Theft?

[RWood]

I think Randall Smith's patent strategy is theft!

[vibratoking]

There is the law. There is ethics. Those don't necessarily overlap.

The quote below is from the Kearns Wiki.

("It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a 'combination': that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.") (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).

[Structo]

You guys played four chords?

[ToneMerc]

Perhaps Alexander Dumble wasn't such a jerk in the potting of nearly the entire amp circuit, after all.
.

Ironically,there's a Heathkit amplifier circuit from 57'-58' that has the exact same topology and nearly the same component values one of the CF phase inverter, power sections in some of his amps. Also, the FET circuit appears to be lifted from the original Barcus Berry piezo preamp .

TM

[Reeltarded]

I don't care to ever see another schematic. I appreciate nice work. Pretty gut shots are fine. I like concepts. I share recipes, not circuits. Concepts.

[Phil_S]

My 2¢...
Something like Kearns and the intermittent wiper: He brought a new idea forward. It was that particular application of known technology, not that the basic parts were new. Maybe he drew up a plan for something or other contained in the design, but that misses the point. In our system, we get compensated by others who use our idea. This is the foundation of intellectual property. In the Kearns case, as I recall, FOMOCO took his idea and then tried to claim it as their own. This was nothing less than corporate bully-ship (not a typo). Too bad it didn't work out for him in the end.

On the specific topic of amp circuits, it is probably a stretch to think changing a thing here or there constitutes a new idea. (So much has already been done and passed into the public domain.) If you change a cathode bypass cap from 0.68u to 20u, it makes a tonal difference. The exact science of this is known and the tonal response can be predicted. I'm hard pressed to believe a change of this type constitutes a new idea that can be protected intellectual property.

I willing to say, you'll know a new idea when you see it. You just need to be honest with yourself about it. When you stumble on a new idea, go ahead and file the appropriate thing (copyright, patent, trademark, etc.) If you are honest with yourself about it, you should be able to prevail in a legal challenge when someone appropriates your intellectual property without agreeing first to compensate you appropriately. I know, in reality, not all is fair, but let's just assume it for the purpose of discussion!

...edited for bad typing only...

[Garthhog]

I agree that there are only so many ways to make an audio gain stage with tubes. When I refer to "design" I think more along the lines of things like layout (did I copy it or is it unique?), novel combinations of features that may not be available in the same amp (this too has its limits), the basis for the desired sound (should it sound like Dumble #187 or is there a sound in my head that I want to reach for that isn't readily available in other amps?), desired gain stackup, etc.

When I create an amplifier from the sound in my head, using my book learnin', and possibly consulting other designs that are close to what I am looking for, I am doing nothing different that any other design engineer has done. That is why I don't call myself an "inventor". So when I say that I "designed" my amplifier, it really means that the layout is of my own design, the gain structure of the preamp was not lifted directly from another design, the style and knob layout was of my own doing, the combination of features of the total amplifier was not directly copied from another design. Yes, there are only so many ways to bias a cathode follower, so many ways to split phase, so many way to implement and effects loop. When I think of design, I think of it at the system level. Am I wrong?

[TUBEDUDE]

Silverfox, you're preachin' to the choir brother. It's a big mistake to confuse law and justice. In many cases justice can be purchased. YMMV.

[renshen1957]

Messy boogers have special brand new tube technology!

Mesa Engineering ripped off Soldano's SLO preamp to make the rectifier series, initially with the component values in the early models, and later with a few minor changes.

Mesa isn't alone in ripping off the SLO circuit, Peavey 5150 also clones/rips-off/steals the same preamp. Anything and Everything by Behringer/Buggera is a clone and a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The majority Mesa Engineering's patents (except for the switching channel ano) are taken from Public domain (1955) circuits from the RCA handbook. The USPTO is too greedy taking money than to properly prosecute (that's the term) a patent thoroughly by checking through earlier patents.

If Randall Smith is an amp garage member, there's a book on a number of his company's dubious patents, and chapters in another book on guitar amp building which go into detail as to the Rectifier/SLO connection.

Best regards

Steve

[SilverFox]

Garthhog said: So here is my question... When is this amp building business we love to engage in merely "theft" and when are we "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

If I may, Garthhog: In light of all the water that has passed under your original question bridge, how would you now answer your prospective customer?

silverfox.

[renshen1957]

Standing on the shoulders of giants just stipulates all proven things before you.

Theft and a copy (or a clone) are two different things. Theft might be as simple as faking another person's work and claiming it's their's. It's a wide grey stripe.

Theft starts at counterfeit and thereabouts...

Hi,

I disagree about standing on the shoulders of giants, as in the MI industry, it doesn't usually happen that way.

The First Marshall, the JTM 45 was a rip-off of the Tweed Bassman circuit built after the English Fashion tubes upside right (not upside down). If memory serves me correctly Jim Marshall was also a distributor of Fender Amps in the UK. It wasn't a counterfeit (an exact copy down to the logo and case), but it was a conflict of interest, Marshall could sell his domestic amp (based on Fender's Bassman Circuit) for less money. Fender canceled Marhall's distributorship agreement.

There was no patent on the circuit by Fender, and the WE/RCA circuits were public domain.

The circuit evolved, 5881 tubes changed to EL37 tubes (domestic and cheaper, then out of production) to KT66 (until out of production) and then EL34s as the preamp circuit evolved into something brigher. Other companies become inspired to build their own designs based on how techs modded the Marshall amps. And then Marshall out of the no change to the design Rose Morris contract built it's version of the modded Marshall, the 800 series.

The only difference between Peavey's Butcher and the stock Marshall 800 circuit is the second stage bias circuit. The 5150 is a ripoff of the Soldano SLO as I mentioned in another post. The Valve King contains a texture control found in Kevin O'Connor's The Ultimate Tone vol 1, wired backwards and Peavey went so far as to Patent the circuit even though the TUT circuit and London Power amps which used their "body control circuit" predate Peavey's patent.

Traynor had Master Volumes on custom made amps in the late 1950's and in production amps in the early 1960's. Other's copied this innovation. Traynor's Bassmaster Amp were based on either the Marshall or Fender prototype (Bassman in either case) with a Mullard circuit from Wireless World for the YBA 1A's 6CA7s to be clean and linear. This amp is easy to convert into a Marshall.

The Bassmaster 80W lead to the Custom Special (4 power tubes, 160W) which lead to the Super Custom Special YB3-A with 4 Transmitting Power Tubes and Cab speaker configuration of 8-10 inch Speakers.

The Super Custom Special YB3-A "inspired Ampeg's original SVT which used 4 Transmitting Power Tubes in the power amp and the same speaker count of 8-10 inch configuration (but with an Ampeg Preamp).

Vox's AC30 Tremolo circuit was lifted from a Wurlitzer organ circuit, including the error on the Wurlitzer schematic. I do not know if this was a patented circuit or not. This wasn't transformative imitation, it was a clone.

Then there is Fender. When it came to inspiration, Fender in Fullerton, California wasn't that far a drive from Standel Ampliers which was over the hill and towards the San Gabriel Mountains in Temple City, California. Leo's crew borrowed the following ideas from Standel Piggy Back Heads on Speaker Cabs, controls on the front panel of his amps, Standels were the first guitar amplifiers that used JBL, (Lansing) speakers. Standel was the first musical instrument amplifier company to experiment with closedback speaker cabinets. Bob Crooks began experimenting with "Acoustic Control Cabinets," closed the backs variously "portholes" in the front speaker baffle. And little wonder as some rather big names in Country/Western used Standel amps, and Fender's bread and butter was Country players.

Standel;s closed backs debuted in 1958, and two years later Fender introduced closed-back speaker cabinets on their "new" piggyback amps with controls on the Front of the Amps. Coincidence? Naw, not where Fender is concerned.

Fender seemed to always playing catch up. Other companies introduced Tremolo, and then Fender later came out with "Vibrato" (Tremolo). The same can be said of Spring Reverbs. Invented by Accutronics and first used in Hammond Organs, Fender was again a Johnny come lately when other companies had introduced Reverb into Guitar amps. (The same thing can be said of Guitars, as in Bigsby's Merle Travis solid body Guitar.)

None of the above are theft, just a case of imitation instead of innovation.

I will repeat myself, and state that Uli Behringer cloned/stole from everyone and everybody (From Guitar Pedals to Soundboards), and only started Buggera when the lawsuits and other legal ramifications became hot (such as the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) fined Behringer $1M issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability against Behringer, claiming that 50 of the company's products had not been tested for conducted and radiated emissions limits as required by US law, and noting that Behringer continued to sell the products for a year after being notified.)

In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages but lost as noting that circuit schematics are not covered by copyright laws. Mackie made a point in their suit of a number of prior suits by other companies.

Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Mark. Similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer. Roland Corporation sued to enforce Roland's trade dress, trademark (Roland owns Boss Pedals), and other intellectual property rights with regard to Behringer's 2004-2005 released guitar pedals. The two companies came to a confidential settlement in 2006 after Behringer changed their designs.

In 2009 Peavey Electronics Corp. filed two lawsuits against various companies under Behringer/Music Group umbrella for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution and unfair competition.

No honour among Thieves.

Best regards,

Steve

[xtian]

Nice work, Steve! Add references and links and it's a work of scholarship.

[ampmike]

Upon further consideration and also of the related posts: I believe anything older than 7 years is or should be in the public domain anyway. I know a patent can be extended for an additional 7 years but for sure that doesn't apply to nearly all the tube amp circuits out there now. As a point of law that would make most any tube amp design fair game for cloning.

In regards to patenting electronic circuits: The wind-shield wiper delay circuit, for example, was originally conceived by Robert Kearns and patented. Ford, GM and Chrysler infringed on the patent. However, the patent was upheld and damages awarded in the Chrysler case based on the fact, Kearns argued that his invention was a "novel and non-obvious combination of parts."
There is a movie of the guy who invented the wiper delay.He spent a great deal od his life fighting for that,lossed his wife and much more.Decent movie,he did get ripped off by the corp dudes,Mikey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

silverfox

[renshen1957]

Upon further consideration and also of the related posts: I believe anything older than 7 years is or should be in the public domain anyway. I know a patent can be extended for an additional 7 years but for sure that doesn't apply to nearly all the tube amp circuits out there now. As a point of law that would make most any tube amp design fair game for cloning.

In regards to patenting electronic circuits: The wind-shield wiper delay circuit, for example, was originally conceived by Robert Kearns and patented. Ford, GM and Chrysler infringed on the patent. However, the patent was upheld and damages awarded in the Chrysler case based on the fact, Kearns argued that his invention was a "novel and non-obvious combination of parts."
There is a movie of the guy who invented the wiper delay.He spent a great deal od his life fighting for that,lossed his wife and much more.Decent movie,he did get ripped off by the corp dudes,Mikey
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kearns

silverfox

Hi,


"Patents Filed Through June 17, 1995

For U.S. patents filed through June 17, 1995, the patent lasts for 17 years from the date the patent is issued, provided that the fees necessary to keep the patent in force (maintenance fees) are paid.

Patents Filed After June 17, 1995

For patent applications filed after June 17, 1995, the patent last 20 years from the date of filing. Since applications typically take one to three years to process, most patents filed after 1995 have an effective duration of 17-19 years.

Design Patents

Design patents, which protect only the ornamental appearance of an article, last for fourteen years from the issue date.

Patent Extensions

In some cases patents can be extended for up to five years. Examples include where there have been delays in issuing the patent due to interference proceedings, appellate review of the patent’s validity, or failure of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to issue the patent within three years.

New Developments May be Patentable

The fact that an invention is in the public domain does not mean that subsequent developments based on the original invention are also in the public domain. Rather, new inventions that improve public domain technology are constantly being conceived and patented. For instance, televisions and personal computers that roll off today’s assembly lines employ many recent inventions that are covered by in-force patents.



by: Rich Stim, Attorney"

http://www.intellectualpropertylawfirms ... ion/when-d

The Founding Fathers considered patent protection important enough to provide for it in the Constitution.

One of the problems with Patents are being able to defend the patents in court after infringement. The small fry gets bled to death by legal and court fees, continuances, ect and the big Corporations infringe to their hearts content, and have since the days of RCA.

The biggest infringer of US Patents is the United States of America.

Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.

Under this statute, an owner whose patent has been infringed by the United States Government can sue the Government only for compensation; the owner cannot get an injunction to stop the infringement or other damages. In effect, this statute gives the Government the same right of eminent domain vis-à-vis patents that it has to take and use other types of property.


The Government’s right to take patents can have far-reaching consequences. In one case, the Government had developed a worldwide radio navigation system that was found to infringe a patent held by the plaintiff. The Court of Claims (predecessor to the Court of Federal Claims) noted that the Government’s action essentially prevented the patentee from exploiting its patent. Since the Government’s system was already in use worldwide, it was extremely unlikely that anyone else would license the patent; there simply was no need for a second navigation system. Even so, the owner was limited to obtaining a reasonable royalty from the Government. It did not receive any other damages for the fact that it was essentially put out of business.

For the purposes of this section, the use or manufacture of an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States by a contractor, a subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, shall be construed as use or manufacture for the United States.

Thus, the Government may authorize one of its contractors to infringe another company’s patent when performing under a Government contract, and that infringing contractor may cite the Government’s direction as an affirmative defense to liability and obtain summary judgment dismissing it from a lawsuit.

This is one good reason why the inventor of the one-gun color picture tube who lived near San Jose, California applied for a Patent in Japan.Why have a Patent then? A patent gives value to a company if you plan to sell the company or sell shares as in stocks.

A preliminary patent (which is not published, aka dark) can protect the inventor if he or she goes to show their invention to a big business. The inventor or what would become the Hot Wheels track filed a preliminary patent on a Wednesday, and went to show his track to Mattel on Friday. Mattel had filed 3 Patents on the invention on the Monday. The inventor's lawyer sued Mattel for patent infringement and won (Mattel was represented by 25 lawyers).

However, where patent's are concerned unless you are a big business with a platoon of lawyers, patents do not generate any protection except in Japan, where the Patent office and Patent Court takes their job seriously.

In the US, the USPTO is only interested in submission fee and how much money it can generate. Hence my reference to Mesa and its Patents as found in Secrets & Secret Holders http://www.londonpower.com/audio-design ... et-Holders

Several of Mesa's schematics have Patent infringement warnings, which you cannot patent a schematic. This was to scare competitors by a perceived threat of a lawsuit. However Mesa knows better than that as their Double and Triple Rectifier preamps being cloned by Mesa (and also Peavey) from Soldano's Super Lead Overdrive.

Best regards,

Steve

[renshen1957]

I think Randall Smith's patent strategy is theft!

+1