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

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

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)

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

• http://www.prsguitars.com/news/stories/091205_victory.html

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