One should point out that the original Naim amp circuit was in essence derived almost entirely from a schematic example in an RCA application note. The Naim patent, if there ever was one, is almost certainly expired. Again, many fundamental errors in assessment of the practicality of the situation.
My feeling is that many of the emotional responses to these kinds of issues fundamentally misunderstand what defines a copy, as well as the conceptual sources of most consumer Hi-Fi equipment.
There’s countless examples of this in Hi-Fi, even here on diyaudio. Take a peek at the Pioneer Superlinear Circuit group buy. Are we to allow and encourage when the human responsible comes from Europe or America but not elsewhere?
I think a critical source of anger is with the utilization of a Hi-Fi’s company name to market / sell a given pcb. This to me is probably key in the widespread general disappointment surrounding the issue. However suggesting similarity to a commercial product is not inherently wrong or legally problematic. It certainly isn’t after the patent has expired, or a retail product is used as a conceptual template. This is a metadata issue / internet issue at its center. Personally I think if there is anyone to be aggravated with it’s the democratic governing bodies of the planet for being about 25 years late to just about everything.
As I said most all of ink spilled on this topic is “I think it should be like this” or “this goes against my personal moral compass and understanding of fairness.”
My guess is that it comes from a general lament and dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the global economic system amongst an aging population brought up under different fundamental assumptions about how the world “should work.”
It also pings against some deep psychological fears of safety and protection against ambiguous, undermining foreign forces. Cultural, racial and in and out group issues also play into this as well, regardless of our personal convictions as to our balanced views in these matters. There’s a fear of job loss due to outsourcing and wondering what of their capabilities will be able to sustain their quality of life. This all boils down to a breakdown of the assumptions of stability most first worlders have come to traditionally expect. This whittles and frays at many core areas in which people define themselves.
First world countries like the US or U.K. have migrated into primarily service economies rather than manufacturing economies, in which there was a fundamental change in the source of value- from an object to a mental ability that manifests in a process, concept, idea, etc. Since the 21st century has seen drastic technological changes in which information flows much more freely, the sanctity of one’s ideas is threatened and with it one’s ability to remain desirable within this economic system.
Protecting these intellectual assets then becomes essential in maintaining dominance in the system. However, presently there is a lack of a comprehensive world-wide legal strategy for addressing these concerns. So, this places those who historically have enjoyed the greatest economic stability at considerable risk.
My assumption is that as the world becomes far more interdependent and the economic system rather than the political system becomes the defining fabric of the planet these issues will slowly be addressed in a more globally enforceable manner. However, most of us will be feeding daisies by that time.
Again, most of the commentary on this subject I believe stems from psychological or sociological issues that have no basis in legality.
I’m attempting to forego any personal opinion on the matter as there’s already been an over abundance of that.
To any who would like to understand these mechanisms in further detail I’d recommend Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Analysis.
World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction
| Sociology
PS To the OP, I agree with most of BrianDIYs assessment:
1. That covering your legal bases is incredibly easy with regards to our interests.
2. One can be ethical and legally sound while also developing creations based upon others designs, ideas, schematics and so forth.
3. It’s largely a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of the party that feels infringed upon. In almost all cases the cost and energy of litigation is not worth pursuing.
4. It is critical to understand and use legal definitions of things like a copy, claims, property, etc. as it is incredibly concise in its legal interpretation. Your personal interpretation of these words will likely lead you astray.
5. You must thoroughly review the status and claims of a patent as well as ideally consult with a lawyer before speculation on the matter in order to avoid endless confusion. Sometimes the devil is in the details. Also that patent pending is an entirely different ballgame than a granted patent.
From your description of the situation I see a complete absence of any issue legally or ethically in what you have done. Providing photographic comparison of the casework in question will likely yield more useful information.
My feeling is that many of the emotional responses to these kinds of issues fundamentally misunderstand what defines a copy, as well as the conceptual sources of most consumer Hi-Fi equipment.
There’s countless examples of this in Hi-Fi, even here on diyaudio. Take a peek at the Pioneer Superlinear Circuit group buy. Are we to allow and encourage when the human responsible comes from Europe or America but not elsewhere?
I think a critical source of anger is with the utilization of a Hi-Fi’s company name to market / sell a given pcb. This to me is probably key in the widespread general disappointment surrounding the issue. However suggesting similarity to a commercial product is not inherently wrong or legally problematic. It certainly isn’t after the patent has expired, or a retail product is used as a conceptual template. This is a metadata issue / internet issue at its center. Personally I think if there is anyone to be aggravated with it’s the democratic governing bodies of the planet for being about 25 years late to just about everything.
As I said most all of ink spilled on this topic is “I think it should be like this” or “this goes against my personal moral compass and understanding of fairness.”
My guess is that it comes from a general lament and dissatisfaction with the trajectory of the global economic system amongst an aging population brought up under different fundamental assumptions about how the world “should work.”
It also pings against some deep psychological fears of safety and protection against ambiguous, undermining foreign forces. Cultural, racial and in and out group issues also play into this as well, regardless of our personal convictions as to our balanced views in these matters. There’s a fear of job loss due to outsourcing and wondering what of their capabilities will be able to sustain their quality of life. This all boils down to a breakdown of the assumptions of stability most first worlders have come to traditionally expect. This whittles and frays at many core areas in which people define themselves.
First world countries like the US or U.K. have migrated into primarily service economies rather than manufacturing economies, in which there was a fundamental change in the source of value- from an object to a mental ability that manifests in a process, concept, idea, etc. Since the 21st century has seen drastic technological changes in which information flows much more freely, the sanctity of one’s ideas is threatened and with it one’s ability to remain desirable within this economic system.
Protecting these intellectual assets then becomes essential in maintaining dominance in the system. However, presently there is a lack of a comprehensive world-wide legal strategy for addressing these concerns. So, this places those who historically have enjoyed the greatest economic stability at considerable risk.
My assumption is that as the world becomes far more interdependent and the economic system rather than the political system becomes the defining fabric of the planet these issues will slowly be addressed in a more globally enforceable manner. However, most of us will be feeding daisies by that time.
Again, most of the commentary on this subject I believe stems from psychological or sociological issues that have no basis in legality.
I’m attempting to forego any personal opinion on the matter as there’s already been an over abundance of that.
To any who would like to understand these mechanisms in further detail I’d recommend Immanuel Wallerstein’s World Systems Analysis.
World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction
| Sociology
PS To the OP, I agree with most of BrianDIYs assessment:
1. That covering your legal bases is incredibly easy with regards to our interests.
2. One can be ethical and legally sound while also developing creations based upon others designs, ideas, schematics and so forth.
3. It’s largely a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of the party that feels infringed upon. In almost all cases the cost and energy of litigation is not worth pursuing.
4. It is critical to understand and use legal definitions of things like a copy, claims, property, etc. as it is incredibly concise in its legal interpretation. Your personal interpretation of these words will likely lead you astray.
5. You must thoroughly review the status and claims of a patent as well as ideally consult with a lawyer before speculation on the matter in order to avoid endless confusion. Sometimes the devil is in the details. Also that patent pending is an entirely different ballgame than a granted patent.
From your description of the situation I see a complete absence of any issue legally or ethically in what you have done. Providing photographic comparison of the casework in question will likely yield more useful information.
Last edited:
I agree, people I deeply respect such as DF96 argue with me and say it is just different in the UK and publishing a circuit in Wireless World is the same as getting a patent. Folks don't quite get the fact that the patent system was set up as check and balance for prior art, etc. while you can publish anything in a pop magazine.
Yes, but every company selling a pair of jeans is also benefitting from the work of Levi’s from the past hundred plus years. However, what Levi’s can claim against someone making jeans is EXTREMELY limited to things like: The red tab on the rear seat pocket seam. The stitching design on the rear pockets.
I might be missing a particular feature, but pretty much everything else is fair game. Everything we do in this world is built on the work of others. Thinking you have done something truly novel is generally a delusion, especially so if the patent office says so. Using generalized terms and concepts is not helpful in a conversation of this type.
Again, if you refuse to review, attempt to understand and utilize legal definitions we will be mired in confusion ad nauseum. What you “think” is COMPLETELY irrelevant and counterproductive. Law is extremely specific. If you don’t track with its specificity, we will get absolutely nowhere.
Start with defining the key terms you are using such as copy (duplicate, clone), intellectual property, counterfeit, IP claim, patent, etc.
Reviewing this article should be some help: Safeguard Your Intellectual Property | Electronic Design
Asking for advice is fine; but do some homework first and others will be much more inclined to be helpful.
Yes, I don’t mean to stub other’s toes. However changing one arbitrary resistor or adding some additional circuitry or part somewhere will render whatever they view their protections as fairly useless anyhow.
I believe Marshall Leach describes this happening with his MC head amp. Edit: found it:
“A company copied the design without my permission and marketed it. The company name was Markof. When I first heard of this, I asked Gene Pitts if he knew anything about the company. By coincidence, he had just received a Markof head amp for test. He mailed it to me. I opened it up and found the circuit to be the same as mine with one exception. 300 ohm resistors had been added in series with the emitters of the two transistors for bias stabilization.”
Moving Coil Cartridge Head Amps
Again, I’d really love to see at least one successful claim of this type with respect to diyaudio. I haven’t seen anything to back up these claims and so if there’s no prior legal cases to draw upon the status of this issue is speculative at best.
The protections are not even remotely as deep and encompassing as others seem to assume.
From what I gather the semiconductor industry has done some of the best IP protective legal work in the form of semiconductor IP blocks. Although, you likely understand this area much better than I.
A perfect example there simply is no legal protection without a patent, none at all even without any component changes. BTW simple circuit arrangement patents as opposed to fundamentally new topologies are viewed as almost a waste of time and money.
Last edited:
Not Legal Advice
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, and the like cannot be copyrighted (although they might be patentable). A schematic diagram can be copyrighted (assuming it meets the other requirements, e.g. “originality”). So if I include a copy of someone’s original schematic in my new book, I infringe the copyright. It is generally agreed, however, that someone who builds the circuit shown in the schematic does not infringe the copyright. Not because it’s “fair use,” but because it isn’t a “copy” of the copyrighted work. As Scott notes, it looks like that was Leach’s problem.
An original printed circuit board layout probably can be copyrighted, but not because it’s based on an idea or even a schematic; rather, in the same sense that a photograph, or any other graphical rendering, can. (BTW, the innards of ICs get their own IP protection under their own law).
“Fair use” of copyrighted material is not an infringement. What the courts say constitutes fair use, however, is difficult to synthesize. The law defines fair use as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.” Note that the law doesn’t say that personal, non-commercial use is “fair use.” But the list isn’t exhaustive and the statute goes on to say that, in considering what’s fair use, the courts should consider:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
To enjoy the protection of the copyright laws doesn’t require any effort: you don’t have to register with the copyright office or even include the copyright thing ©. But there are advantages if you do. First, you have to register before you sue an infringer. Second, registration is “prima facie” evidence of the validity of the copyright. That means in the lawsuit, the alleged infringer has the burden of proof. Third, if you win you’re entitled to statutory damages (more on that next). Fourth, you have to have registered if you want to enlist the customs folks to stop the importation of infringing stuff.
Damages. If you win your infringement case you can recover your own actual damages and the infringer’s profits. But what if those are bupkis? If your copyright was registered you can get, in the alternative, statutory damages. Statutory damages start at $750 and go up to $30,000; the actual amount awarded is in the court’s discretion. If you can show the infringement was willful, statutory damages go up to $150,000. And, as anyone who’s watched a DVD knows, under certain circumstances, infringement is a crime punishable by a fine, jail time, or both.
Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, and the like cannot be copyrighted (although they might be patentable). A schematic diagram can be copyrighted (assuming it meets the other requirements, e.g. “originality”). So if I include a copy of someone’s original schematic in my new book, I infringe the copyright. It is generally agreed, however, that someone who builds the circuit shown in the schematic does not infringe the copyright. Not because it’s “fair use,” but because it isn’t a “copy” of the copyrighted work. As Scott notes, it looks like that was Leach’s problem.
An original printed circuit board layout probably can be copyrighted, but not because it’s based on an idea or even a schematic; rather, in the same sense that a photograph, or any other graphical rendering, can. (BTW, the innards of ICs get their own IP protection under their own law).
“Fair use” of copyrighted material is not an infringement. What the courts say constitutes fair use, however, is difficult to synthesize. The law defines fair use as “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.” Note that the law doesn’t say that personal, non-commercial use is “fair use.” But the list isn’t exhaustive and the statute goes on to say that, in considering what’s fair use, the courts should consider:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
To enjoy the protection of the copyright laws doesn’t require any effort: you don’t have to register with the copyright office or even include the copyright thing ©. But there are advantages if you do. First, you have to register before you sue an infringer. Second, registration is “prima facie” evidence of the validity of the copyright. That means in the lawsuit, the alleged infringer has the burden of proof. Third, if you win you’re entitled to statutory damages (more on that next). Fourth, you have to have registered if you want to enlist the customs folks to stop the importation of infringing stuff.
Damages. If you win your infringement case you can recover your own actual damages and the infringer’s profits. But what if those are bupkis? If your copyright was registered you can get, in the alternative, statutory damages. Statutory damages start at $750 and go up to $30,000; the actual amount awarded is in the court’s discretion. If you can show the infringement was willful, statutory damages go up to $150,000. And, as anyone who’s watched a DVD knows, under certain circumstances, infringement is a crime punishable by a fine, jail time, or both.
Actually, other people have done that, presumably as a favor.
I do have a copyright notice on most however.
While I'm on the subject, trademarks is where the action is. Most people
ripping off my stuff want to put my name on it, and trademarks are cheap,
simple and effective.
Last edited:
That point has been made several times, violating trademarks falls closer to simple fraud. "Ripping off my stuff" are strong words with implications of impropriety. The reality is that the electronics business at large operates under a set of clear rules that levels the field, the fact that the field is not level for a lot of small players is just one aspect of this reality. Reverse engineering and cloning of un-patented IP have stood the test of the courts and we have to just accept that.
Thanks for all of your comments and insights - very interesting reading!
Thanks for that informative article and your advice. You're absolutely right, I should do more research - Not really refusal, I just didn't get a chance to dig into it too much (hard to get quality research time when I'm running 'daddy day care'!. I've previously read up a lot on Australian Copyright Law in the scope of Training and Education but not Patent / Trademark / IP etc. Sometimes bringing discussion and getting direction cuts through the swathes of BS on the internet.
Thanks for all the good info there GOR. Interestingly, over here in Oz, educational institutes have to obtain a 'Statutory Education Licence' if they want to exercise their 'Fair Use' rights. This currently costs the institute $17 per student per year. Last year the agency collected just short of $150m but only distributed about $120m.
Thanks for that informative article and your advice. You're absolutely right, I should do more research - Not really refusal, I just didn't get a chance to dig into it too much (hard to get quality research time when I'm running 'daddy day care'!. I've previously read up a lot on Australian Copyright Law in the scope of Training and Education but not Patent / Trademark / IP etc. Sometimes bringing discussion and getting direction cuts through the swathes of BS on the internet.
Thanks for all the good info there GOR. Interestingly, over here in Oz, educational institutes have to obtain a 'Statutory Education Licence' if they want to exercise their 'Fair Use' rights. This currently costs the institute $17 per student per year. Last year the agency collected just short of $150m but only distributed about $120m.
I surf eBay from time to time to find deals on hi-fi units or parts (by the way, there really aren't very many deals!). I am saddened to see copious amounts of Chinese hi-fi units, PCB's or kits that are total knock offs, if not flat out copies, of Nelson's and other's designs. And they are even advertised as such. I would doubt Nelson or others have the capacity or time to try and hunt down all that stuff. Through a war of attrition it persists. I am in marketer for a Fortune 500 company and deal with our attorneys on IP issues all the time, so I witness IP issues all the time. I am thankful that many audio professionals are just nice people and are willing to share their passion and insights with DIYers and hobbyists (or should I say fellow audio addicts!). I live in Denver and go to RMAF ever year and talk to many of the manufacturers and listen to their latest offerings. It's a great time. These are mostly small business people, trying to make a living following their passion. Many don't make it. DIYers and hobbyists should be 100% committed to NOT purchasing designs, PCB's or clones of OEM products. And, folks like Nelson continually need to be commended for sharing so much knowledge and so many designs. OEM success is integral to the continued opportunity of DIY.
Last edited:
I think Nelson, Scott and Dtaylo covered the most relevant ground. People are mixing up copyright, trademark and patent law into a big soup. This thread seems designed to illicit an aneurysm from any lawyer happening upon it. Trademarks are where you can go for blood. So, labeling something as Marantz is a whole different discussion than copying a topology found in a Marantz design or something like the OP is doing.
The problem inherent in eBay is unscrupulous folks are able to circumvent any need to label a design with a trademark by clever use of keywords and metadata. This I believe is not a trademark infringement by technicality, even though it’s partly implied. Ebay has certain algorithms to weed some of this out but I don’t see it function really as intended. Nelson can contact them, register his trademark and perhaps encourage further action on ebays part to mitigate part of the problem. I’m not sure. Perhaps he’s already tried.
This is a big thorn in a lot of people’s sides, and personally I find it not ideal.... but that’s not the question being asked. Honestly I’m doubtful much conversation like this would proliferate as it does if not for eBay. Again, another issue of the legal system dragging behind technological progress by a solid half century. Since my personal thoughts are frequently in direct conflict with legal realities I tend to not be surprised.
Then again I have a few dozen bootleg LPs in the shelf, so perhaps it’s again a situation of the pot calling the kettle black. And to think; I’m here talking in a HiFi forum while listening to recordings that sound like the reels fell of the truck and were dragged a half mile in the dirt on their way to the pressing plant.
Hypocrisies abound.
How about that for a trademark?
The problem inherent in eBay is unscrupulous folks are able to circumvent any need to label a design with a trademark by clever use of keywords and metadata. This I believe is not a trademark infringement by technicality, even though it’s partly implied. Ebay has certain algorithms to weed some of this out but I don’t see it function really as intended. Nelson can contact them, register his trademark and perhaps encourage further action on ebays part to mitigate part of the problem. I’m not sure. Perhaps he’s already tried.
This is a big thorn in a lot of people’s sides, and personally I find it not ideal.... but that’s not the question being asked. Honestly I’m doubtful much conversation like this would proliferate as it does if not for eBay. Again, another issue of the legal system dragging behind technological progress by a solid half century. Since my personal thoughts are frequently in direct conflict with legal realities I tend to not be surprised.
Then again I have a few dozen bootleg LPs in the shelf, so perhaps it’s again a situation of the pot calling the kettle black. And to think; I’m here talking in a HiFi forum while listening to recordings that sound like the reels fell of the truck and were dragged a half mile in the dirt on their way to the pressing plant.
Hypocrisies abound.
How about that for a trademark?
Last edited:
I always listen to youtube for music. Its amazing how many "hard to find" tracks are on there. I believe the artists do get a small sum from youtube for the use of their music video's.
Yes. Perhaps 10 cents has gone to David Gilmour’s center console change bucket. Congrats for your contribution of a microcent to assist with his next parking meter deposit! But, a kind gesture nonetheless. However; we are getting OT on a thread that’s already driving with one eye open after one too many.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.