Home » xyzzy » Dungeon » Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property [message #57694] Mon, 26 December 2005 16:15 Go to next message
Steve Eddy is currently offline  Steve Eddy
Messages: 28
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
I was poking around on the forums and wound up on the Projects page off the Group Build forum. I was checking out the schematics when I came across the one for the buffered linestage. In one corner I notice it says "(c) 2005 Douglas Piccard."

Given what has gone on here with regard to intellectual property rights, I found this somewhat curious and was wondering what exactly was its purpose?

Let's say I produced a commercial product using that exact circuit, without any modification, without any permission and without any attribution. Would there be a problem with this? Would I be within my rights to do this and what are the rights of the person claiming copyright?

se

Re: Intellectual Property [message #57695 is a reply to message #57694] Mon, 26 December 2005 16:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Check, Findlaw.com They have a free advice section with references to legal services by state and county.

Re: Intellectual Property [message #57696 is a reply to message #57695] Mon, 26 December 2005 17:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve Eddy is currently offline  Steve Eddy
Messages: 28
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor


Check, Findlaw.com They have a free advice section with references to legal services by state and county.

Thanks. Though what I was interested in was Douglas' take on this, as it is his claim on the notice of copyright. Perhaps I should have made that more clear in my original post.

se



Re: Intellectual Property [message #57697 is a reply to message #57694] Mon, 26 December 2005 20:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
e-linear is currently offline  e-linear
Messages: 5
Registered: May 2009
Esquire
Steve:
If we go by what doug says, "if it ain't locked down it's anybody's for the taking".

For instance I have been Known as e-linear for the past twenty years. And that didn't stop others from attempting to use my handle.

But my advice is to show no more or no less respect for his claims than he shows for other peoples property. All I have to do is change the value of one resistor and he can kiss my ass.

Now I will have the e-linear buffered line stage. And it will be just mine! His claimed copyright isn't worth the paper it's written on. And that's a fact Jack!( ie; Doug)

Re: Intellectual Property [message #57706 is a reply to message #57694] Thu, 29 December 2005 19:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
Hey Steve,
what has gone on here with regard to intellectual property rights?

Anyway, I think the only thing protected by the (C) was the particular pice of artwork it's attached to. The CCS/Mu follower plate load is certainly nothing new. Actually, I'd suggest using a few additional complications if you were so inclined to go into production.
cheers,
Douglas

'scuse me [message #57708 is a reply to message #57697] Thu, 29 December 2005 20:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
but your ignorance is showing.
cheers,
Douglas

Re: 'scuse me (my take) [message #57716 is a reply to message #57708] Sat, 31 December 2005 07:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
e-linear is currently offline  e-linear
Messages: 5
Registered: May 2009
Esquire
I have been silently following this thread and similar ramblings. Now here is my take on this Subject.

Here are some things we must consider about any product which must be remembered by all moral law abiding men and women.

The grade and purity of the materials used to manufacture the item in question as well as the expertise and knowledge which comes with years of hands on engineering and manufacture of any product is the key to a rewarding long lasting cost effective investment.

Any product made to look or perform similar to or like another is a knock off, a fake, a piracy and simply "NOT AN ORIGINAL"

To publicly advertise verbally or in any other manner that a product is like, similar or the same as another's product or intellectual property is not only plagiarism but is morally incorrect and criminally negligent to the law.

There is more than one victim in this act. Not only is the Original Manufacture or owner of such trade marks and intellectual property injured, but so are the consumers who buy a plagiarized item expecting the same quality and performance as an ORIGINAL !


Here is an example: (unrelated but true)

I buy and dismantle a Wankel Rotary engine. I record all the data required to obtain the materials and manufacture my own. However, I change the designs to allow triple wipers on the Rotor segments and place mechanical valves in the Stator ports to farther regulate fresh and spent fuel flow.
The design has now been significantly changed and I can claim That the Joe-"X" (My trade Name) rotary engine is superior to and out performs other's rotary type engines. But I can not claim it is Similar to, Based on, like the "Wankel" rotary engine.

The use of the trade name Wankel is Plagiarism!

Re: 'scuse me (my take) [message #57718 is a reply to message #57716] Sat, 31 December 2005 08:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Damir is currently offline  Damir
Messages: 1005
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
One example - many manufacturers made their version of classic guitars, say Fender Stratocaster and Gibson Les Paul. They can`t name their guitars "Gibson Les Paul" without permission, Gibson has the right for those names, but they can name/made them in a similar way.
Link - Gibson sued PRS Guitars `cose of their "Singlecut" model (too much LP for them, some say even better then the "real thing") and lost the suit...

Re: 'scuse me (my take) [message #57719 is a reply to message #57718] Sat, 31 December 2005 08:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
e-linear is currently offline  e-linear
Messages: 5
Registered: May 2009
Esquire
Perfect

Re: 'scuse me (my take) [message #57721 is a reply to message #57718] Sat, 31 December 2005 08:50 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
MQracing is currently offline  MQracing
Messages: 220
Registered: May 2009
Master
Interesting story. Once you read the url you posted several things begin to become more clear in the case you reference.

Nowhere is there a suggestion or proof or even the allegation that PRS was using Gibson's name nor was PRS marketing their product as a clone (or copy) of the Gibson...

in fact... PRS had their own trademarked name for their product... SingleCut (a R trademark of theirs)...

nor did PRS claim that their product was a copycat of the Gibson.

also note that Gibson said in court that consumers would not be confused "at the point of purchase" btwn the two different products.

The case you reference above is entirely different than someone making explicit copies of a competitor's product and advertising those copies as derivative of a moreso famous brandname... if that were the case (and it was not from PRS press release) the court would have likely have reached a very different conclusion.

What the courts will look at is... intent. What is the intent? Did PRS intend to deceive or confuse consumers by claiming that their guitar was a copy of a Gibson? Nope. Did PRS explicitly ride on the coattails (i.e., goodwill) of Gibson? Doesn't appear to be the case.

Did PRS say they bought a Gibson and measured every inch or it... dissected every part of it... and then proceeded to make a substantially out and out copy of the Gibson? Nope.

And the main thing that probably swayed the courts.... was PRS was not explicitly cashing in on the goodwill of Gibson.

msl




Previous Topic: The long and the short of it
Next Topic: Taco Bell test
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Mar 28 03:39:07 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest