Re: New Midas M32 Console
+1
Since this discussion has become painfully repetitious I'll try to give it a pause.
JR
+1
Since this discussion has become painfully repetitious I'll try to give it a pause.
JR
Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)
- Thread starter John Roberts
- Start date
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 ...
Are folks really seeing "No A&H" on riders these days? I thought the iLive desks were pretty well regarded?
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Slight swerve, but consistent with the thread title (and maybe we could use a swerve).
I worked for a number of years -- actually longer than anywhere else -- in the semiconductor equipment industry. It's a small community of companies making mostly small quantities of high priced gear. You know all your customers and competitors and people frequently change jobs within that community. This is not unlike the high end of professional audio.
Patents would get infringed but the result, more than once, was that competitors would agree informally (using some combination of beer and golf, I suppose, or perhaps just a nod and wink at a trade show) to allow a tit for a tat: I know you infringed on my patent and I'll look the other way if I can infringe on yours. This avoided litigation that these mostly small companies could ill afford and everyone got to keep their little picture frames in the lobby which add value in the eyes of investors.
I wonder how much this happens in pro audio? I know it's a different world now with trolls buying up patents like they were soybeans and torching a butcher shop now and then when they don't pay up.
--Frank
Slight swerve, but consistent with the thread title (and maybe we could use a swerve).
I worked for a number of years -- actually longer than anywhere else -- in the semiconductor equipment industry. It's a small community of companies making mostly small quantities of high priced gear. You know all your customers and competitors and people frequently change jobs within that community. This is not unlike the high end of professional audio.
Patents would get infringed but the result, more than once, was that competitors would agree informally (using some combination of beer and golf, I suppose, or perhaps just a nod and wink at a trade show) to allow a tit for a tat: I know you infringed on my patent and I'll look the other way if I can infringe on yours. This avoided litigation that these mostly small companies could ill afford and everyone got to keep their little picture frames in the lobby which add value in the eyes of investors.
I wonder how much this happens in pro audio? I know it's a different world now with trolls buying up patents like they were soybeans and torching a butcher shop now and then when they don't pay up.
--Frank
Re: New Midas M32 Console
There are several industries where the standard payment for use of patent portfolios is access to another patent portfolio (or part thereof). While it's better to make these sorts of agreements formally, I can see how in small industries informal agreements could work. Given a small industry, though, I'd be suprised if any one company made a habit of infringing on patents, as that tends to cause the system to break down.
There are several industries where the standard payment for use of patent portfolios is access to another patent portfolio (or part thereof). While it's better to make these sorts of agreements formally, I can see how in small industries informal agreements could work. Given a small industry, though, I'd be suprised if any one company made a habit of infringing on patents, as that tends to cause the system to break down.
Re: New Midas M32 Console
At the risk of getting all philosophical about the patent system, and it is currently a little fluid thanks to multiple pending supreme court cases, with recent, and proposed new legislation in congress. To say the patent system is imperfect would be an understatement.
While the companies in the music industry are not on the same level as large consumer or technology industries, the patent system is asymmetrical regarding the cost and degree of difficulty to get a patent issued, vs the cost and difficulty to prosecute that patent in court. To wit a patent may cost as little as $10k to get issued, and millions of dollars to defend in court.
The more cost effective and practical approach used by many major companies is to A) amass a portfolio of patents that can be horse-traded back and forth with other companies to avoid playing multi-million dollar black jack in court. And B) to not knowingly infringe on other company's IP since that can trigger treble damages, on top of the seriously expensive litigation. A very recent trend is for large companies to partner up with each other against a new common enemy (patent trolls). Google, Samsung, and Cisco make unexpected bed fellows to partner up with their IP but that is the new playing field out there, when patent trolls even challenge deep pockets major players.
I can not speak from first hand experience about other companies. My personal experience at Peavey was consistent with accumulating a war chest of patents (while I don't recall any serious horse trading). I do not know the current count but Peavey has something more than 100 patents. Once in connection with a new product design I worked with a patent law firm to secure a written legal opinion regarding potential interference with another company's IP before our product was even started. This is called "due diligence" and proves that there was no known infringement. Lawyers are always cheaper to use before hand, than later after something blows up.
I do not understand all the legal back and forth between Peavey and Behringer since i left. I suspect only the sundry lawyers involved are profiting from this.
I could write a lot more about the patent system in general but I do not think that is really the primary interest of this thread, which is actually a veer that refuses to die. Maybe the thread should be titled "brand management and ancient history". Die veer die.
JR
At the risk of getting all philosophical about the patent system, and it is currently a little fluid thanks to multiple pending supreme court cases, with recent, and proposed new legislation in congress. To say the patent system is imperfect would be an understatement.
While the companies in the music industry are not on the same level as large consumer or technology industries, the patent system is asymmetrical regarding the cost and degree of difficulty to get a patent issued, vs the cost and difficulty to prosecute that patent in court. To wit a patent may cost as little as $10k to get issued, and millions of dollars to defend in court.
The more cost effective and practical approach used by many major companies is to A) amass a portfolio of patents that can be horse-traded back and forth with other companies to avoid playing multi-million dollar black jack in court. And B) to not knowingly infringe on other company's IP since that can trigger treble damages, on top of the seriously expensive litigation. A very recent trend is for large companies to partner up with each other against a new common enemy (patent trolls). Google, Samsung, and Cisco make unexpected bed fellows to partner up with their IP but that is the new playing field out there, when patent trolls even challenge deep pockets major players.
I can not speak from first hand experience about other companies. My personal experience at Peavey was consistent with accumulating a war chest of patents (while I don't recall any serious horse trading). I do not know the current count but Peavey has something more than 100 patents. Once in connection with a new product design I worked with a patent law firm to secure a written legal opinion regarding potential interference with another company's IP before our product was even started. This is called "due diligence" and proves that there was no known infringement. Lawyers are always cheaper to use before hand, than later after something blows up.
I do not understand all the legal back and forth between Peavey and Behringer since i left. I suspect only the sundry lawyers involved are profiting from this.
I could write a lot more about the patent system in general but I do not think that is really the primary interest of this thread, which is actually a veer that refuses to die. Maybe the thread should be titled "brand management and ancient history". Die veer die.
JR
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Excellent, John! Sorry for a long quote, but that's what differs an industry veteran with a strong technical background from a bunch of wannabees! A++ on this summary!
I don't point to any participants of this thread, nor anybody in particular, but you can see the level of JR's postings and "loose canon" pointless shots of some others on this forum.
Excellent, John! Sorry for a long quote, but that's what differs an industry veteran with a strong technical background from a bunch of wannabees! A++ on this summary!
I don't point to any participants of this thread, nor anybody in particular, but you can see the level of JR's postings and "loose canon" pointless shots of some others on this forum.
Last edited:
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
I guess that in many ways, having a patent is about as good as a pedestrian having right of way in a zebra crossing, fine in theory but rather useless if someone ignores it.
I remember that there was a belief earlier that once China became a meber of the WTO and signed the international treaties regarding copyright and patent some twenty years ago, we would soon have a system of global patents and copyrights that everybody would respect, but that hasn't happened as far as I can tell. It is my understanding that international or world wide patents are so expensive that only the drug manufacturers bothers with them.
I guess that in many ways, having a patent is about as good as a pedestrian having right of way in a zebra crossing, fine in theory but rather useless if someone ignores it.
I remember that there was a belief earlier that once China became a meber of the WTO and signed the international treaties regarding copyright and patent some twenty years ago, we would soon have a system of global patents and copyrights that everybody would respect, but that hasn't happened as far as I can tell. It is my understanding that international or world wide patents are so expensive that only the drug manufacturers bothers with them.
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
As I said before they are relatively easy to get and difficult/expensive to defend. Yet one more advantage enjoyed by large companies over small. Making patents harder (not more expensive, just harder) would be good for all concerned if it reduces the aftermath of litigating these in court, but that is easier to say than do. In the recent past the patent office was criticized for the amount of time that it took to get a patent vetted and issued. They raised fees and threw more bodies at it and they have improved that turn time, but perhaps at the cost of patent quality. Patent examiners are basically paying their dues for a few years and performing on the job training on their way to become future big ticket patent attorneys using their knowledge of the system to finesse patents for clients. Since 99% or more of patents never get tested in court or even used in real products the quality of the patents issued only gets reviewed for a tiny fraction of all the patents that issue, and if then only years later. It is impossible for the PTO to hold onto good experienced patent examiners when they can up their salary several fold by taking their next gig working the other side.
The patent trolls are a wild card, screwing up the game for everybody (but the lawyers and their investors) working the litigation angle. Proclivity to sue should not be a profitable business model but so far it is working for them. I was even approached to sell my patent. The legislators are trying to correct the market distortion they cause but as a small business from a distance it all looks like a tussle between different whales, not really about promoting IP and expanding knowledge..
The concept of a world patent sounds wonderful, but the reality is more mercantile. Patents mainly need to provide IP protection in the markets where the products are sold. It doesn't matter if a chinese factory cranks out illegal copies of patented designs if the US customs agents just impounds the whole container of illegal product at the dock when it arrives. In fact that really ruins the day for the sleazy distributor who bought the bogus goods paying in advance with a letter of credit. Ultimately the factory's business should dry up too, when the good can't be sold in major markets. A single Euro zone patent is more possible, but last time I looked at filing for one it was still Babelicious. Hopefully they have made more progress there. With a single EU patent, a US patent , and maybe Japan, you can cover enough of the world's consumer market to pretty much discourage tooling up an illegal mass market copy.
The real evolution for China is when they develop significant consumer markets in their own country and they have their own IP to worry about losing. I believe they are trying but must overcome a deep culture of corruption and IP typically gets short shrift.
We are probably decades away from China as a nation completely following the letter of the law. Rising to meet western cultural or ethical standards may be an even longer wait. Large corporations there are mostly following the rules. because they have little choice to sell their goods in the west.
Interesting times and China will ultimately become a massive consumer market for us to sell our goods into. The painful thing to watch in real time is how much of our consumer IP (like movies and music and software), gets ripped off. This is not small change in economic GDP terms, and everybody is working on that. Really big money being lost tends to draw major attention to remedy such behavior.
Note 3D printers and machine assembly does not really benefit that much from low cost labor. A few decades from now it will be a completely different ball game, but I don't expect to see that (but I can write about it now).
JR
The old saying is that having a patent gives you the right to sue...
As I said before they are relatively easy to get and difficult/expensive to defend. Yet one more advantage enjoyed by large companies over small. Making patents harder (not more expensive, just harder) would be good for all concerned if it reduces the aftermath of litigating these in court, but that is easier to say than do. In the recent past the patent office was criticized for the amount of time that it took to get a patent vetted and issued. They raised fees and threw more bodies at it and they have improved that turn time, but perhaps at the cost of patent quality. Patent examiners are basically paying their dues for a few years and performing on the job training on their way to become future big ticket patent attorneys using their knowledge of the system to finesse patents for clients. Since 99% or more of patents never get tested in court or even used in real products the quality of the patents issued only gets reviewed for a tiny fraction of all the patents that issue, and if then only years later. It is impossible for the PTO to hold onto good experienced patent examiners when they can up their salary several fold by taking their next gig working the other side.
The patent trolls are a wild card, screwing up the game for everybody (but the lawyers and their investors) working the litigation angle. Proclivity to sue should not be a profitable business model but so far it is working for them. I was even approached to sell my patent. The legislators are trying to correct the market distortion they cause but as a small business from a distance it all looks like a tussle between different whales, not really about promoting IP and expanding knowledge..
The concept of a world patent sounds wonderful, but the reality is more mercantile. Patents mainly need to provide IP protection in the markets where the products are sold. It doesn't matter if a chinese factory cranks out illegal copies of patented designs if the US customs agents just impounds the whole container of illegal product at the dock when it arrives. In fact that really ruins the day for the sleazy distributor who bought the bogus goods paying in advance with a letter of credit. Ultimately the factory's business should dry up too, when the good can't be sold in major markets. A single Euro zone patent is more possible, but last time I looked at filing for one it was still Babelicious. Hopefully they have made more progress there. With a single EU patent, a US patent , and maybe Japan, you can cover enough of the world's consumer market to pretty much discourage tooling up an illegal mass market copy.
The real evolution for China is when they develop significant consumer markets in their own country and they have their own IP to worry about losing. I believe they are trying but must overcome a deep culture of corruption and IP typically gets short shrift.
We are probably decades away from China as a nation completely following the letter of the law. Rising to meet western cultural or ethical standards may be an even longer wait. Large corporations there are mostly following the rules. because they have little choice to sell their goods in the west.
Interesting times and China will ultimately become a massive consumer market for us to sell our goods into. The painful thing to watch in real time is how much of our consumer IP (like movies and music and software), gets ripped off. This is not small change in economic GDP terms, and everybody is working on that. Really big money being lost tends to draw major attention to remedy such behavior.
Note 3D printers and machine assembly does not really benefit that much from low cost labor. A few decades from now it will be a completely different ball game, but I don't expect to see that (but I can write about it now).
JR
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Charlie,
I seldom post on this site for one reason or another, but after reading your replies in this thread I had to at least let you know that not only do you come across as a Behringer Super fan boy, but as a Super fan boy douche bag. When you reply to comments made by well known and respected members of a board or site it would be to your best interest to do a little research before you actually post.
I am by no means a Behringer fan, never have been, never will be, never want to be. One or two decent products does not a company make, and erasing years of support complacency with a single repair center doesn't make for a "new" Behringer. I applaud their efforts but find it a far stretch to even comprehend that people buying their other products are seeing the same type of support given to those who purchase from the X32 family line.
If you feel the need to travel the world wearing rose colored glasses, then so be it, but your statements concerning Peavey, or other companies IP are the equivalent to stating Jim Marshall didn't copy Leo Fenders Bassman. Change a few components, and no patent infringement. Do you understand how that works son? No? I didn't think you would. Have a wonderful Behringer day.
Charlie,
I seldom post on this site for one reason or another, but after reading your replies in this thread I had to at least let you know that not only do you come across as a Behringer Super fan boy, but as a Super fan boy douche bag. When you reply to comments made by well known and respected members of a board or site it would be to your best interest to do a little research before you actually post.
I am by no means a Behringer fan, never have been, never will be, never want to be. One or two decent products does not a company make, and erasing years of support complacency with a single repair center doesn't make for a "new" Behringer. I applaud their efforts but find it a far stretch to even comprehend that people buying their other products are seeing the same type of support given to those who purchase from the X32 family line.
If you feel the need to travel the world wearing rose colored glasses, then so be it, but your statements concerning Peavey, or other companies IP are the equivalent to stating Jim Marshall didn't copy Leo Fenders Bassman. Change a few components, and no patent infringement. Do you understand how that works son? No? I didn't think you would. Have a wonderful Behringer day.
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
This is the troll feeding thread after all
~;-)~:wink:
This is the troll feeding thread after all
~;-)~:wink:
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
You are probably the only one that feels that these standards are defined by JR. Business is in fact very much defined by ethical standards, both by law and by the ethical standards that most companies define and require their employees to read and understand.
Of course, some companies are really arrogant about it and make a big deal about watching and influencing the ethics and conduct of their suppliers, not stating much about their own aspirations for fairness and ethical conduct.
Still, most companies claim that they are defined by their ethical standards, and by their ability or willingness to follow the law, allthough the ability to do the latter should be taken for granted.
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...b691-13a29ac90501/business_conduct_policy.pdf
You are probably the only one that feels that these standards are defined by JR. Business is in fact very much defined by ethical standards, both by law and by the ethical standards that most companies define and require their employees to read and understand.
Of course, some companies are really arrogant about it and make a big deal about watching and influencing the ethics and conduct of their suppliers, not stating much about their own aspirations for fairness and ethical conduct.
Still, most companies claim that they are defined by their ethical standards, and by their ability or willingness to follow the law, allthough the ability to do the latter should be taken for granted.
http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...b691-13a29ac90501/business_conduct_policy.pdf
Last edited:
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
Maybe time to come up with an example of your claims :twisted:
Maybe time to come up with an example of your claims :twisted:
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
It has been fairly argued that for control intensive products like mixers with a lot of knobs, form generally follows function. While generally there is a world of difference in the details and this is the work of professional industrial designers, to make the same look different, with what is generally called trade dress (colors, shapes of knobs, panel graphics, etc). Sometimes those ID professionals work to make different look same. :-( Trade dress IP while real is difficult and expensive to protect. Some may be amused to speculate about the shoe potentially being on the other foot, I will not go there.
Speaking in general for a new brand to have success and gain market share from established brands, there needs to be a merchantable advantage to compel the customers to risk their money on an unknown. Over the decades I have seen this competitive advantage take different forms and morph over time with changing market dynamics.
Years ago Peavey enjoyed a rock solid limited dealer distribution with a strong grip on their local markets. This dynamic was upset by millions of dollars spent on advertising some new must have mixer feature, effectively pre-selling the consumers and blunting the influence of local dealers. This pre-selling to diminish the dealer' influence later got upset by competing with similar look and features but manufactured offshore for a compelling ten's of percent cost discount. Consumers suspend a lot of fear for tens of percent cost.
I can not predict where the next major market shift (for value products) will come from. Now with all the majors building products in China, their manufacturing costs are comparable (certainly not tens of percent apart) so there is no compelling cost gap to mine. While costs are increasing in China we are running out of new undeveloped labor markets to tap (they are building new car factories in Africa). In fact technology has dramatically reduced the (human) labor content in modern electronics manufacturing to the point where the Chinese cost advantage may eventually fade away. In my judgement the manufacturing advantage there is not as much about the labor costs, as aggregation of support industries. The raw component manufacturers have gravitated to where the world factories are to reduce lead times. Even if you could assemble a product as cheaply in the west, having to buy the raw components months in advance is a huge friction diminishing cost efficiency and response time to changing market dynamics.
I would not completely discount a threat from below but Behringer has not raised their prices to the point where there is much room for serious competition from below. The future has not happened yet so who knows what will come next? While it is safe to assume that the future will always be different.
JR
PS: For another historical observation, I recall for years being approached at trade shows by representatives of small third world factories trying to sell us their idea of a merchantable power amp. They were typically cheap enough to get the sharp pencil crowd excited, but were crude and embarrassingly low tech to even get a value brand like Peavey interested. I even spent time with a top Chinese CM (actually based in Hong Kong) and even their idea of high tech was based on licensed (or would have to be) western technology. It wasn't until QSC manufactured a low cost amp over there, that overnight the more relevant amp technology became available. There is a bad joke about factories having side doors, but there is no doubt we always risk control of technology when we build goods overseas. There is a classic case with a major company's low cost value model guitar amp that was being built in Korea. They decided to move that manufacturing to India to save a few won, and guess what? That Korean factory owner decided that he did not want to close up his shop. So instead he cut a deal with some large US mail order retailer and there was almost overnight a new even cheaper value brand guitar amp (that didn't completely suck), that the western company had taught them how to make. Oooops. The moral to that story is beware of unintended consequences when dealing with unprotected proprietary property. That guitar amp company's product design obviously had marketplace value, as they learned the hard way when they found themselves competing with their own designs. Their idea to save a few won by building the amps for rupees instead, was not their brightest decision.
It has been fairly argued that for control intensive products like mixers with a lot of knobs, form generally follows function. While generally there is a world of difference in the details and this is the work of professional industrial designers, to make the same look different, with what is generally called trade dress (colors, shapes of knobs, panel graphics, etc). Sometimes those ID professionals work to make different look same. :-( Trade dress IP while real is difficult and expensive to protect. Some may be amused to speculate about the shoe potentially being on the other foot, I will not go there.
Speaking in general for a new brand to have success and gain market share from established brands, there needs to be a merchantable advantage to compel the customers to risk their money on an unknown. Over the decades I have seen this competitive advantage take different forms and morph over time with changing market dynamics.
Years ago Peavey enjoyed a rock solid limited dealer distribution with a strong grip on their local markets. This dynamic was upset by millions of dollars spent on advertising some new must have mixer feature, effectively pre-selling the consumers and blunting the influence of local dealers. This pre-selling to diminish the dealer' influence later got upset by competing with similar look and features but manufactured offshore for a compelling ten's of percent cost discount. Consumers suspend a lot of fear for tens of percent cost.
I can not predict where the next major market shift (for value products) will come from. Now with all the majors building products in China, their manufacturing costs are comparable (certainly not tens of percent apart) so there is no compelling cost gap to mine. While costs are increasing in China we are running out of new undeveloped labor markets to tap (they are building new car factories in Africa). In fact technology has dramatically reduced the (human) labor content in modern electronics manufacturing to the point where the Chinese cost advantage may eventually fade away. In my judgement the manufacturing advantage there is not as much about the labor costs, as aggregation of support industries. The raw component manufacturers have gravitated to where the world factories are to reduce lead times. Even if you could assemble a product as cheaply in the west, having to buy the raw components months in advance is a huge friction diminishing cost efficiency and response time to changing market dynamics.
I would not completely discount a threat from below but Behringer has not raised their prices to the point where there is much room for serious competition from below. The future has not happened yet so who knows what will come next? While it is safe to assume that the future will always be different.
JR
PS: For another historical observation, I recall for years being approached at trade shows by representatives of small third world factories trying to sell us their idea of a merchantable power amp. They were typically cheap enough to get the sharp pencil crowd excited, but were crude and embarrassingly low tech to even get a value brand like Peavey interested. I even spent time with a top Chinese CM (actually based in Hong Kong) and even their idea of high tech was based on licensed (or would have to be) western technology. It wasn't until QSC manufactured a low cost amp over there, that overnight the more relevant amp technology became available. There is a bad joke about factories having side doors, but there is no doubt we always risk control of technology when we build goods overseas. There is a classic case with a major company's low cost value model guitar amp that was being built in Korea. They decided to move that manufacturing to India to save a few won, and guess what? That Korean factory owner decided that he did not want to close up his shop. So instead he cut a deal with some large US mail order retailer and there was almost overnight a new even cheaper value brand guitar amp (that didn't completely suck), that the western company had taught them how to make. Oooops. The moral to that story is beware of unintended consequences when dealing with unprotected proprietary property. That guitar amp company's product design obviously had marketplace value, as they learned the hard way when they found themselves competing with their own designs. Their idea to save a few won by building the amps for rupees instead, was not their brightest decision.
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
Per, the truth I think is somewhere in between: even though ALTO small format mixers are very similar to Behringer and Mackie mixers on outside (small CR and CFX), it's hard to tell at what extent these designs are copied, because these small mixers are so basic in nature! If there are no patent protection (or adequate protection), then nothing can prevent competitors from copying some or all design elements. Internal circuitry may be slightly different, the sound quality can be as well, but the basic functionality and controls remains the same. It's common for designers to examine competitors' products to the last detail before creating their own (why invent a bicycle?), so it may be hard to draw a line between "copied design" and "implemented idea", in any industry.
I think Behringer still has competitive advantage over others due to his own factory in China where he has better control over costs and quality. In other words, he may have more room to play (can cut prices and still remain profitable). But he may not have to go lower, if Behringer products will be better (in both performance and reliability)
Per, the truth I think is somewhere in between: even though ALTO small format mixers are very similar to Behringer and Mackie mixers on outside (small CR and CFX), it's hard to tell at what extent these designs are copied, because these small mixers are so basic in nature! If there are no patent protection (or adequate protection), then nothing can prevent competitors from copying some or all design elements. Internal circuitry may be slightly different, the sound quality can be as well, but the basic functionality and controls remains the same. It's common for designers to examine competitors' products to the last detail before creating their own (why invent a bicycle?), so it may be hard to draw a line between "copied design" and "implemented idea", in any industry.
I think Behringer still has competitive advantage over others due to his own factory in China where he has better control over costs and quality. In other words, he may have more room to play (can cut prices and still remain profitable). But he may not have to go lower, if Behringer products will be better (in both performance and reliability)
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
Sorry, I don't see it. Name a specific Alto model and a specific model from either Behringer or Mackie.
Sorry, I don't see it. Name a specific Alto model and a specific model from either Behringer or Mackie.
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
Yawn... I am too lazy to bother with who Alto is or where they came from. Sometimes these new low end competitors are inadvertently created by western companies, or not exactly western companies like Yamaha for example who used Phonic as their contract manufacturer for years, teaching them the basics. It is just natural (or human avarice) for these CM who operate on very slender profit margins, to feel cheated by the manufacturers who make much larger profit margins. Note: the manufacturers feel the same way about the distributors and dealers who make even larger profit margins, or they could if not so self destructive with discounting.). The catch-22 for these often successful and well capitalized offshore factory owners is that they lack a popular brand and/or distribution network to capture the rest of the profit they feel cheated out of. You can build a new brand from scratch the old fashioned way with a lot of money and time, or buy one. Over the years there are examples of the CM buying out their original customer (IIRC that's what happened to Kurzweil, but there were others).
Nowadays we can buy off the shelf mic preamp ICs that don't suck, so a wet behind the ears junior engineer can make a respectable mixer front end. I like to joke that mixers/consoles are the hardest simple circuit to do well (power amps are the other). Simple in concept, but often difficult in execution, to do well. (I managed a mixer engineering group for a while so I know a little about this subject). I have talked about proprietary experience based IP. In the context of mixers/consoles the difference between old and young design engineers is the old ones already made the common mistakes. Sometimes a new copy cat gets lucky and copies close enough to do it right, sometimes I see the old mistakes creep into new offerings from companies lacking an experienced bench. FWIW there are less traps to fall into with small format mixers.
My ego makes it hard to accept that mixer design is trivial while it isn't rocket science. There is a great deal of subtle proprietary design wisdom associated with large console designs. Some is related to analog implementations so quickly becoming archaic, but some will translate to digital design execution (like human factors engineering). Not legally protectable, but still having real value IMO.
JR
Yawn... I am too lazy to bother with who Alto is or where they came from. Sometimes these new low end competitors are inadvertently created by western companies, or not exactly western companies like Yamaha for example who used Phonic as their contract manufacturer for years, teaching them the basics. It is just natural (or human avarice) for these CM who operate on very slender profit margins, to feel cheated by the manufacturers who make much larger profit margins. Note: the manufacturers feel the same way about the distributors and dealers who make even larger profit margins, or they could if not so self destructive with discounting.). The catch-22 for these often successful and well capitalized offshore factory owners is that they lack a popular brand and/or distribution network to capture the rest of the profit they feel cheated out of. You can build a new brand from scratch the old fashioned way with a lot of money and time, or buy one. Over the years there are examples of the CM buying out their original customer (IIRC that's what happened to Kurzweil, but there were others).
Nowadays we can buy off the shelf mic preamp ICs that don't suck, so a wet behind the ears junior engineer can make a respectable mixer front end. I like to joke that mixers/consoles are the hardest simple circuit to do well (power amps are the other). Simple in concept, but often difficult in execution, to do well. (I managed a mixer engineering group for a while so I know a little about this subject). I have talked about proprietary experience based IP. In the context of mixers/consoles the difference between old and young design engineers is the old ones already made the common mistakes. Sometimes a new copy cat gets lucky and copies close enough to do it right, sometimes I see the old mistakes creep into new offerings from companies lacking an experienced bench. FWIW there are less traps to fall into with small format mixers.
My ego makes it hard to accept that mixer design is trivial while it isn't rocket science. There is a great deal of subtle proprietary design wisdom associated with large console designs. Some is related to analog implementations so quickly becoming archaic, but some will translate to digital design execution (like human factors engineering). Not legally protectable, but still having real value IMO.
JR
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
It would appear that lines are being drawn here, but I'd argue that there should be no lines. On one side there is the law, the facts, an independent judge, independent witnesses, and long established patent processes and laws that have been relied upon by industry for over 100 years. On the other side, there is the notion that ethical standards are being breached.
There has always been a convergence and conflict between law and ethics. What is legal may not always be ethical and vice versa - but law is based on justice. A need to be fair, objective and apply a set of rules and standards that meet a rational and balanced notion of what is right. Everyone is entitled to use their own judgement and can apply their own standard of ethics to any situation. But that is random and based an individual’s own motives. This is often of little use in solving disputes.
The legal standard has to be the operative standard in providing companies and individuals a framework in which they can operate. If businesses are ran based on a personal sense of ethics, it would lead to chaos. That's why law is the standard.
I'd also argue that many laws are also grounded on society’s understanding of ethics. Thus, the convergence.
It would appear that lines are being drawn here, but I'd argue that there should be no lines. On one side there is the law, the facts, an independent judge, independent witnesses, and long established patent processes and laws that have been relied upon by industry for over 100 years. On the other side, there is the notion that ethical standards are being breached.
There has always been a convergence and conflict between law and ethics. What is legal may not always be ethical and vice versa - but law is based on justice. A need to be fair, objective and apply a set of rules and standards that meet a rational and balanced notion of what is right. Everyone is entitled to use their own judgement and can apply their own standard of ethics to any situation. But that is random and based an individual’s own motives. This is often of little use in solving disputes.
The legal standard has to be the operative standard in providing companies and individuals a framework in which they can operate. If businesses are ran based on a personal sense of ethics, it would lead to chaos. That's why law is the standard.
I'd also argue that many laws are also grounded on society’s understanding of ethics. Thus, the convergence.
Re: Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion
Per, haven't said "identical", only "look similar". There's plenty of pics on their respective websites to look and compare. There may be more differences under the surface. But bottom line, if Alto can make similar or better mixers for less than Behringer without copyright violations, I'll buy those, I'm free from any brand name fobias.
About everything else, please refer to JR's posts. He writes about all this way better than others here. I'm not gonna comment on these discussions in general.
Per, haven't said "identical", only "look similar". There's plenty of pics on their respective websites to look and compare. There may be more differences under the surface. But bottom line, if Alto can make similar or better mixers for less than Behringer without copyright violations, I'll buy those, I'm free from any brand name fobias.
About everything else, please refer to JR's posts. He writes about all this way better than others here. I'm not gonna comment on these discussions in general.