No, but they should have full permission from the copyright owner of the circuit. Otherwise they could be sued for damages due to copyright infringement. If you want to clone someone else's circuit then you need to be somewhere copyright is not taken seriously, such as China. Even there it would in theory be unlawful.
I guess some parts of circuits would be patentable also. And it would be a breach of patent to use that patented circuit.
If a firm has the Baxendall arrangement in tone control, does that mean a payment has to be made to the Baxendall estate? I guess yes unless copyright or patent has expired.
If a firm has the Baxendall arrangement in tone control, does that mean a payment has to be made to the Baxendall estate? I guess yes unless copyright or patent has expired.
Provided they are not patented you should be OK with standard circuits. I think copyright law (in the UK) uses common sense: in the case of a book you can't do someone for using the same sentence as you (as there may be only a few ways in good English to express a particular idea), but start copying paragraphs and the owner will be after you. Same idea for circuits. You can have a Baxandal tone control, but be careful of exact copying of someone else's Baxandall tone control.
The best way to ensure no copyright infringement is to design it yourself: copyright is about 'works' - something requiring effort to produce. If you did the work, then you did not copy someone else's work. If you happen to have an emitter follower with the same resistor values as someone else you may be OK, but if significant chunks of your circuit are identical to someone else's then you may have to explain this remarkable coincidence to their legal team.
The best way to ensure no copyright infringement is to design it yourself: copyright is about 'works' - something requiring effort to produce. If you did the work, then you did not copy someone else's work. If you happen to have an emitter follower with the same resistor values as someone else you may be OK, but if significant chunks of your circuit are identical to someone else's then you may have to explain this remarkable coincidence to their legal team.
Someone may be willing to grant a licence, but they are under no obligation to do so.
I think there may be the possibility that if a particular idea is needed for a major area of important technology then a court may insist on a reasonable licence arrangement, but this only really applies to the Microsofts/Apples/Googles of this world. Unlikely to apply to an audio amp.
I think there may be the possibility that if a particular idea is needed for a major area of important technology then a court may insist on a reasonable licence arrangement, but this only really applies to the Microsofts/Apples/Googles of this world. Unlikely to apply to an audio amp.
copyright only prevents exact mechanical/automated copies of physical expressions of an idea - not the idea itself - so a photograph of a pcb, photocopy of a schematic in a users manual is copyright protected but you can redraw by hand, do your own layout of the exact same amp circuit and then copyright doesn't apply
only active patents restrict copying a "idea" like a circuit design technique - expired patents are "prior art" - free for use
likewise anything you can discover by any level of inspection, testing, teardown analysis is free for copying if there are no active patents on them
trademark can prevent you from using the original company's name in your own advertising/description of a "clone"
design patents can protect a product's physical appearance
only active patents restrict copying a "idea" like a circuit design technique - expired patents are "prior art" - free for use
likewise anything you can discover by any level of inspection, testing, teardown analysis is free for copying if there are no active patents on them
trademark can prevent you from using the original company's name in your own advertising/description of a "clone"
design patents can protect a product's physical appearance
Last edited:
There are serious regional/cultural variations on this "right": in France for example, there is no copyright in the Anglo-saxon meaning, but a "droit d'auteur", which is automatic (without formality) and runs for 70 years.
There is a also a notion of "modèle déposé" (~equivalent to design patents), which requires formalities.
There is a also a notion of "modèle déposé" (~equivalent to design patents), which requires formalities.
I suppose if you are a designer, or manufacturer of audio equipment, you should really try to patent your circuit. But, the circuit design would have to be patentable, which it could be in theory. I think DOLBY noise reduction was patented.
I guess most audio amplifier manufacturers would not be able to protect their circuit, even when they have designed it and made improvements, in say specifications over rival manufacturers. Because the improvements or circuit arrangements are not patentable.
A circuit of course, is not merely a drawing. Perhaps a circuit is copyrightable, given the work put into it. I'm not sure.
I guess most audio amplifier manufacturers would not be able to protect their circuit, even when they have designed it and made improvements, in say specifications over rival manufacturers. Because the improvements or circuit arrangements are not patentable.
A circuit of course, is not merely a drawing. Perhaps a circuit is copyrightable, given the work put into it. I'm not sure.
Last edited:
My understanding is that a handwritten copy could still be an infringement under UK law. UK law covers derivative works, which would include copies by any means, translations, repackaging. However, it is true that it is not the idea which is protected but the expression of that idea.
In Europe we tend to use copyright for some things which others use patents for.
In Europe we tend to use copyright for some things which others use patents for.
The big issue of course is whether you intend to use a complete circuit in a commercial venture. I think it probably a certainty that almost anyone who had designed a circuit, professional or otherwise, would claim copyright in those circumstances. That is what I reckon anyway. And of course, it only seems fair that the designer should. But, it ought to be truly the designer's design.
Last edited:
You may wonder why I ask the question on commercial arrangements. Well, I'm in the process of trying to come up with a product to produce. I don't know what to make and have not made up my mind. I'm no audio engineer, but I think I've got a "stylistic idea" and I'd have to buy-in the circuit. :c) Well, it's a long-shot that I'd produce a piece of audio equipment, but it's nice to know something about commercial aspects.
Last edited:
Yes, that is true.
But, if I took a circuit from say Musical Fidelity and used it in some amplifier I produced, I think Musical Fidelity would be seeking some kind of payment. I feel sure they would. I guess I could always ask. :c)
The way I see it, you've made a presumption that just because Musical Fidelity uses that circuit then they own it. I can't say one way or the other, but I know that doesn't correspond with the first post of the thread.
Of course, the statement "took a circuit from..." can be construed as an admission of guilt right off the bat.
Of course, the statement "took a circuit from..." can be construed as an admission of guilt right off the bat.
If you're involved in the design or creation of products and really did worry about copyright and/or patents, I think you would never get any work done. As an engineer, you may come up with several ideas every day that appear to be just small solutions to small problems but which, if you spent a few days researching each one, would possibly be covered by many patents.
An example I have just made up: supposing your project requires you to smoothly fade LED brightness up and down. If you do a search on patents for LED dimming, you will find literally hundreds, some of which appear to be as simple as "controlling LED brightness in response to control signals" or similar. Here's an actual example:
Must you examine each one to ensure you don't infringe it? Are you even qualified to say whether you are infringing it or not? Is the patent actually in force, or is it just an application that was rejected, or has it now lapsed? It takes several minutes to read and digest each patent.
I can clearly recall using LED dimming in a design many years ago, where I realised that linear fading didn't look too good so I changed to an exponential response, which appeared to give a much more linear response to the eye. It was the work of about ten minutes and I thought no more about it. However, if I had spent a few days researching my 'innovation', I might have found a few hundred patents that may, or may not, be relevant, such as this one:
Again, I am not qualified to know if it was relevant or not, but the overhead of ploughing through the patents would be huge, compared to the actual work of implementing an idea that was thought of in an instant.
An example I have just made up: supposing your project requires you to smoothly fade LED brightness up and down. If you do a search on patents for LED dimming, you will find literally hundreds, some of which appear to be as simple as "controlling LED brightness in response to control signals" or similar. Here's an actual example:
Must you examine each one to ensure you don't infringe it? Are you even qualified to say whether you are infringing it or not? Is the patent actually in force, or is it just an application that was rejected, or has it now lapsed? It takes several minutes to read and digest each patent.
I can clearly recall using LED dimming in a design many years ago, where I realised that linear fading didn't look too good so I changed to an exponential response, which appeared to give a much more linear response to the eye. It was the work of about ten minutes and I thought no more about it. However, if I had spent a few days researching my 'innovation', I might have found a few hundred patents that may, or may not, be relevant, such as this one:
Again, I am not qualified to know if it was relevant or not, but the overhead of ploughing through the patents would be huge, compared to the actual work of implementing an idea that was thought of in an instant.
Last edited:
Under UK law there is no such thing as 'claiming' copyright. I believe elsewhere this may be necessary, though. Here the act of producing a work automatically creates copyright for the author, except where it was done in the course of his employment in which case his employer has copyright. In either case the original copyright owner can assign his rights away to someone else (and so lose copyright), or licence the work (and retain copyright). The issue in the UK is whether the copyright owner will sue for infringement, and seek to recover what he has lost - typically whatever money you have made from his idea, plus his legal costs in chasing you.richard8976 said:
Last edited:
The way I see it, you've made a presumption that just because Musical Fidelity uses that circuit then they own it. I can't say one way or the other, but I know that doesn't correspond with the first post of the thread.
Of course, the statement "took a circuit from..." can be construed as an admission of guilt right off the bat.
Well, my presumption was that Musical Fidelty had designed the circuit, that I then go on and use in a commercial way for a product of mine.
If I produced my version of say an audio amplifier, and it became apparant that the circuit was a clone of one that Musical Fidelity had designed, I think Musical Fidelty would claim breach of copyright.
Because I'm profitting from their design work.
Of course, an issue is how is Musical Fidelity coming up with it's design - is it building on other people's work. I suppose the answer to that must be yes. Perhaps they paid something for it, perhaps not.
But,anyway, if I produced a product where the circuit was an exact clone, it is 100% clear I'm profitting from doing that.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.