I would want an attorney's opinion on that, or anything other than, "Here's our wonderful amp, here's the specs, here's how it works and what kind of parts we use, here's some poetic rhapsody from the designer/marketer, here's some pictures."
The suggested comparative advertising by cc is tricky and ought to be cleared with an attorney intimately familiar with advertising law, trademark IP, and the Lanham Act. I really don't see why some insist on dragging in the name of another company, whether directly or indirectly.
I was hoping the distinction between IP class such as now "Prior Art" patentable "inventions" including circuit topologies
and "the other IP" of Copyright/Trademark "expressions", symbols was now clear
See p01_uk_copyright_law. This specifically mentions (section 3 iv) technical drawings/diagrams, and says that restricted acts include (section 7) adapting the work. A modification is clearly not an exact or 'mechanical' copy, yet is still an infringement. It is the act of copying which is the problem, however it is done.jcx said:
Copying an idea is fine; copying an expression of that idea is not. My understanding of this with respect to circuits is that you can copy the architecture (which are often straight from textbooks or application notes) but you should then redesign the circuit. If you have a book then you can write another book with an identical plot, but you must start from the plot not the original book.
As per Blackadder "admit Nothing Baldrick". And tbh I don't think Nigel is planning on taking on Marantz or anything........ I'd be more interested in his boards than the legalese of the advertising.
Where is Nigel anyways?
Comparative advertising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:-
'Similarly, the Law Council of Australia recently suggested that comparative advertising refers to “advertising which include reference to a competitor’s trademark in a way which does not impute proprietorship in the mark to the advertiser.”[4]'
This is the general principle, in the process of worldwide harmonization.
Quote:-
'Similarly, the Law Council of Australia recently suggested that comparative advertising refers to “advertising which include reference to a competitor’s trademark in a way which does not impute proprietorship in the mark to the advertiser.”[4]'
This is the general principle, in the process of worldwide harmonization.
If this project was going to make a lot of money, it would be wise to have a pro do a patent search first, so you can show that you did that, in the event of an infringement. It's gotten to where just about any circuit you come up with on your own, or any song you write on your own, has a decent chance of infringing on something already out there. But filing a law suit and litigating (taking someone to court) is not cheap, so doing this on a small scale is not likely to be an issue IMO (I did do a Paralegal program and did take the Intellectual Law class about 10 yrs ago if that matters).
Well, it seems you could ask the originator if you could copy his work? Often they say yes. Often they say only if you pay me something. I wonder what the courts have ruled regarding copying and selling from published info like App notes and DIY magazine articles. I presume, if it didnt say so, in some way, in the article, you must ask permission.
In practice, you build and sell anything so long as the cost of 'damages' to the originator (including taking market share from them) is kept under the lawyers/court costs. In other words.... stay under the radar.
-RM
In practice, you build and sell anything so long as the cost of 'damages' to the originator (including taking market share from them) is kept under the lawyers/court costs. In other words.... stay under the radar.
-RM
Last edited:
not generally true in audio, linear electronics - most of what we use is firmly in the "Prior Art" realm
textbook, magazine, academic thesis, app note, whitepaper circuits...
and variations "obvious to one skilled in the art"
public sales is also considered "publication" - any circuit technique "published", used, sold to the pubic in any device over 20 years ago is now in the commons
the subjects of "publications" that were not filed on within the 1 year (US) grace period become "Prior Art" join the commons of design techniques free for use
a possible problem is currently active, poor patents - that should have never issued over then prior art - invalidating them in court battle could be costly, chancy - but defending them is too - so I guess if you lay out your case, have clear evidence, some somewhat rational actors trying to enforce bad patents will reconsider
software, digital processor circuits are much more the issue - mostly what's in the news
Your interpretation is a huge stretch, it's obvious adapting a book to a movie is infringement. I would chance a guess that you will not find a single case of this interpretation. BTW your link is not the actual code.
When the rights of a patent holder expire the invention goes into the public domain. It's absolutely commonplace to refer to the original patent and its holder when employing the configuration; as:-
'This design incorporates a long-tailed pair as first detailed in the 1936 patent by Alan Blumlein.'
If the circuit is now in the public domain, then there is no inhibition on stating it's attribution.
'This design incorporates a long-tailed pair as first detailed in the 1936 patent by Alan Blumlein.'
If the circuit is now in the public domain, then there is no inhibition on stating it's attribution.
I emailed Maplin to ask for permission and here is their reply:
Dear nigel wright
Thank you for contacting Maplin Electronics.
This would be fine as long as there is no breach of intellectual copyright, you must be sure to make it clear that the end product is not supplied,sold by or guaranteed by Maplin Electronics.
If there is anything else we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
Les Robinson
Technical Support
Dear nigel wright
Thank you for contacting Maplin Electronics.
This would be fine as long as there is no breach of intellectual copyright, you must be sure to make it clear that the end product is not supplied,sold by or guaranteed by Maplin Electronics.
If there is anything else we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Kind regards
Les Robinson
Technical Support
Good.
That settles it
At least with reference to this particular circuit and this particular publisher.
By the way, many protected creations, often circuits, state explicitly that they can't be copied/made/published/whatever without written permission from the Author .... which you just got.
That settles it
At least with reference to this particular circuit and this particular publisher.
By the way, many protected creations, often circuits, state explicitly that they can't be copied/made/published/whatever without written permission from the Author .... which you just got.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.