New Powered Behringers = Opera?

[jbutler1982]

In response, I'll post the first line of my last reply, which seems to address your last post directly:

 

I said: "Exactly! I have twice said in this thread that stealing protected intellectual property is wrong and crosses the line."

[Craig Vecchione]

 

I am probably wrong about the Volvo part number, but when I bought my 6, the salesman specifically said it was just like some 6-cylinder volvo on the market but cheaper. What about the Mazda CX? Even the commercials say it is "Just like the Lexus SUV" but costs 1/2 the money. The teflon example I meant the graduated sides of a frying pan. Dupont was the first to design them like that (instead of the old straight-up sides). Also, do you buy or use any generic drugs? Do you buy or use generic brand household cleaners? Do you have a digital watch not made by Hamilton?

 

 

You're completely missing the point. Volvo and Mazda are both owned by Ford. The Mazda 6 is not 'just like', or a "cheap copy" of any Volvo, but even if it were, the two companies are under common ownership and so they CAN be direct copies. If Behringer and Mackie were owned by Harman, then it wouldn't matter if a Behringer mixer was copied from the design of a Mackie mixer; they would both be the legal property of Harman.

 

"Just like" is not "exactly the same". And is there a patent on the Lexus? There's no property violation if there's no protected property. But my point remains that I don't support unoriginal but 'cheaper' efforts in cars any more than in mixers. I'd buy the Lexus if I wanted a car "just like" it.

 

Generic drugs....again you've got the whole concept wrong. There are no generic drugs until the patent expires or is licensed by the patent holder. Pfizer doesn't just decide to make the same drug as Sandoz because they think they can make and sell it cheaper, and call it "generic".

 

Household cleaners....name a patented product that's copied directly by a "generic". What patent does Hamilton hold? They don't (and can't) patent the *concept* of a watch with a digital timer. Your examples have nothing at all to do with copying patented or otherwise *protected* property.

[jbutler1982]

Dude, i dont want to pick a fight with a moderator, but you are completely mis-interpreting my posts.

 

I will paste this again:

 

"Exactly! I have twice said in this thread that stealing protected intellectual property is wrong and crosses the line."

 

Where Behringer violates a patent, I agree that is wrong. Your last two posts have been completely focused around patent holders and intellectual property. Let me say it again in capital letters because for some reason explicitly stating it in my last two posts wasnt good enough:

 

I AGREE THAT VIOLATING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS IS WRONG.

 

First of all, it would be nearly impossible to patent something as complicated as a mixer. Filing patent claims cost a fortune, and to encompass something that complex would be take quite a few claims.

 

I have also said this:

 

"I wasnt aware he had actually performed illegal actions. But I think as long as it is kept legal, there is a market for low-quality copies and that market must exist to drive competition."

 

Notice "as long as it is kept legal".

 

 

There are two different arguments going on here that I attempted to seperate into my original post, but the message is not getting through, so I will seperate them explicitly now.

 

Argument #1: Behringer is in some way morally wrong for copying products engineered originally by other companies and selling them cheaper with worse service and / or inferior components.

 

Argument #2: The people who buy Behringer are in some way morally at fault for buying Behringer and supporting a company that copies another companies' product (brought about when you said "you think the average 20 something cares?").

 

I feel much stronger about argument number 2 than argument number 1.

 

These two are seperate and distinct. You are confusing them, and perhaps I didnt do a good enough job of seperating the two.

 

With regard to argument number one, I think as long as Behringer doesnt violate any laws, what they do is fine. I have been consistent in this position. Please stop saying "but they violate patents!". Several times you have said this. Several times I have said that where they violate patents that isnt OK. I find it very hard to believe that any of these companies are having their intellectual property violated. A simple patent search of QSC reveals that they do not have a single patent on a complete amplifier. It is very difficult to patent entire "systems", the patent system is designed to patent individual components and not combinations thereof (one of the reasons im writing this long reply to your post which implied i dont understand patents it that one of my practice areas is intellectual property). Therefore, i think Behringer is wrong if they violate the law, but otherwise i think its competition. I think in this commercial context, this is a case where morality follows the law.

 

With regard to question number 2, I do not think that consumers should have to know, or care, about potential patent violations. This is what my examples where supposed to illustrate. You took my examples and applied them to argument number one. My point was that people buy things engineered by one company and copied by another all the time. I dont think that the distnction between whether or not one product enjoys patent protection should matter in your moral judgment of the not-caring 20-somethings (although it is very relevant in argument number one). Yes, Volvo and Mazda are both owned by ford, so not a great example. I meant those above examples to be examples of places where consumers pick the generic, and dont care (i.e. nobody says "I wonder if Bayer's patent has expired? I better go check before I violate it buying this Walgreen's aspirin and committ and morally culpable act"). And in terms of judging consumers, as you did with your "you think the average twenty-something cares" comment that I took such issue with, I dont think patents matter very much... I dont think the consumer is at fault at all, or should be looked down on for being a "20 something that doesnt care" because they dont investigate the intellectual property ramifications of buying Behringer.

 

I hope this cleared up some of what I was trying to get across. I understand the patent ramifications of my product comparisons, but it isnt what I was trying to get across.

 

-John

[tlbonehead]

Dude, i dont want to pick a fight with a moderator, but you are completely mis-interpreting my posts. I will paste this again: "Exactly! I have twice said in this thread that stealing protected intellectual property is wrong and crosses the line." Where Behringer violates a patent, I agree that is wrong. Your last two posts have been completely focused around patent holders and intellectual property. Let me say it again in capital letters because for some reason explicitly stating it in my last two posts wasnt good enough: I AGREE THAT VIOLATING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS IS WRONG. First of all, it would be nearly impossible to patent something as complicated as a mixer. Filing patent claims cost a fortune, and to encompass something that complex would be take quite a few claims. I have also said this: "I wasnt aware he had actually performed illegal actions. But I think as long as it is kept legal, there is a market for low-quality copies and that market must exist to drive competition." Notice "as long as it is kept legal". There are two different arguments going on here that I attempted to seperate into my original post, but the message is not getting through, so I will seperate them explicitly now. Argument #1: Behringer is in some way morally wrong for copying products engineered originally by other companies and selling them cheaper with worse service and / or inferior components. Argument #2: The people who buy Behringer are in some way morally at fault for buying Behringer and supporting a company that copies another companies' product (brought about when you said "you think the average 20 something cares?"). I feel much stronger about argument number 2 than argument number 1. These two are seperate and distinct. You are confusing them, and perhaps I didnt do a good enough job of seperating the two. With regard to argument number one, I think as long as Behringer doesnt violate any laws, what they do is fine. I have been consistent in this position. Please stop saying "but they violate patents!". Several times you have said this. Several times I have said that where they violate patents that isnt OK. I find it very hard to believe that any of these companies are having their intellectual property violated. A simple patent search of QSC reveals that they do not have a single patent on a complete amplifier. It is very difficult to patent entire "systems", the patent system is designed to patent individual components and not combinations thereof (one of the reasons im writing this long reply to your post which implied i dont understand patents it that one of my practice areas is intellectual property). Therefore, i think Behringer is wrong if they violate the law, but otherwise i think its competition. I think in this commercial context, this is a case where morality follows the law. With regard to question number 2, I do not think that consumers should have to know, or care, about potential patent violations. This is what my examples where supposed to illustrate. You took my examples and applied them to argument number one. My point was that people buy things engineered by one company and copied by another all the time. I dont think that the distnction between whether or not one product enjoys patent protection should matter in your moral judgment of the not-caring 20-somethings (although it is very relevant in argument number one). Yes, Volvo and Mazda are both owned by ford, so not a great example. I meant those above examples to be examples of places where consumers pick the generic, and dont care (i.e. nobody says "I wonder if Bayer's patent has expired? I better go check before I violate it buying this Walgreen's aspirin and committ and morally culpable act"). And in terms of judging consumers, as you did with your "you think the average twenty-something cares" comment that I took such issue with, I dont think patents matter very much... I dont think the consumer is at fault at all, or should be looked down on for being a "20 something that doesnt care" because they dont investigate the intellectual property ramifications of buying Behringer. I hope this cleared up some of what I was trying to get across. I understand the patent ramifications of my product comparisons, but it isnt what I was trying to get across. -John

Well you keep ignoring the truth. Behringer has been found quilty of doing the stuff that you keep saying "as long as they don't actuall break laws". They have and they have lost courst cases as a result.(or settled out of court) As for the second part of your argument, you keep offering the idea that there is no morally right/wrong, just laws to abide by or break. I think most of us understand that there are good and bad moral grounds that go well beyond abiding by or breaking actual laws. That part is pretty sad.

[jbutler1982]

Im not sure where we're disagreeing with the first part of what you said. Where Behringer crosses the line into illegality, that isnt right. Otherwise, its fine.

"As for the second part of your argument, you keep offering the idea that there is no morally right/wrong, just laws to abide by or break. I think most of us understand that there are good and bad moral grounds that go well beyond abiding by or breaking actual laws."

Of course. I just don't think there is bad "moral ground" for being a "20-something" that doesn't care if Behringer copies or not. And my point is that if you are going to condemn people for buying Behringer, then you better investigate every product you buy to make sure it isnt a copy... as you expect people to do that before they buy Behringer.

-John

[tlbonehead]

Im not sure where we're disagreeing with the first part of what you said. Where Behringer crosses the line into illegality, that isnt right. Otherwise, its fine. "As for the second part of your argument, you keep offering the idea that there is no morally right/wrong, just laws to abide by or break. I think most of us understand that there are good and bad moral grounds that go well beyond abiding by or breaking actual laws." Of course. I just don't think there is bad "moral ground" for being a "20-something" that doesn't care if Behringer copies or not. And my point is that if you are going to condemn people for buying Behringer, then you better investigate every product you buy to make sure it isnt a copy... as you expect people to do that before they buy Behringer. -John

Even in the areas where Behr blatently reverse engineers a design that isn't protected, or not enough to be able to prove in a court of law, instead of actually doing their own creative designing, discovering, and engineering, it is still pretty a sleazy practice. If you want to support a company that has no moral character, in addition to actually blatently breaking the laws, well, that says a lot about the character of the person who is buying the products.(even after having that knowledge) I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to do a major history check of every company before you ever buy any single item. What is being said is that IF you do have that knowledge, why would you want to support that kind of behavior? If you honestly don't know, there's nothing you can do about it. But if you do know, or bury your head in the sand so that you can still try and claim ignorance, that's pretty disappointing. And obviously, as others have mentioned in this post, Behr isn't getting singled out out of the blue. The post has to do with Behr stuffr.

[Jess]

Even in the areas where Behr blatently reverse engineers a design that isn't protected, or not enough to be able to prove in a court of law, instead of actually doing their own creative designing, discovering, and engineering, it is still pretty a sleazy practice. If you want to support a company that has no moral character, in addition to actually blatently breaking the laws, well, that says a lot about the character of the person who is buying the products.(even after having that knowledge) I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to do a major history check of every company before you ever buy any single item. What is being said is that IF you do have that knowledge, why would you want to support that kind of behavior? If you honestly don't know, there's nothing you can do about it. But if you do know, or bury your head in the sand so that you can still try and claim ignorance, that's pretty disappointing. And obviously, as others have mentioned in this post, Behr isn't getting singled out out of the blue. The post has to do with Behr stuffr.

Man Behringer is the home brand of the music industry no?.. Here, let me give you a few examples. When you go grocery shopping do you buy the "Known brand"? (which is always more expensive) or do you settle for the slightly less tastier "Home brand"?, if you are single with no dependants then i would say you would fork out the extra $ for the "good stuff" no? but if you have 4 kids and a mortgage your gonna go home with a car load fulla "Home brand" and are you going to feel guilty about the fact that you prolly just bought a truck load of stuff that was invented by some other company but looks exactly the same only in a black and white box???? The answer??...A big fat NO. Or what about that really cool Italian silk shirt youve had you eye on for the last couple of weeks until you spot the EXCACT same lookin shirt in Target for a quarter of the price?. I'm sorry dude but workin players really don't give a rats arse about music companies...Why?....Cause for decades there astronomical pricing meant that they were outa reach for the common muso, enter Behringer, Alto,Art etc and suddenly all the big boys realise that they have to start to think about price and that is a Damn good thing for ALL of us. I think calling people out about there character that purchase these copies is just plain wrong dude, i mean Jesus, if that's your line of thinking then your gonna have to take on literally the ENTIRE bottom end of the music market, and not just sound gear man, how many times has the "Strat" been copied to make it accessible to the masses?? ..Come on man you need to get real .

Jess.

[tlbonehead]

Man Behringer is the home brand of the music industry no?.. Here, let me give you a few examples. When you go grocery shopping do you buy the "Known brand"? (which is always more expensive) or do you settle for the slightly less tastier "Home brand"?, if you are single with no dependants then i would say you would fork out the extra $ for the "good stuff" no? but if you have 4 kids and a mortgage your gonna go home with a car load fulla "Home brand" and are you going to feel guilty about the fact that you prolly just bought a truck load of stuff that was invented by some other company but looks exactly the same only in a black and white box???? The answer??...A big fat NO. Or what about that really cool Italian silk shirt youve had you eye on for the last couple of weeks until you spot the EXCACT same lookin shirt in Target for a quarter of the price?. I'm sorry dude but workin players really don't give a rats arse about music companies...Why?....Cause for decades there astronomical pricing meant that they were outa reach for the common muso, enter Behringer, Alto,Art etc and suddenly all the big boys realise that they have to start to think about price and that is a Damn good thing for ALL of us. I think calling people out about there character that purchase these copies is just plain wrong dude, i mean Jesus, if that's your line of thinking then your gonna have to take on literally the ENTIRE bottom end of the music market, and not just sound gear man, how many times has the "Strat" been copied to make it accessible to the masses?? ..Come on man you need to get real . Jess.

I'm sorry you feel that way, seriously.

[Jess]

I'm sorry you feel that way, seriously.

Don't be...I'm not.

Jess.

[bazza54]

tlbonehead posted. Well you keep ignoring the truth. Behringer has been found quilty of doing the stuff that you keep saying "as long as they don't actuall break laws". They have and they have lost courst cases as a result.(or settled out of court) As for the second part of your argument, you keep offering the idea that there is no morally right/wrong, just laws to abide by or break. I think most of us understand that there are good and bad moral grounds that go well beyond abiding by or breaking actual laws. That part is pretty sad.

 

 

It would be useful if you cited legal cases which Behringer had lost. The only one I am aware of is Aphex. Mackie lost both in the US and UK.

 

I know that you are not alone in what you say, but without reference to actual cases, your claims are no more than myth or urban legend.

 

I

[Jess]

It would be useful if you cited legal cases which Behringer had lost. The only one I am aware of is Aphex. Mackie lost both in the US and UK. I know that you are not alone in what you say, but without reference to actual cases, your claims are no more than myth or urban legend. I

[Craig Vecchione]

 

It would be useful if you cited legal cases which Behringer had lost. The only one I am aware of is Aphex. Mackie lost both in the US and UK.   I know that you are not alone in what you say, but without reference to actual cases, your claims are no more than myth or urban legend.   I

[Craig Vecchione]

 

I just don't think there is bad "moral ground" for being a "20-something" that doesn't care if Behringer copies or not. And my point is that if you are going to condemn people for buying Behringer, then you better investigate every product you buy to make sure it isnt a copy... as you expect people to do that before they buy Behringer. -John

 

 

I don't expect anyone to do anything. I don't care if you buy from Behringer. I'm expressing my opinion and explaining why I don't buy from them. My 20-something comment which you've latched onto regards the group that I tend to see not caring about anything but price, and rationalizing anything else about a purchase. Your "you better investigate" is the oldest argument in this forum. But your examples of other moral decisions weren't valid; generic drugs aren't illegal, Mazda and Volvo are the same corporate ownership, generic cleaners aren't protected property. And I've never said I owned any of the items you mention, or would buy from another company that had the same record. And how does this work anyway?? If I don't investigate *everything* I'm a hypocrit if I buy *anything*? And conversely, since you investigate *nothing*, you can buy *anything*??? It doesn't make sense.

 

But we don't need to discuss any of that stuff; this is a sound forum, and the topic is music manufacturers. If you've got other examples of companies with such a widespread use of copying in the industry, let's discuss them in another thread. I've never said Behringer was the only company that has a product that looked suspiciously similar to another.

 

When a company offers only price, at the expense of legal/moral/ethical issues, has a reputation for poor service, dodgy reliability, and spotty performance, why buy from them if there are other inexpensive alternatives that have none of these issues? I can come to only one logical conclusion; that price rules over everything else, which is what I see mostly the average 20-something not caring about.

[bazza54]

Craig, you are completely missing the point of my post. Do you not understand what providing a reference means?

Here is an example:

Behringer ripped off Aphex everyone knows that. How do I know, well for a start

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Craig, you are completely missing the point of my post. Do you not understand what providing a reference means?   Here is an example:   Behringer ripped off Aphex everyone knows that. How do I know, well for a start

[bazza54]

originally posted by Craigv: I haven't misunderstood anything. Where did you get the idea I thought it belittling or wrong?? I'm not going to bother digging up the same references again...I've read the stuff many times and various links and otehr sources have been posted here in the now countless threads on this topic. You're new here, but this issue has been discussed to death, and links articles etc etc etc have been cited before. I'm sure a bit of searching will bring the threads up if one really wants it.

 

 

I

[Craig Vecchione]

I

[abzurd]

So why do you discount the Aphex case? Really, the discussion of "do they blatently rip off the competition" can stop right there. They were so brash about it they even silk screened the Aphex name on the circuit boards. They also copied the manual so closely that Aphex customer support received many calls about the Behringer product. Aphex was awarded over a million dollars.

 

Excerpt from interview with Aphex CEO - LINK HERE

 

Can you tell us about Mr Behringer, who copied your products without licence?

The German Federal Court found him guilty in 1992, he was copying exactly the Type B Aural Exciter, Type D, and then Type F. He copied so exactly those products, same face blade, used the same arguments in his brochures, and so then we started pursuits in 1987. And he put on so many arguments to the Court that it took until 1992 to find him finally guilty. In the meantime, he kept on using and using our technology. Then the next product he copied was the 612, a noise gate, and he copied everything so exactly, but from an earlier version, that he even copied the mistakes we had made! But he was hard to argue we didn't have a patent on the 612, but we went to Court because he had copied our manual, page for page, illustration for illustration. So we could show the Court exactly what he did, and were able to bother him for the copyright. He's an unbelievable thief, and then he says that he developed all this on his own, so people thinks he's a good engineer, but all he is a copyist.

Each product is a copy.

 

Did he copy products from other manufacturers ?

Among others dbx, Bristow, Rockon, Mackie. He comes out with a console exactly like the Eight-Bus. So he's a very dangerous person. And it's not allowed in America to form a cooperation to go in trial against a manufacturer. It's a problem because I play with rules above the table, he plays with rules under the table: he has no morality, he laughs, he makes a mockery of business ethics, and it makes me crazy because I could go home and I could sleep, the problem is what he's doing is confusing the market by telling them "Oh, that product is perfect, it works great", but when you analyse the product it's a bad copy. But he's that kind to make great advertising: that's easy for him, because he has no engineering expense. So that's why each one of the products we do now must have patents.

[bazza54]

originally posted by Craigv: I'd say if I remembered, but as I've written, this discussion has been going on in the forum for years. You're all about 'proof', but if you really want proof of your point, go find it. I simply don't have the time and incentive to go looking it all up again. If that's not good enough, that's fine; feel free to ignore me.

 

 

I have looked for the proof but apart from the Aphex and Mackie cases I have found no information regarding legal cases with other manufacturers. You claim that there is plenty of documentation available so why not just say what it is or where it can be found. If you can

[abzurd]

Well, Here's a recent one: LINK

 

The large wall of pretty coloured effects pedals on display at Behringers NAMM stand did bear an uncanny resemblance to the widely used range of Boss effects pedals - except of course for their price ($19.99 to 24.99!)

 

A fact that didn't fail to go un-noticed by the Roland Corporation who have filed a lawsuit against Behringer post haste, claiming Behringer falsely assured industry retailers that the Behringer line of pedals was approved and endorsed by Roland.

 

In the words of Dennis Houlihan, head honcho of Roland US "Imitation is not flattery, and is far from sincere, when the subject is Roland's valuable trade dress. Roland has expended monumental effort and substantial amounts to create and promote the design elements of its BOSS line of guitar effects pedals. Behringer's replication of the famous BOSS trade dress has caused extensive damage to Roland and its reputation, and Behringer's false claim that Roland has endorsed Behringer's unadulterated infringement is unconscionable."

Behringer/Roland Legal Battle Settled

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

 

Roland and Behringer have announced that they have settled a lawsuit over the trade dress of the parties

[Craig Vecchione]

I have looked for the proof but apart from the Aphex and Mackie cases I have found no information regarding legal cases with other manufacturers. You claim that there is plenty of documentation available so why not just say what it is or where it can be found. If you can

[jbutler1982]

"if you're going to win, keep going, if losing, settle with a gag stipulation."

 

Thats not at all true. Its more like if you can settle for less money than it will cost you to try to case, then settle with a gag stipulation.

 

"If you want to come in as a relatively new person to the discussion and disagree that's fine, but the burden's on your shoulders to disprove."

 

I dont understand this. Your point is "We have talked about it alot on this board, and our conclusion is X. Therefore, rather than require us to prove X, we're requiring you to disprove X?" That makes no sense, especially where *YOU* are the ones asserting a fact (That Behringer has been found to have copied "multiple" times) and he is merely asking you to back up that fact.

[abzurd]

"if you're going to win, keep going, if losing, settle with a gag stipulation." Thats not at all true. Its more like if you can settle for less money than it will cost you to try to case, then settle with a gag stipulation.

- You're saying the same thing. OF COURSE you want to settle if you're losing. That's what he said. You're just repeating it. You certainly don't want a "guilty" verdict so you admit no wrong doing and pay everyone for their time. Essentially R&D money gets shuffled from the beginning of your process to the end.

What must really irk the plaintiff, is the fact the settlement money is largely the ill gotten gains from copying their product in the first place. Which, in one sense, is the point, but in another, did it really put the squeeze on the defendant? Obviously not. The fact they continue to do these things means the business model works. They make more taking these "short cuts" than the consequences of occasionally getting caught.

[ThudMaker]

Lack of evidence? I'd like to see a lack of excuses from the noobs.

[Craig Vecchione]

[quote=jbutler1982;22120420"If you want to come in as a relatively new person to the discussion and disagree that's fine, but the burden's on your shoulders to disprove."

 

I dont understand this. Your point is "We have talked about it alot on this board, and our conclusion is X. Therefore, rather than require us to prove X, we're requiring you to disprove X?" That makes no sense, especially where *YOU* are the ones asserting a fact (That Behringer has been found to have copied "multiple" times) and he is merely asking you to back up that fact.

 

There are others, as I've mentioned. I'm not looking them up...it takes a while to sift through the search results here, thanks to the fact that this issue comes up so often. If you don't want to do this, that's fine, but one should not state that what I write is "just your thoughts and have no substance behind them", if one can't provide anything to refute it. I and others here have stated that Behringer has been sued and lost, and has been sued and settled, has been sued and 'ceased and desisted', and has been fined by the FCC. "Proof" of everything but the FCC case appears to be posted in this thread, and there's other info in older threads. And bazza54 himself has stated what we've said...that Behringer has lost cases. Exactly what more would be sufficient for you?