[Steve Eddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey /img/forum/go_quote.gif He's already played with fire with the trademark. No sense in pushing his luck. Lots of risk, very little reward. Bad idea.

There's only the trademark issue. Krell's CAST has no patent protection. So there's nothing preventing anyone from making something compatible as long as they don't violate Krell's CAST trademark.

Kind of like the first IBM PC. IBM made it using off the shelf parts. Nothing proprietary. The only thing protected was the copyright of its BIOS code. Once that was successfully reverse engineered, it opened the door for all the IBM compatibles that were to follow.

IBM tried to stop this with their proprietary "Microchannel" bus architecture, but by then, the momentum behind the compatibles was just too much to overcome and Microchannel was rather short-lived.

k

 

[The Monkey]

How many Krell owners do you think would care? Do you think it would sufficiently increase sales such that it would be worth having Krell start looking critically at the prior use of the trademark and who knows what else? I think the risk analysis is pretty easy here.

 

[The Monkey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's only the trademark issue. Krell's CAST has no patent protection. So there's nothing preventing anyone from making something compatible as long as they don't violate Krell's CAST trademark. Kind of like the first IBM PC. IBM made it using off the shelf parts. Nothing proprietary. The only thing protected was the copyright of its BIOS code. Once that was successfully reverse engineered, it opened the door for all the IBM compatibles that were to follow. IBM tried to stop this with their proprietary "Microchannel" bus architecture, but by then, the momentum behind the compatibles was just too much to overcome and Microchannel was rather short-lived. k

I am fully cognizant of the trademark/IP issues. To start marketing the DAC as compatible with Krell amps (especially naming them) is just a bad idea. He would be better served by stating that the DAC should be compatible with amps that use the technology. He also should make damn sure it's true before making the claim.