Raglan wrote:
So you're suggesting that Uli handed over an Aphex product to his
Chinese subcontractors for reverse engineering, and they proceeded to
go a bit too far? It's possible, I suppose, but wasn't the early
Behringer stuff actually produced in Germany?

That fits the facts that I have seen, and I can't think of a better
explanation. If you can, let me know.

This, incidentally, is not in any way unusual. I recently declined to
review a product sold by a company who has "their own factory in China."
I sent them a copy of the schematic (which really took me no longer than
an hour to figure out), showing how their device worked and why it wasn't
a good idea, and they called me back to thank me profusely because they
didn't have a copy of the schematic and had been trying to get one from
the factory for a while.

As for the court transcripts, I remain a little sceptical. Cases such
as this are usually decided on the papers, and only seldom on argument
in court. Is it possible that you've seen the plaintiffs' affidavits
but not the respondent's replying affidavits? That would make your
view of the cases somewhat unbalanced.

I have seen all of the filings that were made public, which indeed may
not tell all of the story at all. If there's any more information out
there, I would welcome seeing it.

I've used a fair bit of Behringer gear for live sound, and I've found
it adequate, cheap and also reliable, contrary to much of the foaming
opinion I read on Usenet. And the company does seem to be moving into
a new league. If you haven't tried the DEQ2496 (a notably original
product as far as I can see), you might like to.

Right now I am trying to _avoid_ trying out new gear....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
"Raglan" wrote in message
I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.

Well they did get pinged for actually creating a net-list to clone the
MAckie 24.8, it is said.

And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented?

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

Raglan

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message ...
"Raglan" wrote in message
I wouldn't believe it for a second. It's just too preposterous a deed
to have been committed by any sane person and, say what you like about
him, Uli Behringer is clearly not unhinged.

Well they did get pinged for actually creating a net-list to clone the
MAckie 24.8, it is said.

And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented?

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

Raglan

"Raglan" wrote in message Don't know if
it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

;-)

geoff

"Raglan" wrote in message Don't know if
it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

;-)

geoff

Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:

"Raglan" wrote in message

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
is not the way.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:

"Raglan" wrote in message

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
is not the way.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se

Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

Craane Song HEDD.

It's what the Aphex Aural Exciter wanted to be and wasn't.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Can Some one Tell me who makes a good Brand of Audio Exciter??

Craane Song HEDD.

It's what the Aphex Aural Exciter wanted to be and wasn't.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

(Lars Farm) wrote in message news:1gn8l9o.tbt0ta7j8lmgN%mail.addr.can.be.found @www.farm.se...
Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:

"Raglan" wrote in message

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
is not the way.

Lars

Very true. However, the patent could not have expired before others
started cloning the humbucker. Gibson's patent would have been applied
for c. 1957, and granted c. 1960.

Raglan

(Lars Farm) wrote in message news:1gn8l9o.tbt0ta7j8lmgN%mail.addr.can.be.found @www.farm.se...
Geoff Wood -nospam wrote:

"Raglan" wrote in message

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

It was indeed patented. Once the patent was granted, the "PAF" became
the "Patent No." pickup in the early '60s, if my memory of such arcana
serves.

So it's understandable why others thought it had 'No patent' ?!!!

Patents only last for a certain period (20y?). The very idea with
patents is to spread technology and make it available to others. The
inventor is given a protected period where he is granted monopoly for
the protected invention and in return, when that period is over, the
invention is placed in the public domain for all to use. If one wants to
prevent a competitor to use a certain invention for ever then a patent
is not the way.

Lars

Very true. However, the patent could not have expired before others
started cloning the humbucker. Gibson's patent would have been applied
for c. 1957, and granted c. 1960.

Raglan

(Richard Kuschel) wrote in message ...
Subject: Audio "Exciters"??
From: (Raglan)
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2004 6:02 PM
Message-id:


Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.


Not Fender designs to begin with, they were RCA designs and the patents had
probably expired..

I defer to your superior knowledge.

And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.

Raglan


Behringer lost the case. Case closed!
Richard H. Kuschel

Which one may as well say about Paul Reed Smith losing his case to
Gibson earlier this year. Except I don't think many reasonable people
would.

Raglan

(Richard Kuschel) wrote in message ...
Subject: Audio "Exciters"??
From: (Raglan)
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2004 6:02 PM
Message-id:


Let us not forget that the revered Jim Marshall took his first step on
the road to fame and riches by stealing Fender's amplifier designs.


Not Fender designs to begin with, they were RCA designs and the patents had
probably expired..

I defer to your superior knowledge.

And wasn't Gibson's humbucker patented? Not aware that anybody has
ever paid royalties on their stolen versions of the design. And what
about PRS, anybody? Paul has just been *proved* by a court of law to
be a thief. Yes, an absurd finding, I agree, but no doubt every bit as
valid as the possibly apocryphal case that establishes Behringer in
the popular mythology as a coven of rogues.

Raglan


Behringer lost the case. Case closed!
Richard H. Kuschel

Which one may as well say about Paul Reed Smith losing his case to
Gibson earlier this year. Except I don't think many reasonable people
would.

Raglan

Just for the record, I'm looking at a couple of Gibson humbuckers I
bought in the early 70's and they both have a sticker on the bottom that
says "PAT NO." followed by a number that's unfortunately scratched off
beyond recognition.

@D

Geoff Wood wrote:

Don't know if it was actually patented. It would then have become a "P"
pickup, rather than a mere "PAF".

geoff
www.paf.co.nz