Why are some clones outlawed but others not?

[Kborg]

This is not meant to start an argument and if you can bear with my long thread I am trying to learn something.

First let me say:

1) I have never played or actually listened in person to an actual Train Wreck.
2) I own a Komet 60 SN#63

I was inspired by Glen Geetarpickers you tube clips and bought his CD. Great stuff Glen! I decided to try a Ceriatone Express clone since I could not find or afford a real Train Wreck. I Liked it and ordered a Liverpool to go with it. I compared the Ceriatone to some highly acclaimed clone builder stuff and thought it held up very well.

When all was said and done the Komet 60 was the amp for me, but I kept the Ceriatones because they were cheap and fun. Recently I had the pleasure of playing a Komet Concorde and liked it so much that I put gear up for trade to try to find a used one that I could afford to go along with my K60.

I didn't get any responses to my trade offer from any Concorde owners but I got 3 offers for clones. I was reluctant but they offered me a week trial so I gave it a chance. This amp was amazing and I still have it. :munch

Sorry for the long set up and I hope you are still with me.

When I decide that I like the Concorde clone so well and I want to get another one for backup since they are more affordable I discovered that all clones are not equal.:puh

Everyone and their brother seems to be brazenly copying every Fender, Marshall and Vox amp ever made with total acceptance by TGP, Ebay and the general gear buying public. They use names like Deluxe, JTM 45 without any issue. There was some issue with Vox and a certain pattern of grill cloth but that was all I really have seen. Most people spoke negatively about Vox, or Korg I think it was, for making a deal about it. :munch

OK my point. I now need to sell some gear to cover my GAS bills and try to sell my Ceriatones and they might as well be stolen gear. TGP bans my listings, Ebay kicks them off as well. I saw another listing for a Concorde Clone and it got killed as well. Both my listing and the other Concorde copy were very clear that they are copies. There is no attempt to fool or trick anyone but they are not allowed.

What gives?? Fender and Marshall directly used existing circuits as I understand. Everyone else copied and put thier own spin on a few basic designs. I can get the beef about the copying of the TW logo and would have no problem removing it even though to the best of my knowledge there were never any plexi faced Wrecks. I could be wrong as I am not an authority. But what about a Concorde clone that has no name on it or TW clone with no markings??

I see other builders amps on TGP and Ebay with Marshall logos and exact copies of the look with no problem.

What gives?

[TBlewz]

Welcome to the "good ole' boy" world. :)

[Mark C]

It's not about the circuits - it's about the trademarks. Can't sell an amp using someone else's trademarked name.

[quinnamps]

The simple answer is you can ape any amps circuits but when you ape the name of another amp then your being kinda a douche bag.
You could clone my amps (or just figure out what I did to the originals I cloned from) and no worries. If you try to sell a Quinn amp, whatever the circuit might be, your an ass and if I ever had a chance I'd dot your eye.
Ceriatone choose to use Ken amplifer name without permission. He said he was sorry and that he would stop. He did not. This could mean some kind of legal action somewhere in the world and the people who are kind enough to provide this board don't want to get in the middle of it via letting discussions take place regarding that company.
So there is no good old biy thing happening here as far as I can tell.
If I came here hawking my 3 Rock, or my Fuhcs amp or my Carol Annabelle amp I'd be quickly shown the door out. I would hope if anyone came here with Quin Amp they be treated to the same.
I have no qualms with Nik making money of of the circuit design but him using the name is not only illegal but it just simply wrong.
It does suck that your having trouble selling your amp but Nik is the one who created that situation for you. Had he never used the TW you wouldn't have such a problem. Given that Nik used the name, said he was sorry and would stop and then did not..... Well I guess some folks are taking it hard and are now policing anything ceriatone and attempting to knock them down a notch anywhere they can. Seems they are doing a good job of it if your getting booted at eBay and elsewhere. Fender has stopped making faceplates available in quantities over 1 and there is talk that they may go away completely soon enough.
Marshall who knows.....I guess when your really big you can worry about other things, when your someone from Kens family or a friend of his it is a personal thing and therefore perhaps more proactive about dealing with it.....dunno...good luck.

[Kborg]

So If I remove the name and sell it as a Ceriatone 35watter then eveything is OK? Based on what I am hearing it should be that simple.

[outtahear]

There's always the heavy douche factor.....

[quinnamps]

So If I remove the name and sell it as a Ceriatone 35watter then eveything is OK? Based on what I am hearing it should be that simple.
I don't know the exact policy on this forum. You might ask the forum mods what the deal is.

[Paul86]

Kborg,
The dictionary definition for "fraud" is: "criminal deception, dishonest artifice or trick" and therefore might relate to any form of deception. Let's not limit this to matters involving what technically might be called "fraud" at law.
As you yourself pointed out, "Everyone and their brother seems to be brazenly copying every Fender, Marshall and Vox amp ever made with total acceptance by TGP, Ebay and the general gear buying public. They use names like Deluxe, JTM 45 without any issue". and you also pointed out, very reasonably, I might add, "Fender and Marshall directly used existing circuits as I understand. Everyone else copied and put thier own spin on a few basic designs. I can get the beef about the copying of the TW logo and would have no problem removing it even though to the best of my knowledge there were never any plexi faced Wrecks"
Just by referring back to what you very clearly pointed out, where is the "trick", "deceit", "dishonest artifice" in building an amp that everyone (OK, you might argue almost everyone) who would possibly want to buy a, say $25,000 amp, would never, ever mistake it for a, what did you say, plexi faced Wreck.
But you know what, Gibson tried to do exactly the same thing to PRS a while back, remember? Their main argument, apparently, was that customers would "mistakenly" buy a PRS when what they really wanted all along was to buy a Les Paul. Wow, what a stretch of [choose one: (a) imagination (b) people's most basic capacity for reasoning (c) plain, simple horse sense (d) ethics (e) the judicial system's gullibility (f) people's ability to endure foolishness)]. The result? Well, if you don't know, check the latest e-bay ads.
If you've been reading this long, you're probably thinking along these lines: 'Well, if there's no way in hell people can make this kind of fallacy (the technical term is bull####hit) stick, and they damn well know it, who exactly is being dishonest here?'
Well I've asked myself the question, and as a result I've never enjoyed so much some threads here at TGP. I mean, I love them! The sanctimoniousness, the attitude, the seriousness, the 'cloak and dagger', secret-club thing, the sheer inventiveness of some people in the face of honest-to-god competition is something truly to behold. What an inspiration! I mean this is it. I take back what I said sometime back, comedy this good has got to be intentional.

[outtahear]

See Ferrari vs Thom Mc Burnie (Pinch scotch as well) there is legal precedant for copyrighting product shapes or distinctive cosmetic detail.

With cash, all is possible.........

[MoRawk]

Hmmm...can you sell it on eBay as a Ceriatone Wreck, Trainwreck-inspired?

[Roccaforte Amps]

here we go again.......................

[guitarist58]

So If I remove the name and sell it as a Ceriatone 35watter then eveything is OK? Based on what I am hearing it should be that simple.

As far as ebay goes--I think it would be OK (unless, of course, ebay is overreacting and has somehow banned all Ceriatone amp sales). Just don't use the word "Trainwreck" in your copy, or ebay will likely pull it for "category spamming" if nothing else.

Good luck!

[JMintzer]

This has been gone over and over and over.

If your ad shows a Ceriatone (or any other 'clone') with a trademarked logo, it will be pulled.

Ceriatone threads are fine. Ceriatone ads are fine. Ceriatone clones with trademarked logos are not fine. Other amp clones with trademarked logos are not fine. The same goes for guitars.

'Wreck inspired' is fine. 'Dumble inspired' is fine. There was an ad placed today that showed a 'Dumble Overdrive Special' logo on an amp shell. It was a clone using a trademarked logo. It was pulled.

There is no 'good old boy network'. We are trying to be fair across the board.


Jamie

[Scott Peterson]

This has been gone over and over and over.

If your ad shows a Ceriatone (or any other 'clone') with a trademarked logo, it will be pulled.

Ceriatone threads are fine. Ceriatone ads are fine. Ceriatone clones with trademarked logos are not fine. Other amp clones with trademarked logos are not fine. The same goes for guitars.

'Wreck inspired' is fine. 'Dumble inspired' is fine. There was an ad placed today that showed a 'Dumble Overdrive Special' logo on an amp shell. It was a clone using a trademarked logo. It was pulled.

There is no 'good old boy network'. We are trying to be fair across the board.


Jamie

+1

Yesterday an Edwards Les Paul copy with a Gibson logo on the headstock Emporium ad was pulled. No public cry about that. Hmmm.

It's about trademark infringement, nothing more.

Don't infringe a trademark? No problem. If you do, please keep it off the Emporiums. That's the policy. Discuss them all you want elsewhere on the board, just don't attempt to sell them in the Emporiums.

[Brian Scherzer]

I'm not going to go through a long discussion, so I'll be as brief as possible. There are a lot of websites out there, including music discussion forums. I don't keep up with what all of them are doing but, at least based on what has been said here, Ebay bans the sale of certain items. Ebay has a team of lawyers who advise it, so I assume that their policy is due to the advice of their legal counsel. It appears to be the same advice given to TGP by our legal advisors. In fact, Harmony Central and other discussion sites seem to be pulling threads and asking their members to please not discuss certain things because of the legal implications. We would be stupid not to follow the advice given to us by our own legal team. That advice is that when we receive notification of a trademark or other type of actionable infringement, our best choice is to follow the laws that govern this stuff.........just like many other websites are learning they need to do. We have no intention of trying to be the protectors of all things. We simply won't allow TGP to be placed in a position where it has to shut down because of a legal fight that we (Scott and I) had nothing to do with other then to be the admins of this place. Therefore, if a product violates the trademark of another company, we will not allow it to be sold or promoted here. This has nothing to do with whether or not something is a clone of something else. At least on TGP, we ask members NOT to try to sell an item that obviously infringes on a trademark. If it doesn't infringe on a trademark it is none of our business. Like it or not, that is our policy, and it is a policy that many websites are finding that they have to follow or suffer consequences.

[VanR]

Barring the obvious no-no of using someone else's trademark name I really don't see the biggie. Didn't everyone steal the basic circuit from Western Electric anyway?

[MBreinin]

See Ferrari vs Thom Mc Burnie (Pinch scotch as well) there is legal precedant for copyrighting product shapes or distinctive cosmetic detail.

With cash, all is possible.........

Or in the case of Ferrari..if you clone a 250 GTO, you sleep with the fishes!!! :D

Mike

[quinnamps]

Barring the obvious no-no of using someone else's trademark name I really don't see the biggie. Didn't everyone steal the basic circuit from Western Electric anyway?

But that is just it. It is a violation of name copyright that is the problem not circuits.

[daddyo]

http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f251/daddyopapa/poster_the_invasion_2.jpg

[archtop]

Does anyone know if 'Express' or 'Liverpool' are in fact trademarks owned by Ken Fischer's family, or is 'Trainwreck' their only trademark?

[Flux]

All of which begs the question: if one had a Trainwreck inspired clone (regardless of maker) and wished to sell it, and it had no logo on it, then how would it need to be listed to be considered acceptable by the Emporium, eBay et al? It is after all just another public domaim circuit with a currently popular tonal flavour. And no, I don't have one so don't PM me, heheh. :D

[Occam]

I busted out my time machine tonight and went into the future and cut and pasted this thread from the future. The posters names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Title: I like guitar.
Poster one: Guitars are good.
Poster two: Yes, I sure do like them.
Poster three: I also like amps.
Administrator: Our legal team has advised us that we should close this thread before it gets us into trouble.

[HeeBGB]

Does anyone know if 'Express' or 'Liverpool' are in fact trademarks owned by Ken Fischer's family, or is 'Trainwreck' their only trademark?


My gut feeling is that "Express" IS trademarked BUT not by Trainwreck Circuits.

http://www.mesaboogie.com/Product_Info/Express/index.htm

[Kborg]

I fully understand the stance of "better safe than sorry" by TGP and others and I would rather be stuck with these amps then see TGP go away. All I was trying to do is what I have done for the last several years now, flip some gear.

If I am getting a correct understanding here I could list these amps,with no danger to anyone, if I list them as Ceriatone 35watt amps and I do not mention anything like Trainwreck or express clone or copy and everyone would be OK.?

I learned of these amps here, bought one of them here, and got the info to get in touch with Nik for the second one here. I also bought a wonderful 18 watt Marshall clone here that listed the Marshall model number and the words copy of in the add. It had and still has a Marshall Logo on it. All was and still is good.

I will put an end to this soon since I started it. :horse

My goal is not very nobel I just want to sell some gear:BEER.

If I am clear to list them as I have decribed above I will,
If not just let me know and I will not bring this up again or throw my $.02 into any related threads. I know you must be frustrated that you have to deal with this and this thread was not meant to cause any sort of grief for TGP moderators. Scott, Brian you guys have a lot of work involved in keeping up with TGP and I respect that, truly I do. I also contribute to TGP at least once a year. This is not expected to change anything, only to re-enforce that my intentions are good.

I just seems crazy, but so do most of the laws I have to deal with as an employer.:cool:

[Scott Peterson]

Kborg, it also allows you to announce your for sale gear in the Amp section. You've had Jamie, Brian and I all already comment.

It's not the clones, it's the trademark infringement. One other point of clarity, this is a member policed forum; if you don't report it, don't assume we see it. It's a team effort, with the members being the police and the moderators and administrators carrying the big stick when needed. Too many folks forget that. We have over 4,000 new posts everyday. We don't read them all.

[Paul86]

Have you guys ever heard of the tone police? Well, now he have the clone police. Hollywood got a whiff of the story and they're planning this huge blockbuster sequel to Bladerunner for 2010. It's been tentatively called Bladderrunner - the persecution of the clones, and they thought of Bozo to replace Harrison Ford's in the super-heavy-duty clone buster part.

[wichita]

Barring the obvious no-no of using someone else's trademark name I really don't see the biggie. Didn't everyone steal the basic circuit from Western Electric anyway?

Perhaps,
But some people actually take a lot of time coming up with their own unique variations on said circuit and lately it seems that everyone "due to the super secret amp cloners forum" is building a copy of someone else's amp.

I even heard that they were discussing cloning Divided by 13's. It's got to make some builders concerned...but actually Fred laughed it off and said "wow I'm flattered".....so you never know from builder to builder how people will react. It's not like a clone is going to hurt D13's bottom line at this point but why can't people write their own circuits?

I guess it's not as bad as a builder having kenfisher.com point at his site on line, or marshallamps.com lead to his clones of marshalls, or dividedbythirteen all spelled out leading to somebody's home business that makes copies,... or DUMBLE.com etc. etc.

But it does seem to be getting rather rampant as far as the cloning part does it not?

[ttuck]

WTF ...after endless multipage threads about this, why is this still so difficult for people to understand?
:jo :NUTS

I have a question...
If a Trainwreck ...er a clone...er a Ceriatone.. er a Komet.. is in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Let's discuss this for the next 20 or 30 pages or so......makes about as much sense as having the ongoing discussion yet again!
:messedup

[frankthomson]

sell it on craigslist

yesterday, some dood was selling his mom

[nitehawk55]

One has to remember that some of these original amps such as TW , Dumble...etc have special designed transformers built to their specs that will probably not be a part of a clone . That in itself will have noticable effect on the amps sound and overall ability to reproduce the true nuances of the amp the builder has attempted to copy , it might be close but not bang on .

[wichita]

One has to remember that some of these original amps such as TW , Dumble...etc have special designed transformers built to their specs that will probably not be a part of a clone . That in itself will have noticable effect on the amps sound and overall ability to reproduce the true nuances of the amp the builder has attempted to copy , it might be close but not bang on .

Correctamundo:
But what sort of blows is when these guys are now cloning other small companies amps that are just coming up or only a few years old. I have heard about Komet clones, D13 clones etc.
As some of these smaller builders, not all of them are effected by online forums and opinions generated on said forums....it only takes a couple of boneheads saying "I bought the (insert small builder amp here) clone and its just as good and only 12 dollars!".....this may be enough to at least cause some people to blow their money on something that may be FAR from bang on...and we will have a glut of badly built clones by guys that are just learning to use a soldering gun floating all around the net for sale...some with the cosmetics dead on but the internals far from it.

[mtlin]

One has to remember that some of these original amps such as TW , Dumble...etc have special designed transformers built to their specs that will probably not be a part of a clone . That in itself will have noticable effect on the amps sound and overall ability to reproduce the true nuances of the amp the builder has attempted to copy , it might be close but not bang on .

Didn't Dumble use Fender transformers?

[Paul86]

And didn't Leo Fender, for that matter, use whatever was economically viable (ie reasonably priced) at his time?
The amount of self-generated delusion that surrounds the topics is surreal. But, as they say, different strokes....

[iggs]

And didn't Leo Fender, for that matter, use whatever was economically viable (ie reasonably priced) at his time?
The amount of self-generated delusion that surrounds the topics is surreal. But, as they say, different strokes....

Yup ... same as Mr. Marshall, whatever was on the shelf went into the amp.

[Blue Strat]

And didn't Leo Fender, for that matter, use whatever was economically viable (ie reasonably priced) at his time?
The amount of self-generated delusion that surrounds the topics is surreal. But, as they say, different strokes....

True, but this is more of a critical issue for high volume, "consumer grade" products than for low volume "specialty grade" items.

[smiert spionam]

Geez -- it's about the guy's NAME. And though it's not legally any different from a fake Fender, what's especially ethically offensive is that this is a small company, founded by a person who by all accounts was very generous with his knowledge and supportive of players and builders alike.

I think I'll change my screenname to Paul86, post broadly, and then start selling my new line of Ceriatone amps. I'm sure that would be just fine.

These are not clones -- they're counterfeits. Why is that so hard to understand?

[wichita]

Geez -- it's about the guy's NAME. And though it's not legally any different from a fake Fender, what's especially ethically offensive is that this is a small company, founded by a person who by all accounts was very generous with his knowledge and supportive of players and builders alike.

I think I'll change my screenname to Paul86, post broadly, and then start selling my new line of Ceriatone amps. I'm sure that would be just fine.

These are not clones -- they're counterfeits. Why is that so hard to understand?


RIGHT ON!

[Unabender]

One has to remember that some of these original amps such as TW , Dumble...etc have special designed transformers built to their specs that will probably not be a part of a clone ..

I don't think that 's true. Dumble probably used any set of transformers that would work, and tweak the rest of the circuit. And I don't really know if the power transformer even affects tube amp tone in any way.

[Blue Strat]

And I don't really know if the power transformer even affects tube amp tone in any way.

If the voltages it produces aren't "correct", the tone will be affected.

[hasserl]

One has to remember that some of these original amps such as TW , Dumble...etc have special designed transformers built to their specs that will probably not be a part of a clone . That in itself will have noticable effect on the amps sound and overall ability to reproduce the true nuances of the amp the builder has attempted to copy , it might be close but not bang on .

Correctamundo:


Sorry, but the exact spec's on the transformers is pretty much known, down to the specific type of steel laminations used.

[Jessie 160]

Geez -- it's about the guy's NAME. And though it's not legally any different from a fake Fender, what's especially ethically offensive is that this is a small company, founded by a person who by all accounts was very generous with his knowledge and supportive of players and builders alike.

I think I'll change my screenname to Paul86, post broadly, and then start selling my new line of Ceriatone amps. I'm sure that would be just fine.

These are not clones -- they're counterfeits. Why is that so hard to understand?

To me, it actually goes beyond that. For those who are building and buying Komet clones, Komet has been generous enough to continue paying royalties after Ken's death when they were not obligated to. For all those that are helping take sales away from Komet, not only are you hurting the generous guys at Komet, but in effect you're also stealing from Ken's mom.

[wichita]

Then why in the hell would any of us buy one? Hogy is a great guy, and no one wants to hurt Ken's mom.
Why not stop any of that crap from being on here at all?

[stvnscott]

Jessie hit it on the head for me. I know people are going to come back with "legal" arguments, but it is really about business ethics to me.

IMHO, it is NOT OK to clone current production items for sale or items which have a financial implication on a living person, company, or family.

Case in point, a handful of cloners are building current production Matchless Lightnings, Spitfires, and DC30s. They are undercutting Matchless and are certainly costing them sales. This has an impact on the Matchless company and its employees and is just plain wrong no matter that people want to buy the cheaper knock-offs.

Another case in point. The only way to buy a Ken Fischer amp now that he is gone is to buy a Komet. Not built by KF's hands. I understand that, but it is one of his designs. KF's family deserves to be paid for his life's work as it continues to generate revenue, and Komet takes care of this. Buying a Wreck clone takes sales away from Komet and therefore impacts Ken's family. I find this to be wrong as well.

Cloning an amp for your personal use is OK with me if you have the skills, but not cloning it for sale.

[VanR]

But that is just it. It is a violation of name copyright that is the problem not circuits.

Yeah but I see a lot of talk in this thread about how wrong it is to clone someone else's design. Not just talk about using someone's name. My point is everyone steals from everyone. So in effect I could take a Marshall circuit and change a 50uF cap to a 100uF cap and I have a brand new circuit. That's what everyone else from Leo to Marshall right on down the line has done. There is nothing new under the sun. Very few original ideas out there. I build my own amps for my own use, so it really doesn't concern me.

[Paul86]

Tsk, tsk,
If a guy really wants to experiment with the tones of say, a trainwreck, or a komet, but doesn't have that kind of money at his disposal (say, one of those bums who call themselves musicians), then he simply can't have a go at trying to buy a clone?
If it's about the guy's name, then explain to this simple mind what makes anyone's name holier than, say Marshall, Fender - last time I checked they were names too.
Also, this very forum has divulged many times that Ken Fischer, Dumble, and all those custom builders don't have one design - they were, ahn, custom-order builders, which meant tweaking each amp to the tastes of individual customers and trying to replicate that is an exercise in futility.
And sorry, I don't want to offend anyone here by stating the obvious, but having a go at a well known, very simple, very old basic circuit design that has been around for more time than most people here have lived is not the property of anyone company - Mr. Fender took it from RCA's tube manual, which was then promptly copied by Mr Marshall himself - there is no ethics issue here - no matter what anyone with a hidden agenda is trying to 'prove'.
Mr Jim Marshal built a business empire doing exactly this: he kicked it all off with an almost identical clone of a Bassman circuit. According to this logic, which buy the way is the logic the music business runs on, any company/person out there building amps / recording CD's / writing songs / singing / playing the guitar having as a basis something that has been done before is just doing what everybody else does - there's NO ethical issue here, unless anyone proves that Leo Fender and Jim Marshall are crooks, that Jimi was a relentless thief for stealing all those blues licks, that most of current pop music (and I mean in the last 30 years) should be banned because it's "unethical" - come on guys, give me a break will ya?

[ttuck]

It's about the name/trademark - not the circuits, the guts of the amp, how its sounds, the phase of the moon, or anything else!

Has nothing to do with various clones or derivatives of famous amps (which in essence all modern amps are!), it has to do with copies that specifically use a trademarked name as part of their sales/marketing and violate trademark laws.

What is so hard to understand about that?

This one really makes me shake my head..........

:jo

[smiert spionam]

If you want to be taken seriously about this issue, read up on the difference between trademark and copyright.

When you blur the two, you sound like an idiot.


(some of these issues get into patents as well, but that's another kettle of fish).

[Paul86]

This is really funny - First it's because someone here mentioned 'legal threats' (and it was not me, I swear!), then it's because of the effort put by the 'original' makers into their circuits, then it's because of the name, then it's because of the trademark, then they accuse me of using 'broad legal terms' (precious") and broadly posting, then it's because... What's next? Serious, what's next?
Keep on rocking guys!:RoCkInThis is beyond excellent! You guys have put Bozo, Monty Python, Mickey Mouse, (CLONING SPACE: choose your own funny character and clone it here) to shame.:BEER Someone somewhere in this very forum referred to TGP as The Grumpy Page - now, you can't accuse me of that - these threads give me the giggles every time (is 'give me the giggles' too sissy, I wonder?).

[ttuck]

If you want to be taken seriously about this issue, read up on the difference between trademark and copyright.

When you blur the two, you sound like an idiot.


(some of these issues get into patents as well, but that's another kettle of fish).
Are you calling me an idiot, or someone else - I'm basically making the same point that you are? I'm a bit confused if these comments are directed at me, and to me hurling insults doesn't contribute anything to the discussion at hand.

I'm not blurring anything, I write patents all the time so I deal with this stuff on a daily basis. The whole argument here is whether someone has the right to put a trademarked name or identifier owned by someone else on their own product. It's that simple, and you can argue as much as you want otherwise but you'd simply be wrong. It's illegal, plain and simple, and I respect the mods for drawing this line. Has nothing to do with who clones what amps, as all modern amps are based on prior designs.

[smiert spionam]

ttuck, definitely not at you -- I completely agree with you (the dangers of posting a reply to one message, while other posts are made in the meantime).

I don't mean to throw insults, and I really don't have a dog in this fight. But there's a lot of ignorance being paraded around here, and it's irritating. I wish they'd just take it to Harmony Central and be done with it.

It is, in fact, idiotic.

[Paul86]

Never have an argument with an idiot. Someone looking from outside might not know who is who (ancient Chinese proverb).

[ttuck]

ttuck, definitely not at you -- I completely agree with you (the dangers of posting a reply to one message, while other posts are made in the meantime).

I don't mean to throw insults, and I really don't have a dog in this fight. But there's a lot of ignorance being paraded around here, and it's irritating. I wish they'd just take it to Harmony Central and be done with it.

It is, in fact, idiotic.

Thought so!

I agree with you 100% - I don't understand why we need to have this same arguement rehashed over and over again, when the simple answer has been restated many times. Can't get much simpler than "it's about the name"! Not sure why that's so complicated?

[stvnscott]

Thought so!

I agree with you 100% - I don't understand why we need to have this same arguement rehashed over and over again, when the simple answer has been restated many times. Can't get much simpler than "it's about the name"! Not sure why that's so complicated?

Because there are more matters at hand than the single dimension of what is technically legal. Plenty of immoral and unethical things are legal, but that doesn't mean it is right to do them.

[ttuck]

Because there are more matters at hand than the single dimension of what is technically legal. Plenty of immoral and unethical things are legal, but that doesn't mean it is right to do them.

S2, I understand and agree with your point completely. Unfortunately the problem is that ethics and morals are wide open for interpretation - that is , what one man considers perfectly moral and ethical , the next guy considers to be abhorrent and vice versa. Not everyone has the same set of morals /ethics, especially when it comes to making a buck! If the $ are there to be made, it's amazing how quickly one becomes more flexible in their views, and things that initially looked "wrong" suddenly start to look OK. And the more $ to be made, the more "OK" things start to look......
Unfortunately, some people are more motivated by $ than by doing what's right, and the only way to make people conform to society's view of what is acceptable is to put it into law and enforce the law. Certainly not perfect, but often the only way to "persuade" people to do things right.
Sad, but true .....

[Blue Strat]

This is really funny - First it's because someone here mentioned 'legal threats' (and it was not me, I swear!), then it's because of the effort put by the 'original' makers into their circuits, then it's because of the name, then it's because of the trademark, then they accuse me of using 'broad legal terms' (precious") and broadly posting, then it's because... What's next? Serious, what's next?
Keep on rocking guys!:RoCkInThis is beyond excellent! You guys have put Bozo, Monty Python, Mickey Mouse, (CLONING SPACE: choose your own funny character and clone it here) to shame.:BEER Someone somewhere in this very forum referred to TGP as The Grumpy Page - now, you can't accuse me of that - these threads give me the giggles every time (is 'give me the giggles' too sissy, I wonder?).


Here's a simple analogy for you. You're a working musician, slugging it out in bars, writing songs, just basically getting by financially. Suddenly (holy sh$T!), one of your songs is getting airplay and you're about to reap the rewards of all your hard work!!!

Then, someone else hijacks your song, makes it their own, and makes all the profits from it and you get nothing. Simple enough?

Don't bore me with details of why this couldn't happen or other particulars regarding law or anything else, not interested.

Property, whether real or intellectual, is property and belongs to the owner, not me, not you, not anyone else.

[Paul86]

I can agree with you when you say that property doesn't belong to you. And now that I've got meself an anal-ogy, I'll kindly return the favour with a definition: clutch/grasp at straws to try any method, even those that are not likely to succeed, because you are in such a bad situation. He's hoping that this new treatment will help him but I think he's clutching at straws. [usually in continuous tenses]

[Blue Strat]

I can agree with you when you say that property doesn't belong to you. And now that I've got meself an anal-ogy, I'll kindly return the favour with a definition: clutch/grasp at straws to try any method, even those that are not likely to succeed, because you are in such a bad situation. He's hoping that this new treatment will help him but I think he's clutching at straws. [usually in continuous tenses]

Not sure what you're getting at, but here's another one.

Some guy would love to have that super excellent guitar that you've got but can't afford one. By your justifications earlier in the thread, it would be perfectly ok for him to buy your guitar for $.10 on the dollar from a crackhead who stole it from you.:horse

[VacuumVoodoo]

Guys, I think this walking in circles won't get anybody anywhere. Ken is no longer with us and we can't really know what he would have to say on the matter.
However, one nestor of pro audio design is still highly active and has something to say about his designs being cloned. I happen to agree with what he says.
The interview (http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/MAKER/rupertneve.pdf) with Mr. Rupert Neve is an interesting reading, especially the paragraph in the right column.

[VanR]

I just got a patent, trademark and copyright for the A Major chord. You guys are gonna pay. Working on the paperwork for all the other chords now. Gonna take a while though.:moon

[hasserl]

Here's a simple analogy for you. You're a working musician, slugging it out in bars, writing songs, just basically getting by financially. Suddenly (holy sh$T!), one of your songs is getting airplay and you're about to reap the rewards of all your hard work!!!

Then, someone else hijacks your song, makes it their own, and makes all the profits from it and you get nothing. Simple enough?

Don't bore me with details of why this couldn't happen or other particulars regarding law or anything else, not interested.

Property, whether real or intellectual, is property and belongs to the owner, not me, not you, not anyone else.

Just to play devil's advocate here, what if the song you wrote is not completely your own, it's one that you took the basic form from another quite popular song, but then you took away a bridge and added a hook, then recorded it in a different style. Underneath it all it's still just the same old song, but it's harder to see because of the changes you made. Now, who's property is it?

Not sure what you're getting at, but here's another one.

Some guy would love to have that super excellent guitar that you've got but can't afford one. By your justifications earlier in the thread, it would be perfectly ok for him to buy your guitar for $.10 on the dollar from a crackhead who stole it from you.:horse

This analogy doesn't work at all, because in this case the property is not cloned but taken away; you don't have the guitar anymore, it is now in someone else's hand. I fail to see how that is analogous to somebody cloning something.

[Jessie 160]

Guys, I think this walking in circles won't get anybody anywhere. Ken is no longer with us and we can't really know what he would have to say on the matter.
However, one nestor of pro audio design is still highly active and has something to say about his designs being cloned. I happen to agree with what he says.
The interview (http://www.resolutionmag.com/pdfs/MAKER/rupertneve.pdf) with Mr. Rupert Neve is an interesting reading, especially the paragraph in the right column.

Great interview. I know how Ken felt about the cloning and it's kind of a long explanation, the short of it however is this. He didn't mind so much people making a one off for themselves. He did mind people cloning his amps and selling them for profit. In the interview with David Hunter, he also talks about how he liked working with Dr. Z because he would take what he got from Ken and then do his own thing with it.

I keep reading about how all these designs are based on previous work. I find a huge difference between taking a previous design and working with it to improve it somehow versus trying to copy it exactly to come up with the same thing. Those who try to duplicate an amp in all respects including cosmetically, but leave off the trademark to me are like parasites. In my opinion, there is no debating the ethics involved, just self delusion.

[Blue Strat]

This analogy doesn't work at all, because in this case the property is not cloned but taken away; you don't have the guitar anymore, it is now in someone else's hand. I fail to see how that is analogous to somebody cloning something.

Clone = stolen design.

I'm done here.

[Flux]

Not sure what you're getting at, but here's another one.

Some guy would love to have that super excellent guitar that you've got but can't afford one. By your justifications earlier in the thread, it would be perfectly ok for him to buy your guitar for $.10 on the dollar from a crackhead who stole it from you.:horse

But then, with a sudden and unexpected literary twist - the crackhead turns out to be Ken's Mum!! But wait, Horatio and his CSI team re-examine the DNA evidence (there's always some) and NO! it's not her - it's a CLONE! Big shock to everyone, but we're out of time... looks like it'll go into a second episode...
:):);0

[JCM 800]

Case in point, a handful of cloners are building current production Matchless Lightnings, Spitfires, and DC30s. They are undercutting Matchless and are certainly costing them sales. This has an impact on the Matchless company and its employees and is just plain wrong no matter that people want to buy the cheaper knock-offs.



Here's another point of view.

Let's say a Matchless Spitfire cost $2000. I've got $1000 maximum to spend on a new amp. Since I don't have the money needed to purchase a Matchless, I'm not even considered a potential customer, or even in that price market. I can't afford the amp, so it's a moot point. I can't be a Matchless customer.

Now let's say there is a company selling a clone of the Spitfire or a very similar amp for $900. I decide it's good enough for me, and I purchase it. How is it taking money away from the real Matchless company? Matchless never had a shot at getting my money in the first place. The real people that lost out are the other companies in my price range. Fender, Peavey, and so on.

When you are talking about a very high end product like a Trainwreck, there is a very limited consumer base right from the start just because of price. Now add in the factor that only a very small percentage of people even care or can hear the difference between a Wreck and a Fender amp and that potential consumer base goes way way down. Were talking a fraction of a percent of guitarist that are even potentially in the market for this type of product. I don't think anyone is losing money in this deal.

[Scott Peterson]

(/admin hat off)

An unemotional and simply informational post: One thing that costs you when you do buy a clone is that your resale value is not very good. And if there is a trademark issue with your specific clone, the places you can sell it are limited.

If you buy a given Matchless used, it'll probably hold it's value much better than a given clone.

Again, this is no knock on anyone, not a challenge, not trying to incite a flamefest or step on anyone's toes. Just saying something relevant to the topic at hand and leaving it at that.

[JCM 800]

(/admin hat off)

An unemotional and simply informational post: One thing that costs you when you do buy a clone is that your resale value is not very good. And if there is a trademark issue with your specific clone, the places you can sell it are limited.

If you buy a given Matchless used, it'll probably hold it's value much better than a given clone.

Again, this is no knock on anyone, not a challenge, not trying to incite a flamefest or step on anyone's toes. Just saying something relevant to the topic at hand and leaving it at that.

Good Point. A clone most often will not hold it's resale. Something to consider for the long run.

[Popoon]

I know that. I realize. But if a certain British doctor never
asked "What's this fungus?" we wouldn't today have penicillin.
Correct?

[HeeBGB]

You guys haven't settled this argument yet? What the hell are we paying you for? :rotflmao Herry Up! Quicker!

[sundaypunch]

Not sure what you're getting at, but here's another one.

Some guy would love to have that super excellent guitar that you've got but can't afford one. By your justifications earlier in the thread, it would be perfectly ok for him to buy your guitar for $.10 on the dollar from a crackhead who stole it from you.

I heard TGP is also looking into banning usernames that infringe on companies registered trademarks.

(Just messing with you..:rotflmao).

[daddyo]

All this talk about cloning. I can understand why a company like Matchless, Marshall, TR, etc may be against cloning and rightly so, but why Trainwreck. Ken's family isn't going to start production or sell the name and circuit, are they? Or is it about preserving the mystique of these amps for existing owners? Seems alike a lot of work for a few dozen amps.

[Blue Strat]

I heard TGP is also looking into banning usernames that infringe on companies registered trademarks.

(Just messing with you..:rotflmao).

D'OH!:crazyguy

[drbob1]

To go back to the original post: if the guy has a 35w Trainwreck clone that has a generic faceplate (as the Rubywreck that I have does) and describes it as a TW clone, I'm sure there won't be any problem with reselling here. On Ebay, might be more of a problem because you can't use trademarked or copyrited titles in the description (so I can't describe a Sano amp as sounding like a Fender Twin because Fender defends its copyrite, people do sell Sola Tonebender clones because Sola is no longer in business and doesn't defend it's copyrite).

As to the ethics of building clones, we're never going to settle that, and I don't think the mods have any problem with amps/guitars/pedals that are clearly clones and labelled as such. I personally have a lot more respect for someone who goes ahead and does their own thing (like the KF inspired Komet, or a TR or Fuchs take on the Dumble amp) vs a slavish copy that'll never quite measure up to the original. In fact, I prefer the LP Emerald Pro and the 50w Fuchs mod to the only original Dumble ODS I've had the chance to play. Would I buy a Ceriatone amp? Possibly, under the right circumstances, but not likely new. I can get a Wreck clone built by guys that knew and respected KF, with his tacit blessing (he really supported the people who were trying to repeat his work as individuals) and I feel pretty good about that. I guess I feel less good about mass production, but that's a personal issue, not a TGP issue.

[Roccaforte Amps]

You can buy a BF Fender face plate all day long and I don't hear anyone saying anything negative about that.I know several people who mod their SF Fenders to BF specs and put a BF faceplate on it.Is this such a bad thing?I've done it several times.I feel that there is a serious pile on here.

Look at it like this.You're a working musician w/o a lot of money and want a Matchless, Fender, Marshall yet can't afford the real deal.Some companies offer clones at a reasonable price that working musician w/o a lot of cash can afford.I don't think you should offer the amp with the name of the amp being cloned.I do feel that it's kinda nice to buy quality amps at a reasonable price.

I have a lot of respect for the top amp builders but come on, not everyone can afford these amps.$3,000 and up kinda puts them in the hands of a select few.







There's a BMW 750I that I want oh sooo bad,
and it's currently out of my hands.
I don't think anyone has cloned one yet,
but even if they did there's no way in hell
I would own anything but an original.
DR
;)

[sfarnell]

It's not only trademark infringement that cloners and even TGP has to worry about. In some states there can be actionable unfair business practices that don't necessarily amount to trademark or copyright infringement. It comes down to whether or not confusion is created in the mind of a reasonable consumer. If so, there can be liability. How that applies to what has been hotly debated here in the last week I will leave to others. I'll watch with interest.

:munch

[Popoon]

One may as welll ask why those wearing the red uniform in Star Trek were unfairly singled out by Starfleet.

[Roccaforte Amps]

One may as welll ask why those wearing the red uniform in Star Trek were unfairly singled out by Starfleet.






They had Klingons.

[Popoon]

I know,they kind of evolved into ethnic minorities.

Spocks logic was infallible,the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few-or in this case the needs of the one.

But then Nimoy had plans for Spock to return Messiah like.

[Scott Peterson]

Anybody thought of drawing the parallel with cloned golf clubs? It's a very valid one if you look into it with all seriousness.

Same things, you get no resale but they'll get you through and don't make you drop a mint to get them. Are they all that? Depends, and that's part of the gamble too.

Just sayin'.

[Kborg]

Wow, this sure took a strange turn off of the original topic.:jo:jo:jo:jo:horse:horse:jo:jo:messedup:NUTS :eek:

So since the start of this thread I seem to have figured it out myself, well actually with the help of a drinking buddy, some reading of a few severely twisted posts and a bottle of Cabo Wabo. http://library.bevnetwork.com/bottles/420/t_20362.jpg (http://www.wittyswine.com/vsku1036082.html)

I take a black sharpy marker.... and draw a line in the "C" :BEER presto. It's now a Ceriatone TRAINWREEK 35. available in either 4 el84s or 2 EL34s models. Does that work :confused:

[dartanion]

Sorry, but anyone who owns a boutique, small name, big name, custom built, 18 watt EL84 amp; the builder probably has spent time on the 18watt.com forum. There are production amps built directly from the community derived variations of these circuits, but I'll spare you the names. Yes, the design can be attributed to the Marshall 18watt amps. At the time that these amps were starting to be cloned, Marshall didn't have such a model. They do now though and you can thank the 18watt community for that. Draw your own conclusions about who's 18watt is better. You can draw the same parallel with Victoria and Fender. IIRC, isn't Fender contracting some of their handwired Tweed RI amps to Victoria? Is this not just savvy business? As well, you can't say Marshall was the originator of "that" 18watt tone. They borrowed the circuit from the Watkins Dominator but put it in a Marshall cab with a Marshall name plate. What does that make an original vintage Masrhall 18watt? Subversion of markets was mentioned too. Marshall started building their JTM45 based on the Fender Bassman but using locally available parts from UK vendors. Why did he do this? Because it was TOO EXPENSIVE to buy the imported Fenders for most local musicians. Marshall's were affordable in the local market.

Anyone seeing the parallels here?

There is an amp maker that is fair game for discussion here that is currently infringing on another company's trademark. I'll tell you who it is if you ask nicely.

[bilbal]

Sorry, but anyone who owns a boutique, small name, big name, custom built, 18 watt EL84 amp; the builder probably has spent time on the 18watt.com forum. There are production amps built directly from the community derived variations of these circuits, but I'll spare you the names. Yes, the design can be attributed to the Marshall 18watt amps. At the time that these amps were starting to be cloned, Marshall didn't have such a model. They do now though and you can thank the 18watt community for that. Draw your own conclusions about who's 18watt is better. You can draw the same parallel with Victoria and Fender. IIRC, isn't Fender contracting some of their handwired Tweed RI amps to Victoria? Is this not just savvy business? As well, you can't say Marshall was the originator of "that" 18watt tone. They borrowed the circuit from the Watkins Dominator but put it in a Marshall cab with a Marshall name plate. What does that make an original vintage Masrhall 18watt? Subversion of markets was mentioned too. Marshall started building their JTM45 based on the Fender Bassman but using locally available parts from UK vendors. Why did he do this? Because it was TOO EXPENSIVE to buy the imported Fenders for most local musicians. Marshall's were affordable in the local market.

Anyone seeing the parallels here?

There is an amp maker that is fair game for discussion here that is currently infringing on another company's trademark. I'll tell you who it is if you ask nicely.

Oh what the hell - PLEASE????

[dartanion]

Look no further than your signature.

[guitarvc]

Ceriatone choose to use Ken amplifer name without permission. He said he was sorry and that he would stop. He did not.

I just purchased a 35 watt amp from Nik and he did not in any way use the TW trademark. As a matter of fact, he wanted to make it a point that he is not in the TW business, and has no affiliation with TW in any way.

I can't speak on the past, but presently he is doing everything on the up and up. His customer service is first rate and so are his amps.
:dude

[texasdave]

Look no further than your signature. Is this your professional legal opinion or are you making it up as you go?

:munch

[texasdave]

My last question was rhetorical. Save your breath.

[dspblues]

Here's another point of view.

Let's say a Matchless Spitfire cost $2000. I've got $1000 maximum to spend on a new amp. Since I don't have the money needed to purchase a Matchless, I'm not even considered a potential customer, or even in that price market. I can't afford the amp, so it's a moot point. I can't be a Matchless customer.

Now let's say there is a company selling a clone of the Spitfire or a very similar amp for $900. I decide it's good enough for me, and I purchase it. How is it taking money away from the real Matchless company? Matchless never had a shot at getting my money in the first place. The real people that lost out are the other companies in my price range. Fender, Peavey, and so on.

When you are talking about a very high end product like a Trainwreck, there is a very limited consumer base right from the start just because of price. Now add in the factor that only a very small percentage of people even care or can hear the difference between a Wreck and a Fender amp and that potential consumer base goes way way down. Were talking a fraction of a percent of guitarist that are even potentially in the market for this type of product. I don't think anyone is losing money in this deal.

Not sure where I land on this debate now that its come up recently, but one could say that you're making the "cloner" out to be the Robin Hood of amp builders? It's OK as long as you steal from the rich company and don't charge a lot to the poor musician?

Maybe you or I shouldn't be able own the amp in question unless we find a used one or cough it up for a new one? Not made anymore? Too bad.

Unless an amp builder is going to change the design and make it their own and/or introduce some new intellectual property, they shouldn't be building said amp. Even if they do, the original amp builder has "prior art" and could be eligible for compensation/licnesing fees. If there truely is a great demand for such an amp, one of these companies should do what's been suggested.... license the name/design, and reproduce the amp... LEGALLY.

[allynmey]

Just figured I'd draw an analogy. The owner of JMI/Vox has a mother too...right?

For those who don't get it, Ken cloned...yes cloned a AC30 top boost and called it a Rocket. To the best of my knowledge, Ken never paid the owners of JMI (or their mother) a royalty. Vox has re-released the AC30 Top Boost. Can we talk about Rockets and can they be sold in the for sale section.

:munch

[stvnscott]

Here's another point of view.

Let's say a Matchless Spitfire cost $2000. I've got $1000 maximum to spend on a new amp. Since I don't have the money needed to purchase a Matchless, I'm not even considered a potential customer, or even in that price market. I can't afford the amp, so it's a moot point. I can't be a Matchless customer.

Now let's say there is a company selling a clone of the Spitfire or a very similar amp for $900. I decide it's good enough for me, and I purchase it. How is it taking money away from the real Matchless company? Matchless never had a shot at getting my money in the first place. The real people that lost out are the other companies in my price range. Fender, Peavey, and so on.

When you are talking about a very high end product like a Trainwreck, there is a very limited consumer base right from the start just because of price. Now add in the factor that only a very small percentage of people even care or can hear the difference between a Wreck and a Fender amp and that potential consumer base goes way way down. Were talking a fraction of a percent of guitarist that are even potentially in the market for this type of product. I don't think anyone is losing money in this deal.

You can try to use the "I'm too poor to afford the real thing, so I can't be considered a Matchless customer anyway" argument, but it doesn't hold up. If you have $1000 to spend, you can afford a used one. One less amp on the used market means that to acquire one, someone else has to buy a new one. By buying it used, you just helped Matchless make a sale. Buying a clone instead enables the cloner to help flood the market, which adversely affects Matchless.

[dartanion]

Is this your professional legal opinion or are you making it up as you go?

:munch

Do you know how to search the USPTO trademark database?

Zenith owns the trademark for the stylized Z. Registered in 1944 and still active. Search on 71466965 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=8tcn8m.2.792). This will lead you right to the registered trademark of Zenith.

[allynmey]

btw mike z. and kenny were friends


Brew, did Ken give him permission to use the Zenith Trademark?:jo

[2555SL]

All generic pharmaceuticals should be outlawed. OUTLAWED, I SAY! Soooooo many drug-company moms going hungry! HUNGRY!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

Kind of a fun read.

[dartanion]

My day job is in Pharma/Biotech/Med. Device. The patent strategy taken is quite interesting within these companies. There is no magic formula to maximize patent life as product development times are so, so long. Normally over a decade for drugs, and a few years in most medical devices (stents, catheters, ICDs, Pacemakers, etc.

There is truth to some generics really NOT being equivalent to their brand name brethren. Active ingredients are what need to be the same, however the rest of the formulation is very important too. Certain formulations can render active ingredients inactive. Biologicals systems are a bit more complex than amp circuits.

[VacuumVoodoo]

Buying a cheap clone of a more expensive highly regarded product doesn't hurt manufacturer of the original since you were not in position to buy it anyway.

This is a classic example of thinking not further than your own nose.

You chose to buy a clone because you know the original is a fine quality product. You buy a clone and - be honest, you expect it to perform if not 100% like the original then at least very close. You end up disappointed because it doesn't live up and since you never had tried the original you go "Is that IT?! - what a piece of over hyped crap!". The word spreads that the product is not all it's purported to be because the clone you bought was pos. The fact that it was the clone gets lost in all the noise, the opinion spreads.
See where it leads? Can you see how this hurts the image of original manufacturer?

Big corporations have the funds and muscle to go after counterfeits, small manufacturers almost never have. That's where community solidarity steps in. Unfortunately there are those to whom this concept is totally alien.

[Scott Peterson]

Do you know how to search the USPTO trademark database?

Zenith owns the trademark for the stylized Z. Registered in 1944 and still active. Search on 71466965 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=8tcn8m.2.792). This will lead you right to the registered trademark of Zenith.



Here's Zenith: http://www.zenith.com/images/zenith_logo_brochure.gif


Here's Dr. Z: http://www.drzamps.com/images/smallz.jpg

Are you a Trademark lawyer? Are they similar? Sure are. Are they exact? Ummm, no. Is there litigation going on about this? Do you work for Zenith or something?

A few questions if you will, because I find this fascinating. When did Zenith ever make a guitar amplifier? Did Dr. Z clone it? When did Dr. Z make competing products with Zenith? Is Dr. Z selling cloned Zenith products? When and where is the legal documents that make this trademark infringement? Where is the case filed?

You have guys cloning the amp, selling them and infringing on the original amp manufacturer's trademark. And the answer to this is to imply that Z is infringing on Zenith's trademark because the Z is similar though not exact? And thier products have what in common (besides they both use electricity)?

And somehow that makes it okay to clone amps and infringe on trademarks? Or what does all this mean. Because you've sorta lost me. I don't follow the logic.

[BJF]

All generic pharmaceuticals should be outlawed. OUTLAWED, I SAY! Soooooo many drug-company moms going hungry! HUNGRY!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug

Kind of a fun read.

Hi,

Yes, and only 80 % of the active substance is needed............which is why some subscriptions state that the subscribed substance MAY NOT BE SUBSTITUTED.

Interesting isn't it?

Carry on
BJ

Affiliations
www.mpamp.com
www.bjfelectronics.com

[Jessie 160]

Just figured I'd draw an analogy. The owner of JMI/Vox has a mother too...right?

For those who don't get it, Ken cloned...yes cloned a AC30 top boost and called it a Rocket. To the best of my knowledge, Ken never paid the owners of JMI (or their mother) a royalty. Vox has re-released the AC30 Top Boost. Can we talk about Rockets and can they be sold in the for sale section.

:munch
Now you've got me confused. I'm not into the gear and by many accounts, you're a respected expert ampbuilder. Since Ken's death, I began reading TGP and also ampgarage forums. This is what I don't understand.
If the Rocket is a clone of the AC30 top boost, then why on ampgarage are they debating what the real schematic is? And if the Rocket is an AC30 top boost clone, then why are they trying to build Rocket clones? Why don't they just build AC30 clones if that's all they are?
Or is it that Ken based his amp on the AC30 top boost? Now everything I've read, especially from you, indicates that the circuits from today are all based on previous circuits and that they are public domain and that there is nothing wrong with using them. You see, if Ken liked some basic things about the AC30, then decided to use his knowledge to modify it and make improvements to his ear, then I can understand better why people are trying to figure out his schematics and what he did and why they're trying to clone a Rocket instead of an AC30 top boost. If I'm wrong, then perhaps you can save them a lot of time and just tell them to forget about the Rocket and just follow the schematic of the AC30. Maybe you've already done this. I don't know.
On the other hand, when you take an amp such as the Komet Concorde and clone it with the intention of making it sound and behave exactly like the original, then you're not doing something original. It's kind of like plagiarism. I've seen a post recently that claims they got an exact clone of a Concorde from you. I don't know if you had any role in it, but the cabinet even looked the same except it didn't have the logo on it. Now let's say that you, being a great amp builder said that you liked the Concorde, but if I change this and that, I think I can make a better sounding amp, then that would be to your credit and nothing wrong with that. Now let's say that you decide to make a business selling them, invest all the money involved in setting up shop, marketing, legal costs and all the other costs involved. You're in business, so I'm sure you're aware of all the costs involved and time just to be in business. Now what if some guy comes along and instead of coming up with something new decides he really liked what you did and he's going to make exact copies and undersell you? What if you die and instead of your wife and children receiving royalties from your hard work and investment, this guy who is exactly copying your work is now receiving part of the money?
I see both of these scenarios going on. One is perfectly legitimate and the other in my opinion (I feel like I'm forced to use that phrase even though I don't think it should be considered opinion) is not.
To answer your analogy, I don't think that Ken owed royalties to anyone's mother. On the other hand, I think that Ken's mother is being hurt by those who attempt to make exact replicas of Komets with no improvement intended and by those who support this by buying them.

[texasdave]

Do you know how to search the USPTO trademark database?

Zenith owns the trademark for the stylized Z. Registered in 1944 and still active. Search on 71466965 (http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=8tcn8m.2.792). This will lead you right to the registered trademark of Zenith.

Yeah, I know how to use it. Is this your professional legal opinion or are you making it up as you go? (Again, rhetorical.) Ever read the definition of libel?

[plexi67]

Here's Zenith: http://www.zenith.com/images/zenith_logo_brochure.gif


Here's Dr. Z: http://www.drzamps.com/images/smallz.jpg

Are you a Trademark lawyer? Are they similar? Sure are. Are they exact? Ummm, no. Is there litigation going on about this? Do you work for Zenith or something?

A few questions if you will, because I find this fascinating. When did Zenith ever make a guitar amplifier? Did Dr. Z clone it? When did Dr. Z make competing products with Zenith? Is Dr. Z selling cloned Zenith products? When and where is the legal documents that make this trademark infringement? Where is the case filed?

You have guys cloning the amp, selling them and infringing on the original amp manufacturer's trademark. And the answer to this is to imply that Z is infringing on Zenith's trademark because the Z is similar though not exact? And thier products have what in common (besides they both use electricity)?

And somehow that makes it okay to clone amps and infringe on trademarks? Or what does all this mean. Because you've sorta lost me. I don't follow the logic.

If your going by what you just said, then Niks logo he used is similar,but not exact as what is on Kens amps. Even the plate logos Nik had are not 'exact' in looking like a real Wreck. the real Wreck are more raised or cut out ..where Niks were flat.
Still, i'm not saying it was right for Nik to use the logo..just trying to figure out why something is ok for one guy, and not for another.
Maybe someone should ask the Zenith legal dept,if they think that Z is trademark infringment. Does Dr Z have a trademark for the logo he uses?
If you look at some of the early knobs.. the Z looks alot closer to those.
I don't think it matters if Zenith built a guitar amp or not,if its a registered trademark,then you can't use it,on anything.
If Mike did have to stop using the logo, he'd have the gear page to thank for bringing up trademark infringing.

This goes from one thing to another.. first its the logo, then its the word clone,then its the cosmetics,then its the circut.. A never ending circle.
Yet Kens amp circuts are 90% in some models, taken directly from other amps that came before. It would be no different than taking a Wreck and changing a couple values,and saying its your design.

[fullerplast]

Here's Zenith: http://www.zenith.com/images/zenith_logo_brochure.gif


Here's Dr. Z: http://www.drzamps.com/images/smallz.jpg

Are you a Trademark lawyer? Are they similar? Sure are. Are they exact? Ummm, no. Is there litigation going on about this? Do you work for Zenith or something?

A few questions if you will, because I find this fascinating. When did Zenith ever make a guitar amplifier? Did Dr. Z clone it? When did Dr. Z make competing products with Zenith? Is Dr. Z selling cloned Zenith products? When and where is the legal documents that make this trademark infringement? Where is the case filed?

You have guys cloning the amp, selling them and infringing on the original amp manufacturer's trademark. And the answer to this is to imply that Z is infringing on Zenith's trademark because the Z is similar though not exact? And thier products have what in common (besides they both use electricity)?

And somehow that makes it okay to clone amps and infringe on trademarks? Or what does all this mean. Because you've sorta lost me. I don't follow the logic.

Scott, this would likely be considered trademark dilution and it is a form of infringement. The Zenith registered trademark is the stylized "Z" by itself, not what you have shown. The definition of dilution is:

Definition of dilution:
The new act defines the term "dilution" as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of
(1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or
(2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception."
Courts have previously found that dilution can occur as a result of either "blurring" or "tarnishment". "Blurring" typically refers to the "whittling away" of distinctiveness caused by the unauthorized use of a mark on dissimilar products; while "tarnishment" involves an unauthorized use of a mark which links it to products that are of poor quality or which is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context that is likely to reflect adversely upon the owner's product. The legislative history suggests that both of these concepts are encompassed within the new law. In addition, the legislative history cites, as examples of the uses which would fall within the new law, the mark DUPONT for shoes, BUICK for aspirin and KODAK for pianos.

AFAIK, Zenith has not taken action against Z for the use of their mark. I am not a trademark lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I sure have read up on the topic.;) In my opinion, based upon what I have read, Zenith would have a very, very good case if they were to take action.

As for TGP policy, it would seem to be a necessary exception to the rule of not selling items that infringe on another's trademark. You can't use the legal documents or case number as a criteria, as there are many other infringements for which legal action has not been taken. It is the fact that it is a dissimilar product that is the discriminator, like selling a guitar with a "Ford" logo on the headstock.

Note that Ebay also allows sellers use of Dr Z's logo, another indication that Zenith has not complained or taken action. It could simply be that they don't care, or don't even know about Dr Z, but it almost certainly is not because the logos are sufficiently different, again IMHO.

[smiert spionam]

" I don't think it matters if Zenith built a guitar amp or not,if its a registered trademark,then you can't use it,on anything."

No, that's not true. Reasonable confusion depends upon similar products.

This isn't a circle. Some people have commented on the ethics of copying the circuits, but the legal issue is and has always been trademark -- ie, counterfeit panels/labeling.

[archtop]

Nik now sells 'TW' 'expression' and 'liver pull' amps. problem solved.

http://www.ceriatone.com/

:)

[allynmey]

Jessie, the point is I don't think KF owed anything to JMI/Vox or their mothers! The amp you mentioned was a replacement for a current owner that wanted enough modded in his amp it was easier to make it from scratch...Improve upon it? You betcha! I've never sold a complete Clone of a Komet. No cab, no tubes, and a modified circuit.:D And certainly no logo!!!:MMM The amp contained more changes than a AC30TB>Rocket. Does that make it okay with you?

Allynmey

[lastwinj]

did komet give you permission to sell komet clones?

he doesnt sell Komet clones, as far as i know.

germ

[lastwinj]

A few questions if you will, because I find this fascinating. When did Zenith ever make a guitar amplifier? Did Dr. Z clone it? When did Dr. Z make competing products with Zenith? Is Dr. Z selling cloned Zenith products? When and where is the legal documents that make this trademark infringement? Where is the case filed?

You have guys cloning the amp, selling them and infringing on the original amp manufacturer's trademark. And the answer to this is to imply that Z is infringing on Zenith's trademark because the Z is similar though not exact? And thier products have what in common (besides they both use electricity)?

And somehow that makes it okay to clone amps and infringe on trademarks? Or what does all this mean. Because you've sorta lost me. I don't follow the logic.


Summit Audio sued carl zwengel for use of Summit in his name "Summit Amplifiers". one makes hifi amps, the other guitar amps. both tube.
Summit Audio won, carl had to change his company's name.

Zenith used to make hifi products back in the day.......

germ

[lastwinj]

Well, now he have the clone police.


reminds me of a cheap trick song.

[lastwinj]

One has to remember that some of these original amps such as TW , Dumble...etc have special designed transformers built to their specs that will probably not be a part of a clone .

both used off the shelf. dumble used fender trannies, TW used either stancor or Triad. the latter did have some custom made, but were copies of stuff he already used, and had extra taps removed.

i could be wrong, though.

germ

[lastwinj]

"due to the super secret amp cloners forum" is building a copy of someone else's amp.

I even heard that they were discussing cloning Divided by 13's. It's got to make some builders concerned...but actually Fred laughed it off and said "wow I'm flattered".....so you never know from builder to builder how people will react. It's not like a clone is going to hurt D13's bottom line at this point but why can't people write their own circuits?



do you have proof of this? first i havent heard of a super secret forum. pretty sure cloning of /13 was discussed on 18w, couple of years ago.

germ

[NitroLiq]

Here's Zenith: http://www.zenith.com/images/zenith_logo_brochure.gif


Here's Dr. Z: http://www.drzamps.com/images/smallz.jpg

Are you a Trademark lawyer? Are they similar? Sure are. Are they exact? Ummm, no.
"See, me and McDonalds have a little misunderstanding. They're McDonalds...we're McDowells. They have the golden arches...we have the golden arcs. They have the big mac...we have the big mike." etc. etc.

Does this mean I can take a trainwreck logo, bevel it, remove a bit of the arc, give it a crappy golden pee cast and be perfectly legit and accepted by KF wonks everywhere?

[HeeBGB]

"See, me and McDonalds have a little misunderstanding. They're McDonalds...we're McDowells. They have the golden arches...we have the golden arcs. They have the big mac...we have the big mike." etc. etc.



BIG MIKE???!!!!! We got one o' them! Does this mean we're gonna get sued?

[Jessie 160]

Jessie, the point is I don't think KF owed anything to JMI/Vox or their mothers! The amp you mentioned was a replacement for a current owner that wanted enough modded in his amp it was easier to make it from scratch...Improve upon it? You betcha! I've never sold a complete Clone of a Komet. No cab, no tubes, and a modified circuit.:D And certainly no logo!!!:MMM The amp contained more changes than a AC30TB>Rocket. Does that make it okay with you?

Allynmey

Actually, your scenario would be okay with me and I wouldn't refer to your amp as a clone anymore than I would refer to the Rocket as a clone. Based upon yes, but a different sounding amp altogether when it is finished. I don't think it was so cool using a cabinet that looked just like a Komet Concorde Stealth. You seem to say you had no part iin that though. I wonder why they would want to do that? I think you can understand the difference of what I was trying to get at in my post.
The Rocket , by the way was not meant to be a production amp. It was an amp that Ken had made for his own personal use. It started to be sold after someone heard it at his house and had to have one. Ken was offered a ridiculous amount of money for his, but turned it down. He didn't want to see it locked in a cabinet. Some things meant more than money to him.

[gls500]

Or what does all this mean. Because you've sorta lost me. I don't follow the logic.

The logic is that there are a group of guys that have it out for Dr.Z after he didn't take to kindly to the fact that they set up a whole web forum dedicated to cloning a Carmen Ghia. They took the forum underground, and apparently look for opportunities to libel Dr.Z and harm his business. This is just the latest of many known coordinated attacks.

This should be evident to anyone who has read this thread, and can see that the Z logo situation has nothing to do with the problem of cloning that we're discussing, yet they use it as an opportunity to libel him. This is douchebaggery of the lowest form.

[pickaguitar]

Sorry but clones for sale are cool in my book :AOK
I could never afford the original...I think most regular folks feel this way.

[daddyo]

No wonder the vertical hold knob had no effect on the tone when I plugged my guitar into that big, walnut cabbed Z.

[Fuchsaudio]

I once worked at an amp company named "Marlboro". Needless to say, the cigarette company sent a lawyer-nasty gram.

The outcome was: Marlboro amps agreed to never make cigarettes, and the cigarette company agreed to never make guitar amps.

Zenith is now owned by a large Korean conglomerate (Samsung I believe) who built tons of equipment for the Chicago based original American company Zenith for many years. Eventually, they fell so far behind in paying for products, that overseas company took them over, and became "Zenith".

I would think that with Dr-Z selling amps for over 10 years now, if it was an issue to Zenith, they would have either gotten it stopped, or they worked it out between them.

[Moose]

This should be evident to anyone who has read this thread, and can see that the Z logo situation has nothing to do with the problem of cloning that we're discussing, yet they use it as an opportunity to libel him. This is douchebaggery of the lowest form.

Actually, I think it is a reference to Ceriatone. Dr Z just happens to be an example. I mention this because, not long ago, a post went up saying we're not to discuss Ceriatone because he might be infringing on someone's Trademark. That theory is reinforced because the same poster who said that about ceriatone now seems to think the Dr Z logo is OK. MANY trademark discussions are common here and always cause a ruckus due both to the subtlety of the arguments and misunderstanding.

Sometimes these discussions get a bit -- freeform. Alas, I think people read evil intent where it isn't meant. You seem to see deliberate libel here, but I don't really think that's the case in this instance. Z is just an easy example because it is a logo most people on this forum know.

[gls500]

Actually, I think it is a reference to Ceriatone. Dr Z just happens to be an example.

No, this is the 2nd or 3rd thread in the past week where this was brought up, with one person implying that Z gear should be sold in the emporium because it's trademark infringing.


Sometimes these discussions get a bit -- freeform. Alas, I think people read evil intent where it isn't meant. You seem to see deliberate libel here, but I don't really think that's the case in this instance.

It's the same guys every time.

[scottl]

Lucky Goldstar took over Zenith. They were the majority shareholder for years. Basically, they let Zenith flounder and then stole the company.

Unless the Dr. and Zenith worked something put, and assuming Zenith wanted Z to desist with his logo, I believe it would be an open and shut case against Dr Z. The logos are virtually identical. Where is Tony P. with the answer?? LOL

I once worked at an amp company named "Marlboro". Needless to say, the cigarette company sent a lawyer-nasty gram.

The outcome was: Marlboro amps agreed to never make cigarettes, and the cigarette company agreed to never make guitar amps.

Zenith is now owned by a large Korean conglomerate (Samsung I believe) who built tons of equipment for the Chicago based original American company Zenith for many years. Eventually, they fell so far behind in paying for products, that overseas company took them over, and became "Zenith".

I would think that with Dr-Z selling amps for over 10 years now, if it was an issue to Zenith, they would have either gotten it stopped, or they worked it out between them.

[scottl]

OK.... Here is a devil's advocate question.

Is it OK for Fractal Audio to use the proprietary circuit designs of dozens of famous amps to input the exact circuit specs into their modelling program? In essence, they are digitally cloning the amps. They are using the exact values of these amps. Then they are naming the patches with the exact amp name! Seems no different on an ethical level. They are cloning using an alternative medium to tubes and the like....

For the record, I am on their list. I only throw this out there to see what the response is.

[dspblues]

I hope I'm not the only one that finds it amusing that there are so many patent lawyers on TGP.

[klemguitar]

[quote=Scott Peterson;2927986]Kborg, it also allows you to announce your for sale gear in the Amp section. You've had Jamie, Brian and I all already comment.

If I'm reading this correctly. It would appear you are accusing Mike of
starting a thread here to advertise gear for sale in the emporium.
I don't believe this is the case. He started the thread with a legitimate
question, that has been blown wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of proportion,
not by him I might add. I think his intentions were clear, and not
underhanded at all. It was pretty cut and dry that he wanted to list
gear for sale and was unable to do so and wanted an answer why.
Should he have pm'd one of the moderators/administrators, possibly,
and if this was the proper way to do it maybe instead of the above
comment you could have deleted the thread and answered him in private.

If I have misread, or read to much into the above comment, I apologize.

I guess I expect the moderators/administrators of this board to be above
posting such comments.

I should add I've known Mike for many years and what was said by Scott,
if that was indeed what he meant by the comment, is not something
Mike would do, not on purpose anyway.

peace
klem

[scottl]

Klem,

I believe the comment was saying the policy allows his to sell his gear. Not that this thread was created to sell.... I saw no malice. The mods are standup guys! As is Mike, I am sure...

[quote=Scott Peterson;2927986]Kborg, it also allows you to announce your for sale gear in the Amp section. You've had Jamie, Brian and I all already comment.

If I'm reading this correctly. It would appear you are accusing Mike of
starting a thread here to advertise gear for sale in the emporium.
I don't believe this is the case. He started the thread with a legitimate
question, that has been blown wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of proportion,
not by him I might add. I think his intentions were clear, and not
underhanded at all. It was pretty cut and dry that he wanted to list
gear for sale and was unable to do so and wanted an answer why.
Should he have pm'd one of the moderators/administrators, possibly,
and if this was the proper way to do it maybe instead of the above
comment you could have deleted the thread and answered him in private.

If I have misread, or read to much into the above comment, I apologize.

I guess I expect the moderators/administrators of this board to be above
posting such comments.

I should add I've known Mike for many years and what was said by Scott,
if that was indeed what he meant by the comment, is not something
Mike would do, not on purpose anyway.

peace
klem

[plexi67]

Jessie hit it on the head for me. I know people are going to come back with "legal" arguments, but it is really about business ethics to me.

IMHO, it is NOT OK to clone current production items for sale or items which have a financial implication on a living person, company, or family.

Case in point, a handful of cloners are building current production Matchless Lightnings, Spitfires, and DC30s. They are undercutting Matchless and are certainly costing them sales. This has an impact on the Matchless company and its employees and is just plain wrong no matter that people want to buy the cheaper knock-offs.

Another case in point. The only way to buy a Ken Fischer amp now that he is gone is to buy a Komet. Not built by KF's hands. I understand that, but it is one of his designs. KF's family deserves to be paid for his life's work as it continues to generate revenue, and Komet takes care of this. Buying a Wreck clone takes sales away from Komet and therefore impacts Ken's family. I find this to be wrong as well.

Cloning an amp for your personal use is OK with me if you have the skills, but not cloning it for sale.

I have to disagree,for one, Komet don't build an express ,rocket,or liverpool. That we know of anyway.
And no one else builds one. And not too many can afford a real wreck,even if one came up for sale. And Ken never sold them for 50,000 when he was building them. And in Kens own words from his site...

"""""""I do design amps for other companies, and they do sound very good. I play those myself sometimes. However, they are just not a TRAINWRECK.""""""

And if no one can build one that sounds like a real one..then why are people worried about someone buying a clone. Marshalls HW series is a current production amp,as is the 18 and 20 watt.. and many people build those.
Most people build amps or clone them to get something that isn't made, or are rare.

[iggs]

I hope I'm not the only one that finds it amusing that there are so many patent lawyers on TGP.

Yeah well ... someone's got to be able to afford those Two Rock amps.

[ttuck]

Wow, this discussion has really gone off the edge. Wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't the third or fourth time in the past two weeks that the same discussion has gone 10+ pages and basically said the same exact thing. BY the end of the ten pages, the original topic is long forgotten, and people are name calling or accusing each other of something obtuse that is unrelated to the original topic

MODS, PLEASE SAVE US FROM THE HELL OF HAVING TO ENDURE ANY FURTHER REHASH OF THIS.........

:horse

[Roccaforte Amps]

:jo:NUTS:crazy:messedup

[ChickenLover]

MODS, PLEASE SAVE US FROM THE HELL OF HAVING TO ENDURE ANY FURTHER REHASH OF THIS.........
I have a better idea...please stop saving us from ourselves (because in reality it has the exact opposite effect).

[NitroLiq]

KF's family deserves to be paid for his life's work as it continues to generate revenueUnless that was what Ken wanted, nobody "deserves" anything.

[Scott Peterson]

he doesnt sell Komet clones, as far as i know.

germ

Untrue.

How do I know? www.ampbuildersforum.com (http://www.ampbuildersforum.com) pulls up no forum, but.... a store? Who's store? Ohhhh.

But if you look here: http://ampbuildersforum.com/forum/login.php?redirect=viewtopic.php&t=1900&sid=e07cfeb37fae75db92790cb7e9438752

Ohhhh, a secret door. Where does it go? What's behind it? And - uh oh - I know what's behind the door. Hmmm. How'd I get in?

Here's a secret, I have copies of what's behind it. And if you are a member there, when you click that link you'll know that I know and WHAT I know. That's not all of it, but you'll get the picture.

There are way too many secrets being 'hidden' by certain members on TGP with pro-cloning-for-profit agendas while they are here - and on this very thread. Yet here they are accusing the TGP owners and moderators of a hidden agenda?

That scurrying sound you hear right now is a whole bunch of folks that thought they were pulling the wool over everyone's eyes here at TGP. The site Admin and member's there are not going to be named by me; not publicly. But I know who is who. If you read the posts here, it's not so hard to figure out though.

This hypocritical stuff - and pulling Dr. Z into this morass because he took them to task for cloning his amps in the past - is stomach turning. They've played this out on a public board like TGP so they could sell their wares here. That's the game.

Quit the game gentlemen. At least here. We don't need that sort of thing here.

I've read all sorts of insinuations and accusations of agendas aimed at me and what I felt about some of these topics. Here's my opinion stated clearly so you don't have to guess. I have zero issue with clones. Zero. If you make them, if you build them, if you sell parts to others to do so. Doesn't bother me in the least. My opinion. If you sell completed clones as clones of "xxxxxx" amp for profit without tweaks, but plying on the customer your ability to 'nail' this or that amp without your own name on it? That's against my personal code of ethics. If you use the trademarked name of the amp, the trademarked logo of the amp to entice customers? That's against my personal code of ethics.

If you build them for yourself to learn and play, I think that's amazing and am very cool with it. I had a 18watt kit and could never find the focus and time to do it myself; it is a major undertaking on even a simple circuit like that. I have nothing but admiration for the skills and abilities of guys that can and do those things.

Accuse me of bias all you like; I go to sleep every night with my conscience clear. The fact is that the folks accusing me of 'simply hating clones' or 'cloners' or what-have-you have their own agendas and have NOT played the game here on TGP with their cards on the table. I'm not selling you an amp. There's nothing in this for me one way or the other.