wap32
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Posts
- 175
- Likes
- 10
Quote:
If the result is close enough a resemblance to the original, I would consider it a clone. I think the one from nems is without a doubt, a "clone". Aside from changing to DIP opamps the rest are just about the same (nevermind that such a change clearly shows a lack of understanding of the design).
Then you have nothing to worry about. I don't mind anyone making clones for their own personal use. When someone (either for lack of ability or originality) makes clones not only to make a business from it, but also tries to ride on my reputation without my permission, then I do have a problem with it. I post my designs in an open manner for the benefit of DIYers, not for scammers who do not respect intellectual property.
Thanks for clearing that up.
It is unfortunate that for every person that shares their work and knowledge with the community, there are always those who try to make an easy profit from it.
Quote:Ok, so just in case nems is still following this, he should remove all reference to AMB's design such as "MINI3" and I thought I saw a "www.amb.org/audio/" on there that should also go. Come up with a new name for it. Give some sort of credit to AMB for the original work that he used? While the schematic and layout is obviously a shameless clone, not sure there's anything wrong or can be done about that. We all copy each other all the time. Especially in the commercial world.
What nems should do is not sell anything based on Ti's work (or anyone else's for that matter).
Even if he removed all references to AMB, he'd still be profiting of his work on both the amp design and pcb layout.
Cloning a mini^3 and calling it a "super-duper amp" would still be wrong, IMO.
If nems really wants to sell amps, then he should come up with something new.