Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 115586" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: New Midas M32 Console</p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>-----</p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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). </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Am I the only one growing weary of this... ? </p><p></p><p>JR </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 115586, member: 126"] Re: New Midas M32 Console 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. 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 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
