ya thats WAY different 
I hear you man…not arguing. just my feelings on the subject. I just think they could handle it better.
there is the same issue with “fan art”. It could be cracked down on. no one wants to be the bad guy. but I look forward to the day one of them gets the stones to stop the stealing of the art. go to comicon and look at all the art thats being ripped off. its disheartening. it almost stifles new ideas. easier to imitate than innovate I guess.
It’s really not that different, except in the eyes of the law. Probably not to how it is used.
( Maybe i like the knobs a tiny bit better in the middle like on the Swing. It’s up to opinion. )
We’re not in disagreement, i am only pointing up the facts in a legal sense. I as well think Behringer could have handled many things in this regard far better. ( Perhaps and hopefully they realize this too. )
It’s going to be a long road, and we likely will see more, ( as i point to in this post ), some done well
by Behringer and some not.
Instruments like that are a very different situation I feel.
Stradivarius never sued anyone for making knock off violins. The idea with that was that you paid for a name because that name meant that the instrument was handmade by a skilled builder and was high quality.
The shape of a guitar in my eyes should not be something someone can own or trademark at all, just like you can’t trademark having white and black keys in blocks of 12.
What if I build a percussion based analog synth with these features…
… and then, let’s say, added in some midi capabilities. Should I not be allowed to build and sell it because someone else has already built one with these same features? What would be the necessary changes, additions, or subtractions to get me over the line of ethical?
I understand I may not get the synth award for creativity, but neither would those that copied the Stradivarius.
Specifically to avoid a part of trademark law, that has to do with “trade dress” which is the specific look and layout of a design. It needs to be different enough so that consumers are not confused about two different products.
I’m sure people would be singing a different tune if they didn’t have to pay 4000$ for a monomachine……
And you’ll note that they get much less flak when they’re not chasing the in production, new r&d of others.
Also, they’d never do anything that involves stealing copywritten digital code as that is better protected and enforced by law than board layouts.
That’s why i created two categories for classification of copied products in my earlier post.
Type (1) being fair use copies.
Type (2) being infringements.
And of course their are completely original products, that is neither of these.
There are not complete bright lines between these two categories, it does take consideration. But the distinction isn’t completely obscure either.
Personally i’m alright owning Type (1) products, but will avoid Type (2) regardless the manufacturer.
To this i now add a Type (3) that are illegal products. Things that involve industrial espionage, bribery, counterfeiting, fraud, corrupt development and manufacturing practices, anything of that sort practiced on a corporate level.
So just for me. I am OK purchasing any Type (1) product, include those made by a company, that also makes Type (2) products.
But i have decided to not buy anything, including original products, from any company involved with Type (3) products and production. That would include a retail distributor of Type (3) products.
Reverse engineering (circuits and code) is perfectly legal.
The latter is not universally true. Behringer ended up settling with Mackie over one of their clone attempts that involved digital components , if I recall correctly.
Now, here we’re less talking black box “reverse engineering” anyway! Behringer would copy the code outright if offered the opportunity and US-based/influenced copyright law allowed for it.
Someone better tell Justin.
I don’t know every “Justin” the world over 
Who is protected depends on what you’re reverse engineering, from which industry, and for what purpose. Interop between proprietary signals? Security research? Reimplementation in commercial products?
Do you have any examples of Type 3 products?
They do not sell this software, it is free. They have spoken with Elektron and have agreed to never release the source code. The MD was definitively discontinued 5 years ago in 2016. Manufacture and software updates had stopped long before that.
Thanks for the clarification!
I don’t think the existence of noncommercial projects that happen to infringe on IP with the knowledge of the IP holder are really analogous to what’s being discussed. If the projects have the passive-to-active support of legal, whether someone can sue in a particular country’s courts (with justification) is irrelevant.
As mentioned earlier, they made an agreement with Elektron over source.
I was a user of a project that extended an old in-dash Linux-based MP3 player called the Empeg. Persons extended the firmware for some years, but while it was based on Linux, they could never release the FULL source for DSP code as hardware implementation of some chipsets relied on proprietary agreements.
What I’m saying is that it’s pretty complicated and what one is legally allowed to do and what actions a company can take against them can vary widely on context.
What is explicitly legal with cloning analog board design is not so clear with digital components. We’ve had some good rulings lately (Google v Oracle on API usage, yeesh.) But IP owners and predatory holders can make the lives of small companies and “the little person” miserable in a way that guitar pedal cloners will not encounter.
Only because it isn’t being made. Move forward.
Someone made sick tracks with it when it was “common”. You could do the same with something new. Set the trend, be the guy that made the new “gear name here” the shit everyone wants.
You can’t have everything, you can’t make everything forever.
The gear doesn’t make the music great. The user does. Case and point, I have an MNM and I make it sound like shit. I actually have guilt owning it sometimes, feeling, it should be in the hands of someone capable.
But I’d like to add: I catch myself doing the same thing. I lust after a Nord Modular G2 and @waftlord now has me listing after a Nord Drum2….but I tell myself to try to come up with new interesting stuff on new stuff.
Tho, I’d love to get one of those old boxes…I definitely don’t want some kind of knock off.
But I wouldn’t shy away from Nord making a G3…COME ON GUYS!
Still, it’s a handwave on sucabeza’s end ( 
).
B is aggressively courting cloning of new products from vendors that are for the most part not large enough to match Uli’s legal team without exhausting their coffers. Moog is large for an indie but is not structured for hours of long court cases in the same way a Roland or Mackie might be able to suffer through.
They’re not only bringing us what is out of print, they’re explicitly preying on companies they find it safe to stomp on, because what can the indies do?
Hey now, I’m sure it sounds like $4000 worth of shit! 
Honestly…it doesn’t. I manage to make it sound like a poorly used VST
Imagine trying to copywrite black and white keys.
Weird Arturia wasn’t sued for doing it.
Here, you cannot copywrite a circuit. It can be patented if it’s completely new and unique. The actual drawing on paper (the exact layout on paper as printed) and the exact layout of a circuit board can be copywrited, but move the wires around and it’s legal. A VCO circuit is well beyond it’s patent expiration. Particularly on a 40 year old 303.
Just because he swings his didler around in peoples faces and mocks them while doing it, or paying armies of people Pennie’s to make the stuff doesn’t make it illegal.
Slander is tho.