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

Re: New Midas M32 Console

Congrats on the bug stomping :D~:-D~:grin:.

Some of the most fun I ever had was writing a software UART using instruction times (no timers) and analog tape recorder storage using tones generated and decoded by software loops. Stuff like that is too easy nowadays.

Kinda funny, the present product I'm working on has a 50 MHz M0 that was under 5 bucks and I'm actually clocking it at 8 MHz with plenty of spare cycles. In "waiting for the power key" mode it's clocked at 32 KHz and drawing a few microamps off the battery pack, good for about 3 months. Beats the heck out of trying to cram stuff into an 8048 which didn't even have hardware subtract :?~:-?~:???:.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

I have been watching this discussion for a while. One of the things that I’ve noticed is that when Behringer comes up in forums, people like to high-five the company for it’s success on one hand while punching the company with the other hand. I just don’t get the punching.

It looks like the attack is based on the company doing some really bad and evil things in the past. The problem is that no one has ever been able to state the facts about what the company has done that is bad, unethical or illegal. It’s all hurt feelings and rumors and hot air. Uli himself has spoken openly about the Mackie case. Ok, what else is out there?

JR, you said that you believe that Behringer stole your patent. However, expert witnesses, a judge and even the patent examiners that granted Behringer their own patent disagreed with you. There was a court case that ruled against your beliefs. Your response seems to be, I don’t care what the objective court of law says, I don’t care what anyone says. I just believe me. Frankly, that just sounds sad. You are very respected on these sites. You do seem objective about most things, but not this.

Behringer is a hot topic on these forums and people have a strong and emotional reaction. The next time someone accuses them of wrongdoing, we should all demand that they provide the facts or just-shut-up.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Charlie McGee said:
I have been watching this discussion for a while. One of the things that I’ve noticed is that when Behringer comes up in forums, people like to high-five the company for it’s success on one hand while punching the company with the other hand. I just don’t get the punching.

It looks like the attack is based on the company doing some really bad and evil things in the past. The problem is that no one has ever been able to state the facts about what the company has done that is bad, unethical or illegal. It’s all hurt feelings and rumors and hot air. Uli himself has spoken openly about the Mackie case. Ok, what else is out there?

JR, you said that you believe that Behringer stole your patent. However, expert witnesses, a judge and even the patent examiners that granted Behringer their own patent disagreed with you. There was a court case that ruled against your beliefs. Your response seems to be, I don’t care what the objective court of law says, I don’t care what anyone says. I just believe me. Frankly, that just sounds sad. You are very respected on these sites. You do seem objective about most things, but not this.

Behringer is a hot topic on these forums and people have a strong and emotional reaction. The next time someone accuses them of wrongdoing, we should all demand that they provide the facts or just-shut-up.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Mr. Roberts understands the ruling and how the determinations were made. He's still free to disagree.

Personally, I've been around long enough to remember the first couple waves of Behry products in the USA. The initial German production was nicely built and the Composer compressor was priced at near-dbx $. Then came the next wave of products, including down-priced versions of earlier products. Reliability went way down, service & parts were spotty, and then they "lost" their US distribution (Ash) and the unavoidable comparison of certain Berry products to existing competitive models. We're not stupid, we knew that the physical resemblances were tweaked just enough to look familiar and trade on existing good will without looking like exact copies (colors, knob shapes, etc). It might have been legal but it was pushing the envelope of ethics.

That is the history that wishes to be re-written. How much importance any particular customer wishes to attach to it is, of course, up to them. Those who have become aware of the brand in the last 10-12 years are too young to have seen it first hand and may consider it old news or insignificant in terms of making a purchase decision. Those of us with longer memories are likewise free to exercise our wallets and opinions accordingly.

As I have stated in other threads, I purchased an X32 after swearing for years that I'd not purchase any Behry products, ever. I wanted to find tremendous fault with it. I wanted it to suck. I wanted it to be Julius & Ethel Rosenberg. But it's not any of those. It's got some considerable limitations, but if one can work within those limitations the X32 represents a significant value.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Charlie McGee said:
I have been watching this discussion for a while. One of the things that I’ve noticed is that when Behringer comes up in forums, people like to high-five the company for it’s success on one hand while punching the company with the other hand. I just don’t get the punching.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you have a different life experience. Some of us have worked inside the industry for decades and have personal experiences and memories.
It looks like the attack is based on the company doing some really bad and evil things in the past.
Click to expand...
I haven't called him evil. He seems personable enough. IMO some of the blatant copying during his rapid line-extension period strikes me as borderline unethical. I take no pleasure from re-hashing this over and over. I do not start threads about this or bring up the subject. I generally respond to attempts to re-write history, disputing that past (kind of like this one). I have much better things to do with my time. I wish people would just stop talking about it.
The problem is that no one has ever been able to state the facts about what the company has done that is bad, unethical or illegal.
Click to expand...
I really do not want to have to dig up chapter and verse. The lawsuits are public record. Some were settled, a number of them he won. He won the court case when sued about my FLS invention.
It’s all hurt feelings and rumors and hot air. Uli himself has spoken openly about the Mackie case. Ok, what else is out there?
Click to expand...
Do you really want me to list them? There are several here... Behringer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Frankly I try to forget about them.
JR, you said that you believe that Behringer stole your patent.
Click to expand...
copied my invention...
However, expert witnesses, a judge and even the patent examiners that granted Behringer their own patent disagreed with you.
Click to expand...
Life is too short for me to parse patent law with you on a public forum. And I was not in that court room so I did not hear exactly what was said. I read the judge's ruling after it was over and Peavey's complaint was dismissed. So Behringer won by not losing.

I do not hold myself above the law, that does not change the timeline of who came up with the idea first, and who came up with a legal copy second.
There was a court case that ruled against your beliefs. Your response seems to be, I don’t care what the objective court of law says, I don’t care what anyone says. I just believe me.
Click to expand...
The court has ruled that he did not infringe on my patent. I do not dispute the ruling even if I do not agree with it.
Frankly, that just sounds sad. You are very respected on these sites. You do seem objective about most things, but not this.
Click to expand...
Think about it. Perhaps I'm objective about this too (and a little sad).

If you have the time, understanding of patent law, and familiarity with discrete circuit design I'll be glad to present my arguments, but what's the point? I do not have a commercial interest in this and it's been settled by the courts. To me it's just a matter of principle. Peavey's lawyers and expert witnesses lost to Behringer's lawyers and expert witnesses. It was a legal contest and they won in the legal arena. Congratulations.

I concede he is "not infringing" on my invention. I still know I was copied but apparently it was within the law.
Behringer is a hot topic on these forums and people have a strong and emotional reaction. The next time someone accuses them of wrongdoing, we should all demand that they provide the facts or just-shut-up.
Click to expand...

Seriously do you want more of this... ? Most people want this to just go away. Me included.

OK here's another example I was involved with. Here's a small mixer I did years ago at Peavey...

rq200_lg-60b6ea78936c15170e11902fd68e6a3b.jpg


Here's the Behringer version that came out shortly after it was in the market...

1002B_P0A04_Top_XL.png


As I mentioned before it isn't worth the trouble and expense to file design patents for every single SKU, but the resemblance between these two mixers strikes me as more than coincidence, but things like this are not worth the trouble to pursue. They're probably just different enough.

Please do not ask for more.

JR

PS: I noticed while searching for this old mixer doppelganger pair, that the old forum discussion links talking about this had been scrubbed... maybe it's just coincidence.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Charlie McGee said:
I have been watching this discussion for a while. One of the things that I’ve noticed is that when Behringer comes up in forums, people like to high-five the company for it’s success on one hand while punching the company with the other hand. I just don’t get the punching.

It looks like the attack is based on the company doing some really bad and evil things in the past. The problem is that no one has ever been able to state the facts about what the company has done that is bad, unethical or illegal. It’s all hurt feelings and rumors and hot air. Uli himself has spoken openly about the Mackie case. Ok, what else is out there?

JR, you said that you believe that Behringer stole your patent. However, expert witnesses, a judge and even the patent examiners that granted Behringer their own patent disagreed with you. There was a court case that ruled against your beliefs. Your response seems to be, I don’t care what the objective court of law says, I don’t care what anyone says. I just believe me. Frankly, that just sounds sad. You are very respected on these sites. You do seem objective about most things, but not this.

Behringer is a hot topic on these forums and people have a strong and emotional reaction. The next time someone accuses them of wrongdoing, we should all demand that they provide the facts or just-shut-up.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, who the heck are you and since when does a first poster on a new forum start giving advice and lecturing the community?

Trying to re-write the experiences of the people whose products (or the appearance and function, blah blah) were copied, or the experiences of the people whose gigs were affected by Behringer "quality" will not win you any friends. What they did was apparently legal enough to withstand most of their court challenges; whether that was ethical is in the eye of the beholder (and discussed to death). If you'd like these conversations to go away, not pouring gasoline on the fire is a good place to start.

I generally feel the reverse of your point: I find it laudable that folks who have been burned by Behringer in one way or another are willing to say that some of the newer Behringer products are worthy of praise. Like Tim, I have been Behringer-free for many years. I'm not swearing that I'll never buy Behringer gear, but if I do, it's going to be a product they designed themselves and executed well.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

JR,

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, but whilst I can see similarities with the overall footprint of the two mixers, there are plenty of differences.

Location of connectors (Peavey = rear Behringer = top)
EQ (Pevey = 2 band Behringer = 3 band)
Channel clip LEDs not present on Peavey
Power LED not present on Behringer
Master LEDs and Phantom button are not in the same location
There is a bigger wrist rest area on the Peavey
There are no orange pots on the Peavey
The overall color scheme is different on both devices
The channel labeling on the Peavey is 1-6 whilst the Behringer has channels labeled up to 10.
The Peavey has 6 XLR mic inputs whilst the Behringer only has 5.

From what I can see from those two pictures, the two devices are very different.
If I had 6 mics that needed mixing, only one of these could do the job.

Whilst I don't doubt that there has been cause for some people to cry 'copy' with some devices (the MX8000 shouted Mackie 8 bus at you but was still not a carbon copy), I can't see how that can be justified with these two devices.
After all, how different can you make two small format mixers?
Would you be claiming 'copy' if the faders and pots for a channel had been swapped?
General workflow for a mixer is to have the master section to the right of the inputs, which both devices do.
Both conform to what would be regarded as standard mixer design, albeit with some variations.

Both devices have 7 faders and EQ, but that's hardly copying.
After all if that was allowed to stand we'd have every car manufacturer taking their competition to court for having and engine and four wheels on their cars as well.

Looked at that way, those two particular devices are probably not the best examples to be using...

Karl.
 
Last edited:
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Karl Barnes said:
JR,

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, but whilst I can see similarities with the overall footprint of the two mixers, there are plenty of differences.

Location of connectors (Peavey = rear Behringer = top)
EQ (Pevey = 2 band Behringer = 3 band)
Channel clip LEDs not present on Peavey
Power LED not present on Behringer
Master LEDs and Phantom button are not in the same location
There is a bigger wrist rest area on the Peavey
There are no orange pots on the Peavey
The overall color scheme is different on both devices
The channel labeling on the Peavey is 1-6 whilst the Behringer has channels labeled up to 10.
The Peavey has 6 XLR mic inputs whilst the Behringer only has 5.

From what I can see from those two pictures, the two devices are very different.
If I had 6 mics that needed mixing, only one of these could do the job.

Whilst I don't doubt that there has been cause for some people to cry 'copy' with some devices (the MX8000 shouted Mackie 8 bus at you but was still not a carbon copy), I can't see how that can be justified with these two devices.
After all, how different can you make two small format mixers?
Would you be claiming 'copy' if the faders and pots for a channel had been swapped?
General workflow for a mixer is to have the master section to the right of the inputs, which both devices do.
Both conform to what would be regarded as standard mixer design, albeit with some variations.

Both devices have 7 faders and EQ, but that's hardly copying.
After all if that was allowed to stand we'd have every car manufacturer taking their competition to court for having and engine and four wheels on their cars as well.

Looked at that way, those two particular devices are probably not the best examples to be using...

Karl.
Click to expand...

As I said up-thread-
We're not stupid, we knew that the physical resemblances were tweaked just enough to look familiar and trade on existing good will without looking like exact copies (colors, knob shapes, etc).
Click to expand...
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Does anyone think the second version would have been built if not for the first? Answer honestly.

There is "legal", "letter of the law"; There is also "ethical", "spirit of the law".

When I was a young fellow, I and many of my friends had BMX bicycles. There were innovators, small companies that came up with great products at a sustainable margin. There were also copycat companies. Cheng-Shin became a buzzword among our little group, and a synonym for cheap crap. They made tires that didn't grip well and wore out quickly. You could buy a copy of almost every decent product that looked very similar but did not function well, neither would it be as durable. We learned that cheap copies were bad news, don't waste your money. My first lesson in "Buy once, cry once".

When did cheap copies become socially, morally, and financially acceptable?

I don't shop at Wal-Mart, that's my choice. Clearly I am in the minority.

Karl Barnes said:
JR,

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, but whilst I can see similarities with the overall footprint of the two mixers, there are plenty of differences.

Location of connectors (Peavey = rear Behringer = top)
EQ (Pevey = 2 band Behringer = 3 band)
Channel clip LEDs not present on Peavey
Power LED not present on Behringer
Master LEDs and Phantom button are not in the same location
There is a bigger wrist rest area on the Peavey
There are no orange pots on the Peavey
The overall color scheme is different on both devices
The channel labeling on the Peavey is 1-6 whilst the Behringer has channels labeled up to 10.
The Peavey has 6 XLR mic inputs whilst the Behringer only has 5.

From what I can see from those two pictures, the two devices are very different.
If I had 6 mics that needed mixing, only one of these could do the job.

Whilst I don't doubt that there has been cause for some people to cry 'copy' with some devices (the MX8000 shouted Mackie 8 bus at you but was still not a carbon copy), I can't see how that can be justified with these two devices.
After all, how different can you make two small format mixers?
Would you be claiming 'copy' if the faders and pots for a channel had been swapped?
General workflow for a mixer is to have the master section to the right of the inputs, which both devices do.
Both conform to what would be regarded as standard mixer design, albeit with some variations.

Both devices have 7 faders and EQ, but that's hardly copying.
After all if that was allowed to stand we'd have every car manufacturer taking their competition to court for having and engine and four wheels on their cars as well.

Looked at that way, those two particular devices are probably not the best examples to be using...

Karl.
Click to expand...
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Karl Barnes said:
JR,

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, but whilst I can see similarities with the overall footprint of the two mixers, there are plenty of differences.

Location of connectors (Peavey = rear Behringer = top)
EQ (Pevey = 2 band Behringer = 3 band)
Channel clip LEDs not present on Peavey
Power LED not present on Behringer
Master LEDs and Phantom button are not in the same location
There is a bigger wrist rest area on the Peavey
There are no orange pots on the Peavey
The overall color scheme is different on both devices
The channel labeling on the Peavey is 1-6 whilst the Behringer has channels labeled up to 10.
The Peavey has 6 XLR mic inputs whilst the Behringer only has 5.
Click to expand...
Yup, not identical... So not worth pursuing legally, even if the layout was protected which it wasn't. Allow me to cut through the haze. THe RQ200 was dramatically different from other cheap entry level mixers (it was entry level for back then). The use of long throw faders per channel on such a small mixer was not done. That was a feature reserved for larger mixers. This gave the RQ200 a unique and distinctive look and feel that separated it from the typical competition. But it wasn't the only one for very long.
From what I can see from those two pictures, the two devices are very different.
If I had 6 mics that needed mixing, only one of these could do the job.
Click to expand...
Ironically when the Behringer model was released, I searched out the mixer specification sheet to see if I could parse out some internal differences from the numbers (I'm an engineer we can do that). I was surprised to find that every specification matched up perfectly to my published data sheet. Now I know I generated my specs by measuring my unit on the bench and then adding some windage or headroom for production variances. The odds of them coming up with exactly the same published specs is yet another one of life's coincidences. Possible but extremely unlikely
Whilst I don't doubt that there has been cause for some people to cry 'copy' with some devices (the MX8000 shouted Mackie 8 bus at you but was still not a carbon copy), I can't see how that can be justified with these two devices.
After all, how different can you make two small format mixers?
Would you be claiming 'copy' if the faders and pots for a channel had been swapped?
Click to expand...
I had a private conversation with Greg Mackie about that situation and will not repeat comments made to me in confidence. Maybe ask him what he thinks about it, if he is free and/or willing to speak. I understand the reluctance of many professionals working in the industry to engage on this topic.It is really old news and would take it's place in history if not constantly stirred up by revisionism.
-----
If it didn't use long throw channel faders on a small format mixer I would not be having this particular discussion... I concede this was more like a fashion detail than technology, and just like fashion this years hot new bows or ribbons, shows up on next years competitor's dresses. I was surprised to see it show up in another product so quickly. It was a compliment of sorts, while not the kind of compliments we enjoy getting.
General workflow for a mixer is to have the master section to the right of the inputs, which both devices do.
Both conform to what would be regarded as standard mixer design, albeit with some variations.

Both devices have 7 faders and EQ, but that's hardly copying.
After all if that was allowed to stand we'd have every car manufacturer taking their competition to court for having and engine and four wheels on their cars as well.

Looked at that way, those two particular devices are probably not the best examples to be using...

Karl.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to make a federal case of this one example, just sharing another close and personal experience of mine from competing in the same marketplace with Behringer. Even if you disagree with my analysis this will inform about the events that shaped my experience.

Companies can take decades to develop and flesh out a full product line, many never grow beyond a single narrow category as their corporate technology capability allows. I have alternately managed a mixer engineering group with multiple design engineers responsible for developing new mixer products and another time managed the entire product management group who were responsible for new product definitions. I am well aware of how much work and cost is involved in developing novel products from whole cloth. Nobody develops new products in a vacuum and there is a natural inspection of each other's technology advancements, but blatant copying is rarely productive and discouraged (at least by me).

When some technology is in the public domain one is foolish not to use it. When I designed my first Automatic Mixer, Dan Dugan's patent had about a year to run before it expired. I respected his patent and even spoke with him at a trade show looking for an excuse to license his additional technology, but that didn't happen (another story for another day). Of course I didn't just copy his old designs, but rolled my own design making some improvements along the way.

Am I the only one growing weary of this... ?

JR

PS: I said I do not start these topics, and this thread looks like I started it because the mods broke out my post from another thread and renamed the thread. If this is nominally my thread does that mean I can lock it? Since this is not productive for anybody.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Kemper Watson said:
FWIW I have one of the Peavey mixers and it's really a decent product. Still works very well in it's application
Click to expand...

It's a little odd reflecting back on that mixer today in light of the massive price compression that has occurred in that market during the years since, but the RQ200 name was a play on the $199 retail price point that "was" cheap for back then... Now you can get even more mixer for even less dollars, but that was my very first SKU designed specifically to be built in China. I included features to make it work and be attractive for other ancillary markets. Like Mini 1/8" audio jacks so it could interface directly with computer sound cards, battery operation for portable applications, etc.

As usual more than just another small mixer but that's how I rolled.... me-too products are not in my DNA. Even thought customers generally reward "the same as for less money" products.

JR
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Let me understand this correctly. How many times do I need to post on a public forum in order to have a voice? I thought that I had permission when I registered for the site? Do I need someone else’s permission?

JR, are you claiming to have invented applying a 60mm fader on a small format mixer?
Or did you perhaps copy that feature from a large format mixer? Surely, you are not claiming to have been the first one to invent mixers altogether? Based on your own analysis, it would seem that you are unethical to design mixers in the first place since you clearly copied other mixer ideas.

Also, thanks for posting the pictures. I agree with Karl that the mixers just aren’t the same at all. They don’t have the same features, shape, color, or other features. I briefly checked the specs and they are also not the same. JR, the reason why your analysis is incorrect on this issue is because if it were correct, we would only have one TV manufacturer, one car manufacturer, what about laptops, or pretty much every product ever created that has competition. Clearly, the problem here isn’t copying, it’s competition.

You accuse Behringer of copying your feedback patent since they did not design it “out of a vacuum”. JR, I believe that it would be disingenuous for you to claim that you designed your patent “out of a vacuum” either. As you may recall, there were more than 30 prior patents cited as part of your own patent application and visual indication of equalizer bands was well known before your patent. To my knowledge, audio analyzers were very popular in the 70s and could be found on every simple car radio or home stereo equalizer.

JR, you simply designed one version of a mixer and one version of a Feedback Indicator. So did Behringer and so did others. To claim that a competitor of your design is really a copy is a pretty distorted view. I also find it interesting as people challenge your view point, you want the topic to go away and escape the discussion or try to “lock it”.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

brian maddox said:
To have a voice? Once. To have a credible voice? A lot more than that....
Click to expand...

Brian, if you don't like my message then there is one sure way to shut me up: Attack me with facts. Show me and everyone else how I'm wrong. If you can't do that, then where exactly is your credibility? I'll be waiting.....
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Charlie McGee said:
Brian, if you don't like my message then there is one sure way to shut me up: Attack me with facts. Show me and everyone else how I'm wrong. If you can't do that, then where exactly is your credibility? I'll be waiting.....
Click to expand...
Or we can ignore another troll that has offered nothing of value to our community other than stirring up trouble.

Iggy Bin

Buh bye!
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

TJ Cornish said:
Or we can ignore another troll that has offered nothing of value to our community other than stirring up trouble.

Iggy Bin

Buh bye!
Click to expand...

TJ, yes- I know that you want to ignore those that make you feel like you are losing control and vunerable. Attack me, call me a troll blah blah blah. I can handle it. It's hard to welcome someone to a forum who has strong opinions, study the facts, who take a stand and who may disagree. It's too controversial for you. Change is hard. Kind of like competition.
 
Re: New Midas M32 Console

Charlie McGee said:
Let me understand this correctly. How many times do I need to post on a public forum in order to have a voice?
Click to expand...

Once. You also need only a single post to come off like an a**h*** and lose credibility.

In the old days, you had to earn respect. These days it seems like "entitlement" precedes all else. Of course, when you start at the top the only way to go is down...
 
Top Bottom