Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)

[Arik Semagin]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

"I try to stop, but they keep dragging me back in...." You rang?

As I said before you do not get to re-write history. A close inspection of this history will not help your case. If you want to end this discussion stop trying to gloss over it or downplay it. Even your beloved Apple was sued by Creative Labs for ripping off their MP-3 player technology. They eventually admitted Creative's IP priority and paid them off.

A more accurate statement is that the most egregious behavior is in the past, and should not inform current product purchase decisions. Just let it go, I am trying to. But every time somebody tries to dismiss it as normal business practice, it gets my blood pressure up.

Certainly a remarkable value. Absolutely better is questionable. Good for the money seems appropriate.

Get a room... He is successful but no Henry Ford, IMO.

The acquisition of fading higher end brands by a rising lower end brand is a very old story that routinely occurs in numerous industries. It is the nature of how large businesses hunt for ways to expand top line sales after they saturate their primary brand with line extension. More line extension has diminishing returns so you buy a new badge to sell the similar technology to new customers who wouldn't consider the mainstream brand. A cross pollination of technology can benefit both brands, but this is often overstated publicly, as this strategy is all about addressing more of the market to gain new customers.


Opinions vary.. I respect what he has accomplished, not how, but that's just one man's opinion. For the record I do not hate him, while it would be easy to dislike him just from my personal music industry experiences, but the reality is I do not know him personally and do not care to.

JR

PS: To mention something remotely on topic, I wonder if they will revisit the digital interface that is giving some X32 users drop out problems. This alone might give more professional users reason enough to consider this new higher end version.

Thanks for analytical reply, I agree and disagree with many of your points, just a few cents:
1. Apple was sued and is suing many others over patent infringements, it's ongoing here in Silicon Valley (the loudest one was Apple vs. Samsung, we won).
2. Buying other companies with good ideas but no guts to implement them properly is usual thing too, Apple does it almost daily (the so-called "bolt-on acquisitions"). It's normal business practice too. We bought eMagic years ago and turned it into Logic and Garage Band -- same thing, someone's good idea but properly implemented, like most of Apple stuff.
3. MIDAS was in decline on its own, their first digital desk, XL8 and Pro 3/6/9 came when it was acquired by BOSCH Communications. Pro 1/2/2c/ came after Behringer bought it from BOSCH. So if it's "changing everything company was known for", then it was change for good.
4. I agree that Uli Behringer is not on the same scale as Henry Ford or even our Steve Jobs, but our world of pro audio is small too. (MIDAS has 100-something employees, Apple has 77,000, Ford, GM and others into 100,000s, WalMart has close to half a million. There's thousands of times less customers out there who buy pro audio products, especially digital consoles). In our small world Uli is no less revolutionary than Ford or Steve Jobs. And the results speaks for themselves.

Once again, I respect your opinion, just my 2c on some of your statements.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Thanks for analytical reply, I agree and disagree with many of your points, just a few cents:

And here's your change.

1. Apple was sued and is suing many others over patent infringements, it's ongoing here in Silicon Valley (the loudest one was Apple vs. Samsung, we won).

Apples and oranges... Yes patent litigation is getting all too common. FWIW there was recent legislation passed, and more pending to reform some distortions in patent law, and currently something like 3 patent cases accepted by the Supreme court that may have some consequences. I do not equate Behringer vs. XYZ as similar to Apple vs, Samsung. I may expand upon that off list. I really don't enjoy rehashing this old theme.

2. Buying other companies with good ideas but no guts to implement them properly is usual thing too, Apple does it almost daily (the so-called "bolt-on acquisitions"). It's normal business practice too. We bought eMagic years ago and turned it into Logic and Garage Band -- same thing, someone's good idea but properly implemented, like most of Apple stuff.

Gut's... I have seen many companies fail, not for lack of guts, if anything maybe too much risk taking. For a company like Apple sometimes they buy a small company for the IP sometimes for the talent. For an interesting twist on that Creative LAbs, if your memory goes back far enough, was a computer sound card company. They were licensing a sound library from a keyboard company and when their PC sound card business exploded, it became cheaper for them to buy the company than pay them the royalties.

3. MIDAS was in decline on its own, their first digital desk, XL8 and Pro 3/6/9 came when it was acquired by BOSCH Communications. Pro 1/2/2c/ came after Behringer bought it from BOSCH. So if it's "changing everything company was known for", then it was change for good.

It is difficult to think of wholly owned company with a mass market parent as maintaining an identity of it's own, old or new. It is the work of brand management to reinforce to the customers that it has a separate identity but the reality is they are inextricable intertwined with their new daddy.

4. I agree that Uli Behringer is not on the same scale as Henry Ford or even our Steve Jobs, but our world of pro audio is small too. (MIDAS has 100-something employees, Apple has 77,000, Ford, GM and others into 100,000s, WalMart has close to half a million. There's thousands of times less customers out there who buy pro audio products, especially digital consoles). In our small world Uli is no less revolutionary than Ford or Steve Jobs. And the results speaks for themselves.

Yes the pro audio world is the small part of the iceberg showing above the water line. Uli's millions do not come from selling high end audio products to the folks on stage, but to the larger market sitting in the audience.

Once again, I respect your opinion, just my 2c on some of your statements.

to be continued offline

JR

PS: Once again to try to drag this back on topic, the X32 has a potential as a crossover product to attract more professional users if it proves itself reliable, so a Midas version could help overcome entrenched opposition to the lower end badge, and natural aversion to overly popular SKUs. It just doesn't look cool for a pro to be yet another incremental user, while real pro's don't worry that much about appearances.

 

[Uli Behringer]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

And here's your change.

Apples and oranges... Yes patent litigation is getting all too common. FWIW there was recent legislation passed, and more pending to reform some distortions in patent law, and currently something like 3 patent cases accepted by the Supreme court that may have some consequences. I do not equate Behringer vs. XYZ as similar to Apple vs, Samsung. I may expand upon that off list. I really don't enjoy rehashing this old theme.

Gut's... I have seen many companies fail, not for lack of guts, if anything maybe too much risk taking. For a company like Apple sometimes they buy a small company for the IP sometimes for the talent. For an interesting twist on that Creative LAbs, if your memory goes back far enough, was a computer sound card company. They were licensing a sound library from a keyboard company and when their PC sound card business exploded, it became cheaper for them to buy the company than pay them the royalties.

It is difficult to think of wholly owned company with a mass market parent as maintaining an identity of it's own, old or new. It is the work of brand management to reinforce to the customers that it has a separate identity but the reality is they are inextricable intertwined with their new daddy.

Yes the pro audio world is the small part of the iceberg showing above the water line. Uli's millions do not come from selling high end audio products to the folks on stage, but to the larger market sitting in the audience.

to be continued offline

JR

Dear John,

I have great respect for your achievements and enjoy reading your comments on different forums. However, I have noticed that you have alluded on multiple occasions that you believe we have infringed upon your Feedback Indicator patent, which was filed in your name while you were employed with Peavey.

Since this sentiment continues to shine through in many of your comments, I thought perhaps it would be appropriate for me to personally address the issue and correct what appears to be a misconception. While I respect your opinion, allow me to establish the facts of the matter.

Over the past several years, Peavey has waged numerous lawsuits against the MUSIC Group, most of which relate to alleged patent infringement. With respect to the Feedback Indicator patent, the judge rendered an opinion of non-infringement as the circuitry is unquestionably different. During the trial, electronic expert witnesses testified that our FBQ circuitry was substantially different and did not infringe Peavey’s patent. The judge agreed and MUSIC Group won the case.

In fact our circuitry is so different that we have been granted our own FBQ Feedback Detection patent.

In a recent lawsuit brought by Peavey for patent infringement and upon reexamination by the U. S. Patents office, the examiner issued an opinion that there was simply no way that the MUSIC Group could infringe Peavey’s patent, because Peavey’s patent was null and void due to prior art. Let me be clear, despite numerous attempts, Peavey has never won a single lawsuit against the MUSIC Group.

Unfortunately, the legal landscape in our industry is not as simple as it may look on the surface. For example, it might be of interest that Peavey/Crest also sued QSC over patent infringement on multiple occasions and those cases are still ongoing.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/173162/Crest_Audio,_Inc_v_QSC_Audio_Products,_LLC
Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Products, LLC patent lawsuit

At the same time Peavey is also involved in a lawsuit in which Acoustic Artistry LLC has filed a complaint against Peavey relating to intellectual property, alleging “misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, suppression, misrepresentation, promissory fraud, negligence, conversion, and unjust enrichment”.

ACOUSTIC ARTISTRY LLC v. PEAVEY ELECTRONICS CORPORATION | Leagle.com

In our Company’s 25 year history, we like to state that we have only lost one IP case nearly 20 years ago which is extraordinary in any industry. I have attached a statement which I had posted some time ago regarding this previous case and our view of IP in general.

http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/4299-uli-behringer-music-group-q-3.html#post29363

We are committed to never engage in any activity that willfully infringes on the intellectual property rights of any company or individual. However, we are also aware that legal wrangling will continue as we press on with our philosophy of delivering the best products at the lowest possible cost.
Some competitors will view lawsuits as a way to compete and as a good marketing tactic as they try to discredit our company - we will simply have to live with this.

Our whole focus is on innovation and IP creation that enables us to design great products such as the X32. I feel very honored and humbled that we have received 6 industry awards at the recent Namm show.

Warm regards

Uli

 

[TJ Cornish]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Dear John,

I have great respect for your achievements and enjoy reading your comments on different forums. However, I have noticed that you have alluded on multiple occasions that you believe we have infringed upon your Feedback Indicator patent, which was filed in your name while you were employed with Peavey.

Since this sentiment continues to shine through in many of your comments, I thought perhaps it would be appropriate for me to personally address the issue and correct what appears to be a misconception. While I respect your opinion, allow me to establish the facts of the matter.

Over the past several years, Peavey has waged numerous lawsuits against the MUSIC Group, most of which relate to alleged patent infringement. With respect to the Feedback Indicator patent, the judge rendered an opinion of non-infringement as the circuitry is unquestionably different. During the trial, electronic expert witnesses testified that our FBQ circuitry was substantially different and did not infringe Peavey’s patent. The judge agreed and MUSIC Group won the case.

In fact our circuitry is so different that we have been granted our own FBQ Feedback Detection patent.

In a recent lawsuit brought by Peavey for patent infringement and upon reexamination by the U. S. Patents office, the examiner issued an opinion that there was simply no way that the MUSIC Group could infringe Peavey’s patent, because Peavey’s patent was null and void due to prior art. Let me be clear, despite numerous attempts, Peavey has never won a single lawsuit against the MUSIC Group.

Unfortunately, the legal landscape in our industry is not as simple as it may look on the surface. For example, it might be of interest that Peavey/Crest also sued QSC over patent infringement on multiple occasions and those cases are still ongoing.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/173162/Crest_Audio,_Inc_v_QSC_Audio_Products,_LLC
Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Products, LLC patent lawsuit

At the same time Peavey is also involved in a lawsuit in which Acoustic Artistry LLC has filed a complaint against Peavey relating to intellectual property, alleging “misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, suppression, misrepresentation, promissory fraud, negligence, conversion, and unjust enrichment”.

ACOUSTIC ARTISTRY LLC v. PEAVEY ELECTRONICS CORPORATION | Leagle.com

In our Company’s 25 year history, we like to state that we have only lost one IP case nearly 20 years ago which is extraordinary in any industry. I have attached a statement which I had posted some time ago regarding this previous case and our view of IP in general.

http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/4299-uli-behringer-music-group-q-3.html#post29363

We are committed to never engage in any activity that willfully infringes on the intellectual property rights of any company or individual. However, we are also aware that legal wrangling will continue as we press on with our philosophy of delivering the best products at the lowest possible cost.
Some competitors will view lawsuits as a way to compete and as a good marketing tactic as they try to discredit our company - we will simply have to live with this.

Our whole focus is on innovation and IP creation that enables us to design great products such as the X32. I feel very honored and humbled that we have received 6 industry awards at the recent Namm show.

Warm regards

Uli

Mr. Behringer, while I have no knowledge about this particular issue, Behringer has created a number of products that bear more than a passing resemblance to other products. For example, The Behringer CT-100 cable tester: Behringer: CABLE TESTER CT100 seems to be identical to the Ebtech Swizz Army tester Ebtech - Audio Solutions

There are other examples as well. Care to comment?

As I'm sure you know, winning or losing a lawsuit does not necessarily mean the winning party is "in the right".

Sincerely,
Skeptical in Minnesota

 

[John Roberts]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Dear John,

I have great respect for your achievements and enjoy reading your comments on different forums. However, I have noticed that you have alluded on multiple occasions that you believe we have infringed upon your Feedback Indicator patent, which was filed in your name while you were employed with Peavey.

Yes that is my belief.

Since this sentiment continues to shine through in many of your comments, I thought perhaps it would be appropriate for me to personally address the issue and correct what appears to be a misconception. While I respect your opinion, it is appropriate that we establish the facts of the matter.

Over the past several years, Peavey has waged numerous lawsuits against the MUSIC Group, most of which relate to alleged patent infringement. With respect to the Feedback Indicator patent, the judge rendered an opinion of non-infringement as the circuitry is unquestionably different. During the trial, electronic expert witnesses testified that our FBQ circuitry was substantially different and did not infringe Peavey’s patent. The judge agreed and MUSIC Group won the case.

I can not dispute that you won in court.

In fact our circuitry is so different that we have been granted our own FBQ Feedback Detection patent.

This is pretty esoteric, but in my analysis your version is an improvement over mime, where the means to accomplish the LED indication were re-ordered such that you use one hold capacitor instead of a hold capacitor for each bandpass. This saves about a $1 cost per unit so is an actual improvement over mine (cheaper), but is not a completely different circuit. Apparently different enough for the USPTO to award a patent, but that does not mean it is not still covered by my patent. However the court case that you won sure does. :-(

I will not whine further about lawyers and judges or even expert witnesses' meager grasp of discrete circuit design I know what I know ( I think). I spoke to Peavey's "expert" witness on a conference call (an EE PHD) and I was not impressed. I can just imagine the actual courtroom exchanges.

In a recent lawsuit brought by Peavey for patent infringement and upon reexamination by the U. S. Patents office, the examiner issued an opinion that there was simply no way that the MUSIC Group could infringe Peavey’s patent, because Peavey’s patent was null and void due to prior art. Let me be clear, despite numerous attempts, Peavey has never won a single lawsuit against the Music Group.

Are you suggesting my FLS invention is invalid, or are you referring to some other lawsuit?

I have not been following your other legal skirmishes with Peavey. I do not have any pecuniary interest in the FLS patent, it was work for hire years ago. I was paid to submit an affidavit for the lawsuit, but was not privy to any of the arguments in court.

Unfortunately, the legal landscape in our industry is not as simple as it may look on the surface. For example, it might be of interest that Peavey/Crest also sued QSC over patent infringement on multiple occasions and those cases are still ongoing.

I left Peavey over 10 years ago and do not follow their legal battles that don't also involve my previous work.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/173162/Crest_Audio,_Inc_v_QSC_Audio_Products,_LLC
Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Products, LLC patent lawsuit

At the same time Peavey is also involved in a lawsuit in which Acoustic Artistry LLC has filed a complaint against Peavey relating to intellectual property, alleging “misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, suppression, misrepresentation, promissory fraud, negligence, conversion, and unjust enrichment”.

Well there you go... they should roast in hell (allegedly).

ACOUSTIC ARTISTRY LLC v. PEAVEY ELECTRONICS CORPORATION | Leagle.com

In our Company’s 25 year history, we like to state that we have only lost one IP case nearly 20 years ago which is extraordinary in any industry. I have attached a statement which I had posted some time ago regarding this previous case and our view of IP in general.

http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/4299-uli-behringer-music-group-q-3.html#post29363

We are committed to never engage in any activity that willfully infringes on the intellectual property rights of any company or individual. However, we are also aware that legal wrangling will continue as we press on with our philosophy of delivering the best products at the lowest possible cost.
Some competitors will view lawsuits as a way to compete and as a good marketing tactic as they try to discredit our company - we will simply have to live with this.

Warm regards

Uli

Not to harp on this but I find it hard to believe you (your engineers) spontaneously came up with your version of FLS in a vacuum. You engineered an apparently legal copy after seeing the success of my version in the marketplace. Congratulations for winning the legal skirmish, it does not change my view of this case or history. I guess there can be a difference between being legal and being right.

Good luck, and keep trying to be the first in the market like your x32 was. Nobody can accuse you of copying that.

JR

PS Again I apologize for this veer... not my favorite subject.

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Hey, if all else fails in the quest to be happy with life, JR, just remember that an idea ripped off yours makes yours an idea worth using! ~:-D~:grin:

 

[Arik Semagin]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I don't mind it at all, I mean nearly identical copies, as long as it's legal. Why invent a bicycle? CT100 tester was my best twenty bucks ever spent, I use it almost daily ($19.99 from B&H with free shipping). Don't feel like paying swiss army knife price for it, such a simple product!

Just as reference, computer and office equipment industry does it on regular basis, mean making nearly identical products under their own brands, often by the same contract manufacturer. The old HP Laser Jet Series II and Canon LBP-4 are almost identical. Copier repair reference book has it clear, when they list certain model, they put "OEM" (original manufacturer) and "also known as ******(other's model numbers). I don't know how much of legality is involved, but it's very common practice.

 

[Arik Semagin]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Dear John,

I have great respect for your achievements and enjoy reading your comments on different forums. However, I have noticed that you have alluded on multiple occasions that you believe we have infringed upon your Feedback Indicator patent, which was filed in your name while you were employed with Peavey.


In fact our circuitry is so different that we have been granted our own FBQ Feedback Detection patent.

In a recent lawsuit brought by Peavey for patent infringement and upon reexamination by the U. S. Patents office, the examiner issued an opinion that there was simply no way that the MUSIC Group could infringe Peavey’s patent, because Peavey’s patent was null and void due to prior art. Let me be clear, despite numerous attempts, Peavey has never won a single lawsuit against the MUSIC Group.

Unfortunately, the legal landscape in our industry is not as simple as it may look on the surface. For example, it might be of interest that Peavey/Crest also sued QSC over patent infringement on multiple occasions and those cases are still ongoing.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/173162/Crest_Audio,_Inc_v_QSC_Audio_Products,_LLC
Crest Audio, Inc. v. QSC Audio Products, LLC patent lawsuit

In our Company’s 25 year history, we like to state that we have only lost one IP case nearly 20 years ago which is extraordinary in any industry. I have attached a statement which I had posted some time ago regarding this previous case and our view of IP in general.

http://soundforums.net/junior-varsity/4299-uli-behringer-music-group-q-3.html#post29363

We are committed to never engage in any activity that willfully infringes on the intellectual property rights of any company or individual. However, we are also aware that legal wrangling will continue as we press on with our philosophy of delivering the best products at the lowest possible cost.
Some competitors will view lawsuits as a way to compete and as a good marketing tactic as they try to discredit our company - we will simply have to live with this.

Our whole focus is on innovation and IP creation that enables us to design great products such as the X32. I feel very honored and humbled that we have received 6 industry awards at the recent Namm show.

Warm regards

Uli

Very well documented, Uli, A+ on this reply. I like to see arguments and references.

 

[Robert Lofgren]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Very well documented, Uli, A+ on this reply. I like to see arguments and references.

...but not in this thread.

Create a new one or use the Uli-thread.

 

[Arik Semagin]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Why would they bastardize an existing product range? Maybe they want to. I don't see what good it would do. In stead of doing that, I would think Midas engineers would be commissioned to think outside of the box one more time and work on the next evolution of mixing .....NO mixing console, or at least the universal control surface for all things AVL and then scalable control modules.

Agree. I was writing about it, scalable modular system is the way to go (CPU+stageboxes+control surface). If Behringer would've made a functional equivalent (not a copy) of AVID S3L for less, I'd buy it in a heartbeat! S3L is a killer in this respect, being able to carry a 64-channel system on a plane in a checked baggage (in separate bags, of course), is a huge innovation. A&H tried it years ago with iDr stage racks/CPU, was too raw.

Why not just make a modular X32/M32-equivalent with small 25-fader surface (or bigger, may be two-piece, main plus extender like old Mackie MCU) as long as it fits into airlines' baggage size limits), 48 channels at least and 2 or 3 stage boxes, and it will seriously undermine AVID S3L sales. AVID actually did smart marketing move in S3L by slicing one big stagebox into separate 16-channel boxes, so people can start with one and buy more when they need or can afford them. But S3 control surface design sucks (not the functionality), looks like it was made by a bunch of kids with no clue about industrial design. M32 or even Presonus SL looks certainly better in this respect.

 

[TJ Cornish]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I don't mind it at all, I mean nearly identical copies, as long as it's legal. Why invent a bicycle? CT100 tester was my best twenty bucks ever spent, I use it almost daily ($19.99 from B&H with free shipping). Don't feel like paying swiss army knife price for it, such a simple product!

Just as reference, computer and office equipment industry does it on regular basis, mean making nearly identical products under their own brands, often by the same contract manufacturer. The old HP Laser Jet Series II and Canon LBP-4 are almost identical. Copier repair reference book has it clear, when they list certain model, they put "OEM" (original manufacturer) and "also known as ******(other's model numbers). I don't know how much of legality is involved, but it's very common practice.

HP lasers have used Canon engines for a long time. HP pays Canon to use this technology. Behringer didn't pay other companies for their work.

Behringer has a well-deserved reputation for blatantly copying the circuitry, concepts, and/or trade dress of other companies' products. A number of examples have been listed in this thread. Some of them were poor copies, others virtually identical. The outcome of the various lawsuits (or lack of lawsuits) is more complicated than "Behringer did nothing illegal".

Mr. Behringer is clearly a good businessman. His company has created a number of honestly original and good value products, such as the DCX2496 and X32. I'm sincerely glad so many people have had good luck with these, and have benefitted from Behringer's efforts to remake themselves as a company with good service. Those of us who have been watching for a while tend to feel that the charm campaign and attempts to re-write history are a little bit much.

 

[Brian Adams]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I don't mind it at all, I mean nearly identical copies, as long as it's legal. Why invent a bicycle? CT100 tester was my best twenty bucks ever spent, I use it almost daily ($19.99 from B&H with free shipping). Don't feel like paying swiss army knife price for it, such a simple product!

I thought the same thing, and I bought a half dozen or so Behringer cable testers before I bought the Ebtech Swizz Army. Now I have about 6-7 Swizz Army testers between myself and what I have at work, and I'll never buy the Behringer version again. The Ebtech is worth the difference in price.

I bought all my Ebtech's used though, for around $50 each. $100 is kind of expensive, but still worth it in my opinion.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I don't mind it at all, I mean nearly identical copies, as long as it's legal. Why invent a bicycle? CT100 tester was my best twenty bucks ever spent, I use it almost daily ($19.99 from B&H with free shipping). Don't feel like paying swiss army knife price for it, such a simple product!

Just as reference, computer and office equipment industry does it on regular basis, mean making nearly identical products under their own brands, often by the same contract manufacturer. The old HP Laser Jet Series II and Canon LBP-4 are almost identical. Copier repair reference book has it clear, when they list certain model, they put "OEM" (original manufacturer) and "also known as ******(other's model numbers). I don't know how much of legality is involved, but it's very common practice.

Yes this is a natural progression in a maturing market. There will be companies that sell predominantly on low price to satisfy customers who buy mainly on low price. There is a cost to the larger market when small companies that do most of the innovation find it harder to coexist with large companies that "borrow" their best creative effort and then they lose sales to undiscriminating customers who embrace the cheap solution. This is a natural evolution in a maturing market.

The cable tester example is a classic example of a well respected small company industry standard product, that got copied (for appearance and functionality, not everything) then sold for a much lower price. Arguably smart business by the copier, and bad luck for the copied.

The law for protecting trade dress (how a product looks) is weak, unwieldy to secure, and hard to prosecute. I am only aware of a handful of successful defenses of trade dress IP (one was in hand held test equipment market). The law for protecting invention via utility patents (how things work) is generally much stronger but appears insufficient to protect innovators in all cases.

JR

 

[Arik Semagin]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

HP lasers have used Canon engines for a long time. HP pays Canon to use this technology. Behringer didn't pay other companies for their work.

Mr. Behringer is clearly a good businessman. His company has created a number of honestly original and good value products, such as the DCX2496 and X32. I'm sincerely glad so many people have had good luck with these, and have benefitted from Behringer's efforts to remake themselves as a company with good service. Those of us who have been watching for a while tend to feel that the charm campaign and attempts to re-write history are a little bit much.

Well, you can list pages of copied products, by many, not only Behringer (add his first digital mixer too, the 3216, a-la Yamaha 01v). Yes, he did it blatantly in some cases, too obvious, but bottom line he's at the top now with unique products. Now he's got R&D power and patent portfolio of MIDAS and Klark Teknik and can make original products, didn't have it before. Mackie at the other ends is struggling (I'm a big fan of Mackie too, used pretty much all their analog mixers in the past, including big SR40-8). Even though they had hit products in the past, they've missed the target somewhere (yes, DL1608 is great, but Mackie should've been a major player in digital desks by now).

As a historical reference, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea started after the WW2 by copying others' products, mostly American, blatantly, and now they are leading industrial nations. China is doing the same right now.

 

[Arik Semagin]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I thought the same thing, and I bought a half dozen or so Behringer cable testers before I bought the Ebtech Swizz Army. Now I have about 6-7 Swizz Army testers between myself and what I have at work, and I'll never buy the Behringer version again. The Ebtech is worth the difference in price.

I bought all my Ebtech's used though, for around $50 each. $100 is kind of expensive, but still worth it in my opinion.

I haven't used Ebtech, got Behringer mainy because I saw guys in rental shop checking snakes with it, and also because I don't have "Behringer-fobia". Works flawlessly for me. Does the job and looks cool. What was wrong with your Behringer testers that you will never buy them again?

 

[Max Warasila]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I haven't used Ebtech, got Behringer mainy because I saw guys in rental shop checking snakes with it, and also because I don't have "Behringer-fobia". Works flawlessly for me. Does the job and looks cool. What was wrong with your Behringer testers that you will never buy them again?

When they don't work for that one time and you throw them across the room, the Behringer fails. ~:-D~:grin:

 

[Josh Millward]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Peavey wants it's cake and eat it too. It's like they are suing for the same thing they are being sued for, more or less. They are in a world of hurt now that the people who were Crest are gone. The people who were Media Matrix are gone. The Crest console boys are working for Trident now. The Media Matrix guys are in CO and work for QSC now. QSYS is by far superior to MediaMatrix in every way, and will continue to grow in popularity.

My word... Please tell me more about how crappy the company is that I work for and how inferior our products are. You are clearly omnipotent and all-knowing.

Yes, it is well known that many of the engineers who originally worked for Peak Audio and later for Cirrus Logic (after Cirrus bought Peak) have gone to work for QSC. However, not all of them did, some of them still work for Peavey and others have gone off to do something different. Along those lines, we have a whole team of people doing engineering for MediaMatrix in more than one office. To their credit, the current abilities of the MediaMatrix N-series platform FAR outstrip the capabilities of any other integrated audio DSP and control system known to man. Saying that "QSYS is by far superior to MediaMatrix in every way" shows an absolutely astounding level of ignorance. Unfortunately we do not do as well at marketing our products as other companies do, yet we sure seem to sell an awful lot of MediaMatrix product to people all over the world.

Likewise, there are still people working for Peavey who used to work for Crest Audio prior to the acquisition.

So, I have to say your assertion that "They are in a world of hurt..." in reference to Peavey could not be more ill-informed. But hey, if you like riding on that good-old Peavey-bashing bandwagon that so many like to ride, have at it bro. Lord knows you will have plenty of company. The fact of the matter is that there is one man who owns this company, not some board. So, he gets to decide what happens, and that is exactly what he does. He started this company himself a long time ago with the idea of building competitively priced yet quality equipment that your average musician could afford. That is a legacy that continues to live on today. To some extent, I believe it is the low cost of equipment that causes some people to ride your band-wagon. It is that whole "it isn't expensive, so it can't be good" mind set.

Behringer has done a fantastic job of fighting that mind set with the performance offered by their X32 series of products. Likewise, Peavey has some really nice power amplifiers in their IPR series. They are inexpensive, lightweight, and have proven themselves well for the people who are buying them. BUT, is someone who is looking at a Midas level console interested in any of these products? No, of course not. It is a whole different level of operation.

By the way Brent, I find it highly entertaining that in one of your posts from today, you took the time to lambaste people for hanging out online talking about products. In the mean time, you posted not just once, but FIVE TIMES in this very thread. Please, keep the entertainment up.

 

[John Roberts]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Well, you can list pages of copied products, by many, not only Behringer (add his first digital mixer too, the 3216, a-la Yamaha 01v). Yes, he did it blatantly in some cases, too obvious, but bottom line he's at the top now with unique products. Now he's got R&D power and patent portfolio of MIDAS and Klark Teknik and can make original products, didn't have it before. Mackie at the other ends is struggling (I'm a big fan of Mackie too, used pretty much all their analog mixers in the past, including big SR40-8). Even though they had hit products in the past, they've missed the target somewhere (yes, DL1608 is great, but Mackie should've been a major player in digital desks by now).

Mackie got tangled up in the rise of customer acceptance for Chinese built goods, and their huge marketing investment in being US made ("Made in USA by Mackoids"). I listened to a parade of customers and dealers telling me they would NEVER ever buy Chinese made goods, then watched the dramatic shift in sales to the significantly cheaper versions of familiar looking products. Mackie eventually gave in to the compelling marketplace dynamic but were late to the change with several missteps. Since their original model was a form of value proposition (selective professional features at MI prices, and carpet bombing advertising). No amount of advertising could overcome the 20% or 30% cost deltas and their original business model collapsed. Before they could retrench a lot of their market place momentum was captured by similar looking products made in China.

As a historical reference, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea started after the WW2 by copying others' products, mostly American, blatantly, and now they are leading industrial nations. China is doing the same right now.

I have already posted this but colonial America ripped off European IP back in our colonial and early years. This too is a natural pattern that gets repeated around the world as countries become industrialized. For the record this lack of respect for other nation's IP only applies to their home markets, as US IP is generally enforced in the US market. China will clean up their act after they have their own IP at risk.

JR

 

[TJ Cornish]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Well, you can list pages of copied products, by many, not only Behringer (add his first digital mixer too, the 3216, a-la Yamaha 01v). Yes, he did it blatantly in some cases, too obvious, but bottom line he's at the top now with unique products. Now he's got R&D power and patent portfolio of MIDAS and Klark Teknik and can make original products, didn't have it before. Mackie at the other ends is struggling (I'm a big fan of Mackie too, used pretty much all their analog mixers in the past, including big SR40-8). Even though they had hit products in the past, they've missed the target somewhere (yes, DL1608 is great, but Mackie should've been a major player in digital desks by now).

As a historical reference, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea started after the WW2 by copying others' products, mostly American, blatantly, and now they are leading industrial nations. China is doing the same right now.

I'm not really sure what your point is here? Good for Behringer that their dubious business practices were legal-ish-enough to make a bunch of money largely off of other people's work with minimal penalties, and now they have turned "legitimate"?

I hope you're not also one of those people trying to unionize everything and/or raise minimum wage to $15.00 while lauding the benefits [to you] of off-shore production to the lowest bidder.

I'm starting to agree that you and Mr. Behringer need to get a room.

 

[Brian Adams]

Re: New Midas M32 Console

I haven't used Ebtech, got Behringer mainy because I saw guys in rental shop checking snakes with it, and also because I don't have "Behringer-fobia". Works flawlessly for me. Does the job and looks cool. What was wrong with your Behringer testers that you will never buy them again?

The connectors on the tester wouldn't always mate well with the cable connectors, which are good Neutrik ends. The cables worked fine, and tested fine in other testers. The Behringer tester would show an intermittent connection when really it was the connector on the box that wasn't up to the job. Those cheap Chinese connectors wear out fast, and in some cases weren't good right out of the box.

To be fair, the first one I bought seemed better built. It was the next 6 I bought that had issues. I've never had any issues with my Ebtech testers though, and a couple of them are pretty old.

I'm paying close attention to this thread because I've been really interested in picking up a couple X32's. I'm curious to see if people think the M32 is worth twice the money.