Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:55 am Post subject:
Intellectual property Subject description: What can, and cannot, be lawfully used or copied.
I am opening up this thread because there is, in another thread, a debate about the limits of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) when using other people's designs or cloning designs.
Please, can we not include Copyright of music here, but instead focus on the law and ethics of copying circuit designs, panels, PCB and circuit drawings, and using names that may be trademarks.
So the debate will be about:
Copyright - PCB Layouts, circuit diagrams, software, (NOT the circuits themselves)
Patents and rights to designs (particularly electronic circuits),
Trademarks , registered and unregistered, particularly the 'names' of old synths,
Business Names,
Registered designs.
I understand that this forum, quite reasonably, requires permission from original designers or IPR holders before designs can be reproduced here. That is reasonable and sensible, as electro-music.com does not have the resources to check the IPR of everything posted here.
However, it does mean that some designs that are in the public domain and can legally used by anyone, even for commercial purposes, but still cannot be posted here as that would break forum rules. That is the Forum operators rule and it should be respected. It does not , however, necessarily mean that people using designs 'without permission' are acting illegally, or unethically.
For the record, I do not condone illegal use of any IPR, and as a musician and designer, would expect others to use my work within the law. What I do NOT do is pretend that I have legal rights that I don't actually have, and nor should others. That is the position I am 'coming from'.
As a professional engineer and businessman, I have considerable experience in IPR, though I am not a lawyer. With that in mind, if you are in doubt about the legal position relating to any intellectual property, do not rely just on what I say, consult a legal professional (there, I just covered my ass).
I think a mature and sensible debate on this general topic will be informative to forum users, and will hopefully clear some misconceptions.
As the opening part of this debate, there has been debate about the ethics and legality of 'cloning' a synthesiser, either for personal use or commercial exploitation.
Specifically, the old EMS VCS3 has been discussed. Out of curiousity I have done some simple and easy research, and according to information on Electronic Music Studios own website http://www.ems-synthi.demon.co.uk/ it is clear that the current business 'Electronic Music Studios' does not have any intellectual property rights to the original circuit designs of the VCS3, and probably never did.
There is no company registered as 'Electronic Music Studios', it appears to be a trading name of an individual or partnership (presumably Robin Wood), and is not the company Electronic Music Studios (London) Ltd that produced the original VCS3 in 1969. That company ceased to exist many years ago.
VCS and VCS3 are not Registered Trade Marks (for electronic music instruments) , but are clearly unregistered trade marks used by Electronic Music Studios, and if someone else built and sold a synth calling it a "VCS3" or "EMS" synth, they would probably be guilty of the offence of "passing off". If it was described as a "VCS3 clone", or "VCS3 replica", that would be perfectly legal as far as trade marks are concerned.
Incidentally, "Electronic Music Studios" is probably too descriptive, and too generic, to qualify as a trade mark, registered or unregistered.
The distinctive EMS logo with stylised tuning fork graphic is clearly an (unregistered) trade mark and it's commercial use without the permission of Electronic Music Studios would almost certainly be illegal ("passing off").
I make the point that Electronic Music Studios are free to register the trade marks if they so wish. They haven't and that is their choice. All their competitors need to pay to register any trade marks, and Electronic Music Studios are no different, they are not a special case. If they are businesslike they will accept the consequences of their decision. If they want to legally prohibit people from selling a synth described as a 'VCS3 clone' they would need to register the Trade Mark 'VCS3'. They haven't.
What no business can expect is special treatment which their competitors do not receive, and anyone running a business believing otherwise needs a reality check. I am not suggesting that Electronic Music Studios are taking this unreasonable view, however.
EMS is a Registered Trade Mark regarding software producing sounds, to a German company that probably has nothing to do with Electronic Music Studios.
The original VCS3 was produced in 1969. Robin Wood joined EMS the following year, 1970, and was involved as a Sales/Demonstrator. Also, 'In April 1995 Robin Wood aquired the full rights of EMS after working for all incarnations continuously since 1970'.
It therefore seems that Robin was not even involved with EMS until after the original VCS3 was designed. He would not therefore have been named as an inventor on any patent for the original VCS3.
There are two ways, and only two ways, of aquiring legal protection for a circuit design (I am not referring to the circuit diagram, which may be copyright, but the circuit itself, which is an invention).
They are:
1) Secrecy (confidentiality)
2) Patents.
As the VCS3 was openly marketed in 1969, the design, by definition, could not have been secret after that date.
Similarly, if there were any patents filed, they must have been filed before the design was disclosed (i.e., put on the market) in 1969 or they would not have been granted.
The longest a Patent can be valid and subsisting is 20 years. Therefore, no part of the circuit design placed on the market before 1990 can now be be subject to confidentiality or valid patent.
Whatever rights to EMS Robin Wood aquired in 1995, they cannot have included any legal rights to circuit designs placed on the market pre-1975, including the original VCS3 circuit designs. They were, by then, already in the public domain.
Robin is not being wronged, legally or morally, by anyone cloning (and even selling) copies of the original VCS3 circuitry, as he does not own the rights to them and apparently never did.*
The only VCS3 circuit design rights he might currently hold would be patents filed in the past 20 years or so for circuit modifications or newer circuits.
If people are infringing, by commercial use, existing patents for circuits that are still valid, I disapprove. Similarly, where existing IPR exists in PCBs, circuit drawings, or panel designs, it should not be used commercially without permission from the IPR holder, probably Robin Wood.
Robin is therefore using someone else's circuit designs, legally as they are in the public domain and have been for decades. As can anyone else. I fail to see how this would give him a legal or moral right over the circuit designs. It would be preposterous to describe anyone else, using any circuit designs that Robin does not, and never has owned, as 'dishonest' for not getting Robin's permission.
It would be dishonest (and illegal) to market a new product as a genuine VCS3, without permission from EMS/ Robin Wood (who use the unregistered trade mark), or sell a product using any EMS PCB layout or panel design, without permission from the copyright holder(s) (presumably EMS/Robin Wood)
*In theory he may have aquired, before 1989, some rights to the original VCS3 circuitry, but would, or should, have known that they would expire in 1989 at the very latest.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:13 am Post subject:
Thank you for your well researched post.
In terms of "legality", I would be loathe to attempt to research all of the relevant law in all relevant jurisdictions without a lawyer (for each jurisdiction) opining. The laws of the USA tend to differ in this regard from European law (and within the EU each member state seems to have quirks too).
bear in mind that should a rights holder (or even just someone who claims the rights) want to bring on a lawsuit against you, it is likely that the onus would be on you to disprove their interest. The best example I can think of is the now infamous SCO lawsuits against a variety of corporations, most notably Novell and IBM. If you aren't familiar with this particular family of lawsuits, check out groklaw.net and read up. My point is, lawsuits are expensive, sometimes more expensive than they are worth. In a low margin world, those kinds of overheads might be shattering to an individual, regardless of whether or not that individual can prove that the plaintiff has no rights to claim.
This kind of reminds me of the "Moog Music" palaver in the UK, which resulted in the manual for my Voyager (and MF pedals) to have lots of redacted bits in them, and the nameplate on my Voyager says "by Robert Moog" instead of the Moog Music logo. And that company (Moog Music, not the guy in Somerset), by the way, has been through a few changes and if we were having this same conversation in 1990, you could have said all the same things about Moog.
The issue, in my mind, about your specific example, has more to do with ethics than legality. There are actually very few surviving patents (if there are any at all) for any of these kinds of analog circuits. I also don't think a lot of the circuit inventors here own patents on their inventions; furthermore, it is not likely that anyone who does has worldwide patent protection, although again, I'm not a lawyer and I have not done much research on who owns what patents in the analog synthesizer world. My impression is that there probably aren't a lot of surviving ones.
There are really 3 ways you can deal with a copyright protected PCB layout. You can either redesign your own layout, obtain a license from the copyright holder, or you can just use it and hope you don't get sued. Option 3 is what I would consider the ethically challenged option.
I'm not even going into the trade names/defunct business names/etc. See above where I reference SCO vs World+dog. The company calling itself SCO isn't the same company that originally called itself SCO, yet has claimed the same rights (and then some more too) as the original.
So again, I'd like to offer that one could be perfectly legally in the right, and ethically in the wrong; it is perfectly conceivable that one could even be ethically in the right, and still be perceived as wrong, depending on how the situation was arrived at.
There's an old saying, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission".
There's another project (actually a few) going on in DIY that are of note. The Synthacon project, for one, and the Music Easel, for another. Neither is a commercial venture, although the Synthacon project is being approached in a manner which reflects this discussion. However that one got permission, even if it didn't really need to.
Quote:
However, it does mean that some designs that are in the public domain and can legally used by anyone, even for commercial purposes, but still cannot be posted here as that would break forum rules. That is the Forum operators rule and it should be respected. It does not , however, necessarily mean that people using designs 'without permission' are acting illegally, or unethically.
Let's clarify this. The forum operators are reflecting the will of the community here. I completely agree with the last sentence of that quote; see above where I say you can be right and still be perceived to be wrong.
Quote:
What I do NOT do is pretend that I have legal rights that I don't actually have, and nor should others. That is the position I am 'coming from'.
Well, see SCO again. "nor should others", indeed. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
I think Don has made some very valid points and has clarified considerably the legal position regarding IPR. I feel that there are two separate points for consideration here, the legality of clones and the ethics behind cloning.
As we have already established it is not illegal to clone anything, even if it is patented and is a registered design, providing that the clone you build is for your own use only and you do not intend to sell it, give it away or otherwise distribute it. This last bit applies to the vast majority of clones built by electro-music.com members. Ethically I personally do not have any problem with this and would happlily clone anything whether it be a Moog Voyager, VCS3 or Access Virus Ti. I'm not saying I have the ability to do so, only the right
An second scenario is if someone offers fully assembled clones for sale in numbers that could cause a problem to people that are currently manufacturing such an item but where patents have expired or were never taken, I will use the EMS VCS 3 as an example of this. It seems that as long as it isn't called a VCS 3 or passed off as one then it would probably be legal to do this, certainly in markets other than the UK where you could probably even call it a VCS3 if you wanted to. The question is if would be ethical to do so, I'd say no but I think that this would best be addressed by a poll of forum members.
The third scenario is where people offer kits, pcb's or sub assemblies that could be used to build clones of synths that have no exising IPR but the designer is still alive and doesn't like the idea. Personally I would be ok with the ethics of this as it isn't causing any financial hardship or loss of profit to the designer. He may not like it but that's his problem, he is quite welcome to do the same and probably enjoy condierably better sales as he has put his name to it. Again, my opinion and best settled by a poll.
The fourth and probably the most contentious scenario is where people offer kits, pcb's or sub assemblies of synths such as the VCS3 which are still in production, even if it is in small numbers and there is a huge waiting list for them. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with this if they went to people that only used them to build a clone for their own use - this would most likely be the case on this forum. Again, ethically, I wouldn't have a problem with this either as it is unlikely that these buyers would buy the ready made item as they probably want to make their own mods or "improvements". Now, it is possible that someone buys these parts and assembles finished synths from them which he/she sells - this is where the problems start and ethically I'd say that this is wrong even if legally it is ok and no IPR has been infringed. But the argument here is that it isn't illegal(and possibly not immoral) to buy a gun, it only becomes illegal / immoral when you misuse it....
I think it would be good to set some forum ground rules on these issues so that everyone knows where they stand.
Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 8932 Location: Birmingham, England, UK
Audio files: 11
G2 patch files: 1
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 7:03 am Post subject:
2thick4uni wrote:
But the argument here is that it isn't illegal(and possibly not immoral) to buy a gun, it only becomes illegal / immoral when you misuse it....
Yes, I do think that Don has some valid points (yes Don, I am a designer, and I am more than aware of IPR, when it is taken to its maximum conclusions. Like I said, it's a very fine wire). But then so also has Paul made some equally valid points (and others who I will not mention, because it is not up to me to drag them into this discussion). Dare I mention it, I also respect the wishes of Robin Wood, who I spoke to on the telephone. I wanted to clear things up with Robin, so we could get permission here on the forum to allow Derek Revell to advertise is clone boards here on the forum. As you can imagine, that went down like a lead balloon.
Yes, Paul hit the nail on the head. It's a matter of ethics.
Talking with Robin, brought me to my senses. But no one else has telephoned him, which personally I think is very poor show.
The VCS3 is up there with the original Moog. The design has been around for yonks. There is so much other stuff that can be built with so many other parts, so why the obsession to clone a synthi? Perhaps this (and the question of ethics) is the question we really should be asking?
Recently, the plans to build a Minimoog were recently posted here on electro-music, however they also were promptly pulled down by Admin. electro-music is a specialised area- especially DIY. Otoh, the music, its 'byproduct', is not the issue here so we won't discuss that. This is partially Robin Wood's problem too, but I've been over that, and I (that's me that is....you lot can help yourselves) really don't want to fan this debate any more. But cloning a synthi essentially is denying Robin of a sale. JH will tell you that cloning a synthi, will cost you just as much as it will to buy a new one. Essentially by cloning an EMS product you are denying Robin a sale, and ultimately hammering another, and probably final nail in EMS's coffin. Can we not keep the last surviving bastion of analogue history in tact, or do we really have to destroy everything?
FWIW, The recent announcement of the Synthi Hi-Fli, is also non-licenced- and according to Analogue Systems is not endorsed by EMS Ltd either.
BTW, JH has sold his Synthi clone, but is holding onto his Matrix FX. Bang on JH! We should be designing and building the next generation of Matrix FX's and pushing boundaries rather than simply copying, right?
_________________ ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKSEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 8:16 am Post subject:
Quote:
I think it would be good to set some forum ground rules on these issues so that everyone knows where they stand.
Well, we do have some ground rules and they're mostly in the sticky topics at the top of all of the relevant fora (or forums, both plurals are correct, in case the more pedantic of you take issue ) Whether they get read in the first instance, or adhered to in the second instance, is an exercise for the reader.
We frequently get complaints from people we've banned, that we shouldn't have banned them because [insert some specious premise] is of course relevant to forum members who might want [insert specious premise]. The reality is that we exercise editorial license on this place so you don't have to be bombarded with what the community considers to be spam or (let's be charitable) irrelevant content.
We also get a lot of feedback from many, many members of the community. The community is listened to more, both literally and figuratively, than maybe people realise.
Anyway, the reason there are no guidelines for this is that it is a complex issue which doesn't easily seem to have a template we can work off. The original poster has brought up a fair number of good, researched points which might be frustrating to know, however right, or factually correct they are, and that is the root of the conundrum.
My take on this, for what it is worth, is that these sorts of situations have to be addressed as each situation arises. Nothing can be made foolproof, since fools are so ingenious, it has been said.
And remember that the SDIY forums (or fora, see above) are an acronym for "Synthesizer Do It Yourself". Cloning is an individual choice by the DIY-er. And I don't have anything personal against either people who want to clone classic analogue synthesizers, or people who wish to make money doing that (although I reserve the right to be skeptical as we've seen all manner of characters whose inability to produce has made trouble for everyone). I do get sensitive about using this site as free advertising for moneymaking ventures with nothing offered to the site.
Which I suppose gets back to the heart of the matter of ethics. If Robin objects (in the specific case being used as a general rhetorical case here), this is a matter for Don and Robin to work out, and not in a public forum. This whole subject would have been different, had that been done. See Nyle Steiner's involvement in Dingebre's Synthasystem project.
Like it or not, and as much as I despise the term "intellectual property" which attaches physical ownership of abstract concepts (and is therefore one of the most misused, misapplied and tricky areas of law known to modern civilization), these issues are all too common and are likely to be even more common until better education, laws, and possibly (hopefully!) reform occurs.
In the meantime, I've said what I care to for now. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
Just to clarify; I do not have any issues with Robin Wood or EMS; I have never had cause to contact him, I am not cloning a VCS3. One day I might even buy a VCS3 off Robin, or perhaps use some of the circuit designs.
I started this thread because a moderator, in a different thread ventured the opinion that another poster was cloning a VCS3 and that this was 'dishonest', a comment that I felt was inappropriate and ill-informed.
I shall explain why.
There is rarely any truly, completely original electronic circuit; I can't think of any from the past 100 years.
All circuit designs draw on many inventions of many other people.
Take a resistor; someone invented the principle of using a resistor to limit current in a circuit; another, the potential divider.
The idea of using metal oxide, or carbon, in a resistor, is an invention; so was the idea of coating a ceramic tube with the resistant compound.
Even the paint in the stripes on the resistors was someone's invention, someone's hard work.
True, when one buys a component, it is the responsibilty of the manufacturer to ensure any subsisting IPR is licensed, but all elements of a circuit design are also inventions.
Take my example above, EMS. The VCS3 came out in 1969, 41 years ago. Any patents on the original circuits have long expired, that can be stated with certainty.
By a tidy symmetry, 41 years before that, in 1928, Blumlein invented, and patented, the principles of negative feedback.
Anyone using an inverting op-amp with feedback resistors, or a transistor amp with resistors between the emitter and ground, is using Blumlein's invention. The same goes for innumerable other aspects of circuits, they all draw on older inventions.
In other words, almost every synthesiser design, analogue and digital, uses Blumlein's invention.
I do not imagine for one moment that EMS sought permission to use Blumlein's 41-year-old invention; nor did they have to, legally.
Blumlein's patents expired long before EMS used his invention. The invention of negative feedback was in the public domain.
EMS also drew upon Bob Moog's inventions, and those of thousands of other people.
What some people do not understand is that a patent is a bargain with the state; an inventor is granted a patent, and receives legal protection for the invention, for a finite time, in exchange for a fee and on the condition that the invention is published. Disclosure is an essential part of the patent process. When the patent expires, the invention becomes public property, by law. It is not only lawful to use inventions in the public domain without permission, it is completely ethical.
This, incidentally, means that old expired patents could be a useful source of information to anyone building old-style synthesisers.
Sure, inventors wish their own inventions were protected forever, but the flipside of that is that they would not be able to use any older invention. Technological evolution would come to a standstill.
If one is going to take the position that it is dishonest to use an old, public domain invention, without the inventors permission, I defy anyone to explain how permission could be obtained from all the relevant inventors. Merely contacting the circuit designer would not be satisfactory, it would be skirting the issue. You may think the only relevant invention is the entire circuit, but the circuit will contain many other old inventions, and is the sum total of all of them.
It would be preposterous and impractical to identify every invention used in a circuit, and even more impractical to identify the inventor, contact them, and obtain unnecessary permission.
You would have to identify them all. Use a PCB? Someone elses invention. The transistor. Solder. Using capacitors for AC coupling. Capacitors to stabilise power supplies, capacitors as feedback elements, capacitors as timer components, capacitors in filters, etc., etc. All someone else's inventions, all someone else's hard work; all, once, someone else's intellectual property.
If there is an ethical imperative to get permission, ALL of the relevant inventions would have to be identified, inventors would have to be found, contacted and permission obtained. From ALL of them.
The only realistic criterion regarding permission is the legal one; don't use IPR unlawfully. Any other criterion would be impractical, inconsistent and unrealistic.
As a circuit designer, I am perfectly at ease in lawfully using the public domain inventions of other people, for personal and commercial use. Like every other circuit designer, I have to. It is impossible not to.
I trust that anyone who is reading this, who disagrees, has written to Sir Tim Berners-Lee and obtained his permission to use the World Wide Web. Because if they haven't, they do not, morally, have a leg to stand on.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I trust that anyone who is reading this, who disagrees, has written to Sir Tim Berners-Lee and obtained his permission to use the World Wide Web. Because if they haven't, they do not, morally, have a leg to stand on.
Emoticons might be helpful there. I can't tell if that was a serious comment or not.
There is a difference between morals, values, and ethics.
I don't think anybody is disputing the human characteristic of building upon existing knowledge. Nor has anybody here ever disputed a hobbyist's right to build whatever collection of circuits and call it whatever they want. Because, in essence, that's all it is, eh?
None of this argument has anything to do with the just plain wrongness of making a mercantile business out of cloning a product, no matter how allegedly unprotected it is, if it is, for all intents and purposes, the product of a going concern. It matters not one whit if the company is not building that product at present, or the product has been cast about through successive generations of companies.
As Linus said about the SCO lawsuits, "even in an alternate universe where such things are right, it's still wrong."
Not that this hasn't been done before. The resulting products are called fakes, or replicas, or reproductions. One can assume the label is applied depending on the circumstances of provenance. One sees this from time to time in the art world. Is circuit design an art?
Anybody can build a pitchfork. And they can call it a pitchfork.
The inventions we're talking about are arguably a bit more unique.
Anybody checked out http://www.mellotron.com lately? My understanding is there was an uncontested chain of custody there. They're pretty expensive too. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
Anybody can build a pitchfork. And they can call it a pitchfork. The inventions we're talking about are arguably a bit more unique.
I think I would disagree with that, in its day the invention of the pitchfork was almost certainly more life changing and important than a bunch of analog circuits that just make funny noises
And I know a lot of people that couldn't make a pitchfork today even with the benefit of all of the information on their manufacture that's available on t'internet .....................
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:04 pm Post subject:
[quote="2thick4uni"]
EdisonRex wrote:
Quote:
Anybody can build a pitchfork. And they can call it a pitchfork. The inventions we're talking about are arguably a bit more unique.
I think I would disagree with that, in its day the invention of the pitchfork was almost certainly more life changing and important than a bunch of analog circuits that just make funny noises
And I know a lot of people that couldn't make a pitchfork today even with the benefit of all of the information on their manufacture that's available on t'internet .....................
_________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
Emoticons might be helpful there. I can't tell if that was a serious comment or not.
It makes my point, emoticon or otherwise. If people are going to argue that it is dishonest, immoral or unethical to use a public domain invention without the inventor's explicit permission, they should at least be consistent.
EdisonRex wrote:
None of this argument has anything to do with the just plain wrongness of making a mercantile business out of cloning a product, no matter how allegedly unprotected it is, if it is, for all intents and purposes, the product of a going concern. It matters not one whit if the company is not building that product at present, or the product has been cast about through successive generations of companies.
Nonsense. Rather, it matters not one whit if a going concern happens to be using the public domain ideas that you also wish to, and are free to, use.
You think that if a business is doing something that you can also lawfully do, it is immoral or unethical to compete with them? Good grief!
If the clone/replica/fake is an exact or close copy that infringes remaining IPR, selling it would be illegal as someone still owns some IPR (copyright in particular) and I would not condone that.
If, however, the 'clone' (say) only uses the public domain circuit designs (which nobody owns), but with a different panel, PCB design, etc, then it does not infringe anyone's rights. It is not an exact replica; only the public domain element of the original design is being copied. I would not be inclined to call it a clone, however, if it was different to that extent.
If it is unethical to produce something similar to something that another business is manufacturing, maybe Buchla were, in their day, in the wrong too, for doing something similar to what Moog had invented. Every Buchla synth sold immorally or unethically denied Moog a sale?
I ask you to identify a product that DOES NOT use inventions that are also in the products of other going concerns. Give this careful thought, and then you will see the inconsistency of your position.
What would the world be world be like where no-one competed? Where no-one was able to use other peoples ideas? Where no-one improved upon older inventions? Where no alternatives to products were produced because they shared some inventions with the competing product? Where someone, using other peoples ideas in the public domain, continues to make an old product and can still expect a monopoly on those ideas?
Gibson would never have made a solid-body electric guitar. Moog would never have made an electronic keyboard. ARP would never have made a voltage-controlled synth. Ford would never have made a car. They were all the ideas of other people, already made by other going concerns.
You may feel sorry for, or having a sentimental affection for, a small manufacturer that is selling products using circuits that they did not design, and never owned, who is unhappy that other people also make or sell products using the same circuits, it's your choice. It is not, however, immoral nor unethical for someone else to use the circuits commercially.
If the manufacturer doesn't like competition, they can ask themselves why people prefer to make their own rather than buy from them, and improve their product or service accordingly. For example, if it takes you 6 years to deliver a product, when someone else can deliver something simiar in a few months, don't blame your 'lost' customer or the other manufacturer - the source of the problem is a lot closer to home. In business, it's a bad sign if you seem to think your potential customers or competitors owe you a free or easy ride.
If the manufacturer is having a problem with other people lawfully doing something cheaper, quicker or better than them, it's not the other people that are the problem. It's the manufacturer's failure to do things properly in the first place.
Offer a good product or service and you will get customers. If you don't and anyone else is free to use the same ideas that you do, you will lose sales. Or rather, fail to gain them - custom is not a god-given right; you have to earn it.
I'd love it if I had no competitors for my business. However, my expecting that would not be an adult attitude.
Quote:
The inventions we're talking about are arguably a bit more unique.
Something is either unique or it isn't. For an invention to be patentable, it MUST be original, and therefore, unique. If it ain't unique, you didn't invent it, by definition, and would be using someone else's idea. A circuit design will necessarily incorporate previous inventions ('prior art') but the inventor of the circuit only invents the new circuit or some new aspect of it, not every earlier invention that it incorporates. In time, other people can use your invention. That's the way it works.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:33 am Post subject:
Quote:
Nonsense. Rather, it matters not one whit if a going concern happens to be using the public domain ideas that you also wish to, and are free to, use.
Ok, I'm going to stop feeding this troll. There is no further value to be gained from this discussion. I wish you the best of luck in your future marketing endeavours. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
Nonsense. Rather, it matters not one whit if a going concern happens to be using the public domain ideas that you also wish to, and are free to, use.
Ok, I'm going to stop feeding this troll. There is no further value to be gained from this discussion. I wish you the best of luck in your future marketing endeavours.
For the record, I entered the debate originally in another thread, where a new poster was asking Cliff to start a new production run of knobs that were used on the VCS3, amongst other things. The moderator absurdly and unfairly accused him of dishonesty, repeatedly implied that the OP was some sort of rip-off, repeatedly asked me to ring someone well-known out of the blue, after unpleasantly suggesting that they had 'personal issues', sneered at the OP's 'cosy little thread', and implied I was some sort of failure for not doing as he suggested by disturbing a complete stranger. It was just plain nasty, and not what I would expect from a moderator. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I am not using any EMS designs. I have no cause to disturb Robin Wood. v-and-v was still keen to have me ring Robin Wood (and even v-and-v says Robin wants nothing to do with this forum), and yet was happy to repeatedly imply the OP of the earlier thread was a rip-off and a liar without apparently contacting Cliff Electronic Components Ltd to check the facts.
I started this thread as it was going seriously OT in the original thread.
I am not marketing anything in these forums. I was considering posting a lot of my original designs, including novel waveshapers, a digital/analogue hybrid VCO, and an analogue sequencer, but as debate on the ground rules for IPR seems to invite insults from the moderators I doubt I will now.
Good luck in running a forum where anyone who actually expresses an opinion contrary to yours, and justifies it with reasoning, is a 'troll'.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:24 am Post subject:
Funny how the only people who ever complain are the ones that prove by their actions to be unreasonable. We have plenty of reasonable people on these forums and they don't seem to be complaining about our moderating abilities, in fact we get complimented quite a bit on them. So I don't feel bad at all calling out unreasonable behaviour. We're all unpaid volunteers here, we all have day jobs, and it has been demonstrated by the success of the forums, radio, store, festivals and artist pages that our moderating style works just fine.
Nobody has argued with your research. Nobody has argued with much of anything to do with this topic. I do draw the line in discussions when my points on being ethical are carefully excised from the argument as "nonsense". There are more tactful ways of saying things to keep them civil. My view has always been that you're free to do what you want, and the market will decide if you're wrong. It's your money. All competition take their chances. I understand Mega-Blox and Lego have been at it for years. A long running lawsuit between Lego and Mega-Blox for the "right" to build plastic blocks with connecting tubes was finally thrown out of court, as the patents had expired long before, and Lego was attempting to use trademark law instead. Which leaves Mega-Blox free to make little coloured blocks to fit with Legos. Which is fine, except that my kids can even tell you that Mega Blox are inferior in manufacture to Lego blocks and do not work as well. Sure they're cheaper, but my kids hate them. Caveat Emptor, as it is said.
My only substantive observation was that ethically, it's wrong to use the name of a product that is still in production. It doesn't mean that people don't do it all the time. But Synthesizers.com doesn't pretend to market Moog modules or call their systems Moog systems, nor does Oakley or John Blacet or most other commercial module manufacturers that I can think of off the top of my head. They do, however, use circuits that originated from long ago, and they do think up new ways of putting components together. I'd imagine that some of those combinations are patentable, but it's not for me to make that determination.
If this discussion is actually a proxy to your own issues from a different topic, we can discuss those issues in private. There is absolutely no need to club someone by proxy here, and doing so is a waste of time.
Quote:
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Communitas custos. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
We have plenty of reasonable people on these forums and they don't seem to be complaining about our moderating abilities
Take note that the OP of the thread I referred to complained that the moderator was trolling. I don't think that saying someone is dishonest in a public forum should be taken lightly either.
I note that v-and-v, having said that selling clones is 'dishonest' in another thread, now makes a laboured point of announcing here that JH has done just that. From what I see JH makes a significant contribution to the synth DIY community. Is v-and-v trying to upset everyone who tries to contribute to the fora?
EdisonRex wrote:
I do draw the line in discussions when my points on being ethical are carefully excised from the argument as "nonsense".
If you are offended by the word 'nonsense', then I apologise. It literally means that what you said did not make sense (to me at least) , and I took the trouble to explain why. I, in turn, object to being called a 'troll'.
I did not excise your points; I addressed them as well as I could.
EdisonRex wrote:
My only substantive observation was that ethically, it's wrong to use the name of a product that is still in production.
I beg to differ, but you referred to the "just plain wrongness of making a mercantile business out of cloning a product, no matter how allegedly unprotected it is, if it is, for all intents and purposes, the product of a going concern." That's very different to "using the name of a product that is still in production", which would almost certainly be passing off or trade mark infringement if done commercially*. I disagree with your former statement, and agree with the latter, for a start.
EdisonRex wrote:
If this discussion is actually a proxy to your own issues from a different topic, we can discuss those issues in private.
The insults and inappropriate insinuations about the posters and other people, in the other thread, were public.
As I said, this thread has it's origins in a different thread and was OT; I took them here for what I hope will be informed discussion and debate.
* I have elaborated on trade marks already in this thread, in a way that I hope is informative and useful to the forum users.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:57 am Post subject:
Quote:
Take note that the OP of the thread I referred to complained that the moderator was trolling. I don't think that saying someone is dishonest in a public forum should be taken lightly either.
The OP of the other thread is welcome to approach the forum management privately. I am unaware of any such contact, and I am generally aware of such things. Do be aware that we have had what have turned out to be very dishonest people attempting to market SDIY components and accessories, as well as people in the For Sale forum who were less than honest in their dealings. I am curious why this inflames you to the point of public denunciation; we endeavour to promote civilised behaviour on the fora.
Quote:
If you are offended by the word 'nonsense', then I apologise. It literally means that what you said did not make sense (to me at least) , and I took the trouble to explain why. I, in turn, object to being called a 'troll'.
And I can back down and apologise as well. It was an inappropriate comment. I would disagree that you addressed my points; my reading of your text implied to me that you dismissed them altogether.
Quote:
I beg to differ, but you referred to the 'just plain wrongness of making a mercantile business out of cloning a product, no matter how allegedly unprotected it is, if it is, for all intents and purposes, the product of a going concern.' That's very different to 'using the name of a product that is still in production', which would almost certainly be passing off or trade mark infringement if done commercially. I disagree with your former statement, and agree with the latter, for a start.
The issue is ethical, not legal, in my mind for your not-so-hypothetical argument. Given the bounds of the premise of the discussion, I cannot reach any other conclusion. The reason nobody argues with the legal issues is that most of us who have discussed this before agree that patents have long expired on such inventions. But the community is fairly small, and many in the community have known, or known of, each other for many years. Copyright and trademark issues are still valid in general. if not for the bounded thesis given at the top of this thread.
Quote:
The insults and inappropriate insinuations about the posters on the other thread, were public.
That doesn't automatically require public response. I think the moderator had valid points too, by the way.
Quote:
As I said, this thread has it's origins in a different thread and was OT; I took them here for what I hope will be informed discussion and debate.
It has been informative debate. I am not convinced that we are establishing anything we didn't already know yet. I have brought up a number of non-synthesizer-circuit examples, to gain some generality, but apparently the worm is nibbled off the hook and I've not got the bite yet. I certainly couldn't integrate the examples and arguments so far into a coherent policy for "what's right".
I have been trying to find examples of complex systems which have similar historical characteristics. Most of the examples I come up with don't get anywhere near the VCS example for a number of different reasons. Anybody can build a Theremin; that only a few companies do it well is probably more to do with the market in the first place. Perhaps the Ondea vs. Ondes Martinot might be an example. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
I have brought up a number of non-synthesizer-circuit examples, to gain some generality.
EdisonRex wrote:
I have been trying to find examples of complex systems which have similar historical characteristics.
I would suggest the motor car as a good analogy, and (perhaps!) a less emotive subject in these fora. people do, after all, make replica cars too.
Although I have referred to EMS in detail (as EMS was discussed originally) I hope this thread will deal with the subject generically. I don't want it to get bogged down by the minutaie of particular brands or manufacturers, other than by way of illustration.
To come back to the debate about ethics:
EdisonRex wrote:
I despise the term "intellectual property" which attaches physical ownership of abstract concepts (and is therefore one of the most misused, misapplied and tricky areas of law known to modern civilization)
Unless I misunderstand you, you don't just dislike the term, you disagree with it because it embodies the principle of abstract concepts being property; but on the other hand you regard it as unethical to compete with someone who is commercially using inventions which aren't even legally protected, as if this person has some other 'right' just by using them.
I don't see how you square the two. Coming up with an idea seems to me to be a stronger claim on an invention than just being someone who is currently using it commercially, but you seem to disapprove of the former 'right' but regard the second as valid.
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject:
Ah, you may misunderstand, and you probably mistake me for a militant communist too.
The term "intellectual property" is relatively new, more or less a product of the noughties. It was coined in a time where the combination of copyright, trademark, and especially patent was increasingly commoditized. The term was actually coined by lawyers to intentionally blur the lines between the different protections afforded by the various legal mechanisms. I simply object to the use of the term as a blanket. This intentional confusion gives rise to many misconceptions, which have made their way into the patent system. I am against software patents for that reason (I no longer write software, but I did earlier in my career).
What I object the most to is the business of so-called IP trading, where these individual protections have been amalgamated into portfolios, not dissimilar to collateralized debt obligations, and we all know how well CDOs worked out.
If we keep to patents, trademarks and copyrights as separate items and attempt to not confuse the protections afforded to them, I'm cool. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
Joined: Mar 07, 2007 Posts: 4579 Location: London, UK
Audio files: 172
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:04 pm Post subject:
Oh! And you're confusing ethics with legality again. Lots of things are perfectly legal, but I still think a bank turfing out poor people from homes just to shutter the homes so they'd get stripped by thieves, as a fair example of the incompatibility between ethics and law.
I don't have any problem rationalising those two points, as they are in separate sets. _________________ Garret: It's so retro.
EGM: What does retro mean to you?
Parker: Like, old and outdated. Home,My Studio,and another view
Oh! And you're confusing ethics with legality again.
That's a bit unfair. I know they are quite distinct - after all, law can be changed at the stroke of a pen; that doesn't change something wrong into something that is right (let's leave aside the ethics of ignoring laws that are, in a democracy, supposedly the will of the people). And don't get me started on banks!
OK, I now understand that you simply dislike the portmanteau term 'IP', though I merely regard it as a sort of collective noun for patents, trademarks and copyright.
So let me rephrase the question and remove the legal issues: Say that a patent never existed, or has expired. the inventor has no legal right to an invention. The issue of legality is out of the picture. Is it then ethical to use the invention without the inventor's express permission*? Permission, in the non-legal sense, in that the party seeking permission would think it unethical to use the invention without the inventor's explicit consent.
If it is 'unethical' to do so, then it follows that consent should be sought for every invention you use, to behave ethically. This seems impractical and unrealistic to me. And let's be honest, no-one seeks permission for all the inventions they use. As I have said, electronic circuits each contain many inventions.
Then we have the manufacturer exploiting the invention, say, with the permission of the inventor, and the inventor wishes that only that manufacturer exploits the invention. The question then arises; why should the (non-legal) wishes of the inventor be respected in this case, if we would otherwise use the invention ourselves without explicit permission (as we all do with most inventions).
If it is unethical not to get explicit permission in all cases, and thus ignore what the inventors wishes are, then that is a clear position, but one I do not agree with; and no-one can truthfully say that they attempt to do this. If it is OK to ignore the inventor's wishes generally (as we all inevitably do), I do not see how the inventor's wishes would suddenly become relevant in the particular case where he is endorsing commercial exploitation by a particular person.
Alternatively, lets suppose the manufacturer is using another person's invention commercially, without permission from the inventor. Is it 'unethical' to compete with them because they are commercially exploiting someone else's idea? If so, how is it ethical to use inventions without express permission from the inventors (which we all do) but unethical to compete with a non-inventor who just happens to be exploiting it commercially?
By what ethical construct does the non-inventor have the expectation of monopolising an invention, or having the say over who else can use it?
*BTW, to sneak in a legal point by the back door; by applying for a patent, an inventor permits exploitation of an invitation once the patent has expired. So I do not consider it unethical to use inventions in the public domain; the permission is in effect already there, implicitly at least.
My point is, though ethics and law are distinct, in my opinion they are quite convergent in respect to inventions. No big surprise, law does usually attempt to take ethics into account. So, in essence, what is legal is also ethical in my book. Last edited by Don Erskine on Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:26 pm; edited 5 times in total
Joined: May 16, 2005 Posts: 8932 Location: Birmingham, England, UK
Audio files: 11
G2 patch files: 1
Posted: Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:18 pm Post subject:
Don Erskine wrote:
I, in turn, object to being called a 'troll'.
You object? Unbelievable! What about how I feel? I'm not a machine you know! I asked a very valid question. Cliff were happy to supply freebies, but then could not deliver a full set of knobs to order. Why do we then have to order hundreds? And why that particular knob? Even you admitted that these were 'cheap knobs'- you bought a load while at university. Why not order 1000 of those nice looking things that tend to be military spec? I'm sorry, but I still don't understand.
Then, for no real reason at all, I get accused, by demian of being a 'troll'. You, then roll in, because I'm annoyed with being called "a troll" and put the boot in! Thanks mate! And, dare I say it, in a very 'Jimmy Goldsmith' bully-boy kind of way! Are moderators (janitors), not supposed to have human emotions? Or am I supposed to sit there like a stuffed lemon, turning a blind eye to what I class as an injustice?
What do you ultimately want from me? (or perhaps I should just walk away and leave you to cook in your own juices?). My resignation? My head?? You've posted and contributed very little (30 or so posts- mostly calling for my scalp), and you also give very little away to who you are. It would have been nice to know who you worked for/as before. But you mention none of that. You don't even indicate the part of the UK you live, or any kind of personality via an avatar. Nothing.
Your previous mention of some interesting oscillators and waveshaping circuits sounded like a positive move, but in my experience, most who, and are genuine, who also have something positive to add to electro-music.com have already done so by now, so I can only conclude that this was just another bluff, to help paint you in a better light?
Yes, I admit, I've had run ins with a handful of people on this forum in the past, but that's hardly surprising considering that we have so many members. If you like, electro-music.com could be likened to a small city. Do I have to like or agree with everybody in that city? Of course not! And I wouldn't expect you to either. Can you imagine how boring this world would be if we all agreed with one another?
Now for heavens sake, put down that fecking gun and build some circuits, and make some sounds. Otherwise my Site Admin friends will have you fed to the dark lord!
Tom _________________ ACHTUNG!
ALLES TURISTEN UND NONTEKNISCHEN LOOKENPEEPERS!
DAS KOMPUTERMASCHINE IST NICHT FÜR DER GEFINGERPOKEN UND MITTENGRABEN! ODERWISE IST EASY TO SCHNAPPEN DER SPRINGENWERK, BLOWENFUSEN UND POPPENCORKEN MIT SPITZENSPARKSEN.
IST NICHT FÜR GEWERKEN BEI DUMMKOPFEN. DER RUBBERNECKEN SIGHTSEEREN KEEPEN DAS COTTONPICKEN HÄNDER IN DAS POCKETS MUSS.
ZO RELAXEN UND WATSCHEN DER BLINKENLICHTEN.
You object? Unbelievable! What about how I feel? I'm not a machine you know! I asked a very valid question. Cliff were happy to supply freebies, but then could not deliver a full set of knobs to order. Why do we then have to order hundreds? And why that particular knob? Even you admitted that these were 'cheap knobs'- you bought a load while at university. Why not order 1000 of those nice looking things that tend to be military spec? I'm sorry, but I still don't understand.
Then, for no real reason at all, I get accused, by demian of being a 'troll'. You, then roll in, because I'm annoyed with being called "a troll" and put the boot in! Thanks mate! And, dare I say it, in a very 'Jimmy Goldsmith' bully-boy kind of way! Are moderators (janitors), not supposed to have human emotions? Or am I supposed to sit there like a stuffed lemon, turning a blind eye to what I class as an injustice?
What do you ultimately want from me? (or perhaps I should just walk away and leave you to cook in your own juices?). My resignation? My head?? You've posted and contributed very little (30 or so posts- mostly calling for my scalp), and you also give very little away to who you are. It would have been nice to know who you worked for/as before. But you mention none of that. You don't even indicate the part of the UK you live, or any kind of personality via an avatar. Nothing.
Your previous mention of some interesting oscillators and waveshaping circuits sounded like a positive move, but in my experience, most who, and are genuine, who also have something positive to add to electro-music.com have already done so by now, so I can only conclude that this was just another bluff, to help paint you in a better light?
Yes, I admit, I've had run ins with a handful of people on this forum in the past, but that's hardly surprising considering that we have so many members. If you like, electro-music.com could be likened to a small city. Do I have to like or agree with everybody in that city? Of course not! And I wouldn't expect you to either. Can you imagine how boring this world would be if we all agreed with one another?
Now for heavens sake, put down that fecking gun and build some circuits, and make some sounds. Otherwise my Site Admin friends will have you fed to the dark lord!
Tom
Oh dear, just when I thought the thread was becoming civil again.
I think the moderator had valid points too, by the way.
Unfortunately i have to disagree with this, i it always funny to see how team-members backup their other team-members.
The moderator first thought he could argue with me about the price for the knobs, then because of legal issues, when it was clear that was no real issue, he tried another way, namely, ethical issues.
Further, the way the moderator thought it was necessary to argue with me was absolutely not 'open' or 'friendly', in fact it was, 'sarcastic' and 'hateful'
Calling me several times dishonest and a lot more (just read the thread again please) was just not necessary and not in the line of his duty as a moderator.
I came here to this forum with honest intensions and an offer, which is professionally demoralized by v-un-v.
I really don't see the point of the style which was chosen to accuse me, insult me, make a laugh of me, calling me dishonest and completely take my offer out of proportions.
I have several times answered the questions honestly which were asked by v-un-v, but those answers were not what v-un-v was looking for, his intensions were to frustrate my sellings from the beginning.
v-un-v wrote:
However, I can't stop anyone buying your parts to make clones, but I am going to make damn sure that I make myself heard by everyone, that I think you are a dishonest trader.
v-un-v wrote:
Then, for no real reason at all, I get accused, by demian of being a 'troll'.
Please don't be a hypocrit, from the beginning in my thread you were frustrating me with your involvement/style/behaviour, i have answered your questions politely, but you still were looking for new things to frustrate my thread instead of seeing that my answers and intensions were honest all the time.
Also the statement, which i also read again in this thread, the market will decide what is ethical and what is not, and electro-music should not interfere with that, i haven't noticed anything of that in my thread where i offered the knobs.
I am completely done here on this forum, i AM on the waitinglist for a Synthi, i HAVE paid to be on that list, i have had a real ORIGINAL synthi for which i HAVE paid 5000 euro, i am going to build a clone for MYSELF for which i have ASKED permission (there is nothing more i can do and which is legal and is not un-ethical, even without any permission) and now i am organizing a groupbuy and there is NOTHING wrong with that. None of the accuisations at my address are to be justified, not because of LEGAL reasons, not because of ETHICAL reasons.
You can also debate the fact why the man who i paid 150 UK pounds to be on the waiting list (more if you include the costs of a check) does not answer someone who honestly asks for permission to build a clone like several other people had done in the past.
But all this has nothing to do with selling knobs which is perfectly legal en ethical.
About the Cliff K1 knobs, I have interest from someone who is restoring a synthi 100, some guys who want knobs for their original synthis and from people who intends to build a clone and from people who just like the knobs for other projects. It is really none of everyones concern what will happen with the knobs. Very silly of the team of this forum they think they can make a point about that.
But not also very silly, but also very a pity, because, as i said, i am done here.
I am designing a real nice frontplate for my clone which i now will not share with this community, i also have some other rare spareparts, i will keep them from here, possible i have other interesting info for this community, i keep it for myself.
You can rely on the fact you have a wide community with lot's of happy users and contributors, but you can't deny the fact you also have some very disappointed members because of yourself.
You do not only keep me from selling rare items en sharing information, you also keep the community from getting it.
@SiteAdmin, For commercial sold kits and/or there support subforums here and/pcb offerings via the forum aswell, did you asked (or got) a physical proof from the designers or owners of those circuits to verifie what 'you' (read the forum owner) support is legal?
Or are you just satisfied with a claim writen anywhere, they have had permisson to do it from the designer ,and based on that its 'comform the rules' here?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
Forum index » Discussion » Schmooze
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
..................... 
