It does not matter how the boards *function*, from the image you can see that the silkscreen is an exact copy of Tom's board, minus Tom's copyright notices. That is all that is necessary to prove conclusive copyright infringement; the boards do not even have to actually work. He could have duplicated them on shoe leather for all that matters; it would change nothing.
Copyright does not cover the electronic portion, it covers what is printed on the board and possibly the layout of the visible portion of the board. It would also cover the Gerbers, but we do not see those here (yet). There is no doubt in this case; it's a cut-and-dried case of infringement. Please do not comment on IP law you do not understand, as you clearly do not.
Tom has taken care to legally mark his boards to insure valid copyright protection (using the proper © symbol, the date, and his full name).
If they had included Tom's copyright notices, that would instead be a matter of counterfeiting, not simple infringement. Counterfeiting carries more serious penalties than unauthorized copying. Yes, even in China.
By the way, Tom, there is an image on that thread at hifiDIY showing two boards ... each of them are a copy of one of your x~86 layouts (marked LXminiAMP1 and LXminiAMP2).
Last edited:
Simply being functional does not invalidate a copyright. What your seminar should have told you, or perhaps did, is that the function cannot be subject to copyright. The printed image of any and all of the elements that appear on the board are subject to copyright, and since there is a unique layout, the copyright is valid.
Just as simply using the alphabet doesn't make a copyright for a book invalid, using standard elements for electronic layout doesn't invalidate the M86 copyright (for example).
Similarly, just because a toy container for a Disney® character acts as a box, does not invalidate the printed images on the outside of that box. It just means you can't copyright the fact that it acts as a box, not that you cannot copyright anything printed on that box.
The function (acting as a box) would be subject to a patent, not a copyright, although it that case it wouldn't be granted (too old and obvious). However that is the correct IP to apply to a function. There is, of course, no reason why you couldn't have a patent and a copyright and an Industrial Design on the same object.
Although in this case it's fairly straightforward and doesn't vary across jurisdictions, you should also have been told at your seminar that IP is the jurisdiction of each nation alone, and no two countries have exactly the same IP law. Many, but not all, nations have signed an agreement to respect the IP granted by other nations. Assuming your seminar was in Taiwan, it should not be assumed whatever you were told applies elsewhere. If the seminar was not specific to Taiwan, it was useless to you and you should demand your money back.
The facts of this case are so straightforward that if anyone doubts infringement, they do not understand IP at any level. You could use it as an example in textbooks.
I have said already in this forum that this topic is poorly understood and usually leads to endless back-and-forth gibberish leading nowhere. I won't be posting or replying to any more on the subject. Talk about Tom's boards and your builds instead.
Last edited:
Modulus-86: Composite amplifier achieving <0.0004 % THD+N.
Well it comes down to the finer details, but as an example, marking of component location has an intent to make installation easier, so it would be questionable whether it can be copyrighted or not, for pcb layout, if certain parts are laid out which only such way can achieve a certain purpose and explainable by physics, then applying copyright would be questionable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well it comes down to the finer details, but as an example, marking of component location has an intent to make installation easier, so it would be questionable whether it can be copyrighted or not, for pcb layout, if certain parts are laid out which only such way can achieve a certain purpose and explainable by physics, then applying copyright would be questionable.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you will excuse my assertion I won't be saying more about it, the fundamental test of any IP ... what you would have to prove in court if it came to that ... is "could the infringing object be confused by an ordinary person with the protected object". If so, it is infringing if it cannot be also proven that the infringing object was created prior to the protected object. Once those two elements are established, the rights are assigned to one or the other, but not both.
In the thread we even have images of Tom's board and the OP's copy. They are identical in every way except for the stripping of Tom's copyright mark and the addition of the infringer's script in it's place.
You are taking elements of the layout as the protected IP. That is not the case. It is not the elements that are protected (and in fact they cannot be protected); it is the stringing of those elements into a whole that has IP protection. That makes it a "creative work", which is protected.
I don't understand why you keep coming up with irrelevant objections. I am positive Taiwan has laws and they are published; go read them.
http://www.wangandwang.com/intellectual-property/intellectual-property-overview-taiwan/
Last edited:
Modulus-86: Composite amplifier achieving <0.0004 % THD+N.
Not so simple when it comes to final judgement, that is why even Apple picks a balance point whether to settle or not. There is a trend.
What you are saying would apply to trademark though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not so simple when it comes to final judgement, that is why even Apple picks a balance point whether to settle or not. There is a trend.
What you are saying would apply to trademark though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Um... Have you looked at the performance numbers of the amps I'm offering? I'm clearly competing on performance.
I understand you take a different approach to snubber design in power supplies than I do. That's fine. I'm not upset that you're selling supply boards or provides Gerber files. The reason I chose to put the Power-86 together is that a sizeable chunk of customers asked for it.
I already am. I provide more test data and specs than any DIY person out there and more than the vast majority of commercial manufacturers of audio equipment.
Sadly, that's true. While copycats do annoy me, I will have to calm down and not get too bent out of shape about it. That doesn't mean I like it or am willing to accept it, just that I choose to be realistic about it. That said, I did find a straight copy of my amp on a Croatian (I think it was) forum and asked the moderators to remove it. They did so immediately.
That could explain why so many amp modules (Pascal, Hypex, etc.) have an onboard micro controller.
Tom
At least it makes it rather hard for the little copycats (copykittens?) to copy the boards. The professional copycats can copy multi-layer boards without much trouble.
Tom
Not on your Power-86 product. If you've ever connected Power-86 to an electronic load and monitored its temperature vs time vs load current, I for one haven't seen your measured data. But I have seen the measured data from at least one form, fit, and function compatible DIY PSU that has performed these tests. That's why I included a link to an electronic load instrument made by Keithley, so you could consider acquiring it as a way to compete on thoroughness of testing and characterization, rather than competing on price, in your Power-86 product line.
_
Tom, I just use a variac (a/k/a autotransformer). It lets me vary the mains voltage but not the mains frequency. Typical price for a 1000 VA model is $110. Be sure to get one with IEC female jack outputs rather than binding posts; those are needlessly dangerous.
Here's my setup for Soft Recovery Diode measurement. Variac at left.
edit- forgot to say: A variac offers the hidden benefit of extremely soft-start. Thus inrush current is extremely limited. It lets you fit very tightly chosen fuses without margining for inrush, when testing prototypes. Fewer headaches to deal with in early debug.
_
Here's my setup for Soft Recovery Diode measurement. Variac at left.
edit- forgot to say: A variac offers the hidden benefit of extremely soft-start. Thus inrush current is extremely limited. It lets you fit very tightly chosen fuses without margining for inrush, when testing prototypes. Fewer headaches to deal with in early debug.
_
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't know what Apple has to do with this, but since you brought it up ...
Trademark law is completely different. Apple does not "pick a balance point" when it comes to settle or not. Apple has it's lawyers send a letter to each and every trademark infringer they are made aware of, and if the infringer complies, they stop there as they have complied with the legal obligation of enforcement.
But if the infringer does not comply, they call out the sharks, and they continue to sick the sharks on the infringer until either he complies or the courts settle it. They do this because they are required by law to do it; if they do not protect their trademark, if they let infringers off without following up, they can and will lose the right to the mark. That is why when you buy a bottle of ASA in the US, the generic variety is called "Aspirin" because Bayer lost the right to the mark by not enforcing it in the United States. In Canada, only Bayer can use the trademark "Aspirin" because they never let it be invalidated by not enforcing it ... generic versions are called ASA.
There are well documented cases involving Apple Records (the original label of the Beatles) and Apple Computer. Apple (the label) no longer has any ties to the band, save for the trade mark. The company exists solely as a floor full of lawyers in London. All they do is sue people for infringing on the trade mark, and the settlement revenue is their only source of revenue.
They twice sued Apple (computer) for the mark. Apple (computer) could have prevailed in court, because an ordinary person would not confuse a record album with a computer. However, Steve Jobs was famously a music fan and actually has always owned killer sound systems in his home, way past my pay grade and yours. So he settled out of court both times, with a small payment to Apple (records) to encourage a quick settlement and in the first case Apple (records) had to accept Apple (computer)'s terms because they knew they would not pass the "confusion" test.
The second case arose because in the first case, Apple (computer) agreed not to "enter the music business", which they did with the iPod/iTunes/The iTunes Music Store. That one might have gone to court, but was settled out of court.
However, Apple (records) were required by law to enforce their mark, or risk losing it, which is why the issue arose in the first place. You can also lose the right to a trade mark by simply not using it ... if you trade mark a product name, for example (eg "iPod® ) but never actually release a product called iPod® the mark will be declared invalid. That does not apply to copyright ... the right exists regardless of whether the owner enforces it, it is inalienable.
Now, that is way too much talk on the subject. Really, let's drop it.
Last edited:
you can easily configure your web server to block your images if they're served from another domain, or even better, swap them for other images (one image explaining that other pcb is a copy, …whatever). let me know (pm) if you want help
I think you got the subjects in my different paragraphs mixed up, but since you like to type so much, hope it was satisfying to you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@Johnny2Bad: Thanks much for that. I've learned a lot. I used to teach a Hotel Law course (among other hospitality related courses) at a College. You explain things very well Jon, and I appreciate it.
@Tom: I hope that others are like me, and will always buy from you simply because so many aspects of your business are "DoneRight". Everything from design, testing, educating customers, ordering, shipping, clear instruction, support, customer service,.. I feel like I could go on. My point is that your level of professionalism makes me "want to" do business with you, and support your efforts to make a living at helping us to enjoy music at a high level of refinement and fidelity.
@Tom: I hope that others are like me, and will always buy from you simply because so many aspects of your business are "DoneRight". Everything from design, testing, educating customers, ordering, shipping, clear instruction, support, customer service,.. I feel like I could go on. My point is that your level of professionalism makes me "want to" do business with you, and support your efforts to make a living at helping us to enjoy music at a high level of refinement and fidelity.
Thank you. I really appreciate it. It's feedback like that which keeps me going.
Well... My APx525 now has digital I/O. I originally saved $1250 by having that option removed. The AP was coming up on calibration and I figured I'd lump the DIO install and calibration together. Sell a kidney to pay for it. I had two of them. Clearly redundant! Interpret as you wish...
My two top priorities are: Graphite coloured chassis for the HP-1 and high-power amp design. I've been telling the world that I'll have a "200 W" design available over the summer. I have a design that works well in the simulator but needs to face reality one of these days. I put "200 W" in quotes as that's the design target. 200 W into 8 Ω. That's a lot of power to manage and the thermal design is a good chunk of the project. If I get 150 W I'll be more than happy, but 200 W would look better on the marketing copy.
Changing the colour on the HP-1 chassis is trivial. The biggest hurdle is to ensure that I have enough credit on my credit card to be able to buy the inventory. I also need some 45 minutes of time to actually sit down and do the work. Higher priority projects keep getting in the way. Exam season ended in April and May has been spent firefighting. Not in a literal sense. Just scope creep on steroids.
As for other projects, the best way to keep up to date with what's cooking in the lab is to sign up for my newsletter. I've yet to send out the first newsletter, so you can tell this is a high priority...
I do prefer to keep folks informed of new products through that channel as it makes it easier for me to track the rumours and saves me time.Tom