I'm p....d!
Mar 28, 2004 at 10:49 PM Post #16 of 108
Quote:

Originally posted by eric343
Because everyone who builds Gilmore amps acknowledges that Kevin Gilmore designed them. This person went so far as to lie in order to conceal that he was using Jan Meier's design.


I think that's pretty it, Gilmore amps reguardless of who makes it, what changes are made and who sells them are still called Gilmore amps.

This person however took teh design and tried to take credit for creating it.

Who was it anyway so that people will know never to order from him again or ever.
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 10:53 PM Post #17 of 108
Quote:

Originally posted by KR...
Who was it anyway so that people will know never to order from him again or ever.


For the moment, although many will already have guessed, let's keep this individual's name off of the boards. Thanks....
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:06 PM Post #18 of 108
Quote:

I guess I don't fully understand. Dr. Gilmore posts his schematics for all to use, and several people now produce commercially available products based on them for sale to Head-Fiers, but he doesn't seem to mind. If you post your schematic on the internet for any and all to use, and this fellow is doing just that, how can you sue?


It would be no different than publishing a book of schematics and then having someone copy the designs for profit

The laws (and heck ,plain old fair play) protect not just patents but there is such a thing as intellectual p[roperty and copy right

Even a patent does not stop an individual from copying a design ,why else would ALL patents be available to anyone , as long as it is for personal use

Dr .Meier chose to share his designs freely as a service to the DIY community but never gave permission for someone to duplicate his work and then sell the product . anyone wishing to purchase an already assembled crossfeed or kit can do so at his website .

If he decides to pull his designs from public web sites we all suffer

even someone who has no desire to build the product from the plans can at least get a detailed understanding of the product by reading his articles .

the rest of us who DO build our own audio gear will be caught out and have to fend for ourselves

And if you think a successful crossfeed design is easy reconsider

It is not
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:23 PM Post #19 of 108
The difference is in my mind that the designs up on Headwize are printed with the sole intention of "here you go everyone, please use my design". That's different than having the patent office publish your design for the express purpose of alerting everyone, "here is a design you may NOT copy".

And yes, I can sympathize very strongly with Dr. Meier considering he was not given credit the same way way Dr. Gilmore is with his designs. But it would be intersting to hear from Jan if he approves of people re-selling units using his design as "Dr. Meier x-feeds". My impression (though I could be wrong) is that he would not.

I can say that if I worked so very hard on something as complex as a good crossfeed design, and that circuit was the main differentiating factor of my headphone amp product line, I would do my best to keep that secret, that has value to me. I realize that may violate the DIY spirit or whatever, but it makes perfect sense to me from a business standpoint.

Out of curiosity, are the Headroom crossfeed designs publicly available?

And, no, I'm absolutely NOT blaming Jan for someone else ripping off his design. It just seems that the legal issues might not be so cut and dried, maybe complicated given the specifics of the circumstances.
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:33 PM Post #20 of 108
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:34 PM Post #21 of 108
Quote:

The difference is in my mind that the designs up on Headwize are printed with the sole intention of "here you go everyone, please use my design".


you are missing the point entirely

here it is use it but for personal use only

makes all the difference in the world
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:37 PM Post #22 of 108
BTW : c. 1999, 2000 Jan Meier.

found at the bottom of the page at headwize for any who care to look

but even if it were not there

publishing a thing does not give up your right of ownership
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:39 PM Post #23 of 108
from Headwize :

Quote:

No work on site may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright holder. Please contact the copyright holder to discuss commercial use of a copyrighted work.

Materials submitted to HeadWize become the property of HeadWize, BUT authors retain their copyrights and grant HeadWize permission to publish submissions.


Jan has a strong legal case.
 
Mar 28, 2004 at 11:46 PM Post #24 of 108
You can post any disclaimer you want, that doesn't necessarily make it legally binding or square with the actual law. I'm not saying that I don't think Jan has a leg to stand on, I'm not a copyright or patent lawer, but I do suspect there are nuances to the law I'm not aware of. It would be interesting if some of our legal eagle Head-Fiers could comment, there are a few here.
 
Mar 29, 2004 at 12:03 AM Post #25 of 108
to make it short :

Jan has an intellectual right on his design, disclaimer or not, publication or not. The disclaimer just makes sure that headwize's visitors are aware of an existing legal situation. Technically, it's not legally binding since there's no need for it as his name is mentionned. So a thief cannot say he wasn't aware of who hold intellectual rights on the schematic he's using and present as his own. You have to explicitely say if you're letting your rights down. The disclaimer says it isn't so. It doesn't add anything, it confirms something.

Commercial exploitation and patents are another matter since it's limited in time.
 
Mar 29, 2004 at 12:09 AM Post #26 of 108
where i come from the copyright "C" is ironclad and any fool who wants to litigate that one better have deep pockets ,then kiss the baby

and let us not forget jan stated there IS a patent !

Publishing a project in the headwize library does not mean you give up the rights to your own intellectual property

i know this because i was very close to publishing a stand alone surround sound decoder for headphones and wanted to be sure that by doing so i did not give up the rights to my own design should i decide later to turn a profit .

the project library is there as a service and if the headwize site were not non profit most of the posted articles would be removed by law and by the request of the folks who hold the rights in some cases

There are rules and there are rule breakers

always has been and always will be

don't make it right though and justifying it by saying "well it WAS right there" is no argument .
 
Mar 29, 2004 at 12:18 AM Post #27 of 108
Markl is basically right. Jan can copyright the article text as well as any images, PCB layouts, and schematic diagrams, but he cannot copyright the circuit design itself. Here is the US Copyright Office's description of what can and cannot be copyrighted:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp
In other words, the disclaimer text at Headwize does not prevent others from selling copies of Jan's design, as long as they make their own PCB layout (as appears to have happened here).

Copyright simply doesn't protect device designs. The only forms of intellectual property that protect device designs are patents and trade secrets. He obviously gave up trade secret protection by publishing it online.

Fortunately, Jan appears to have filed for a patent, so whoever is selling copies of Jan's design will be prohibited from selling the device in countries where his patent is valid.

I suspect Jan only filed in Europe, which means that the vendor will still be able to sell his crossfeed unit to customers in the US.
 
Mar 29, 2004 at 12:27 AM Post #28 of 108
The people building and selling my designs are doing so
with my permission. Every single one of them asked first.

Years ago there was a person from down under whose
first email to me was a threat that if i did not give him
permission to build my designs he would do so anyway.
People who know me know that i don't respond well to
threats. The products from that person never materialized,
but if they did i had legal ways of keeping the products
out of the USA for sure, and probably the EU contries too.

Dr. Meier if he has a patent on the design as i expect he
does has certain legal ways of sueing the guy into the
ground. And he should do so. Tripple damages are not
unreasonable. That could be 3 times the purchase price
for every single item the guy made.

Unlike the people that claim that their latest version of
the two tube amplifier is infinitely better than and different
than the last version of the same design kicking around
for at least 50 years, the crossfeed circuit is definitely
unique. In any case Dr. Meier holds the copyright on the
design and these days in the USA at least, this holds
major significance.
 
Mar 29, 2004 at 12:41 AM Post #30 of 108
00940, I'd be surprised if that was true (other than the actual PCB and component layout), but you could be right. It was my impression that the Berne convention basically standardized copyright around the world. What I've said is certainly true for the US.

I highly recommend this book for people who are interested in intellectual property. The case examples are amazing. People will find the most outrageous ways to screw each other, many of which turn out to be legal if you're not careful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top