked our product manager what new patents we applied for, and he got back to me that "it was some old stuff EV had from way back"...  I brought up every patent I had known about (relating to these products) that the most recent filed had already expired in the '80s.  They removed "patented" from the literature.  The patent protecting the variable-d technology has long expired and is public domain, yet the Variable-D™ is a currently registered trademark, and so just steer clear of printing that or using that term...  maybe I pull a Manley and call it Vari-Delay... 

I'm still waiting to see these rumored protections Neumann has on a headbasket design.

A recent change to the patent law (within last 20 years) made it illegal to claim on a product that it was patent protected using expired patent numbers, or none at all. A popular claim was patent pending... which means nothing much. Apparently there were some abuses in this area.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I think the rules covering intellectual property are very simple.

There are different kinds of intellectual property that have different characteristics.

If you design and build something and put it on the market, then, if you have not taken steps to protect the intellectual property in it then it is public domain.

yes, selling a product in commerce generally serves as equivalent to publication.

You can protect your intellectual property in several ways, such as patents, registered designs and copyright. If you discover someone infringing these you can sue them.

yes a very expensive "permission to sue". Mainly the lawyers win.

That is basically all there is to it.

more or less.

So if you build a Pultec EQP1A clone:

Whoa...  if building a "Pultec" whatever, that suggests there is some Pultec difference involved. While IP protections may have expired or been released, it is still misrepresentation (fraud) to call a copy of anything the original. There is some expectation that an XYZ clone is same as, but that seems a little unlikely. Using modern components a clone may actually be better.  ;D ;D 

The circuit is so old that even if it were patented the patents will have run out

The logo and front panel layout might be a registered design. I am not sure of the time limits on these but there may be none so if you copy the front panel verbatim your might be infringing.

valid IP protection or not, it is wrong to pretend to be something you are not. Patents by law are set to expire and become free to use. Name and trademark seems a lot more persistent.

JR

Cheers

Ian

 

[MicDaddy]

A recent change to the patent law (within last 20 years) made it illegal to claim on a product that it was patent protected using expired patent numbers, or none at all. A popular claim was patent pending... which means nothing much. Apparently there were some abuses in this area.

JR

Recent changes were made to hold the "qui tam" suits at bay.  Before AIA "America Invents Act" false marking included marking product (or advertising/literature) with patents which had expired... this is no longer the case except in some civil matters where I think there is still gray area on how courts would rule on competitive injury.  It is no longer considered false marking to leave an expired patent number on a product.  They also did away with the "qui tam" individual ability to sue on behalf of the US at a chance at 50% of any judgement, which at the time was up to $500 per item. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

A recent change to the patent law (within last 20 years) made it illegal to claim on a product that it was patent protected using expired patent numbers, or none at all. A popular claim was patent pending... which means nothing much. Apparently there were some abuses in this area.

JR

Recent changes were made to hold the "qui tam" suits at bay.  Before AIA "America Invents Act" false marking included marking product (or advertising/literature) with patents which had expired... this is no longer the case except in some civil matters where I think there is still gray area on how courts would rule on competitive injury.  It is no longer considered false marking to leave an expired patent number on a product.  They also did away with the "qui tam" individual ability to sue on behalf of the US at a chance at 50% of any judgement, which at the time was up to $500 per item.

Good, that was a major PIA trying to keep patent labels current (at Peavey with more than 100 patents it was a regular task to review which products used which patents, etc). It was also prohibitively expensive to remake artwork of older products when patents expire.

Patent law is still tangled up IMO... every time they try to fix something there are unintended consequences. One change to make it easier to review dubious patents gets abused by wall street investors who short a bunch of drug company stocks, then makes a blanket request to review their patents. Just the news that the patents are being reviewed cause the stocks to fall making the short seller a profit. Arghhhh

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

A popular claim was patent pending... which means nothing much.

Except in the area of guitar wankery, where "PAF" (literally, "patent applied for") means something special in the context of Gibson humbucking pickups.

-a