AudioRoundTable.com: Dungeon » Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights

Home » xyzzy » Dungeon » Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights

Show: Today's Messages :: Navigator :: Polls
E-mail to friend

Re: For Wayne and Mike [message #57086 is a reply to message #57014]

Thu, 29 September 2005 21:28

Russellc
Messages: 397
Registered: May 2009

Illuminati (1st Degree)

As an attorney myself, I find all this banter about public domain quite interesting. Unless you have a truely new and unique way to accomplish something, or a truely new and unique improvement to an existing idea the idea isn't patentable. Most tube and transformer (not all, Mcintosh amoung others received patents) are so old and reused there is nothing "unique" about them in patent law. Let's say you wish to protect your particular idea, say a 2-way crossover schematic, 2nd order, that you tweeked and tweeked till it worked perfect and it took mountains of R&D and you wish to keep it secret. What are your methods? For a crossover like we just discussed, it would not be patentable, there is certainly nothing unique about a second order crossover. So, you can name it and copyright the name, but you are not really protecting your idea, just the name and any "goodwill" you might build into it. All thats left is "trade secret", that is, keep your mouth shut, no one else in the company knows, and you mold the crossover into a non transparent piece of plastic resin. This is about your only recourse to keep it out of the "public domain". That being said, it wont stop people from "reverse engineering it" (buying one and tearing it apart to see whats in there) much like many said B&K did on their original ST 140, which was amazingly similar to frank Van Alstines old mosfet amp of the time. Nothing strictly illegal, as long as no patented ideas were pinched, and those old mosfet output circuits have been around a long time. I often chuckle to myself when I see an article where the author reveals his complete plan and schematic for some piece and states something like " this is my idea, you are allowed to make one for home use" "no other use is allowed"... these bald statements are totally without meaning legally speaking, unless the author has an idea that the U.S. patent office thought worthy of a patent. Otherwise, by the very printing of the idea, he himself has injected his otherwise unprotected idea INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN! In fact, even if your idea was patentable, now that you printed it up and published it, someone could probably PREVENT you from EVER getting a patent, because the idea IS already in the public domaine! Now if he has named his item and copywited the name, you can not use his name and build the product using that name, nor could you commit the business "tort" of using the "goodwill" someone else built into a company, by offering the public a product that is so close in name that people would tend to associate it with yours, so he is essentailly getting business from "goodwill" you have built into your company. They would have to make it clear to the market that they are a seperate entity not associated with your "goodwill". I could not start a motorcycle company and call it "Harley Davidson". But perhaps I could start a company that made whisk brooms and call it Harley davidson, or a motorcycle company called "harlay davidsawn", I could argue that no one would associate harley with wisk brooms, or that the two company names are different enough to prevent confusion in the market. Im sure they would counter that they are so well known in more than motorcycles, i.e. clothing, selling name to ford to put on trucks etc., that the market WOULD confuse and thus i am swiping their goodwill. Or perhaps I make a HORRIBLE wisk broom and their complaint is that I am damageing their goodwill by confusing the market between their good name (and its goodwill) and my crappy one. Their goodwill is being damaged by my associating my crappy product with too similar of a name. If it isnt patentable, you must keep it secret, or it IS in the public domain if you release it by "publication". Just saying it isnt is meaningless. You can not stop any one from using it for what ever purpose the want, even competeing with you in the market. One could not use your actual cross over diagram that you printed,( assuming you copywrited it) and distibute it in their product, but the could "re-draw it" and use it all they want! Not much protection businesswise, really protects goodwill that you have earned in your company, not the idea for the product you are selling. Unfortunately for DIYers, if you have a speaker plan or transformer plan that is nothing unique enough to earn a patent, all you can do to protect the goodwill in your company would be by copywriting your materials and name and KEEPING IT AS A TRADE SECRET!
KFC cant patent their secret spice recipe, if I figure it out I can use it all I want, I just cant call it KFC. Thats why its a SECRET recipe.
kind of a bummer for Diy types. Fortunately, there are sites like this one where all this uptightness is replaced with a mutal respect for Waynes intellectual property and the wonderful sounds they make! Party on Wayne!

Regards Russellc

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 06:18
		Re: Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 07:28
		Re: Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights By: MQracing on Wed, 14 September 2005 08:09
		Re: Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 08:30
		I don't think that's it.... By: PakProtector on Wed, 14 September 2005 20:05
		Re: I don't think that's it.... By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 20:36
		root cause By: Thrint on Thu, 15 September 2005 04:22
		Re: root cause By: Wayne Parham on Thu, 15 September 2005 06:19
		Re: root cause By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 12:32
		Re: root cause By: colinhester on Thu, 15 September 2005 14:25
		Re: root cause By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 14:45
		Re: root cause By: colinhester on Thu, 15 September 2005 15:02
		Re: root cause By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 15:15
		Re: root cause By: colinhester on Thu, 15 September 2005 15:48
		Re: root cause By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 15:58
		Design ownership, public domain and who owns what By: Wayne Parham on Fri, 16 September 2005 01:39
		Re: Design ownership, public domain and who owns what By: Manualblock on Fri, 16 September 2005 10:38
		Re: Design ownership, public domain and who owns what By: PakProtector on Fri, 16 September 2005 14:50
		Re: Design ownership, public domain and who owns what By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 15:08
		stick to the subject please... By: PakProtector on Fri, 16 September 2005 16:06
		Re: stick to the subject please... By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 16:27
		this is the last.... By: PakProtector on Fri, 16 September 2005 18:20
		Re: this is the last.... By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 19:17
		One more example By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 07:04
		Re: One more example By: MQracing on Sat, 17 September 2005 08:02
		Re: One more example By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 08:25
		For Wayne and Mike By: colinhester on Sat, 17 September 2005 09:47
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 09:56
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: Manualblock on Sat, 17 September 2005 14:08
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: colinhester on Sat, 17 September 2005 14:31
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 14:42
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: Manualblock on Sat, 17 September 2005 15:45
		Warning Will Robinson! By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 16:28
		Re: Warning Will Robinson! By: Manualblock on Sat, 17 September 2005 16:47
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: Russellc on Thu, 29 September 2005 21:28
		Copyrights, trademarks and patents By: Wayne Parham on Thu, 06 October 2005 17:09
		if it were patented.... By: PakProtector on Sat, 17 September 2005 16:17
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: MQracing on Sun, 18 September 2005 11:54
		Audio Asylum and you By: Wayne Parham on Fri, 23 September 2005 10:40
		Re: For Wayne and Mike By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 14:33
		that's it in a nutshell, no? By: PakProtector on Sat, 17 September 2005 16:11
		Re: Design ownership, public domain and who owns what By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 15:14
		a brief expansion of.... By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 15:39
		Re: a brief expansion of.... By: Manualblock on Fri, 16 September 2005 16:51
		Re: a brief expansion of.... By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 17:13
		To Doug and Mike........ By: colinhester on Fri, 16 September 2005 17:37
		Re: To Doug and Mike........ By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 06:14
		Re: To Doug and Mike........ By: MQracing on Sat, 17 September 2005 07:02
		Re: To Doug and Mike........ By: Wayne Parham on Sat, 17 September 2005 07:15
		Re: a brief expansion of.... By: Manualblock on Fri, 16 September 2005 18:17
		you STILL don't get it... By: PakProtector on Fri, 16 September 2005 15:56
		Re: you STILL don't get it... By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 16:18
		do you mean Doc hoyer? By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 16:39
		definiton of piracy fits this case well By: MQracing on Fri, 16 September 2005 16:54
		Re: root cause By: Thermionic on Mon, 19 September 2005 12:59
		Here we go again... By: Damir on Wed, 14 September 2005 07:51
		Re: Here we go again... By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 08:02
		Re: Here we go again... By: MQracing on Wed, 14 September 2005 08:35
		Re: Here we go again... By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 08:56
		Re: Here we go again... By: MQracing on Wed, 14 September 2005 11:40
		TM 0622592 By: colinhester on Wed, 14 September 2005 14:18
		good detective work Colin.... By: MQracing on Wed, 14 September 2005 14:30
		Re: good detective work Colin.... By: colinhester on Wed, 14 September 2005 16:30
		Re: good detective work Colin.... By: Wayne Parham on Wed, 14 September 2005 17:18
		Here we go again... By: Thrint on Thu, 15 September 2005 04:54
		Re: Here we go again... By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 07:53
		yep....here we go again. By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 09:47
		since you have no interest in speaking.... By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 15:30
		Re: since you have no interest in speaking.... By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 15:53
		we'll deal with this one-at-a-time By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 16:05
		Re: we'll deal with this one-at-a-time By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 16:20
		let's see...ethics... By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 17:47
		Re: let's see...ethics... By: MQracing on Thu, 15 September 2005 19:29
		you just don't get it.... By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 20:52
		and as to your other accusations... By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 18:00
		Some of the rest... By: PakProtector on Thu, 15 September 2005 16:30
		Here we go again... By: PakProtector on Thu, 22 September 2005 19:14
		Here is the reasoning, and proof of the accusation... By: PakProtector on Mon, 26 September 2005 16:39

Previous Topic:	Have to learn how to post pics I guess.
Next Topic:	So the business lobby has requested that the patriot act be changed

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sun Nov 24 22:22:35 CST 2024