Clone or Knock off??

[paulf-2007]

Forgive me as I am really not trying to derail this thread but I have noticed similar with kit cars. AC Cobra replicas that even have a fake AC badge on them. These things are almost an exact copy and you see people that have built them expecting to get £46k for them..! It is a knock off mate, nothing more nothing less. Getting back to the OP, I have noticed the amps on ebay too.

even Gibson guitars sell say a '59 reissue. It might look like a '59, it might have similar hardware but the timber will not compare, years ago the Japanese bought the best timber and were making better quality guitars than the Americans, it irritates me when I see a '59 les Paul for sale and then find out it's a reissue and not the genuine article even though it's made by a company with the name Gibson, ok the same company but not the same craftsmen and materials

Btw I just bought an amplifier reminiscent of a Linley hood design that looks very Dartzeel but is NOT labeled as one, 15w solid state, bought out of interest rather than expecting it to be anywhere near the quality of my Bakoon.

[WESTLOWER]

The amp you mention - I'm assuming we are thinking of the same one - is described as a clone so no-one who buys it would be deceived into thinking it was anything other than that. That's the key point I think.

Hmm, Interesting point...
so if one states it’s a fake, but still continues to try and sell the fake, even though to the eye it’s a complete facsimile of a product, which a company has invested a massive amount of R&D, money and commitment in.... its ok, because they stated it was a clone to begin with?

Imho that doesn’t sit right, and darn sure if any of us had the same commitment to a product we’d be very upset.

Not exactly endorsing the small business ethic that make up the hifi industry!

[Macca]

Hmm, Interesting point...
so if one states it’s a fake, but still continues to try and sell the fake, even though to the eye it’s a complete facsimile of a product, which a company has invested a massive amount of R&D, money and commitment in.... its ok, because they stated it was a clone to begin with?

Imho that doesn’t sit right, and darn sure if any of us had the same commitment to a product we’d be very upset.

Not exactly endorsing the small business ethic that make up the hifi industry!

Is there really an issue providing things like names/logos are not appropriated and there's no intent to deceive i.e it is not sold as being the real thing?

[WESTLOWER]

Is there really an issue providing things like names/logos are not appropriated and there's no intent to deceive i.e it is not sold as being the real thing?

So why not use a different aesthetic?
Of course it’s meant to deceive, it’s been put in the same VERY distinctive case

[fatmarley]

Here's an interesting one - What about a company that's name is known worldwide, and their old products still fetch good money on the second-hand market. Recently, they make new products with the same name and similar looks, but the original owners and designers are long gone, and although they look the same, they obviously don't perform the same.

Can you guess who I'm thinking of?

[Wakefield Turntables]

Here's an interesting one - What about a company that's name is known worldwide, and their old products still fetch good money on the second-hand market. Recently, they make new products with the same name and similar looks, but the original owners and designers are long gone, and although they look the same, they obviously don't perform the same.

Can you guess who I'm thinking of?

Some Might Explain this in a differing manner.

[walpurgis]

Quad clones have been around for years. I doubt they care much about 30 year out of date designs being copied.

[topoxforddoc]

I think that this whole aspect of hi fi electronics is a can of worms. It's just like copyright in many ways, except some people choose to turn a blind eye.

As in the computer world, some designs are open source with the circuits published. Anyone building one of these is perfectly entitled to do so, as that was what the designer originally intended. Something like the vintage Mullard 5-20 circuit or the modern Nelson Pass designs would fall into this category - effectively they're like freeware.

However, many designers invest a huge amount of effort, time and money into improving their designs. I don't think that there is any such thing as copyright in electronics and patents are hard and difficult to secure. Some designers, like Frank Schroeder, are willing to share their knowledge to private DIY individuals; Frank has helped many people to build clones of his tonearms, on the condition that they are for private use and not for profit.

Opening up a new piece of equipment and admiring the quality of workmanship is one thing. But reverse engineering someone else's design without the original designer's consent is effectively intellectual property theft. But many smaller designers and even some of the household names don't have the resources to litigate, particularly if the offender is overseas or an individual with few assets. It is much easier to copy a design with discrete components, as that is within the skillset of a skilled electronics engineer. But copying surface mounted boards requires a different level of investment.

Ultimately if the cohort of excellent small designers have their business undercut and their products ripped off without their consent, the hi-fi world would be a much poorer place.

[fatmarley]

Some Might Explain this in a differing manner.

I see what you did there, but that's not who I was thinking of. Thinking about it, I'm sure there are many examples where this has happened.

[walpurgis]

If you look on ebay for amplifiers and include 1969 or Hood in the search, you will get derivatives of John Linsley Hood Class A designs. I doubt anybody is likely to complain.