A Question of Conscience and Intellectual Property Rights and Violations Thereof

[Ryan.]

{censored}ing awesome.

Also, nah I'm not into building. Too many other hobbies that need work. I'd rather just pay someone for their time to build for me.

As long as what I'm paying them is so little they either work in China or can't afford the chicken flavored top ramen.

[Howard Davis]

 

WHAT intellectual property? A combination of components is not intellectual property under any jurisdiction. Otherwise the concept of components would be rather inconvinient for electrical engineers, who could not do something "the right way" since someone else had already done it first.

 

 

The way in which the overall design and its subsections perform, and the originality of how that is achieved, is what determines the patentability of any given circuitry. For example, there is nothing new about a lowpass filter, but a newly developed one with non-linear or adaptive characteristics that has not been created before is legitimate and original intellectual property, and therefore probably patentable. Often the economics of manufacturing and selling guitar pedals makes patenting impractical due to legal and other costs. Among the reasons I choose to be an independent engineer and not a manufacturer is that such legal hassles are not a worry to me. Let the manufacturers fight the unscrupulous pirates, as they stand to gain or lose the most from it.

 

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:

http://howardmickdavis.com

[melx]

[THAT4301]

The blatant copying of a pedal design, whether just the electronics or the entire product, is a violation of intellectual property rights. If substantial performance improvements are made in the process it is actually an upgrading, but otherwise it is simply piracy and should be treated as such. If I were financially impacted by the theft of one of my designs, I would take legal action against the thief!

 

 

 

Which is categorically false. The blatant copying of a pedal's electronic design is NOT a violation of anybody's intellectual property rights.

 

I doubt many analogue audio electronics patents have been granted in the last five-ten years anyway. I certaintly can't think of a single dirt box that's been granted any kind of patent since the 60s/maybe the early 70s.

[amp_surgeon]

The way in which the overall design and its subsections perform, and the originality of how that is achieved, is what determines the patentability of any given circuitry. For example, there is nothing new about a lowpass filter, but a newly developed one with non-linear or adaptive characteristics that has not been created before is legitimate and original intellectual property, and therefore probably patentable. Often the economics of manufacturing and selling guitar pedals makes patenting impractical due to legal and other costs. Among the reasons I choose to be an independent engineer and not a manufacturer is that such legal hassles are not a worry to me. Let the manufacturers fight the unscrupulous pirates, as they stand to gain or lose the most from it. Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods: http://howardmickdavis.com

 

 

It costs less to file for a patent than it does to do compliance testing, and any product that's required to display the CE or FCC or any other compliance logo is required to undergo testing to ensure that it complies. At a minimum, any guitar pedal sold in European Union countries would require CE compliance. If it has a microprocessor or connects to a computer then it probably requires FCC compliance testing before it can be sold in the US. I can't conceive of a company being willing to pay for compliance testing but not being willing to pay for a patent application if what they've got is eligible for patent protection.

 

Unlike trademarks and copyrights, prior use in commerce doesn't reserve any legal claim of ownership for something that requires patent protection. With some exceptions, the first guy to submit an application to the patent office will own the rights to the invention. Not filing a patent application for an original invention because it's too expensive would be the worst mistake any inventor could make. If you don't file the patent application then you don't own the invention, and you have no legal recourse if somebody else copies it.

 

I'm no prolific inventor, but there are three patents that bear my name as inventor, and several other applications pending. I can't imagine the companies involved would have marketed any products using those inventions without applying for a patent first. That would be equivalent to virtually giving those inventions away to their competitors.

[AluminumFalcon]

Personally I'm all about cloning pedals for personal use. I like tweaking circuits as I go, and to me it's a learning experience and a rewarding hobby. There are some pedals out there that aren't made any more (EHX OP AMP muff being one), and rather than spend crazy amounts of money for one (if I could even find one) I'd much rather pick up a vero layout and go to town with it. That way I can design the art, choose the enclosure, design the artwork, and all that fun stuff.

 

I don't think it's really a moral issue for me because I don't have the facilities, time or money to dedicate to building pedals for the masses. I'm not competing with people who do this for a living, nor would I want to. Having said that, I have sold a few pedals to close friends, but I am not making money doing this. Usually my costs for parts and beer are covered, that's it. The hours I spend looking for schematics, ordering parts, assembling the damn thing, and tweaking it until I'm content are done for free, because as I said before, I enjoy it.

[Howard Davis]

If your idea of ethical business practices allows the copying of other peoples' original creations for profit, go right ahead, but be prepared to deal with the consequences when some manufacturer you are screwing takes action against you. HE paid for the R&D work; you did not.

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:
http://howardmickdavis.com

[ijams]

Amp surgeon,you got it together,nothin new in basic electronics except memistor that was just invented,its a new transistor that remembers when off or on !

[cryptosonic]

Fulltone and Analogman product lineups are chock full of other peoples designs and nobody really complains.

[amp_surgeon]

Amp surgeon,you got it together,nothin new in basic electronics except memistor that was just invented,its a new transistor that remembers when off or on !

 

 

I think you're talking about the "memristor", which is actually a type of resistor rather than a transistor - it's a passive device that remembers it's resistance based on the amount of current that previously flowed through it. It was first described in a paper by Leon Chua in 1971. HP currently has a patent pending on a titanium dioxide memristor developed by Stanley Williams. They plan to use them to make non-volatile memory devices to replace flash RAM.

 

The device itself will be patented, but it's unlikely that any circuits based on the device will be patentable. For instance, if you designed a functional SD memory card using an HP memristor memory chip then you wouldn't be able to patent it. On the other hand, if you developed a new type of memristor device that wasn't based on any other patented device then you could probably get a patent for your new device. You'd have exclusive rights to manufacture discrete memristors based on your design, or integrated circuits using the same memristor technology.

 

Dunno if there's any practical audio application for memristors. Maybe to replace the capacitors in each stage of a bucket brigade delay.

 

Anyway, new components come along with some regularity in the electronics industry. Many of them never make it into any commercial products. I remember a company in the early 1980's discovered that dynamic RAM chips were light sensitive down to the individual RAM cell (as are most semiconductor junctions), and they used this knowledge to design what they thought would be an inexpensive solid state imaging device for still and video cameras. CCD's became available within a couple of years, and imaging RAM chips never got off the ground. Some good ideas are just destined for obscurity.

[THAT4301]

If your idea of ethical business practices allows the copying of other peoples' original creations for profit, go right ahead, but be prepared to deal with the consequences when some manufacturer you are screwing takes action against you. HE paid for the R&D work; you did not.

 

 

I haven't used the world ethical once. You've told blatant falsehoods about intellectual proerty law, which is far more unethical than my discussion of hypotheticals.

[AluminumFalcon]

If your idea of ethical business practices allows the copying of other peoples' original creations for profit, go right ahead, but be prepared to deal with the consequences when some manufacturer you are screwing takes action against you. HE paid for the R&D work; you did not . Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods: http://howardmickdavis.com

 

 

What about if we're modifying someone else's circuit which is already based off of another design? I think it'd be easier for the creator of the Tubescreamer circuit to get all of the children of the world to clap their hands than it would be to take all of the cloners to court. No ethical dilemma for me, I'm not making a profit at all, even if I was, I'm not stealing original designs. I build for friends, I don't advertise, and I only sell a pedal if I've tried it and don't like it/think it'll fit my board.

 

Also, give some credit to the female designers too.

[Howard Davis]

 

I haven't used the world ethical once. You've told blatant falsehoods about intellectual proerty law, which is far more unethical than my discussion of hypotheticals.

 

 

I see blatant hostility here, and I know I did nothing to deserve it. Not the first time I have been attacked online by someone jealous of my achievements, or simply some troll with antisocial tendencies. I have told no "falsehoods" - as I said, I am not a lawyer, and therefore I may have assumed something to be true that is not - but I did not deliberately lie.

 

You however accuse me of deliberately lying. I've found that oversensitive people like you, so quick to accuse others, are often guilty of the very things they hate and slander others for! Perhaps your knowledge of the law regarding property rights was acquired in trying to find out how much you could legally get away with?

 

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:

http://howardmickdavis.com

[Ryan.]

This thread has strayed.

[Howard Davis]

 

What about if we're modifying someone else's circuit which is already based off of another design? I think it'd be easier for the creator of the Tubescreamer circuit to get all of the children of the world to clap their hands than it would be to take all of the cloners to court. No ethical dilemma for me, I'm not making a profit at all, even if I was, I'm not stealing original designs. I build for friends, I don't advertise, and I only sell a pedal if I've tried it and don't like it/think it'll fit my board. Also, give some credit to the female designers too.

 

 

I'd never be one to deny women credit for their achievements!

It is perfectly legal and acceptable for someone to copy a circuit design, or modify one, to build a pedal for their own use.

Producing a few pedals for friends is no problem either. The questions of ethics and legality arise when "cloned" pedals are produced in quantity for sale, and this impacts the profits of the original manufacturer that paid the engineering costs.

 

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:

http://howardmickdavis.com

[THAT4301]

 

I see blatant hostility here, and I know I did nothing to deserve it. Not the first time I have been attacked online by someone jealous of my achievements, or simply some troll with antisocial tendencies. I have told no "falsehoods" - as I said, I am not a lawyer, and therefore I may have assumed something to be true that is not - but I did not deliberately lie. You however accuse me of deliberately lying. I've found that oversensitive people like you, so quick to accuse others, are often guilty of the very things they hate and slander others for! Perhaps your knowledge of the law regarding property rights was acquired in trying to find out how much you could legally get away with?

 

 

I tried to correct you about three times, and I'm being hostile (and polite to a fault) because I hate to see untrue things become common wisdom.

 

There's an entire forum where people are forced to understand electronics law rather well; which I'm sure you've heard of. They can probably explain in more detail. I will stop being hostile when you admit that an arrangement of components does not constitute intellectual property. The attacks on my character are quite unnecessary.

 

 

You however accuse me of deliberately lying.

 

 

I very carefully did not. What I said was that what you were saying was blatantly false, something you would realise too if you stopped thinking about audio electronics as something special and instead considered it in the wider context; 99% of dirt pedals are a set of very old building blocks put together in a fairly logical way.

 

[Also, please set your link as a SIGNATURE rather than pasting it in. People have to delete it whenever they want to quote you.]

[AluminumFalcon]

 

I'd never be one to deny women credit for their achievements! It is perfectly legal and acceptable for someone to copy a circuit design, or modify one, to build a pedal for their own use. Producing a few pedals for friends is no problem either. The questions of ethics and legality arise when "cloned" pedals are produced in quantity for sale, and this impacts the profits of the original manufacturer that paid the engineering costs.

 

 

10-4. It's a very sticky subject, but I think for most part we're on the same page.

[Howard Davis]

 

I tried to correct you about three times, and I'm being hostile (and polite to a fault) because I hate to see untrue things become common wisdom. There's an entire forum where people are forced to understand electronics law rather well; which I'm sure you've heard of. They can probably explain in more detail. I will stop being hostile when you admit that an arrangement of components does not constitute intellectual property. The attacks on my character are quite unnecessary. I very carefully did not. What I said was that what you were saying was blatantly false, something you would realise too if you stopped thinking about audio electronics as something special and instead considered it in the wider context; 99% of dirt pedals are a set of very old building blocks put together in a fairly logical way.

 

 

As I've said, I am an engineer and inventor, not a lawyer. Should circumstances require it, I would hire an attorney competent in these matters. I stated the fact I am not a lawyer to emphasize that I was giving opinions, not facts of law. Your hostile response was uncalled for. My "attacks on your character" were an appropriate response to your inappropriate accusation of being a deliberate liar. Your words: "You've told blatant falsehoods - ." According to my dictionary, LIE and FALSEHOOD are synonymous, without distinction based on whether or not the statement was known to be false.

 

Why didn't you simply state your qualifications as an authority on intellectual property rights, and that you disagreed with something specific I said, without making personal attacks such as calling me a liar?

 

If you have and can state your qualifications as a legal expert in this, I will acknowledge that your opinion carries more weight than my own.

 

Howard Davis, EE

[THAT4301]

I have done a course that covered IP in a tech context but that's completely irrelevant. The law is the law.

[amp_surgeon]

There's an entire forum where people are forced to understand electronics law rather well; which I'm sure you've heard of. They can probably explain in more detail. I will stop being hostile when you admit that an arrangement of components does not constitute intellectual property. The attacks on my character are quite unnecessary.

 

 

I posted something on that other forum a couple of months ago, but it's worth repeating here.

 

There was a time, not so very long ago, when most consumer electronics items were not built by robotic machines using tiny surface mounted parts, and it was possible for an average hobbyist to repair just about anything using inexpensive and common tools and basic test equipment.

 

Repair shops flourished, but there were many hobbyists who liked to repair or modify their own televisions, radios, and other consumer electronics. Not being factory authorized service shops, hobbyists couldn't get schematics and other technical information from the manufacturer, and little was provided with the product except maybe a tube layout chart. A company called Howard Sams Publishing stepped in to fill the need. They reverse engineered hundreds of consumer electronics products, and published service documents that included schematics, diagrams, pictures, and voltages and waveforms at key points in the circuit. They called these packages "PhotoFact". In those days, if you owned a television set that was more than a year or two old, chances were good that Sams had a PhotoFact package available for your set. Howard Sams eventually went into publishing PhotoFact packages for computers, with packages being available for early Apple, IBM, Commodore, and Atari systems.

 

To the best of my knowledge, no consumer electronics manufacturer ever successfully sued Howard Sams Publishing for divulging details about the design of any product covered by a PhotoFact.

 

Although it probably would have been possible to use the information contained in a PhotoFact package to "clone" a television set, and the total costs in parts and materials might have been less than the purchase price of the set, nobody ever launched a business building clones of commercial sets. That's because the commercial sets were made in quantity, and the profit margins were relatively modest, so it would have been difficult for a smaller manufacturer to undersell them. However, many companies DID produce clones of the original IBM PC, and at least two companies produced clones of the Apple II computer, indicating that the profit margins on these products were high enough that it was possible for a clone builder to sell reproductions at a lower retail price and still make a profit. IBM didn't do anything about it, and they are no longer a player in the personal computer market they created. Apple sued the companies - not for copying their electronics, because that couldn't be protected as intellectual property - but for copying their ROM code. One of those companies, Franklin Electronics, responded by hiring a software company to write "clean" ROM code for their computer, and they continued selling them pretty much as long as the Apple II market remained viable.

 

There are a couple of lessons in this story. First, very few electronic designs are eligible for protection as intellectual property. Second, if you get too greedy with the profit margins then you've provided incentive for someone to undercut you by selling clones of your own product. Unless they've infringed on your intellectual property rights in a way that can be defended in court, there's little you can do except get your margins under control and compete with them.

[Howard Davis]

Well said, amp_surgeon. I always liked those Sams publications - very useful and educational!

 

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:

http://howardmickdavis.com

[RoboPimp]

well said Amp Surgeon

[Howard Davis]

 

I have done a course that covered IP in a tech context but that's completely irrelevant. The law is the law.

 

 

Irrelevant? You obviously have no more claim to be an authority on this subject than I do.

 

However, I have simple and undeniable PROOF that electronic designs using standard components ARE patentable. It is patent # US 7,777,122 B2, issued Aug. 17, 2010 to me and a co-inventor for a guitar electronics device, "Musical Note Speedometer."

 

Patents ARE intellectual property! Thus your contention that circuit designs are not is disproven, and your hostility is totally unwarranted. Next time check the FACTS, and do not delude yourself into thinking that being hostile and calling someone a liar lends you any credibility!

 

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:

http://howardmickdavis.com

[RoboPimp]

ur music just broke the speed limit

[Howard Davis]

well said Amp Surgeon

 

Behringer has no scruples when it comes to blatant copying. I'll leave it to Mike Matthews to kick their asses in court, should he think it worth doing. I get no royalties on sales for designing the Deluxe Memory Man, but I do OK with custom mods and repairs on them.

 

Guitar pedal design engineering, repairs, and custom mods:

http://howardmickdavis.com