Mike asks: exactly when (what date) did the Peerless designs enter the "public domain"? Was it a willing gift to the public by the owner of Peerless at that time? Did they announce that they had abandoned their interests in their own designs?

There is no requirement for them to do so. I think you said it was a 1948 design. And it is still protected from public access by what? Is this special protection detailed somewhere? Patent law perhaps? good luck, none of the Peerless Originals I have on my shelf make any mention of patent protection on them anywhere, or in their boxes or the literature included to provide hook up instructions. Your reach has exceeded your grasp by more than a few miles on this one Mike.

Anyway, despite your claims to the contrary, there is no protection from public access to them beyond what you have ability to exercise over the actual paperwork and archives you bought( or in some way claim to have acquired ).

Unless you can achieve a more civil tone to your discussion, I am exiting as of now. I have told you what I am going to do, and if yu can't behave yourself I am not going to speak to you of it again.
cheers,
Douglas

This too will be my last response to you.

you wrote;

::::if I can manage it in the face of your misbehaving and malicious accusations and defamations...::::

Nothing malicious or defaming at all. I am critical of some of your actions... like using our brand name without our permission... and I have tried to make you aware of the ethical dimensions that are abridged if everyone decided that they had the right to pirate any design in existence not covered by a patent.

I've suggested that perhaps if you had a "stake" or a "claim of the pie" that you might not wish to universalize as a moral precept the views which you have presented as being acceptable business practices.

It's a criticism of your views about appropiating other people's designs and wishing to profit from them... profit taken in the broad term as defined in ART's rules.

:::And it is still protected from public access by what? Is this special protection detailed somewhere? Patent law perhaps? good luck, none of the Peerless Originals I have on my shelf make any mention of patent protection on them anywhere, or in their boxes or the literature included to provide hook up instructions.:::

and like I said by analogy in my previous post and which your not man enough to address head on....

does this same view extend say to Mr. Parham's speaker designs. That... assuming he does not enjoy patent protection.... that you are free to turn them into "public domain" designs and compete with him with copies of his own designs?

why won't you be man enough or consistent enough to answer this question?

Are all manufacturer's at risk of having you take their designs "public domain" as long as they don't have a patent?

Is Jack Elliano at risk? Could you appropiate and tear down his designs and then sell copies of his stuff? Would this be ethical?

Could Lundahl be targeted? Welborne Labs? Bottlehead? Would any company be safe if we universalized your pronounced liberties?

Of course, I do realize that I've been targeted by you. Your not the first one to take aim at me... probably (though I can be hopeful) won't be the last one...

so take care... hopefully someday you'll come around and be a co-operative member of our small audio community as opposed to someone who advocates piracy of any design not protected by an existing patent.

msl

An example is the sale of trademarks by search engines. Right now, it is being done and no search engines have been prosecuted yet. But clearly this is profiting from someone else's trademark, both by the search engines and by anyone that buys keywords of someone else's trademarks.

Another example is reverse engineering. In the United States and many other countries, reverse-engineering is legal as long as it is obtained legitimately, even if the device is protected by trade secrets.

:::You're exactly right. The truth is that IP law is a very strange beast. I think the discussions about morals and ethics are valid though, and sadly, they are different. What is legal and what is ethical isn't exactly the same thing. I think part of what grinds on Mike is a moral objection, but the legal aspects are worth looking at too.:::

Glad to see you get it... that there is an ethical dimension perhaps greater than any legal dimension to the practice of pirating designs that do not belong to you.

And as you suggest... there are other laws governing "fair competition", "fair trade practices" and the like at both the federal and state levels. Problem is, also, and these turkeys hide behind the following... that the cost to prosecute these ethical neanderthals is often greater than their entire net worth... and they exploit their poverty status to exact the riches (no matter how modest) of their victims without often incurring any penalties.

:::An example is the sale of trademarks by search engines.:::

yeah... this sucks as well.

:::Another example is reverse engineering. In the United States and many other countries, reverse-engineering is legal as long as it is obtained legitimately, even if the device is protected by trade secrets.:::

I've shared with you privately my concerns also about this... as I understand the issue... what is ART's stance going to be on protection of non-patented (and perhaps non-patentable) proprietary designs such as a complete circuit design that is the creation of person or company X... can a Dougie come on the board and advertise his "copy" of, "reverse engineering", and then use ART to compete against that company?

Seems to me there should be a blanket prohibition against exploiting and profiteering of another person or companies IP. Some cases might not be 100% clear cut... others are as clear as the sun at high noon.

thanks wayne...

msl

Some of my speakers, even some of the better ones, are just an Eminence or JBL driver is a box. Now I don't want you guys to copy 'em, but then again, it's kind of hard for me to claim ownership of an implementation. An example is a JBL 2226 in a 4.0ft3 box tuned to 40Hz. Can I really claim that as a protected design and jump other people for making it?

Now it does have a good crossover, something I'm proud of as being original. But even it is pretty simple, made using only a dozen parts or so, hardly something I can consider as trade secret stuff. I take advantage of the information by promoting it, actually opening the books to give myself some exposure. I guess one could say I'm free to do that 'cause it's my stuff. I could have kept tight lipped and that was my choice. But my point is, where's the line?

I can make another example of something I consider a little more unique, the π cornerhorn design. It is an implementation I'm particularly proud of, and I think it is a novel idea. But even it is just a good application of exising technologies, basically just pointing the woofer into a room corner and letting the walls set directivity and give 9dB DI. Stick a midhorn and tweeter on top with the same 90º radiation angle so that directivity is constant all the way through the audio band. It's a great idea and I'm rather possessive of it. But it is still a pretty simple concept.

Look at the loudspeaker cooling plug I developed. I'm proud of it too, some pretty big names looked at what I did. When I announced the project, one respected speaker designer bragged about his patents on loudspeaker cooling. He said the majority of heat was not radiated and was best carried away through the air. Turns out he didn't know what he was talking about, radiation is the main way heat leaves the voice coil. So I'm very proud of my heat exchanger concept, and that I took the time prototyping and proving it. But once it became a reality and everyone could see how much it boosted performance, immediately, everyone started copying it.

DIY'ers will always copy stuff, and by embracing them instead of chastizing them, I gain some exposure and goodwill. Maybe by making my products attractively priced, people will do business with me instead of going elsewhere. Maybe knowing I've taken the trouble to perfect my designs also acts as an incentive to do business with me. Customers can have confidence that the R&D is good and my products work well, and they won't have to reinvent the wheel or deal with an unknown quantity. But still, my designs aren't patented and I'm not sure they should be. So that leaves me in a bit of a pickle. How far do my rights extend?

great questions.

you asked;

:::Some of my speakers, even some of the better ones, are just an Eminence or JBL driver is a box. Now I don't want you guys to copy 'em, but then again, it's kind of hard for me to claim ownership of an implementation. An example is a JBL 2226 in a 4.0ft3 box tuned to 40Hz. Can I really claim that as a protected design and jump other people for making it?:::

Here's my sense...

on a truly generic design... a plain jane 4 cubic foot box and the specific choice of drivers X and Y... these are sold as stand alone items from a range of sources... it's harder to see any claim to a strong sense of exclusivity.

but... if it's truly generic product.... and a person wishes to compete with you then they should have no need to "ride on your coattails"... you might still find it objectionable, on ethical grounds, that they use your company name and market it as a "copy" of your product. Illegal...probably not... but is it ethical? And much depends on the context... and there are many existing cabinet plans in clearly in the public domain and many speaker design programs that will kick out recommended drivers, box sizes, bass alignment, etc.

:::Now it does have a good crossover, something I'm proud of as being original.:::

you created that crossover, right? And it's an original design. Perhaps not earthshattering in novelty and, let us say, inelgible for patent protection....

now, someone comes on ART and sez... hey I'll sell you a "reverse engineered" copy of wayne's speaker complete with a copy of his dynamite crossover design...

too far... theft has just occurred. And if he got this information from reverse engineering your speaker then he has pirated your design illicitly... patent or no patent. And he's double the snake if he boasts of ripping off your design... and that he can do it with impunity since your crossover does not have patent protection.

now... what if he came up with a similar design... wholly on his own.... no copying or intentional piracy of your design. First thought is.... then he has no need to mention your company's name... and that he should focus on what he perceives to be the merits of his own crossover design. If, on the other hand, he still wants to "trade off of your good will" and use your name and etc.... it's a bit sleazy to my way of doing biz.

allow me to give an example... of what I think I mean....

We have in the Peerless archives some neat designs for some very famous classic audio companies... as just one example we have complete output transformer designs for both the Marantz 8B and the Marantz 9... we could take a fly on the coattails of Marantz good will and advertise these as designs for the Marantz 8B and the Marantz 9... but I would never do it. I will not identify the part number publicly. If we did make that output trans (it was designed by Peerless engineering) I wouldn't identify it as a "clone", "copy", or even a "functional equivalent" of the outputs that marantz used. I don't have permission to use their name and using it to profit myself would be unfair.

In the case of (I know someone will bring it up)... say Altec amps... the altec schematics clerly identify by part number which Peerless trans was used where. If you called me and said you needed all the tranneys to make a dead balls copy of say the Altec 1570 amp that you were going to exploit commercially... I'd decline (I am almost certain... since this is a theoretical case devoid of all the real considerations)....

say you called and said Mikey... I'm going to make hotrod copies of the Marantz 8... answer is NO. I don't care how much money you offer.

:::But even it is pretty simple, made using only a dozen parts or so, hardly something I can consider as trade secret stuff.z:::

take a look at... just as an example... say Allen Wright's commericial PP amp... as I understand it... he has spent years developing this circuit and refining it to his liking. There is probably nothing in it that is wholly unique or that could not be arrived at INDPENDENTLY by another designer who set down the same path....

but... if you take on of allen's commercial amps and tear it down and copy it... then you are ripping him off...

if you copy it and you divulge it to the public without his permission then, at a bare bones minimum, your sleazy. Question is should a forum allow someone to divulge say Allens circuit design without his permission?

:::I take advantage of the information by promoting it, actually opening the books to give myself some exposure. I guess one could say I'm free to do that 'cause it's my stuff. I could have kept tight lipped and that was my choice. But my point is, where's the line?:::

again, depending on the context... if your the creator of something unique... then it is your IP and your decision whether to give it away, sell it, or just put it in your archives and do nothing with it commercially.

take Nelson Pass as an example... he has done over a 20 plus year period of time... several circuit designs that he as freely put in the public domain. Partly he benefits from the good will thereby created... and partly it is a way for him to introduce some basic concepts to the marketplace. But generally, following that public domain circuit, is a commericial product that incorporates some of the concepts and ideas of the public domain design... but perhaps with some addtl refinements... but Nelson treats these as proprietary.
If you take his commercial designs (not in the public domain by his choice) and you pirate his design (patent or no patent) your ripping him off. If you then use his good name to promote your copy... your ripping him off.

again, these are or may be ethical dilemmas as opposed to (notice I say may be... I'm not a lawyer)... but even within that ethical domain... forums and information providers\hosts need to decide if they will allow say someone to post up (assume it not patented) a commericial proprietary design of an Allen Wright or a Nelson Pass when such a design was and is clearly identified as a hot rodded pirated copy of another person's IP.

And again...one sure fire way to smell that something foul is going on is to witness and see that the person is using Nelson Pass and\or his company's good will to get a free ride (coattails) in the marketplace.

re: speaker cooling plug...

:::But once it became a reality and everyone could see how much it boosted performance, immediately, everyone started copying it.:::

this is a bit tougher... exact copies... or took the broad concept of a phase\cooling plug and sat down and did up a design of their own?

if they were exact copies (or exacting enough that the clear intent was to copy yours with say it being purple in color instead of blue)... then they are lazy at a minimum and it still smells to my nose.

again... should a forum\information host allow someone to come on and state that they can offer a copy of a Pi copy phase\cooling plug... nope... why your coattails?

Copying someone's designs may be bad enough.... bragging about it and publicly identifying your victim definitely adds injury to insult. because now... if the shyster cut corners or changed the design and the plug makes the speaker sound really terrible... guess who else by association gets a black eye? Pi does.

So... Pi gets no benefits at all and is put into a position (especially if the pirate names him as his victim) that he must shoulder the ill will of a product\company that he had nothing to really do with.

hope I've added some substance to the dialogue.

mike

Patents describe a physical device or process with unique features. It is those unique features that are claimed, and any product implementation that incorporates those features in a competing product is said to infringe upon the patent. So no copy of the device is required. Any product that does the same thing using the features claimed in the patent is an infringement on that patent.

But if a device isn't patented, it isn't protected. The blueprints are copyrighted but the device itself can be disassembled and copied. That seems wrong to me, but I think it is legally correct. Probably is wrong ethically, but I don't believe there is any basis in law that protects an unpatented device from being copied and sold.

Another thing I think is goofy is when companies get patents just for marketing purposes, to bring a false validity to an unremarkable idea. Some seem to want to buy respectability by filing worthless patents. And worst of all are those that get patents on trivial products and then use predatory placement to monopolize a market. I think that's probably ethically wrong too.

But what do I know, I just sell speakers. I'm just doing my best to make good stuff and earn a living at it, that's all.