I wonder why no lawsuits over modeling / profiling?

Discussion in 'Digital & Modeling Gear' started by aldridt1, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. aldridt1

    aldridt1 Member

    Messages:
    190
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Just genuinely curious.......

    I kind of assume that lawyers have probably looked into it. I am surprised the amp companies are not insisting that models and profiles be licensed, or something of that nature.
     
  2. dazco

    dazco Member

    Messages:
    12,181
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2003
    You can't copyright a tone ! You can only copyright the actual circuit and the name, neither of which the modelers use. Note in my mustang for example, they name the fender models by thier actual name because they own them. But the marshallmodels for example, "british 80's", "british 70s", etc.
     
    Scrapperz and buddaman71 like this.
  3. nicolasrivera

    nicolasrivera Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    6,448
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Location:
    Honduras
    We already had this discussion @aldridt1 in a very extensive thread, do a search, all the answers you seek are there.
     
  4. CapnRex

    CapnRex Member

    Messages:
    569
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2016
    If a company makes an amp model called Marshall or Fender then I believe they would technically be liable unless they say "not endorsed by..." or "model of" or something that shows it is not actually trying to pass off a product as though it is an official one by the amp maker.

    A profile would probably be more difficult to find liable as it is more like making a record and stating you use a Marshall amp - it's just the sound as it comes out.

    Not a lawyer, but I have some experience in contract writing and legal risk management - if it were my company I would look into tge appropriate language needed for labeling amp models.
     
  5. Jacobite_Rebellion

    Jacobite_Rebellion Member

    Messages:
    3,352
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2017
    Probably because nobody wants to admit that some profiler sounds exactly like their boutique amp.
     
  6. theroan

    theroan Member

    Messages:
    5,870
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
  7. mattball826

    mattball826 Member

    Messages:
    20,826
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Many disclaimers in manuals, websites, etc.

    Digitech mods used to freak out at Sound Comm when users posted Mesa Boogie or Marshall presets with amp company in the name. Then they did the same with Artist names. Try my Marshall EVH patch!! Double whammy lol

    Not that Marshall would waste lawyer fees on a case of end users claims to having a sound that is Marshall endorsed.
    Over time, it didn't matter. End users classify products how they want. Modeling co's just need the disclaimer.
     
  8. -Empire

    -Empire Supporting Member

    Messages:
    5,896
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Probably for the same reason horse and buggy manufacturers couldn't sue Henry Ford.
     
  9. Frank Ritchotte

    Frank Ritchotte Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    5,556
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Location:
    Calabasas, CA
    Some of the smaller boutique guys actually want their name and logo's included. I have had several request we model them....It is a hell of a marketing tool.
     
    CactusWren, ejecta, jpage and 17 others like this.
  10. MKB

    MKB Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    7,545
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    It's an interesting thought. Perhaps the modeling world is so small there isn't enough money in it. I wonder if the modeling companies that copy a circuit design in an algorithm are liable for design infringement, much in the way tube amp companies in the past were dinged by Mesa for copying their early Mark amp channel switching. And what will Alexander Dumble do with the crystal lattices and software copying his topologies?

    On copyrighting or trademarking a sound; didn't Harley-Davidson have some sort of protection on the "potato^2" sound of their bikes?
     
  11. Watt McCo

    Watt McCo Member

    Messages:
    8,146
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    If modelers/profilers are tempting fate by copying the tone of an amp manufacturer via different technology, then so too are physical amp makers that build amps that sound like that of another manufacturer. Surely Ceriatone and Mojotone and all the other "clone kit" amp makers run the same risk as the modeler/profiler folks if it is merely the sound produced by the device that can be protected as intellectual property. And Mesa runs a risk for all of its "Fender inspired clean channel" tones, etc.

    Harley Davidson applied for a Trademark on the sound made by its engine; that application was opposed by lots of folks for obvious reasons and after loads and loads of litigation, Harley just withdrew its Trademark application rather than continue pursuing it.

    Trademarks are all about a consumer being confused about who makes the device they are about to buy. I'm hard pressed to see how a consumer would be confused that it was plugging into a Marshall JTM 45 when plugging into a Kemper simply because one of the tones it may produce sounds like a Marshall JTM 45.
     
  12. ELmiguel

    ELmiguel Member

    Messages:
    3,680
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2013
    Location:
    East Coast of USA
    suing a corporation takes a lot of money
    most boutique amp builders don't have deep pockets
    the laws don't allow them to protect their products

    then there are the Marshall inspired, Fender inspired, Vox inspired boutique builders
    the laws don't allow the big 3 mfg's I just mentioned to go after these boutique builders unless there is a trademark violation

    so, unfortunately for the few gifted designers who come up with something unique that people discover and like and start buying
    they are going to see years of hard work and lots of R&D money wasted when someone comes along and rips them off (copies them)

    Ceriatone copies the circuits exactly ( or as close as they can), comes up with cute names that let you know exactly what the circuit is, and builds in Malaysia.
    I don't think they worry about USA laws. Especially since the ship their amps here in plain boxes directly to the buyer and don't sell at retail outlets

    It's funny, I've owned 3 different Mesa amps and never thought the clean tones sounded "Fender inspired". I've owned Fender amps as well.
    I know that people say that they sound that way to them
    I think it's because Randall Smith first modded some Fender Princetons before he developed his own design
    I think they sound more Marshall clean actually
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2017
  13. Watt McCo

    Watt McCo Member

    Messages:
    8,146
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2016
    Mojotone works out of North Carolina. Your point on Mesa is exactly why none of this is ever going anywhere: "I know that people say they sound [Fender-like] to them I think they sound more Marshall clean actually" Good luck finding a group of 10 consumers that can hear a sound alone and say "oh, yeah, if I heard an amp making that sound I would DEFINITELY think it was made by company-X and not possibly by any other manufacturer."
     
    Anacharsis likes this.
  14. iim7V7I7

    iim7V7I7 Member

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
  15. scook

    scook Member

    Messages:
    2,815
    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2015
    You can't copyright the circuit either (hence the goop on Dumble internals), only the schematic or PCB layout.
     
  16. rumbletone

    rumbletone Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    5,855
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Location:
    Vancouver BC
    If someone designs something that is truly novel (and meets the other criteria - like being useful and non-obvious), they can get a patent - as many in the MI business do, including Mesa, Fender, Quilter, Blackstar, Peavey, Freyette, Egnater, etc.

    Many inventors choose not to invest in seeking patent protection, which is their choice. But please don't say that laws don't protect them - it only doesn't protect them if they are not doing anything new OR they don't wish to take the steps that others do to protect their IP.

    And yes there are costs to obtaining and enforcing IP rights, but just like rent, labour, electricity, etc. they are costs of doing business, and it's the business owner's choice whether or not to incur the costs.



     
    Anacharsis likes this.
  17. MixMinisterMike

    MixMinisterMike Supporting Member

    Messages:
    1,513
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2015
    Location:
    USA
    I had the opportunity to ask Randall Smith about his thoughts on modeling last year. He said he was mixed, that he didn't like the idea that others were taking years of a real persons work to create a new amp and profiting off of it without respecting the source. He mentioned how early modelers used real names (I think he was alluding to Line 6) for amps and then would market that to their advantage. Then think about how accurate those early models were (ick my today's standards) and I could understand how that could actually misrepresent the real product!
    Now of course we have funny names for amps and "inspired by" so consumers know that's not necessarily what Mesa thinks a Mesa should be in any particular modeler.
    Randall also said it was interesting partnering with IK for an official modeling product, and he acknowledged that modeling has advanced to the point where it is extremely accurate, but he said don't expect Mesa to bring out its own line of digital products in the future.
     
  18. Jay Mitchell

    Jay Mitchell Member

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    I'll say it: in a practical sense, the laws don't protect them. Holding a patent gives you the right to sue. It says nothing about the results of a suit.

    What you left out is that, after paying all the costs, the patent holder may still lose. If the defendant's pockets are deep enough, they can stall until the plaintiff either dies or goes broke. There are many examples of this. Holding a patent affords minimal protection. It is far more often used as a marketing tool or to beat up on a smaller competitor than as protection for IP.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2017
    rsm, vinceh, yeky83 and 1 other person like this.
  19. iim7V7I7

    iim7V7I7 Member

    Messages:
    128
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Yep. A barrier to entry, to protect marketshare. BigCo and CoBig cross license patent portfolios, to protect revenue streams, and file against entrants lacking portfolios worth cross licensing.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice