• http://www.prsguitars.com/showcase/current/singlecut.html

Why not conjure some more RAT-style goons?

None of this has anything to do with the idea that you are not in control of a 1948 OPTx design. Perhaps of your personal copy of a set of blueprints....
cheers,
Douglas

In this response it is asked "only who is this?". I believe it is clearly obvious to any intelligent individual that the author had or has intentions to remain anonymous. DUH!

Next quote,
"I don't post what I don't Sign"
Well, Hurray for the Gipper, YOU GO BOY!

Then a question,
"What other games are you going to play"
Well it's not entirely clear to me whom the author is referring to in this rambling. There seems to be an indication of paranoia. Possibly bordering on delusional paranoia.

Next;
"Why not conjure some more RAT-Style Goons"
This appears to be the ramblings of a skittish delusional individual who has possibly watched too much tube. I.e.; Disney's The Goonies. But where does "RAT" come from?

And a final quote:
" None of this has anything to do with the idea that you are not in control of a 1948 OPTx design".
Now it is abundantly clear that you are attacking a third party whom is not likely to be the author of the thread you are responding to. This is the ramblings of a delusional paranoid individual. Instead of telling others to stop smoking weed, maybe you should consider some anti-psychotic medication to help you cope with life.

However, in a final thought of the moment, An individual using the name Pak`Protector has every right to do so and you as "PakProtector" can do little about it. While there are two separate individuals here it has every potential to become confusing to others. This would or could be very damaging in a business setting if these were trade names for two similar products. If you did the original work and this was your intellectual property you would have every right to feel aggrieved.

Hi Damir:

The PRS case is interesting. Note that in the court of original jurisdiction the verdict was in favor of Gibson. The appellate court saw the issues differently and overturned the lower court's decision.

When you say "...the picture tells more then the words..." I am guessing your referring to the shape of the guitar... which many people would associate with the famous Les Paul desgin originated by Gibson. But... as I pointed out above... a "similarity" in appearance is not likely to be decisive in these kinds of legal disputes... what the courts will do is to evaluate the whole context... in this case PRS never did trade off of Gibson's goodwill or namesake... never marketed their product as a clone and etc.

shapes, textures, finishes are covered under different laws... some countries call them "design trademarks".... but... there is always the practical issue that in important contextually.... here is an example...

and upright piano looks very similar to most upright pianos... same sort of rectangular footprint.... and the aspect ratios of LxWxD might be very similar amongst differing brands of upright pianos... and the finihes might be very similar... say a 'piano black'... but if you come to market with a "clone" or explicit "copycat" of a Yamaha piano and you use Yamaha's namesake and goodwill or make references that your knockoff is a copy of the Yamaha piano... I think the courts would view that strategy quite differently.

another point you should consider... in your example of XYZ making and advertising clones of a Jensen guitar speaker... just because this activity occurrs in the marketplace does not mean that it is legal. In some cases the victim of the illicit cloning or marketing campaign may not be aware of the infringement. In other cases the victim may lack the resources to seek out a costly legal solution and instead rely on a campaign to make their consumers aware that the "look alikes" are not genuine products of theirs... there are many different strategies a company might take to combat piracy, fakes, copies, etc.

You point out that you think there are other companies now "trading on" the goodwill or designs of PRS... and seem to indicate that this must be ok since it is not being abated judicially. But... again... in the same press announcement that you refer to by PRS announcing their "victory" over Gibson... the company states that it was very costly and hurt them financially. So... if others are ripping off PRS... maybe the shysters are aware that PRS is not (perhaps) going to be anxious to spend the money necessary to go after them... and they exploit that to their benefit. Doesn't make it right... rather, makes it even slimyer in my opinion.

As a counterexample of a potential corporate stance... try some monkey business with Monster Cable or Bose and see how long or how far you get before they react.

But the real question or real point here is.... not all of the legal issues (which I do find interesting) but the content, editorial and quality issues that ART as a forum\publisher must decide. Does ART want to become the net's home to pirated audio products? A home for copycats to hawk their wares?

Does ART want to host and embrace the JBL knockoff example as posted above. Is this the vision of the Group Build forum? To give haven to every copycat artist or knockoff artists down the pike?

Besides, since OPTx designs for the E-Linear circuit aren't available elsewhere, I'd be glad to share with any interested winders the means to enter the market.

It is not about keeping or claiming secrets, especially when they are so easy to discover, and effectively public domain. Just because some fool claims otherwise, does not make it so.
cheers,
Douglas

You keep saying your not doing all of this as a business or to profit by it... but if we look at and realize that some individuals seek their profits not in dollars and cents but in other intangibles and look at your posting behaviour as regards these devices and your constant hawking of them... then ART's published rules on what constitute's "trade" and "business" and etc... does seem to indicate that your not being completely forthright in this context.

If you have novel electrical requirements for a device... that does not give you licence to misappropiate the designs of another company and then trade off of their goodwill nor to use their namesake to hawk your knockoffs. There are many competent transformer engineers who would be happy to design a device to meet your needs. Or you might try designing an output transformer on your own if you have your claimed expertise in magnetics. Rather than copycatting (with a minor modification) our designs.

Also... it's been noted by more than one person that your "target" appears to be just one company. A company and an idividual who you apparently have a grudge against. So you only "clone", "copy" and "knock-off" just this one company's products. If your using the board for revenge and evening up your perceived grudges.... then that is wrong.

here is an excerpt from the ART rules;

No product announcements, advertisements or unsolicited information regarding a professional service or product can be offered by a person related to the company offering the service or product in an open forum. This includes company employees and representatives, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE. If a relationship is established between you and a company, professional, product or service BEYOND THAT OF ENTHUSIAST, then you may not post unsolicited announcements about the company, professional, product or service of any sort.

Cooperative alliances whereby one party posts about another so that product announcement rules can be circumvented are prohibited. If we see these kinds of relationships develop, we will consider the parties to represent one another, WHETHER A FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTS OR NOT. In other words, if you consistently support a particular person or company, we will view you as a representative of that person or organization even if you're not currently on their payroll.

The things that are essentially being traded in many of these informal cooperative relationships are goodwill and credibility, things that have an actual value even though no money may have changed hands. These kinds of cooperative relationships are actually pretty common between certain individuals, dealers and manufacturers. We encourage your participation here, but please realize that these alliances can unfairly disadvantage others. We hope that you will share your views openly, but please be careful to refrain from the temptation to advertise.

Your concern over the rules at ART is laughable. If you had a legitamate concern for obeying the rules, there would have been no cause to ban you.
cheers,
Douglas

• http://audioroundtable.com/Dungeon/messages/2271.html

..