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
Pro Audio
Varsity
TC Group / Music Group Anger Fest and Rumor Mill
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: 139591" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: MG and IP theft</p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting viewpoint... I tiny shred of truth about Chinese culture, but cost is the dominant reason for manufacturing there. Further as has already been shared, there are so many component manufacturers based there, manufacturing lead times can be shorter (a good thing). That said I don't think anybody considers Chinese as ignorant or innocent. Their culture is much older than ours. </p><p></p><p>I still dislike defending Behringer, but simple math suggests anything other than industry norm failure rates would be a company killer. Think about it. </p><p></p><p>For premium high end products extra robustness is engineered in, but this is a feature that customer's pay extra for, not an indication of product quality. </p><p></p><p>In the very competitive value market segment, everybody studies everybody else to minimize competitive advantages. In my experience Peavey has been copied more than is a copier but this is probably a subjective call. I was not the only engineer doing novel design and Peavey holds something like 100 patents or more. </p><p></p><p>It is not only OK but the basis of the patent system. The inventor is given exclusive use for X years in exchange for publishing the technology, so others can learn from that. After that exclusive period runs out, it becomes public domain and everybody else is free to use it. That said it can be damn irritating and lead to costly lawsuits when competitors don't wait for IP to expire, and those lawsuits are not always won. :-( </p><p></p><p>I suspect paying homage to Dan is good marketing. Before I did the Peavey AM design, I approached Dan at a trade show and asked him for some ammunition to use to argue for licensing "free" technology from him. I knew Hartley didn't reach his level of success paying for free technology. Dan replied something to the effect, that he alone knew how to design an AM properly. That sounded like a challenge to me. I was hoping he would have some other patents up his sleeve that would make partnering with him justifiable to my boss, but he didn't go there. Maybe I caught him on a bad booth day, but he made it way too easy to not work with him. </p><p></p><p>At least your posts are entertaining.... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile :-)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> </p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 139591, member: 126"] Re: MG and IP theft Interesting viewpoint... I tiny shred of truth about Chinese culture, but cost is the dominant reason for manufacturing there. Further as has already been shared, there are so many component manufacturers based there, manufacturing lead times can be shorter (a good thing). That said I don't think anybody considers Chinese as ignorant or innocent. Their culture is much older than ours. I still dislike defending Behringer, but simple math suggests anything other than industry norm failure rates would be a company killer. Think about it. For premium high end products extra robustness is engineered in, but this is a feature that customer's pay extra for, not an indication of product quality. In the very competitive value market segment, everybody studies everybody else to minimize competitive advantages. In my experience Peavey has been copied more than is a copier but this is probably a subjective call. I was not the only engineer doing novel design and Peavey holds something like 100 patents or more. It is not only OK but the basis of the patent system. The inventor is given exclusive use for X years in exchange for publishing the technology, so others can learn from that. After that exclusive period runs out, it becomes public domain and everybody else is free to use it. That said it can be damn irritating and lead to costly lawsuits when competitors don't wait for IP to expire, and those lawsuits are not always won. :-( I suspect paying homage to Dan is good marketing. Before I did the Peavey AM design, I approached Dan at a trade show and asked him for some ammunition to use to argue for licensing "free" technology from him. I knew Hartley didn't reach his level of success paying for free technology. Dan replied something to the effect, that he alone knew how to design an AM properly. That sounded like a challenge to me. I was hoping he would have some other patents up his sleeve that would make partnering with him justifiable to my boss, but he didn't go there. Maybe I caught him on a bad booth day, but he made it way too easy to not work with him. At least your posts are entertaining.... :-) JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Varsity
TC Group / Music Group Anger Fest and Rumor Mill
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!
