To all of Behringer's apologists:

[CarmenC]

Agreeing or disagreeing with me has no bearing whatsoever. Whether or not you see it as hypocrisy only you can decide.

Your responses in this thread indicate that you have no problem with "let the market place decide" yet you practice another set of guidelines regarding your own work. Based on your earlier responses, if you followed "let the market place decide", you would have responded to griffinator with something of this nature: "The market place will determine which version of the song is better and of more value."
It is inconsistant to say, "..that's copyright infringment.." The problem is, you are taking both sides of the same issue. I ignore copyrights when it is to my advantage -&- I copyright my material when it is to my advantage.
I find it hard to believe anyone really has that much inconsistancy in their value system.

Based on that, You seem to be taking an extreme position for the sake of discussion. Which I still believe is only stirring the pot and that's quite alright I guess.

I don't know whether Behringer is guilty or not, of course they will deny it. The evidence is somewhat compelling and they do have a history of this buisness practice. I will not support nor condem Behringer until further facts are known.

I tried to explain to you that there are copyrights on my music.
That is an undisputable fact.
Can you tell me what patents or copyrights there are on EbTech's cable tester that EbTech owns and that you feel Behringer violated?
You can't accuse Behringer of braking the law without the specific copyright
or patents to back you up.
Copyrights on my music and ALLEGED protections on EbTech's design's are two seperate issues that you are lumping together for your convience.
"They look the same" is not good enough.
I am not taking an extreme position.
It might look extreme to you because you disagree, which is fine.
I am taking this position because no-one has yet stated the copyright or patent that Behringer violated.
People just organised a boycott without all the facts.
I don't think you should hurt or accuse a company of wrongdoing on a public BB, regardless of size, unless you have proof!
I would pull the guy who publicly defamed my company into court
and make him prove his accusations before a judge.
Companies have successfully sued and won damages from people on BBS's
for misleading and defamatory comments that turned out to be false.
People are free to say what they want.
But you had better be able to back it up in court if you damage a otherwise lawbiding company with your speech.
Peace.
Carmen

"Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of
luck."
-The Dalai Lama

 

[Griffinator]

Can you tell me what patents or copyrights there are on EbTech's cable tester that EbTech owns and that you feel Behringer violated?

I can tell you that there have been several patents pending on the Ebtech cable tester, and that Ebtech would have gone bankrupt had they waited until those patents were approved before they started selling them.

I can also tell you that Behringer still has the legal upper hand, because the EU doesn't recognize U.S. Design Rights as they do European countries. EU doesn't recognize anything by U.S. companies that isn't backed up by a patent or copyright.

So Ebtech wouldn't have a chance in court, even if they could afford the astronomical costs of doing battle with Behringer.

 

[darrin_h2000]

The Circuts used to make the cable tester are so old in fact that if they were original Id be suprised.

I can build the same thing for right arround 5.00, Al you have to do is wire up a 9volt battery to a few wires and adapters and put an led on each wire.

Hearing this Id be pissed of at Ebtech for ripping off the public by making 145.00 on this because some people are stupid enough to lay out the dough.

 

[Griffinator]

The Circuts used to make the cable tester are so old in fact that if they were original Id be suprised.

I can build the same thing for right arround 5.00, Al you have to do is wire up a 9volt battery to a few wires and adapters and put an led on each wire.

Hearing this Id be pissed of at Ebtech for ripping off the public by making 145.00 on this because some people are stupid enough to lay out the dough.

Have you gone to swizzarmy.com and looked at the specs? This is hardly a basic "it works, it doesn't work" cable tester. It's a pretty nice unit. I'd probably be willing to pay up around $90 for it. For that matter, if I was gigging on a regular basis (which I'm not currently) I'd spend the $129 they're asking for it.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Its not rocket Science, Its not even brain surgury. the circutry it takes to make a light turn on if the cable is good shouldnt be a problem to come up with.

 

[vox]

Yup, it also generates three different types of test tones and checks for phantom power.

 

[darrin_h2000]

So Add a tank circut and a resistor, you have just added $.50 to the cost.

 

[Griffinator]

So Add a tank circut and a resistor, you have just added $.50 to the cost.

Cool.

Does this mean I can send you $20 and you'll send me a cable tester that does EVERYTHING the Ebtech unit does (without copying their design, that is)?

 

[crawdad]

I've been a musician 35 years and never had a need for a cable tester. You plug in a cable to a mic or guitar. It either works or it doesn't and common sense and deduction is free.

Griffinator--if Ebtech hadn't been issued a patent or copyright on their product, then isn't it true that Behringer has not committed any patent or copyright infringement? Or is a patent pending just as good as an issued patent? Lawyers! Help! Just wondering...

 

[CarmenC]

Thanx, Crawdad

Griffinator--if Ebtech hadn't been issued a patent or copyright on their product, then isn't it true that Behringer has not committed any patent or copyright infringement? Or is a patent pending just as good as an issued patent? Lawyers! Help! Just wondering... [/B]

That's the crux of the matter!
I've asked Griffinator several times, but he won't give me anything
but his or Ebtech's opinion.
Name the patent or copyright infringment, specifically, that Behringer allegedly has violated that protects the Ebtech product!
Not "they look alike", or " let's take them apart in front of a judge"!
SPECIFICALLY NAME THE PROTECTION THAT EBTECH HAS ON THEIR PRODUCT THAT BEHRINGER VIOLATED!
Behringer's lawyer has asked for the same info.
Griffinator, will you provide it to them, or is it just your opinion?
Is this boycott based on just your opinion?
Is it fair to publicly defame a company based on your opinion?

Peace.
Carmen

 

[CarmenC]

I can tell you that there have been several patents pending on the Ebtech cable tester, and that Ebtech would have gone bankrupt had they waited until those patents were approved before they started selling them.

I can also tell you that Behringer still has the legal upper hand, because the EU doesn't recognize U.S. Design Rights as they do European countries. EU doesn't recognize anything by U.S. companies that isn't backed up by a patent or copyright.

So Ebtech wouldn't have a chance in court, even if they could afford the astronomical costs of doing battle with Behringer.

Name the patents that are pending that Behringer allegedly violated.
The rest is a guess on the outcome of a trial based on your opinion.
In the first paragraph, you say Ebtech have patents pending.
In the next paragraph, you say Ebtech isn't backed up by a patent or a copyright.
Which is it?
Is this your proof of Behringer's wrong doing?
Is this it?
Carmen

 

[Fangar]

I like to dig. I spammed the link to Sonic Foundry Just for giggles. With a return email address and directions on how to find their software of course.


Better Buy quick.

Stand By,

Fangar

 

[mcr]

Hi Carmen

I think it's likely that you're right and that Behringer is actually not "legally" infringing Ebtech's rights. The point Griff is trying to make certainly is one of personal opinion ... so, either you support it and refrain from buying Behringer gear or you don't. Your call.

But let's not exaggerate the "lawfulness" of the matter. Sometimes the law doesn't do what I think it should do but it's limitations are practically set by the sheer multiplicity of possible scenarios. So, even though I abide, I have the power to interpret the law more or less stringently wherever it's about my personal choices ... a strict interpretation of the law might allow Behringer claim the CT-100 is "Designed and conceived in Germany". Personally, I don't agree and won't buy it.

Anyways, ... I'm out.

 

[Griffinator]

Name the patents that are pending that Behringer allegedly violated.
The rest is a guess on the outcome of a trial based on your opinion.
In the first paragraph, you say Ebtech have patents pending.
In the next paragraph, you say Ebtech isn't backed up by a patent or a copyright.
Which is it?
Is this your proof of Behringer's wrong doing?
Is this it?
Carmen

Dude. Do you understand that "patent pending" does not protect you? A patent applied for does not give you protection until that patent is GRANTED. Are you some kind of knucklehead? Or are you a Behringer shill trying to scare everybody into complacency?

My comments on the outcome of legal action are based on prior history. A UK court in 1999 deemed Mackie "not protected" by EU design rights law because Mackie is a U.S. company, and the EU doesn't recognize U.S. company design rights.

 

[Fangar]

Dude. Do you understand that "patent pending" does not protect you? A patent applied for does not give you protection until that patent is GRANTED. Are you some kind of knucklehead? Or are you a Behringer shill trying to scare everybody into complacency?...

Actually Griff you are incorrect. A "Patent Pending" is a preliminary patent that states that plans have been submitted, the search has come back negative results and the Patent becomes permanent if there are no appeals within a certain amount of time. Even so if a company can show infringement during the pedning process, they have every right that a patent may extend (or not for that matter) as their paperwork shows filing date and time of device creation. Anyway, just some info,

Fangar

 

[Griffinator]

Actually Griff you are incorrect. A "Patent Pending" is a preliminary patent that states that plans have been submitted, the search has come back negative results and the Patent becomes permanent if there are no appeals within a certain amount of time. Even so if a company can show infringement during the pedning process, they have every right that a patent may extend (or not for that matter) as their paperwork shows filing date and time of device creation. Anyway, just some info,

Fangar

But that's only how it works in U.S. patent law - U.S. patent pending does not translate into EU protection.

 

[Fangar]

But that's only how it works in U.S. patent law - U.S. patent pending does not translate into EU protection.

You are correct, that US patents do not apply to other countries, however the statement of "Patent Pending" is a different issue. If one wants protection in another country, they must file with the said country. However if the EU company attempts to market their product within the US, they would be in violation of US patents.

Fangar

 

[FenderTL5]

Can you tell me what patents or copyrights there are on EbTech's cable tester that EbTech owns and that you feel Behringer violated?..
..You can't accuse Behringer of braking the law without the specific copyright..
I don't think you should hurt or accuse a company of wrongdoing on a public BB, regardless of size, unless you have proof!..

You have already quoted me.. in the very post that i now quote you..
I said, "I don't know whether Behringer is guilty or not, of course they will deny it. The evidence is somewhat compelling and they do have a history of this buisness practice. I will not support nor condem Behringer until further facts are known."

Let's see.. I don't know, somewhat compelling, will not condem..
Those are disclaimers that you must have missed.


OK, fair enough. If your position is now, "prove them wrong", I have no argument for that. That is a very different position from what you started in this thread. Maybe you have seen the fallicy of your "let the market place decide" argument? Or as I contend from the beginning, that was only for the sake of discussion.

 

[CarmenC]

Hi Carmen

I think it's likely that you're right and that Behringer is actually not "legally" infringing Ebtech's rights. The point Griff is trying to make certainly is one of personal opinion ... so, either you support it and refrain from buying Behringer gear or you don't. Your call.

But let's not exaggerate the "lawfulness" of the matter. Sometimes the law doesn't do what I think it should do but it's limitations are practically set by the sheer multiplicity of possible scenarios. So, even though I abide, I have the power to interpret the law more or less stringently wherever it's about my personal choices ... a strict interpretation of the law might allow Behringer claim the CT-100 is "Designed and conceived in Germany". Personally, I don't agree and won't buy it.

Anyways, ... I'm out.

mcr,
I completely agree.
I believe Behringer MAY be correct legally, and Ebtech MAY be correct morally.
Either way, if a lawsuit is not persued be either party,
it doesn't matter, it's just my opinion.
Ultimitely, the marketplace (you) will decide with their pocketbooks.
BBS's like this influence people's buying decisions.
BOTH SIDES should be presented and then the consumer can take that info and make an edumacatud dessisiun.
My whole point is that the person who makes accucations should prove them convincingly before he announces him/herself correct and damages a business unfairly.
I wasn't convinced.
I'm still not.
IMHO, someone on this BB became judge and jury and tried and convicted Behringer without ever asking for or presenting Behringer's side of things.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Why have courts?
Let's just take the companies we don't like and lynch them on a BBS!
IMHO, the opinions on this board, including mine, are NOT absolute truth, therefore not enough to convict anyone without the other side being presented.
Is everyone saying there is NO international patent or copyright protection?
What would IBM do if Behringer pulled something like this on them?
Why do I think that IBM would not just lay there.....
Should Ebtech have secured better protection for their product internationally before release?
They couldn't afford it is no excuse.
To boycott every company that does business legally, but in a hardball manner, means we would have to boycott everyone.
Peace,
Carmen

 

[Smedis]

My whole point is that the person who makes accucations should prove them convincingly before he announces him/herself correct and damages a business unfairly.
Carmen

Interesting legal case, that applies here I think.

Read here