Max wrote:
If people from this forum really feel in dept of HAD because of the joy and profit they have in playing, building and especially selling amplifiers that are inspired by HADs creations, there would be some real simple possibilities to do handsome instead of just talking handsome:
Your generalization is not really fair as I believe there is a distinction between the small percentage of profiteers and the rest of the forumites most of whom are just here to learn and share. Also saying "thank you" is not just "handsome talk". Sometimes it is what people need the most.
Seems like there are several ways to look at whether HAD deserves monetary compensation VS. a "thank you".
Legally I would think there is no grounds for monetary compensation or else HAD would have pursued that option by now against several companies I can think of. Even if he could some how get a retroactive patent or prove that he came up with a certain design, then it seems the scope would have to be pretty narrow. By that I mean if you moved a couple of knobs around on your clone, used a few different values here and there, etc. your amp would be unique enough that you could not get sued, unless he could patent "the sound", then there might be real trouble for the cloners. You laugh, but I think Harley Davidson may have done this on the sound of their motorcycles. It also seems to me that if HAD could lay claim on say the post OD tone stack for instance, that he would also have to pay someone before him ad infinitum, for designs he "borrowed". I am thinking of Fender, Marshall, Western Electric, RCA, etc. You have to draw the line somewhere and I think getting a patent at the appropriate time is about as fair as it is going to get.
Morally it might be a different story, one up for interpretation. I feel a debt of gratitude to HAD as I mentioned earlier, but I don't feel obligated to pay him money. Even with access to what may or may not be accurate schematics, hearsay, secret stuff, and this forum, it has still taken me a solid year to begin getting the sounds I am looking for from this design. I don't build amps for profit and rarely even take mine out of my house and have not made any money playing music since I retired from playing professionally in 1993. Having said all that, I am not 100% against paying him money, especially if he was in need. At the same time, I am not upset that there are some people making near exact copies of his amps. If I was making money off his ideas, I would feel ambivalent I am sure about whether to compensate him financially but I don't want to judge someone else if they are doing it. Again, this is why a patent is needed.
I do believe that people should keep their word though and if I was HAD, I would be ticked that someone allowed his amp to be reverse engineered. From what I have read, it seems he made people sign a contract to prevent copies.
Let's say hypothetically that HAD's failure to patent his designs was purely innocent like so many musicians who got screwed by their record company for being naive. Why aren't his friends making a case for conpensation. I am talking about Jackson Browne, Robben Ford, Carlton, Santana, etc.? Any one of those guys could do a benefit or a thousand other things (just talking to the media) and money would pour in, I am sure.
ALso, if HAD really wanted money I am sure some of his rich friends would fund a new business building Dumble's again, only in a way that is profitable this time. I have no doubt HAD could be wealthy if he wanted to be, regardless of the cloning. He would have no marketing costs, as his name is all over the place already...
I drifted off topic a bit as I think the inherent question was whether cloners should pay him a royalty?
The guy has helped put a smile on my face, so I am willing to return the favor. SO THANKS MR. DUMBLE. IF I MAKE ANY MONEY OFF YOUR DESIGNS, I WILL SEND YOU SOME...
or perhaps a flat $US fee per amp? 
