The Clone War - Behringer. Good or Bad?

The Lounge Other Gear
#769

This often seems to get brought up relating to this company, so I have two answers:

  1. Two wrongs don’t make a right. :wink:
  2. It feels very different in the guitar world…

When it’s guitars, people are copying a shape, which I don’t really see a problem with. There’s only so much you can do with a guitar shape that doesn’t look shit or pointlessly weird. Ergonomics dictates a lot of it, and people end up having very similar designs even when they try not to. How many degrees different would a lower horn curve need to be to not be viewed as the same for example.

Pedals/amps - similar thing to say, a ladder filter. It is often very small/simple circuits that are copied, even just a chip or opamp in some cases. There is then only so much you can do differently to still have that circuit work and sound good. It often started with people making their own version of a pedal with some tweaks or mods because they thought they could improve the circuit. Similar to a company releasing their own version of a monosynth, these are just more complicated devices.

In either case, I personally still take issue with a company releasing 1:1 copies of any product. If someone came out with a rebranded copy of an Orange Rockerverb 100 mk3 I would take issue with it, but if a company made a “British sounding, 2 channel, 100 watt amp with reverb and an EL34 poweramp” (that wasn’t an exact copy) I would say crack on. Just as I would if Behringer actually released a synth that wasn’t advertised as (or very obviously) a copy of someone else’s work. As far as I’m aware, the Neutron is the only recent product where that has been the case.

It all comes down to where you draw the line between inspiration and plagiarism.

1 Like
#770

Both Gibson and Fender fought in court not terribly long ago to protect their characteristic shapes, with trademark. They both lost, for technical reasons, although shape can be covered by trademark, as for instance with the Adidas Swoosh ( joke there to make a point ). It might be difficult but trademark on a guitar shape isn’t an impossibility.

As for an electronic device like a synth, its construction would be difficult to protect. As i posted about earlier, a true counterfeit can be protected with trade dress parts of trademark law. Trade dress could also apply to guitar shape.

Trademark of course does not apply to electronic circuit design.

Patents can be had on electronic things not obvious to someone knowledgeable in the art ( of electronics for instance ). Good luck with 99.9% plus of all current design finding anything to patent with any part of the design.

So shape really is worth mentioning when talking about unfair copying.

1 Like
#771

Nobody says anything when the Moog ladder filter ends up in other stuff from the big companies like Roland and Korg.

1 Like
#772

what synths has Korg or Roland used the Moog filter in?

SH-3a is the only one I can think of. and a lot has been said about it. plus it wasn’t a direct rip off of anything else otherwise. in other words, they just put the best filter of the time into their synth, like ARP did; didn’t clone the whole synth.

1 Like
#773

Offered without evidence, why is that? I’ve heard far worse about China from Chinese.

#774

For fun just for anyone interested in the history, here is the google reference to the Moog transistor ladder filter patent :

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3475623A/en

Granted 1969, expired 1986.

1 Like
#775

(I’m not defending Beringer) but I’m not sure the colour scheme is original to the Moog Grandmother though… Check the retro REMCO sound effects generator which precedes the Moog by a few decades… (makes a great dub siren too!)

REMCOx800
REMCOx800800×600 171 KB

1 Like
#776

China has lifted like a billion people out of absolute poverty over the past few decades. I’m sure some people are still living in slavery, like in any country, but let’s be honest and present both sides of the story.

2 Likes
#777

The era of European Colonialism lifted millions out of absolute poverty in a few decades, let’s be honest and present both sides of the Capitalist story.

#778

And: Xinjiang? Who’s leaving stuff out of the picture here?

#779

The original Grandmother color scheme is a throw back itself to the Radio Shack Moog

The Behringer Gear-in-progress Thread
#780

Specific colors used in a specific way can be trademarked and defended. Some examples :

Colors can be trademarked
Colors can be trademarked1584×456 157 KB

Color trademarks don’t hold worldwide. This was established in the USA since 1995 when Owens Corning won a case for pink insulation. The trademark only applies within a product category, where at least one color functions to uniquely identify a product’s origin.

It would not apply to just the general use of colors, or a way that color is used.

#781

Maybe… But the Remco sound effects machine was released two years BEFORE the RadioShack Moog

1 Like
#782

I used to love my RadioShack Moog. Shame it’s poorly now.

#783

not only is that untrue, it’s also irrelevant and completely off topic

1 Like
#784

The confirmation bias can be adapted to the situation.

If the synth sounds close it’s, “See how they just copy everything.”

Or if the synth sounds different it’s, “See they can’t even get that right.”

2 Likes
#785

But it can be deemed a copy when not only the sound is similar but they copy the look.

If they would make their version, fine. Lots of places make their version of…[gear name here]

But it feels like B is not relying solely on their sound version of something to sell it. They use the entire design.

image
image800×533 154 KB

image
image2000×1039 445 KB

to me, that’s lame

7 Likes
#786

Wow, that took me way back. It’s like one of those “Spot 12 Differences” puzzles you’d see in a workbook as a kid. And the kid next to you would always say, “That’s too easy.”

Notice the differences are largely additions in the second image. Even blind-folded the differences would be pretty easy to tell.

Not that law is the only measure, but you’d be told, “Ya’ got no case”, if you went for this on the basis of a trademark trade dress issue.

But even though there are significant differences, you’re right the two are unmistakenly similar.

But on the other hand, if you had experience playing the original you’d pretty quickly adapt. That certainly could be a goal in this sort of design.

Like in a car, you know immediately where to find the accelerator, where to find the brake, and where to find the clutch – in any car after 1920 or so. I wish that side of the street had been standardized too.

2 Likes
#787

two excellent examples (i.e. much better places to spend your money):

image
image2560×1623 641 KB

image
image2224×1112 353 KB

5 Likes
#788

It’s not that. Point missed entirely.

It’s that, even tho there are “differences”, they don’t even try to make their own design. Not that they can’t. I’m POSITIVE they have great designers. The problem I have is that it’s intentional almost CERTAINLY to attract sales. When someone is listening to your music. They can’t tell which one you used. I’ve used the VST 101 and it was perceived as an actual 101.

And what’s worse is…they don’t even tip their hat to the original manufacturer. “A tribute to the loved SH-101”…for example. That would go a LONG way.

All kinds of people make similar stuff. That’s just the nature of the biz. It’s just the entire package and presentation I take issue with with B.

No problem with sound a-likes. Take issue with clones and no mention of source.
That’s all I’m driving at.

5 Likes