Home » xyzzy » Dungeon » Peerless transformers, trademarks and intellectual property rights
Re: Warning Will Robinson! [message #57019 is a reply to message #57018] Sat, 17 September 2005 16:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
No Dr Smith; don't kill my batteries!

Re: For Wayne and Mike [message #57021 is a reply to message #57011] Sun, 18 September 2005 11:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
MQracing is currently offline  MQracing
Messages: 220
Registered: May 2009
Master
Patents and the laws establishing patents and their use and scope are only one area of statutory law and common law that governs the conduct and practices of businesses.

There are many other laws (both common and Statutory) which address other important business issues and governs the conduct of businesses.

Things like unfair competition, deceptive business practices, false advertising, trademark law, trade secrets, proprietary know-how, and many other issues...

but, contrary to Dougs apparent misunderstanding... he seems to think that if a product is not patented than anything and any practice is fair game. Such could not be further from the truth.

other issues that a business lawyer will look at and examine include;


*********************************************************************
The FTC Act

The FTC Act, among other things, created the Federal Trade Commission which is responsible (along with the Justice Department in the case of Sherman Act violations) for the enforcement of antitrade laws. The FTC Act also included language which makes activities that constitute unfair competition by individuals illegal (remember that the Sherman Act only addressed such activities by groups). The FTC Act has additional provisions that relate to consumer protection.


Factors to be considered in determining “obviously unfair”
“Obviously unfair” as used in Article 24 refers to engaging in competition or commercial transactions by obviously unfair means. Its most common and concrete types fall into three general categories:
(i) Unfair competitive conduct contrary to business competition ethics
(a) Exploiting the fruits of others' work
Common types of such conduct are: free riding on the business reputation of another; imitation to a substantial degree; taking advantage of the work of another person to promote one's own goods or services.
(b) Impeding fair competition with the purpose of harming competitors
Common types of such conduct are improper comparative advertising and making representations to trading counterparts of a competitor alleging that the competitor's infringement of intellectual property rights.
(ii) Engaging in trade by means contrary to social ethics
Common types of such conduct include carrying out trading by means of coercing or harassing a trading counterpart to suppress the trading counterpart's free will regarding whether to trade.
(iii) Abusing an advantageous market position to engage in unfair trade

********************************************************************

common law and statutory law also provides remedies for an illicit business practice which is known as "passing off".


:::Passing Off occurs when a trade or service mark is not registrable it may still be entitled to certain protection, i.e. a passing-off action. Passing off is available where there is a prospect of confusion of identity through the unauthorised use of similar marks or get up, and such use damages, or is likely to damage the goodwill and reputation of a business. Unregistered marks and passing off can apply to virtually any name, mark, logo or get-up which distinguishes a company, business, product or service. ::::

::::Passing off occurs when a producer misrepresents his own goods or services as someone else's. Reverse passing off occurs when a producer misrepresents someone else's goods or services as his own. Both can be actionable under the Lanham Act, which makes actionable not only the misleading use of marks, but also the false designation of origin of goods.::::

the lanham act is a federal statue. Business practices are also governed by the Fair Trade Practices Act which covers rights of publicity, misappropiation of trade values and trade secrets, false and deceptive advertising, interference with trade relations. It short it addresses many issues relating to unfair and deceptive competition practices.... or what is also called predatory business practices.

so that, far in addition to the protection of property rights and designs captured through the provisions of the applicable patent laws. There exists, also, state and federal laws governing predatory business practices. Doug is just plain wrong if he believes that patent law is the only protections for a business against unfair business practices.

for example,:::If designs are commercially important to your business, the downside of only owning unregistered design rights is that you can only stop third parties from copying your designs.:::

notice that this states remedies may be available against third party piracy of proprietary designs.

and the above is further amplified in both common law and statutory law when consideration further includes;

::::MISAPPROPRIATION [unfair competition]. A common law form of unfair competition in which an individual or firm copies or appropriates some creation of another that is not protected by patent, copyright, or trademark law.::::

GOODWILL [trademark]. The value of a business or of a line of goods or services, beyond its tangible assets, that reflects its commercial reputation. A business with a well-established goodwill could have all its tangible assets destroyed yet still own its reputation — its goodwill. Since a trademark or service mark is a symbol of a business's goodwill, trademark infringement is a form of theft of goodwill.

UNFAIR COMPETITION [general intellectual property]. Commercial conduct that the law views as unjust, giving a civil claim against a person who has been injured by the conduct. Trademark infringement has long been considered to be unfair competition. Other recognized legal categories of unfair competition are false advertising, trade libel, infringement of a trade secret, infringement of the right of publicity, and misappropriation.

Unfair Competition The imitation, by design, of the goods of another, for the purpose of palming them off on the public, misleading it, and inducing it to buy goods made by the imitator.

Unfair Competition
It means any acts designed to mislead and confuse the public and to incur deceptive substitution of one product for another, in the interests of obtaining an unfair advantage over one’s competitors. Practically all such activities are illegal.

Re: root cause [message #57027 is a reply to message #56948] Mon, 19 September 2005 12:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Thermionic is currently offline  Thermionic
Messages: 208
Registered: May 2009
Master
Mike LaFevre wrote: "If I were to bet (and lord knows how we could really find out)... I'd bet that Jack Elliano does all of his own design work."

Mike, as someone who has personally spent countless hours speaking with Jack Elliano, I can tell you that he does indeed do all his own design work. E-P designs are loosely based on vintage Triad and Chicago designs, but have been tweaked and improved through countless hours of bench and ear testing prototypes. I'm sure you as well have put a lot of sweat, thought, and time into taking your designs up a notch from their roots.

Both of you make very nice iron. I can say from my past experiences with both Electra Print and MagneQuest that they are among the best. Both you and Jack Elliano have made significant contributions to American hi-end tube audio by providing OEMs and DIYers with great hardware with which to craft their wares. Without the likes of you two the tube audio landscape would be very different, and in a bad way.

I have a great deal of respect for you both, unlike certain bottom feeders around here..............

Thermionic


Here we go again... [message #57048 is a reply to message #56922] Thu, 22 September 2005 19:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
So Mike, all the while you suggest that everybody needs to take the high road you are playing the thief. Once you admit to, and apologize for your thievery, it may be possible to carry on a reasonable discussion of the 'High Road' with you.

Until you recognize your clear and public theft, I want nothing to do with your RAT carry-over behaviour, or your ridicuolus requests to honor a make-believe 50 year old patent for that matter.
cheers,
Douglas

Audio Asylum and you [message #57049 is a reply to message #57021] Fri, 23 September 2005 10:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18678
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

Are you still hosting your company support forum there?


Here is the reasoning, and proof of the accusation... [message #57063 is a reply to message #57048] Mon, 26 September 2005 16:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PakProtector is currently offline  PakProtector
Messages: 935
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
Mike's claim that he did a design on his own:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tubediy&n=60993&highlight=shared+mqracing&r=&session=


and here is me doing the testing on the device we(MQ-Mike) designed:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tubediy&n=48463&highlight=CT+choke+Sector-7G&r=&session=


and me measuring the plain, one-bay-reverse-wound of my own design:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tubediy&n=46713&highlight=CT+choke+Sector-7G&r=&session=


of course you'll have to copy and paste, since AA would redirect you to Taco-Bell or a porn site.

Just so it does nto appear that there was any agreement between Mike and I over who designed or what the contribution was. What there was was an agreement between gentlemen to further the state of the art, together. Mike has decided *NOT* to behave in a gentlemanly fashion, as evidenced by his claim made *AFTER* engaging in a disagreement with me...
cheers,
Douglas

of course, AA will probably take down the posts I linked to. I do have saved html files of them in case it matters.

Re: For Wayne and Mike [message #57086 is a reply to message #57014] Thu, 29 September 2005 21:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Russellc is currently offline  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

Copyrights, trademarks and patents [message #57159 is a reply to message #57086] Thu, 06 October 2005 17:09 Go to previous message
Wayne Parham is currently offline  Wayne Parham
Messages: 18678
Registered: January 2001
Illuminati (33rd Degree)

Just a slight clarification, for anyone that might come across this thread and become confused. Copyrights do not protect words or names. They collect the expression of works, like written articles, painted pictures, photographs, schematics, etc. They do not protect ideas, just the body of the document. They also do not protect product names. Trademarks protect logos and product names, and they are actually there to protect the public, not the trademark holder. The infringing trademark is one that might be confused by the public, and they might think they are buying a genuine branded product when in fact they are buying one that is confusingly similar. Patents protect ideas, but they cannot be nebulous ideas, they must be proven by a working prototype. Patents protect machines, processes, drugs and other technologies.


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:
  


Current Time: Sat Apr 27 18:34:56 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