This has been posted in the Carmen Ghia topic but i thought i'd repost with a bit extra, i dont want this to become an agressive argument, i prefer to call it a healthy debate.
There is issues with posting current production schematics, or amps by certain manufacturers. Especially Dr Z.
Please note the first secion of the post was in response to another post.
[original post]
Just some interesting info i found regarding patents. Acording to a uk Intellectual Property website.
patent:
It is a deal between an inventor and the state in which the inventor is allowed a short term monopoly in return for allowing the invention to be made public.
Also intelectual property just refers to the types of protection such as trademarks, copyrite and stuff.
Also if people do ripp off other peoples amps for profit, i dont see how that would have impact on profits, firstly it would be sold under a different brand and it will be seen as a different amp alltogether, and even if the amps were sold as say Dr z Carmen Ghia clone (which wouldn't be allowed), it would not sell anywhere near the price of the real thing, becasue if you was after a Dr Z amp, would you spend your money on some unheard of amp maker making clones, or buy the real thing?
In other words there is no way an amp builder (if following the IP regulations) could have any significant impact on the sales of the original amps, becasue it would require the the amps to be renamed, look different, and have no references to the original amp.
Unless you was told, or played both amps you wouldn't have the slightest idea it was a ripp off. Now if someone can come up with a decent explanation to how, this could have an adverse effect on the original designer or builder, and keeping within the IP laws, then i'd liek to see it.
[new post]
It seems obvious that we should respect the the legal rights the designer has to their product, but they should also respect our rights, which doesn't seem to be the case. It seems to be very biased towards ampbuilders and an equal amount of consideration is not given towards people such as us, whether or not we want to sell the product.
For those of you that believe information on current production products should be restricted, its either a lack of knowledge on the subject, or out of ignorance. Or the insatnce where you happen own and run an amp company in the same way, by overstating your legal rights.
I can respect that a designer may be unhappy about people reproducing his product but comming down on people like a sledge hammer is unacceptable.
There are many laws and policies we do not like but we follow them (most of us do), you have a right to complain but to act ouside of them...
Intellectual Property
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
Re: Intellectual Property
Go asearch for copyrights on th schematic of any commercial amp out there. What will you find?...nothing! Only the name is Trademarkable. The schematics are not! You can patent the tube, not the tube socket. Since the patents are expired on the tube, it's open season. I still don't get why people try to attack people for ripping off what they ripped off! Definitely gangster mentality!!!
Re: Intellectual Property
I feel like I'm going to repeat myself about this issue till I'm blue in the face. 
It's not a question of legality - it's out of respect for the manufacturers. I'm not a lawyer so don't flame me for having this rule.
This board has never been threatened with any legal action and I've never received any cease and desists so to say that the ampbuilders are going over their legal boundries is BS. It's my rule. Plain and simple.
The question of a manufacturer not being hurt by cloning/copying - look at the Mesa/Boogie Dual Rectifier and Peavey 5150. Both companies stole/borrowed from the Soldano SLO for their respective amps. We can argue all day about the legality of it, but that misses the point of the rule. It was a shitty thing to do. Mesa and Peavey obviously have profitted off Soldano's work.
Omar
It's not a question of legality - it's out of respect for the manufacturers. I'm not a lawyer so don't flame me for having this rule.
This board has never been threatened with any legal action and I've never received any cease and desists so to say that the ampbuilders are going over their legal boundries is BS. It's my rule. Plain and simple.
The question of a manufacturer not being hurt by cloning/copying - look at the Mesa/Boogie Dual Rectifier and Peavey 5150. Both companies stole/borrowed from the Soldano SLO for their respective amps. We can argue all day about the legality of it, but that misses the point of the rule. It was a shitty thing to do. Mesa and Peavey obviously have profitted off Soldano's work.
Omar
Tone by misadventure
Re: Intellectual Property
The rule applies to current production amps. There was no special case with Dr. Z. It just so happened the rule was enforced in the Carmen Ghia thread.eggman6 wrote:There is issues with posting current production schematics, or amps by certain manufacturers. Especially Dr Z.
See Soldano/Mesa/Peavey example above.eggman6 wrote:Also if people do ripp off other peoples amps for profit, i dont see how that would have impact on profits, firstly it would be sold under a different brand and it will be seen as a different amp alltogether, and even if the amps were sold as say Dr z Carmen Ghia clone (which wouldn't be allowed), it would not sell anywhere near the price of the real thing, becasue if you was after a Dr Z amp, would you spend your money on some unheard of amp maker making clones, or buy the real thing?
In other words there is no way an amp builder (if following the IP regulations) could have any significant impact on the sales of the original amps, becasue it would require the the amps to be renamed, look different, and have no references to the original amp.
Unless you was told, or played both amps you wouldn't have the slightest idea it was a ripp off. Now if someone can come up with a decent explanation to how, this could have an adverse effect on the original designer or builder, and keeping within the IP laws, then i'd liek to see it.
Speaking of rip offs, have you seen the new Bugera Amps?
http://www.bugera-amps.com/index.cfm?showMainPage
What rights do you think you are entitled to? Remember this is not a legal issue it's a rule of the forum.eggman6 wrote:It seems obvious that we should respect the the legal rights the designer has to their product, but they should also respect our rights
This sounds again like an entitlement issue. The internet is a vast collection of info. I'm sure this isn't the only place you can find the schematic you are entitled to.eggman6 wrote:It seems to be very biased towards ampbuilders and an equal amount of consideration is not given towards people such as us, whether or not we want to sell the product.
Well I don't own an amp company and again it's not a legal issue - it a forum rule. Using your reasoning I guess that makes me stupid or ignorant ... thanks, pal.eggman6 wrote:For those of you that believe information on current production products should be restricted, its either a lack of knowledge on the subject, or out of ignorance. Or the insatnce where you happen own and run an amp company in the same way, by overstating your legal rights.
A sledge hammer?eggman6 wrote:I can respect that a designer may be unhappy about people reproducing his product but comming down on people like a sledge hammer is unacceptable.
Nobody got in trouble over posting the schematic. Nobody was banned from the board. I simply removed the schematics from public posting. Omar
Tone by misadventure
Re: Intellectual Property
I figured I'd chime in here, since I was the one that started the cascara by posting the CG schematic in the first place.
First off, I'd say that there are tons of amp designs out there, current or not, and some sound great, some good, some really bad. The reason that I'm interested in popular amps (like the CG) is that I reckon there's something there to be learned or tried. I've no interest in cloning other peoples' amps. My buddy Jim (my first customer) sez: Find your own amp voices.
So what did I learn from the CG? I tried the vol/tone setup when I mated the TW to the tweed deluxe. The combo was the most amazing thing I'd heard in years. But I don't even know for sure if Z came up with that tone control on his own--likely as not, given almost a century of tube circuits has gone by.
There are people in the amp industry who are predators--they will patent circuit ideas and then buy other companies' amps to hunt down similar things, then litigate them out of business. Such is the strange and tragic saga of KittyHawk Amps--they were done in by one of the industry giants.
I hope we can all keep sharing information, all the while being mindful that not everyone is as full of peace, love and fuzzy bunny slippers as we are.
First off, I'd say that there are tons of amp designs out there, current or not, and some sound great, some good, some really bad. The reason that I'm interested in popular amps (like the CG) is that I reckon there's something there to be learned or tried. I've no interest in cloning other peoples' amps. My buddy Jim (my first customer) sez: Find your own amp voices.
So what did I learn from the CG? I tried the vol/tone setup when I mated the TW to the tweed deluxe. The combo was the most amazing thing I'd heard in years. But I don't even know for sure if Z came up with that tone control on his own--likely as not, given almost a century of tube circuits has gone by.
There are people in the amp industry who are predators--they will patent circuit ideas and then buy other companies' amps to hunt down similar things, then litigate them out of business. Such is the strange and tragic saga of KittyHawk Amps--they were done in by one of the industry giants.
I hope we can all keep sharing information, all the while being mindful that not everyone is as full of peace, love and fuzzy bunny slippers as we are.
Rich Gordon
www.myspace.com/bigboyamplifiers
"The takers get the honey, the givers get the blues." --Robin Trower
www.myspace.com/bigboyamplifiers
"The takers get the honey, the givers get the blues." --Robin Trower
Not havign a go
I'm not trying to get any rules changed or having a go at anyone, just bringing the topic to attention. If its getting old i'm sorry, not tryign to upset anyone.
Re: Intellectual Property
If someone were to find the "rules" of the forum " unacceptable" and the originator/owner/moderator "ignorant", maybe he should CARRY HIS ASS!
D
D
Re: Intellectual Property
Omar, i wasn't refering to you at all, nor did i intend you to get that impression i am sorry. But i heard that someone had a unpleasent encounter with this Dr Z guy. Not having a go at anyone, just expressing my opinion of the subject. People are allowed to dissagree.
Re: Intellectual Property
I'm not trying to patronise anyone by sayign this, but there are many way to interperet written infomation most of you will agree, and reading ones own words will mean different to someone else, and obviously its hard to convey the apropiate tone in a written messege. I'll apologise again to anyone who was offended. People have probably got it in for me now and my posts probably won't be so popular with people.
Re: Intellectual Property
It's all about timing, Eggman. As someone new to the forum, you always run the risk of opening old wounds when you post a controversial topic. However, you'll soon find that we're all a bunch of lovable oafs who are not easily offended and seldom hold a grudge. Peace, bro. 
Re: Intellectual Property
Nice to know, you'd get eaten alive on some forums for similar situations.
hmm
Well there are a lot of wolves out there
I dont know how many of you have noticed that certain amps are a lot closer than others. A Diezel output section and a Bogner Ubershall are very similar and they are both German. the feedback is a 10k with 100pf across feeding into the standard 4.7K to ground and both use inductors for a bass boost, Who has ever done that? It is a hell of a lot of feedback, one guy must have looked at the other. The SLO100 has been copied by Boogie the king of patents, go figure... if Soldano had only patented that 39k cathode resistor. EVH used an SLO in the Studio the same time that they were making the 5150 for Ed, look at the schematics, pretty damm close with a twist thrown on just to be different. Many VERY popular small amps are clones of old Gibson amps and others. There are many guys making Dumbly amps. All this is fair game and is the nature of the buis.
The problem lies here.
Lets say it took Mike Soldano 3 years of hard work and experimentation to come up with a setup that he truly thought would be a great amp, he makes it like a tank and sells it for $3k cause it takes that much time to build. A Patent happy company rips him off to the T except for crappy transformers, no 3 years of R&D, sells the amp for $1000 less and does a crappy job of imitating his work. Is that fair? I think not. I have seen some schematics posted of others guys work which have been copied wrong, then Joe Blow tries to make one and thinks it shit cause it doesnt sound right. That is kind of messed up too. I'm sure many amp guys wouldnt feel so threatened about schematics if they could be sure another amp company didnt copy their stuff. Granted if a company wants to buy your amp and copy it there isnt much you can do, but why make it easy for them?
I say if someone wants a schematic they should trade and share by PM for personal use only. Let DrZ have his day, and BTW my DRZ400 has nothing to do with DRZ, it is a very popular motorcycle
I dont know how many of you have noticed that certain amps are a lot closer than others. A Diezel output section and a Bogner Ubershall are very similar and they are both German. the feedback is a 10k with 100pf across feeding into the standard 4.7K to ground and both use inductors for a bass boost, Who has ever done that? It is a hell of a lot of feedback, one guy must have looked at the other. The SLO100 has been copied by Boogie the king of patents, go figure... if Soldano had only patented that 39k cathode resistor. EVH used an SLO in the Studio the same time that they were making the 5150 for Ed, look at the schematics, pretty damm close with a twist thrown on just to be different. Many VERY popular small amps are clones of old Gibson amps and others. There are many guys making Dumbly amps. All this is fair game and is the nature of the buis.
The problem lies here.
Lets say it took Mike Soldano 3 years of hard work and experimentation to come up with a setup that he truly thought would be a great amp, he makes it like a tank and sells it for $3k cause it takes that much time to build. A Patent happy company rips him off to the T except for crappy transformers, no 3 years of R&D, sells the amp for $1000 less and does a crappy job of imitating his work. Is that fair? I think not. I have seen some schematics posted of others guys work which have been copied wrong, then Joe Blow tries to make one and thinks it shit cause it doesnt sound right. That is kind of messed up too. I'm sure many amp guys wouldnt feel so threatened about schematics if they could be sure another amp company didnt copy their stuff. Granted if a company wants to buy your amp and copy it there isnt much you can do, but why make it easy for them?
I say if someone wants a schematic they should trade and share by PM for personal use only. Let DrZ have his day, and BTW my DRZ400 has nothing to do with DRZ, it is a very popular motorcycle
Last edited by drz400 on Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: hmm
drz400 wrote:... BTW my DRZ400 has nothing to do with DRZ, it is a very popular motorcycle
I was wondering about that. 
Re: Intellectual Property
There does appear to be an issue with the people dealing out the patents then.
Re: Intellectual Property
I didn't take into the consideration that fact that people get patents on other peopels designs, to do so is just disgraceful.