I own a number of Pass Labs amps, none of them have any Pass logo on the case. That's not much of an argument in favor of supporting these rip off artists.
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.
hello nelson
nice to hear from you hope things work out for you.have you got in contact with this guy?
Well, the only way to get rid of these copy cats is to simply innovate and keep ten steps and eight months ahead of them.
No one can keep up with the best and latest. It worked for Apple and Porsche, so why not Pass Labs? Maybe leave these guys alone and watch them fall on their own poorly made swords. The real customers and fans will know better and not get any of the garbage being put out by these guys. I know that I will never be able to afford a new Pass Labs amp, but I will be damned if I ever consider a near clone or ripoff of one because of the ethics involved. Those who do buy this don't deserve anything but bad karma, bad sound, a THD of 12%, and smoke (at that point those guys might come to a realization that their fake amp sucks dead dogs).
If Mr Pass is not losing sleep over this then why should we go and get our underwear in knots?
No one can keep up with the best and latest. It worked for Apple and Porsche, so why not Pass Labs? Maybe leave these guys alone and watch them fall on their own poorly made swords. The real customers and fans will know better and not get any of the garbage being put out by these guys. I know that I will never be able to afford a new Pass Labs amp, but I will be damned if I ever consider a near clone or ripoff of one because of the ethics involved. Those who do buy this don't deserve anything but bad karma, bad sound, a THD of 12%, and smoke (at that point those guys might come to a realization that their fake amp sucks dead dogs).
If Mr Pass is not losing sleep over this then why should we go and get our underwear in knots?
There may be a simple answer for manufactures to allow customers to be able to distinguish between a genuine or fake product, add an impossible to reproduce hologram label/badge to future productions - In the case of Mr Pass, maybe a 3D image of himself.
It won't stop the copycats but at least you will know they are fake.
It won't stop the copycats but at least you will know they are fake.
Last edited:
I'm going to jump into the fray and offer a perspective... since this is just the box being offered, and it looks a bit like a Pass labs box lets examine if this is a theft or not. and to do that i think we need to discuss what theft actually is, which invariable will lead to a discussion about what is a victim.
first i'm going to quote stuart green in new york times
"From its earliest days, the crime of theft has been understood to involve the misappropriation of things real and tangible. For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.
When Industrial Age Bob and Joe started inventing less tangible things, like electricity, stocks, bonds and licenses, however, things got more complicated. What Bob took, Joe, in some sense, still had. So the law adjusted in ad hoc and at times inconsistent ways. Specialized doctrines were developed to cover the misappropriation of services (like a ride on a train), semi-tangibles (like the gas for streetlights) and true intangibles (like business goodwill)."
i'd like to use this argument and make the point that i'm not convinced that mr pass is a victim
if mr Lieu (i made this name up) from the far east makes a chassis that looks like a nelson pass chassis and offers it for sale has nelson pass really lost anything? You could argue that nelson pass was a victim of intellectually property theft and lost money because someone would have purchased that from nelson pass in the first place? This is the challenge to that argument; we dont actually know, that nelson pass actually had a potential customer or not and the theft argument only works if we assume that this customers was nelson pass' customer in the first place -and that requires us to assume a theft has happened.
I am not convinced that merely selling this chassis that resembles nelson pass' product, a product which is far richer in content and capability than the chassis, by itself represents theft. especially since the person argues that this is inspired by a nelson pass design but makes no suggestions that this indeed is an actual nelson pass design. so if nelson pass actually didnt have a loss -how can we argue that this is a crime?
i see the exact same issue with sunglasses, the internet is basically chock-full of sunglass vendors selling sunglasses "inspired by rayban wayfarer" or my personal favorite wal-marts selling their "walborne" vitamin pill which they suggest should be compared to "airborne".
I see imitation but i dont see theft.
Possibly one could argue that mr pass would have been a victim of misappropriated use or even theft if this chassis would have had the logos and the internals with the intent to fool people into believing this was the real deal, ie. the cloning argument. but as presented, i'm not sure even that holds true since i cant construct any argument that mr. pass suffered a loss.
I'm sure this is an unpopular view, but i hope this is allowed as a part of a constructive dialogue.
first i'm going to quote stuart green in new york times
"From its earliest days, the crime of theft has been understood to involve the misappropriation of things real and tangible. For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.
When Industrial Age Bob and Joe started inventing less tangible things, like electricity, stocks, bonds and licenses, however, things got more complicated. What Bob took, Joe, in some sense, still had. So the law adjusted in ad hoc and at times inconsistent ways. Specialized doctrines were developed to cover the misappropriation of services (like a ride on a train), semi-tangibles (like the gas for streetlights) and true intangibles (like business goodwill)."
i'd like to use this argument and make the point that i'm not convinced that mr pass is a victim
if mr Lieu (i made this name up) from the far east makes a chassis that looks like a nelson pass chassis and offers it for sale has nelson pass really lost anything? You could argue that nelson pass was a victim of intellectually property theft and lost money because someone would have purchased that from nelson pass in the first place? This is the challenge to that argument; we dont actually know, that nelson pass actually had a potential customer or not and the theft argument only works if we assume that this customers was nelson pass' customer in the first place -and that requires us to assume a theft has happened.
I am not convinced that merely selling this chassis that resembles nelson pass' product, a product which is far richer in content and capability than the chassis, by itself represents theft. especially since the person argues that this is inspired by a nelson pass design but makes no suggestions that this indeed is an actual nelson pass design. so if nelson pass actually didnt have a loss -how can we argue that this is a crime?
i see the exact same issue with sunglasses, the internet is basically chock-full of sunglass vendors selling sunglasses "inspired by rayban wayfarer" or my personal favorite wal-marts selling their "walborne" vitamin pill which they suggest should be compared to "airborne".
I see imitation but i dont see theft.
Possibly one could argue that mr pass would have been a victim of misappropriated use or even theft if this chassis would have had the logos and the internals with the intent to fool people into believing this was the real deal, ie. the cloning argument. but as presented, i'm not sure even that holds true since i cant construct any argument that mr. pass suffered a loss.
I'm sure this is an unpopular view, but i hope this is allowed as a part of a constructive dialogue.
THEFT is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
It probably can be viewed as theft. You could argue that imitation is a form of flattery, but usually it is limited to one, kind of like how you see fans of Star Wars make a one off R2D2.
Now, when you take those imitations/replicas/clones, mass produce them for sale, and then sell the those imitations with the same model names, you can't deny it is probably theft of design or even fraud. Theft does depend on a few points and one is of mistake and realization. It is intentional and you can see it is a planned, willful, and knowledgeable act. This is not an accident where someone tripped over a design they found in the gutter and then cut and built a case without knowing what they had built for sale.
In this case, the seller makes no mistakes on what he is selling is a Pass Labs case. This guy even names it as such. So it is hard to compare it to something like a Walmart Vitamin or a "Rayban Wayfarer inspired design". Even Walmart changes the name and packaging and does not market or sell their house product as an "original" -- they sell it as a substitute or alternative with a different name and look.
There are limits to what is acceptable as one is also granted rights to protection of distinct intangible assets like design, music, written works, discoveries, inventions, and symbols. These things deserve to be protected also. How many criminal cases are there of fake baby formula being sold in China by unscrupulous con artists? There is harm being done to not only the real product and original producer (reputation and loss of sales) but to the un-knowing and willing consumer. I will admit to your argument that it is hard to say if a cheaply made pair of well known sunglasses would cause the death of a child by kidney failure like tainted baby formula has done, but safe to say it might not. Let's say that the Pass Labs imitation boards are included so we can compare evenly with you argument of fake sunglasses (you can't buy imitation Rayban sunglasses without the lenses or find Walmart vitamins being sold without the key ingredients listed). Running high voltages and current through a bunch of questionable boards in a metal chassis sitting in someone's home without the proper testing and claims against liability, again I'm not so sure (but it ain't safe).
I would say that this is dishonest. It deprives Pass Labs of it's reputation (if it is sold with the same look and model name) if it is sold to the average and willing layman (we are not in that majority or average here and are more knowledgeable).
In the end, even if I had the ready money and could, I would not buy one of these fakes.
Caveat Emptor for those who would purchase one of these.
Oh yeah, I don't think that the seller is misrepresenting what he is selling. Below are the names of the cases he is using.
Quote:
what model do you want i have x1, x2, x0.2(3 of case) ,xono (2 of case), power supply case ,xa 160.5(mono or stereo) ,xa 200.5(mono or stereo) pre amp for($230) power amp for xa 160.5 ($880) xa 200.5($980)
Last edited:
but the guy from china is not making any actual claims that this is indeed an de facto pass labs product. That is the difference between "inspired by" or an actual copy that pretends to be the real thing. using the same names doesnt by itself prove that claim altough i agree its dicey.
my point is that the argument that a theft has occured cant be supported since no property has been taken, nor has an opportunity to make a sale been stolen either (which could be articulated as a form of theft).
and to the other poster who claimed "no harm, no foul" i actually disagree. Intent to commit a crime should obviously not be tolerated. however i dont see how you argue that anyone would believe that an empty chassis with a design that looks just like nelsons commercial products can be confused with an actual nelson product. thus i dont believe it can be argued that a loss has occured since i dont think the seller is misleading people to believe that they are purchasing a nelson pass product. just because something looks similar but otherwise doesnt function the same way or is lacking distinctive markings identifying it as such, makes it hard to construct a claim of misappropriation or theft.
if nelson would put his chassis up for sale without any logos then this would be an entirely different matter, but under current circumstances, this armchair lawyer just doesnt see the basis for how you construct a claim that an actual theft has occured.
of course pass labs could request a trademark protection on a distinctive physical feature just like apple has done on their products. perhaps that frontal shape that is so unique. with that comes the legal distinction that this shape is registered as property and if someone else uses that shape they are comitting property theft. Toblerone for instance has a trademark on that triangular shape of chocolate. I looked up pass labs trademarks and i didn't find anything as being registered by pass labs except their name (interestingly enough, either the world is very small or nelson has a ip/real estate lawyer that went to berkely in the family).
so, i am struggling with how you can claim theft in this particular case.
Last edited:
Unless you reject the concept of "intellectual property", you can't argue against the fact that anyone who copies a design is committing a theft.
no?
to assert ip when it comes to physical shapes a design patent or a shape trademark has to be filed. if one isn't filed then the object comes into public domain. i searched uspto for any patents belonging to pass labs or nelson pass and i find a couple of utility patents but no design patents.
having said that, in order to assert an IP claim the law generally requires that to prove infringement; an ordinary observer, familiar with prior art designs, would be deceived into believing that the accused product is the same as the patented design.
You are correct in that i dont believe that a theft has occured when someone copies music, movies, books etc. I support the notion that a property crime has occurred but i dont think it is theft. I believe that this crime could be trespassing, misappropriation and similar claims but i dont think theft can be argued since no loss has occurred. that is legalese though, clearly i dont advocate misappropriating music, books etc.
however, in the case of pass labs vs. chinese case manufacturers, i dont see how you can claim that one should not be allowed to sell products that resemble original work that from what i can see are in the public domain? the second the chinese guys slaps on a nelson pass logo he clearly is violating the nelson pass trademark and that would be a property crime -but they havent done that here. possibly you could argue that the model number names are an unregistered trademark, but that could easily be worked around saying "inspired by" without claiming to use that name.
Last edited:
Looks nice! Anyone for a group buy?
triode4 said:
You guys haven't actually read the thread, have you...
I can.
Every time I see something I like, I try to store it away for later use.
That happens throughout the design and build world.
It doesn't matter that it's Formula 1 racing cars, or designer dresses or electronic circuits.
I actually taught my pupils to mentally and physically dissect bits of technology to see how they were put together.
I did it with my first push bike and have continued to do so, even with bits of kit that are still in working condition.
I have no qualms about my pupils or myself adopting a feature in to something we design later.
Last edited:
joint venture
If it was already mentioned.......I am sorry...
I think the existence of these cases shows that there are complete copies of the Pass pre and power amplifiers (in China?) ......! (under the table)
the man selling them in Canada is only clever enough not to do this....
so buying these cases looks a bit like a joint venture...... supporting more or less people that do more than only selling cases.....
If it was already mentioned.......I am sorry...
I think the existence of these cases shows that there are complete copies of the Pass pre and power amplifiers (in China?) ......! (under the table)
the man selling them in Canada is only clever enough not to do this....
so buying these cases looks a bit like a joint venture...... supporting more or less people that do more than only selling cases.....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.