Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
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
Junior Varsity
Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A
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: 51475" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A</p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'">Thank you for addressing my question, "<strong>Q: Do you feel your corporate philosophy regarding intellectual property has been consistent since day one, or has that philosophy changed over the decades you have been running your business? </strong>while it was a soft ball question, you seem to be offering a far more expansive response. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'">There seems to be enough of a public record that speaks for itself. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p>I will resist rehashing this, it appears your lawyer was incorrect. </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'">Lawyers live and prosper in the grey area between the black and white, of IP law. The law seems clear enough, but the practice of it is often influenced by the golden rule (he with the most gold makes the rules). </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p>Not to change the subject, and my focus is mainly on utility patents, not design patents, it might be worth a brief revisit of the intent of IP or more specifically patent law. Granting limited protection to inventors in exchange for publishing their inventions increases our (the public's) knowledge. After that limited time protection expires, everybody is free to use that innovation. </p><p></p><p>Reverse engineering has nothing to do with patented technology. Patents publish the preferred embodiment for anybody and everybody to read and learn how to use. The "deal" in exchange for this publication is exclusive use by the inventor for a limited time. </p><p></p><p>Reverse engineering is more about parsing out trade secrets and that is fair game, to learn whatever you can "honestly" from taking gear apart. As you note, this is widely done. </p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'">There was a remarkable resemblance between Mackie's very popular 8-bus and your offering. I was at the Messe the year you introduced yours. I won't recite the legal back and forth, you surely know it better than I. No Mackie didn't have a design patent in force and I recall some significance with the meter bridge. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'">It is rather difficult to separate form from function with mixers/consoles so trade dress and design patents offer limited IP protection. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><span style="font-family: 'verdana'"></span></span></p><p>Far be it for me to put words in Greg's mouth, but who knows maybe he will chime in here. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> and straighten me out. </p><p></p><p>I recall one private conversation i had with him at a NAMM show back around then, and he was far from calm or gracious about your mixer. His comments were kind of humorous but I am uncomfortable paraphrasing him for public consumption so I won't. </p><p></p><p>At least the lawyers made a pile of money. </p><p></p><p>Yes, it is irritating to the large competitors, and far more than frustrating to very small companies who are no longer competitive. </p><p></p><p>On one level I considered it a left handed compliment when you copied one of my small mixers almost verbatim (RQ200), but I can live without such compliments.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I only have first hand experience, about one IP lawsuit related to one of my old patents assigned to Peavey (FLS) back when I worked there. i am pretty confident it was not a marketing smear tactic and speaking for myself, I believe my original invention was infringed. I haven't followed the lawsuits progress through the courts. From a quick google it looks like you may have already won that case too. I am just a layman, so remain unclear about how a court can adjudicate what is essentially a circuit design question. Circuit design I do understand. </p><p></p><p>It appears since then the legal wrangling between you guys has devolved to very high priced legal mud slinging. Have fun with that. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't be very objective about my inventions, so i will just leave it there. </p><p></p><p>i wouldn't expect the rest of the console industry to fold up camp just yet. Not to veer off topic, i think even a digital console with a hundred linux processors is just the another evolutionary step along the same path. IMO it's time for paradigm shift wrt consoles, but that discussion is not for here and now. </p><p></p><p>We have seen dramatic improvements in amplifier efficiency over the last several decades. At 94% for amps it may be time to begin looking at loudspeaker efficiency? </p><p></p><p></p><p>I appreciate your willingness to adress this touchy subject. Winners get to write their history and so far you have won most of your IP lawsuits. </p><p></p><p>Here's hoping you never get sued again.... but I know how it goes in those trenches. </p><p></p><p></p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 51475, member: 126"] Re: Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A [SIZE=2][FONT=verdana] Thank you for addressing my question, "[b]Q: Do you feel your corporate philosophy regarding intellectual property has been consistent since day one, or has that philosophy changed over the decades you have been running your business? [/b]while it was a soft ball question, you seem to be offering a far more expansive response. There seems to be enough of a public record that speaks for itself. [/FONT][/SIZE] I will resist rehashing this, it appears your lawyer was incorrect. [SIZE=2][FONT=verdana] Lawyers live and prosper in the grey area between the black and white, of IP law. The law seems clear enough, but the practice of it is often influenced by the golden rule (he with the most gold makes the rules). [/FONT][/SIZE] Not to change the subject, and my focus is mainly on utility patents, not design patents, it might be worth a brief revisit of the intent of IP or more specifically patent law. Granting limited protection to inventors in exchange for publishing their inventions increases our (the public's) knowledge. After that limited time protection expires, everybody is free to use that innovation. Reverse engineering has nothing to do with patented technology. Patents publish the preferred embodiment for anybody and everybody to read and learn how to use. The "deal" in exchange for this publication is exclusive use by the inventor for a limited time. Reverse engineering is more about parsing out trade secrets and that is fair game, to learn whatever you can "honestly" from taking gear apart. As you note, this is widely done. [SIZE=2][FONT=verdana] There was a remarkable resemblance between Mackie's very popular 8-bus and your offering. I was at the Messe the year you introduced yours. I won't recite the legal back and forth, you surely know it better than I. No Mackie didn't have a design patent in force and I recall some significance with the meter bridge. It is rather difficult to separate form from function with mixers/consoles so trade dress and design patents offer limited IP protection. [/FONT][/SIZE] Far be it for me to put words in Greg's mouth, but who knows maybe he will chime in here. :-) and straighten me out. I recall one private conversation i had with him at a NAMM show back around then, and he was far from calm or gracious about your mixer. His comments were kind of humorous but I am uncomfortable paraphrasing him for public consumption so I won't. At least the lawyers made a pile of money. Yes, it is irritating to the large competitors, and far more than frustrating to very small companies who are no longer competitive. On one level I considered it a left handed compliment when you copied one of my small mixers almost verbatim (RQ200), but I can live without such compliments. I only have first hand experience, about one IP lawsuit related to one of my old patents assigned to Peavey (FLS) back when I worked there. i am pretty confident it was not a marketing smear tactic and speaking for myself, I believe my original invention was infringed. I haven't followed the lawsuits progress through the courts. From a quick google it looks like you may have already won that case too. I am just a layman, so remain unclear about how a court can adjudicate what is essentially a circuit design question. Circuit design I do understand. It appears since then the legal wrangling between you guys has devolved to very high priced legal mud slinging. Have fun with that. I can't be very objective about my inventions, so i will just leave it there. i wouldn't expect the rest of the console industry to fold up camp just yet. Not to veer off topic, i think even a digital console with a hundred linux processors is just the another evolutionary step along the same path. IMO it's time for paradigm shift wrt consoles, but that discussion is not for here and now. We have seen dramatic improvements in amplifier efficiency over the last several decades. At 94% for amps it may be time to begin looking at loudspeaker efficiency? I appreciate your willingness to adress this touchy subject. Winners get to write their history and so far you have won most of your IP lawsuits. Here's hoping you never get sued again.... but I know how it goes in those trenches. JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Pro Audio
Junior Varsity
Uli Behringer of The Music Group Q&A
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!