Cloning transformers - Page 2 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30th May 2008, 02:33 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by jon_010101



....I think he was referring to Dynaco and other parts that Mike and others are able to produce, but do not own brand/trademark rights to.

Notice that you are calling them Dynaco™ (which is a registered trademark) and that we do NOT brand any of our products with the Dynaco namesake. This appears to be a confusion on your part. Even though I have previously explicitly stated this earlier in this thread.

It is an important legal as well as ethical distinction. Yes.... we did purchase the original factory blueprints. But we do not build Dynaco™ transformers. We market our transformers with our own brand name.

There is not a single design in our archives that is the product of "reverse engineering", "cloning", or "tear downs".

The only thing that I am asking for is that our trademarks and brand names be respected and not misappropiated or abused by others.

The practice of consciously misusing brand names to get a free ride or advantage in the marketplace off of the goodwill of the legitimate trademark (i.e., brand name) owner is just simply theft. And the goods so denoted are in fact counterfeits by definition.

If your brave, very brave---- try marketing an audio transformer with the Monster name attached to it.

And independently of all the legal issues and legal protections for trademark owners---- there is a moreso overriding concern that I believe we should be evaluating---- and that is----

as a community, a forum--- should we permit, encourage or allow the wholesale use of other peoples intellectual products or designs--- for example---- say someone gets a bone up their butt---- and decides to go after the fella who has designed several SE circuits and has a website on them and has actively supported end users on this forum who have had an interest in his designs----

now---- say some midnight chop shop circuit board maker comes along--- takes his design part for part, value for value, and starts to offer knockoffs and liberally makes references to the fact that his is an exact copy of say one of Simple Lab's products\circuits. Is this what we would want to encourage?

Or do we want to offer hot rod copies of commercial products say a DAC that someone tears down and then uses that companies name to encourage other hobbyists to buy the counterfeit goods that trades on the work of the DAC designer and perhaps worse even uses their brand name to promote the counterfeit theft of that guy's work?

Or, consider, how much flack the con artist who relabels tubes often receives--- when it is recognized that he is hawking counterfeit goods with the Telefunken name.

that is why we should all respect the trademarks and brand names of all the players in our small industry.


MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 03:03 PM   #12
Tweeker is offline Tweeker  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Not at all implying that this is the case here, but reverse engineering in some cases yields higher fidelity reproductions than following the official specs. SAMBA comes to mind...

Try marketing anything with the name Monster attached, even food. They are notoriously litigious, you lose even if you win in court due to legal bills.
__________________
Be sure your foil hat has a good low impedance ground.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 03:11 PM   #13
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Bas Horneman


Either way..both are legal it appears from the other posts.

Hi Bas:

The above is a gross oversimplification of the various laws which govern commerce and embody the doctrines of what constitute's "fair trade" and "unfair competition".

Some folks might suggest that minus a enforceable patent that any and all "copies", "clones", "imitations", "knock-offs", and etc would enjoy a legal holliday of unguided and unrestrained activity in the marketplace.

But such is far, far from the reality of the various federal, state, and common law statues that govern the conduct of business.

To gain a richer understanding of the legal environs of business I would suggest a few hours of reading and searching on the web. Do some googling with key terms like the following;

Lanham Act

Sherman Act

Robinson-Patman Act

explore the legal concepts of "passing off", "misappropiation", "restraint of trade", "tortuitous interference", "torts", "laches", etc.

Read and learn of the legal tests that courts employ in cases involving trademark disputes and in counterfeiting cases.

It is not quite the wild west as some would suggest.


MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 03:13 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing



Notice that you are calling them Dynaco™ (which is a registered trademark) and that we do NOT brand any of our products with the Dynaco namesake. This appears to be a confusion on your part. Even though I have previously explicitly stated this earlier in this thread.

It is an important legal as well as ethical distinction. Yes.... we did purchase the original factory blueprints. But we do not build Dynaco™ transformers. We market our transformers with our own brand name.
Exactly, MQ470...no issue there is it? I am looking forward to seeing heyboer re-partnumber their reproductions... HTS-265 for example.

Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing


The only thing that I am asking for is that our trademarks and brand names be respected and not misappropiated or abused by others.


that is why we should all respect the trademarks and brand names of all the players in our small industry.


MSL
If that is indeed all you're interested in, this is the first I've seen it. Your skill at creating the urban legend that you are in sole control over anything associated with the Peerless OPT's is to be commended. You've gone and harassed Heyboer for knowing what goes into those unobtainium Altec cans, haven't you?

I am not interested in marketing any OPT's...if I were it would already have come to pass. Just like I can write that I have made a copy of one of my Cummins pistons after an examination thorough enough to uncover all the details required to reproduce it, I can write that I have cloned an old Peerless OTX.

There is indeed stuff I've been quite happy to give away to a few folks who've asked...winding details for one. Speaking of details, I find the practice of selling Ni striping as an improvement, whilst at the same time neglecting to disclose that it has been left out of your S271A an interesting paradox. Does it not 'improve' the larger lamination, or is it just that until I took one apart, nobody else who was interested in publishing such things aware of it?
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 03:27 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Tweeker


:::Try marketing anything with the name Monster attached, even food. They are notoriously litigious, you lose even if you win in court due to legal bills.
::::


I'm not an attorney--- but I've done a fair amount of research in this area (trademark law and laws governing fair competition)----

to perhaps gain some insight and understanding of the legal concepts and precepts that Monster might rely on in the defense of their particular trademark---- look up and read about the distinctions and classification of a smaller sub-group of trademarks that are called "FAMOUS" trademarks--- they are accorded a wider sphere of protection than "normal" trademarks.

The concepts of "dilution" and "watering down" play, perhaps, a even moreso dominant role in the legal environs when a trademark is recognized and accorded the status of being "famous".

Please note--- I am not passing judgement either way on whether Monster should or should not be accorded "famous" status nor am I passing judgement (pro or con) on the vigorous legal defenses of their trademark.

But prudence (at a bare bones minimum) might suggest extreme care and having legal guidance if you want to brand something--- say an audio transformer--- with the Monster namesake.

And, again, this illustrates that the laws governing commerce are actually much more sophisticated than doing a simple search of the patent office and declaring that since no patent is in force---- then all rules, norms, conventions, and laws no longer apply to commerce.

MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 03:58 PM   #16
Tweeker is offline Tweeker  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
I'm extremely dubious of the famous claim when applied to words already in common parlance. I could accept it with made up words, peoples proper names, but here not so much. They have sued over its use in areas where only an attorney could be confused, nothing to do with audio.

I am not a lawyer, it may hold up in some courts, but I have absolutely no respect for it. Buy your own word today!
__________________
Be sure your foil hat has a good low impedance ground.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 04:24 PM   #17
diyAudio Member
 
Boris_The_Blade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Well, I think I'll summarize what's happened so far:

1) pertera77 wanted a replacement transformer for his HF-60 (TO-330)

2) MQ said it would be hard to do cheaply

3) Douglas volunteered to help with it via Heyboer or Electra-Print, and even offered an engineering sample

4) MQ is angered by the thought of the so called 'midnight winders' making the transformers - many long posts with big words ensue

5) The whole IP/trademark discussion starts up as always

6) Still no HF-60 TX for petera77

The big long posts may be clouding the issue, but if someone is willing to make the transformer for a reasonable price and there is nothing legally wrong with it, why not? Nobody is claiming it is an original. I'd hate to live in a world where Bayer was the only aspirin, Fords were the only automobiles, and RCAs were the only color tvs. (Notice I picked all 'old' inventions) There is a very good reason patents expire (and there are not even any patents here) - so the free market can thrive, many similar businesses can exist that compete, products can be made at quantities large enough to satisfy the needs of millions of people. If I were a transformer company, I would stop worrying about others making the same products I do (when they are all ancient stuff and anyone is free to make them), and I would concern myself with how to make them at less expense than everyone else. No, that doesn't mean make a crappy product, but maybe cutting overhead, finding less expensive sources to raw materials...all the stuff that every other business in the US has to deal with on a daily basis. Now, if I came up with some awesome new design that I could patent, that would be fantastic - I would be the single supplier like in my dreams. But, if there was no competition in the commercial world, we all would probably not be having this internet forum conversation, since computers would be only in the hand of the very rich, and the internet would still be bound to those who could afford the hardware.

I'm an Equate man myself....
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 04:31 PM   #18
Tweeker is offline Tweeker  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Since tube relabeling was brought up, what of Richardson making Amperex tubes? Richardson owns the rights, and obtained some copies, however poor. No mark was violated. So far as WIPO was concerned, they are the only firm fit to carry the legendary Amperex name.
__________________
Be sure your foil hat has a good low impedance ground.
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 04:40 PM   #19
diyAudio Member
 
MQracing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally posted by Boris_The_Blade
Well, I think I'll summarize what's happened so far:

1) pertera77 wanted a replacement transformer for his HF-60 (TO-330)

6) Still no HF-60 TX for petera77


Hi Boris:

So that you might be reassured of the benevolence of mankind.... I am in receipt of an email from an idividual who has asked me for some help and guidance in how he might obtain some EI8 laminations or a suitable substitute for such. I will assist him to the best of my ability.

MSL
  Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2008, 05:18 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Quote:
Originally posted by MQracing
::::
And, again, this illustrates that the laws governing commerce are actually much more sophisticated than doing a simple search of the patent office and declaring that since no patent is in force---- then all rules, norms, conventions, and laws no longer apply to commerce.

MSL
No one has suggested anything like that course of action. You seem to be missing the idea that your stuff has not been used in commerce. It may have been used as a required adjective to describe what I have done...but I am not going into the TX business. As I said before, if that were the goal, it would have already happened.

I am glad to hear you specifically detail your worries, and that they contain no further claim of exclusive rights to the winding details. That information was never protected beyond the difficulty in obtaining it. Happy day! Wonder what is going to turn up at the ham fest this weekend that's fit for the unwinding treatment...
cheers,
Douglas
__________________
the Tnuctipun will return
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How come noone is cloning McIntosh? JZatopa Solid State 44 19th February 2010 12:06 AM
Cloning a HF-60 petera77 Tubes / Valves 19 5th June 2008 10:50 AM
Anyone try cloning Kharmas? polkymon Multi-Way 27 26th June 2006 02:44 PM
Cloning a Loudspeaker red Multi-Way 6 12th April 2005 07:14 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:31 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2