- kudos to dantwomey for letting us know for this issue .
AudioSan , allow me to disagree ; one thing is if you organize making one case for you , making replica as kudos to Pa , but that's completely different issue if someone is making drekload of these , with intention to sell them
for same quality case ,but different looking , he can't charge same stash of greens .
interest and intentions are obvious
AudioSan , allow me to disagree ; one thing is if you organize making one case for you , making replica as kudos to Pa , but that's completely different issue if someone is making drekload of these , with intention to sell them
for same quality case ,but different looking , he can't charge same stash of greens .
interest and intentions are obvious
If he is selling the case and under no circumstance is he trying to sell these as original PASS labs products then the questions is how to deal with clones or imitations. If he is selling the boards themselves as a legittimate application of the free schematics offered by NP then the questions is to understand how these are regulated in the commercial sector. I suspect that the schematics are free for any non commercial use and I believe under no circumstance these can be passed on as being NP compliant boards but rather copies based on the divulged schematics.
the case is quite interesting. The function of the heatsinks could be covered by patent law if sufficiently innovative (I doubt it anyways) but then again the simple act of assembling alluminum extrusions of an allbeit non proprietary design is allowed. I would however address the matter of similitude.
The front panels can either have a function or an ornamental value. The way I see it the panels serves no direct purpose other than to provide a distintive twist on NP products. If this is the case the question, I believe, is to avoid confusion. Looking at the case one could assume it is a NP design. The price tag itself could be compatible with pass labs' products and could, in the end, lead to the erroneous belief that these are infact NP approved devices which they are not.
I see no problem with the heatsinks themselves, if however the general appearance of the product is such that any reasonable buyer would feel this is an original NP product then there is reason to act against this seller.
the case is quite interesting. The function of the heatsinks could be covered by patent law if sufficiently innovative (I doubt it anyways) but then again the simple act of assembling alluminum extrusions of an allbeit non proprietary design is allowed. I would however address the matter of similitude.
The front panels can either have a function or an ornamental value. The way I see it the panels serves no direct purpose other than to provide a distintive twist on NP products. If this is the case the question, I believe, is to avoid confusion. Looking at the case one could assume it is a NP design. The price tag itself could be compatible with pass labs' products and could, in the end, lead to the erroneous belief that these are infact NP approved devices which they are not.
I see no problem with the heatsinks themselves, if however the general appearance of the product is such that any reasonable buyer would feel this is an original NP product then there is reason to act against this seller.
I am sorry but the thought of generosity being the only reason for extensive dominion over any similar, heatsinked, design is scary. I believe the right way to approach this is to hit (and hard at that) the risk of confusion which arises from the overall design of the case but if anyone suggests that any case even vaguely reminiscent of NP cube like amplifiers are to be considered infringements then please do think of the ramifications.
NP did not, as far as I know, either create or patent a cube like finned case for amplifiers. One could argue it is a very compact, efficient evolution of any run of the mill rectangular type finned chassis. One must however draw the line when the common form is intimately connected to the name of a manufacturer. In this case the face plate bears an excessive resemblance to NP products and is clearly "ripping off" the fame and prestige of the original manufacturer. This is a different issue.
Well I would reply yes and no. There is a problem when a product is so similar that the final user may be inclined to believe they both come from the same source. Mr Pass has every right to defend the reputation and prestige that comes from haveing beenon the scene for years. I would say that a non educated user may very well believe the amplifier to be either a true Pass Lab product (genuine) or to be a product equivalent in every way to pass lab products (perfect clone). Both these assumptions cannot be allowed unless Mr Pass himself chooses to grant the right to distribute those very same products under those very same circumstances. If I were to take the crest like symbol off a prosche you would still recognise it as a porsche would you not?
Last edited:
and the risk of confusion would be great if one copied that design for class A amplifiers. What if those cases had been used to house a large poer supply with no audio components? would NP sill be entitled to rights over that design?
I am just saying one must be very careful. There is a limit to IP rights. Beyond those limits there is ethics but I believe we are still well within Mr Pass's rights to act against the seller just not for patent infringement but rather for the risk of confusion.
I understand that and agree 100%. I just don't think there is any infringement per se but rather a nast case of cloning (with all the serious consequences that arise from this practice)
Last edited:
his price list quoted above of the different cloned options available is entirely PASS LABS amp designs, that were NOT released to the public. its First Watt, his personal side project that has the DIY bent. i would be surprised if Papa could say it was OK even if he wanted to when it comes to pass labs, which is a 100% commercial enterprise that he has a controlling interest in. I would be very surprised if there wasnt some intention of at the very least collusion with someone who has access to the amps, or maybe its all done from trade show photos
just chassis I think, but there is not much point selling chassis so perfectly cloned for specific amps, so people to put different amps inside, so it would not be a stretch to think there is already some people, even if for personal use, planning to clone the amps. nobody would put in that much work and expense without people already expressing an interest upfront. Cloning for your own use is a bit of a grey area some places too
well I believe legal responsability arises from the act itself rather than for the likely outcome in terms of DIY. I mean if NP had divulged schematics and a license for chassis creation then it would only be natural that those very same cases would be used with those very same pcb boards.
Then again no one is prevented from taking all the published schematics and completing perfect audio replicas of the original amplifiers.
I believe the conditions imposed by Mr Pass are for the schematics to be used free of charge only in DIY situations that is to say at home, for personal use, and with no commercial application. It is a very thin line to walk but it only shows the generosity of NP.
If you are telling me there is some "insider trading" going on then it is worth exploring. If anything the connection between a product name and a chassis is part of the novelty of a comemrcial product so in that regard not only is the seller profitting from NP's work but it is also "eating" part of the potential revenues not to mention the reputational hazard of having a third party disclosing sensitive and new product information without the original standing as a benchmark.
In this case
1. the existing designs have been copied with all the consequences of slavish imitation
2. the disclosure of sensitive information is a breach itself with probably even greater consequences than point 1).
I hope NP does solve this situation. I really do!
Then again no one is prevented from taking all the published schematics and completing perfect audio replicas of the original amplifiers.
I believe the conditions imposed by Mr Pass are for the schematics to be used free of charge only in DIY situations that is to say at home, for personal use, and with no commercial application. It is a very thin line to walk but it only shows the generosity of NP.
If you are telling me there is some "insider trading" going on then it is worth exploring. If anything the connection between a product name and a chassis is part of the novelty of a comemrcial product so in that regard not only is the seller profitting from NP's work but it is also "eating" part of the potential revenues not to mention the reputational hazard of having a third party disclosing sensitive and new product information without the original standing as a benchmark.
In this case
1. the existing designs have been copied with all the consequences of slavish imitation
2. the disclosure of sensitive information is a breach itself with probably even greater consequences than point 1).
I hope NP does solve this situation. I really do!
you seem to have missed the point of my post above. First Watt is Nelsons company (also with partners) that has been in his words a 'kitchen table effort' that mostly releases limited runs of products like the F5, F3, Aleph J etc etc series where he released the schematics after a certain number of fully built amps were sold and given his blessing to certain kit suppliers including the PCBs sold here on the forum
Pass Labs on the other hand (which is who all of the amps mentioned are made by) is fully commercial and NONE of the schematics have been published or in any way made public. so if any of these amps are being made, it is either by clever diyers who have reverse engineered or just figured out the design and made their best efforts to copy it for their own uses NO BLESSING OF ANY KIND has been given to anyone wishing to build these amps or supply kits. Nelson has not published or in any way condoned the cloning of these amps, he would be taken to task by his partners if he did.
I did not directly infer insider collusion, just presented it as an option along with just working from the many photos online, which may be more likely, but you dont know, there are quite a few distributors for the passlabs gear all over the world who have access and its becoming more and more popular as a brand and status symbol.
Pass Labs on the other hand (which is who all of the amps mentioned are made by) is fully commercial and NONE of the schematics have been published or in any way made public. so if any of these amps are being made, it is either by clever diyers who have reverse engineered or just figured out the design and made their best efforts to copy it for their own uses NO BLESSING OF ANY KIND has been given to anyone wishing to build these amps or supply kits. Nelson has not published or in any way condoned the cloning of these amps, he would be taken to task by his partners if he did.
I did not directly infer insider collusion, just presented it as an option along with just working from the many photos online, which may be more likely, but you dont know, there are quite a few distributors for the passlabs gear all over the world who have access and its becoming more and more popular as a brand and status symbol.
Last edited:
ah ok. Thanks for that!
But really it changes little. If there is reverse engineering with intent to sell it is infringement. I
f individual are reverse engineering for themselves I don't think there is any jurisdiction in which the individual could be found guilty of anything.
If the problem is the chassis then I stand by my opinion.
If there was disclosure or theft of sensitive information (names, circuitry) then obviously there are liablities which need to be ascertained.
But really it changes little. If there is reverse engineering with intent to sell it is infringement. I
f individual are reverse engineering for themselves I don't think there is any jurisdiction in which the individual could be found guilty of anything.
If the problem is the chassis then I stand by my opinion.
If there was disclosure or theft of sensitive information (names, circuitry) then obviously there are liablities which need to be ascertained.
one thing this guy has done that may bring him undone is try to do this while based in the west. most of the time Pass Labs has the divide and difficulty of prosecuting in an area of the world that simply does not care all that much about IP so you dont get much help from the government. over here however is a bit different; much easier to reach and much easier to make charges stick in a country that has similar copyright laws.
I agree we are in an area that is difficult, but i find it hard to believe that this much effort would be made for individuals. for starters he has used the names in his price list, selling the cases with the names of the models attached, inferring they should be used to put those amps in, could fairly easily be seen as a commercial effort leveraging the IP of Pass Labs and the names are copyrighted. it would seem to me there must be a group that have already contacted him and there is probably already a number of these amps out there.
I agree we are in an area that is difficult, but i find it hard to believe that this much effort would be made for individuals. for starters he has used the names in his price list, selling the cases with the names of the models attached, inferring they should be used to put those amps in, could fairly easily be seen as a commercial effort leveraging the IP of Pass Labs and the names are copyrighted. it would seem to me there must be a group that have already contacted him and there is probably already a number of these amps out there.
Last edited:
This sort of thing has been occurring since the 70's when a fairly exact
Asian clone of the 400A appeared. One major Japanese company went so
far as to take one of the Stasis amps, machine a new faceplate for it, and
hold a press conference announcing the release of their new product. They
even copied the brochure.
This stuff is still going on, and it's just a distraction. I don't lose any sleep
over it. As someone pointed out, it does make it difficult for me to argue to
my business partners that we should release service schematics.
Asian clone of the 400A appeared. One major Japanese company went so
far as to take one of the Stasis amps, machine a new faceplate for it, and
hold a press conference announcing the release of their new product. They
even copied the brochure.
This stuff is still going on, and it's just a distraction. I don't lose any sleep
over it. As someone pointed out, it does make it difficult for me to argue to
my business partners that we should release service schematics.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.