Joined: 08 Aug 2003 Posts: 943 Location: Terra Firma, Ether Sea
Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:36 pm Post subject:
I mentioned this thread to Alexander. His response:
"Hi Dave,
Yes, I know about this guy. He's a rat-$%$%$ for sure. Only in his mind is he intimately familiar with my amplifiers. His name is either Steve Holland or this medical doctor turned amp guru.
The good news here is that my trademark has been approved for the Dumble name. The amp pirates now are in for it, including the "Dunble" idiot.
Please post the news that DUMBLE is now a registered and protected trademark in the United States, and that persons making infringements will be pressed for "cease and desist."
Regards, Alexander" _________________ B C-ing U!
( }:-Daved
"This boy's diseased with rhythm!" -Bing Crosby (Road To Rio, '49)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003 Posts: 886 Location: SF Bay Area
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:02 am Post subject:
No doubt, this guy is a pure pirate. There is no disguising that he is trying to counterfeit Dumble amps. Akin to the watches you find at the flea market that look like Rolex's but aren't.
This is vastly different from folks who make amplifiers, without copying the cosmetics and aproximating the logotype, that might be considered in a similar vein. There are any number of amps that are similar in concept to tweed or blackface Fenders, or Marshalls at your local music store. It's all evolutionary from the same Western Electric circuits and RCA Radiotron Handbook.
When I worked for Dolby Labs, they were very careful about people appropriating their trademark. Theatre's that didn't have the equpment putting the logo next to movie listings, folks dropping NR IC's into products without us verifying the implementation and alignment but putting the logo on the panel anyway, and so on. These were all inferences that our product and technology was directly involved. And the use of the trademark was intended to deceive the consumer.
Folks like Andy Fuchs and Joe Mlog do not say that they are selling Dumble amplifiers, and there is nothing that looks like a Dumble logo written on their product. Rather, they are in the same vein, in the way that Allen amplifiers are in the same vein as blackface Fenders. Everybody has their individual take on a style of tone. The endless Fuchs/Two Rock debates on the net would support the premise that there are no absolutes in the guitarist/amplifier interface.
I totally support HAD in his efforts to protect his trademark. Things like the "Dunble" ought to be forced to revise their product to not infringe on Mr. Dumble's hard earned product recognition. I do see that there is a common perception on the net that Mr. Dumble will go after anyone using the name of his product in any fashion. Thus the common practice of inserting odd characters when referencing his product. As in "That record has a Du*ble like tone". Or "I really love the sound of Larry's D#mble amp".
I would hope that Mr. Dumble can tell the difference between a compliment and trademark infringement. Run the Dunble amp out of town, but not sue Marin (who pointed out this rat-bastard to us in the first place) for saying that my Tonker clip sounded "Dumbleish". _________________ There are no such things as wrong notes, there's only the look on your face.
My Stuff: www.stevekirbymusic.com
Naahhhhh.....I worked as an IP consultant for a few years.
On the other hand you do use an Andy "I-dont-make-Dumble-clones" Fuchs amp.
From the Fuchs website:
Quote:
The Overdrive Supreme is an amplifier designed to reproduce the widest range of sounds today's guitarist requires. With preamp circuitry inspired by classic amplifiers like the Dumble, yet refined with advanced component quality, and unique power supply topologies, the OD-Supreme has been called an "Awesome Tone Machine" by those who have enjoyed playing this unique product. The amplifier has an input gain control which sets the clean channel level, as well as setting the first drive level to the overdrive stage. A series of overdrive tuning controls (located inside the amp) tailor the overdrive interstage gain, as well as controlling both the ?edge? and low frequencies feeding the overdrive circuits. Three tone shaping switches allow brite, deep, and rock/jazz settings.
Quote:
Is your company affiliated with Howard (Alexander) Dumble?
No. Although our products show obvious inspiration from the products Mr. Dumble has made over the years, we are not affiliated with Mr. Dumble. Our circuits have been refined, 'Spice' (computer) modeled, and hand tuned for sonics, stability and lowest noise.
Are you making 'clones' of Dumble amps?
While our original products started out as clones, which were built from online resources and our own research, our products have evolved into products that are uniquely our own. Our circuitry can trace it's roots back to many of the same Western Electric circuits used by Leo Fender, Randall Smith (Mesa Boogie) and Howard Dumble. Guitarists have become accustomed and attuned to the "sonic signatures" that many of these topologies produce. Our circuits are hand-tuned to produce a voicing that is sweet yet detailed, and authoritative yet delicate.
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:38 pm Post subject: Seems daft to me!
I can't understand why anyone would want to take something as exclusive as a Dumble amp and rip it of to an almost exact aesthetic replica, and still charge $2000 to $3000 for it!? It may a fraction of the price of an original, but it is still not cheap.
Why not sell it in the same vain as the Fuchs/Two Rock variety, i.e. change the aesthetics and logo etc? In otherwords an amp to challenge the audible delights of the Dumble in a different guise!
Unlike the fake Rolex which is cheap and cheerfull, I personally would feel embarresed to own such an amp as a Dunble, if I had paid a tidy sum for it (even if it was sonically great).
DD _________________ Music is the universal language; speak it with emotion, listen with a passion.
Joined: 04 Nov 2003 Posts: 886 Location: SF Bay Area
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:03 pm Post subject:
Andy describes the evolutionary thing better than me. And his evolutionary direction works for me.
It all comes back to Bloomfield in the Filmore with a cranked Twin. And the different ways we make that into our own sound. At the last Yoshi's gig, I had a gig bag and asked Robben if he would sign my axe for me. "Sure" he said, "whip it out" with a chuckle at the double entendre. As I pulled the white Telecaster with rosewood neck out of the bag, Robben got a funny look on his face. Then I said "like Mike" and he broke into that huge patented grin of his. I'd carried a background lust for one of these since 69 when I first heard the BBB and saw the picture on the back. Seem's Robben had too. _________________ There are no such things as wrong notes, there's only the look on your face.
My Stuff: www.stevekirbymusic.com
Joined: 13 Jul 2003 Posts: 1043 Location: Boulder, CO
Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:23 pm Post subject:
Imagine if Charlie Patton had a copyright lawyer? We'd all be in trouble....
Think of all the blues pirates out there?
Think of all the jazz pirates out there?
These guys actually slow the recordings down so they can lift the lines... unbelievable!
BTW, I don't disagree that Dunble is way out of line....
Just trying to make a point.......
Charlie forbids anybody to copy his work... then there is no Robert Johnson = no Muddy Waters = no Albert, BB, Freddie Kings = no Mike Bloomfield = no Robben Ford.
What if all the original RCA circuits were all IP protected?
Then there is no Fender, Gibson, Marshall, Vox, Mesa Boogie, and yes no Dumble.
What if we allow monopolies to evolve based on IP protection like in Operating systems, for example, or Desktop applications? Do we get innovation or stagnation and zero choice and fixed pricing?
Charlie forbids anybody to copy his work... then there is no Robert Johnson = no Muddy Waters = no Albert, BB, Freddie Kings = no Mike Bloomfield = no Robben Ford.
What if all the original RCA circuits were all IP protected?
Then there is no Fender, Gibson, Marshall, Vox, Mesa Boogie, and yes no Dumble.
What if we allow monopolies to evolve based on IP protection like in Operating systems, for example, or Desktop applications? Do we get innovation or stagnation and zero choice and fixed pricing?
Food for thought..............
Well copyright protection has its limits and boundaries. First of all, it is not infinite in time. Second, there is material which considered "traditional" and can't be copyrighted.
Regarding SW: well, I am sure that you will appreciate that R&D investments should be somehow rewarded and protected, otherwise companies will cease to invest in innovations.
Protecting RCA circuits: we have to distinguish between trademark (Dumble vs Dunble), copyright (Milly Vannily) and patent protection (RCA circuits).
Both patents and trademarks have a requirement for novelty. Patents however do require a certain degree of inventivness. Also, patents are granted on for the part of the invention which is "new" in combination (which should be "inventive") with the rest of the device.
Also, patents in the US last only 18 year and then the novelty becomes available to everyone. They also need to be protected before they are disclosed to public (or within 12 months in the US).
Therefore:
- it remains to be seend whether the RCA circuits presented any degree of "inventivness" with respect to a standard audio amplifier and what would have been the scope of protection of the patent.
- even if there was a basis for an invention, if RCA did not file a patent for it then it belongs to everyone
- even if it did file a patent, it would have been expired by now.
The Trademark issue is different since confusion of the consumer and the marketplace needs to be avoided. For example: even if Coca Cola had not filed for protection, we still couldn't market a brown, sweet soft drink called Coca Colla, or Coca Cona, etc....since it could potentially deceive a consumer.
Monopolies are a whole different ball-game and should be dealt with by government bodies (anti trust and similar).
Please not that Windows proliferated when software had literally no protection except for copyright protection. Infact, correct me if I'm wrong but, I believe that the "windows" concept was originally developed by Xerox which gave it for free to Apple and then MS found the idea very cool and then.....
Jobs visited PARC sometime in 79 and saw a demo of the Alto/Star system. Star was the industry's first working prototype GUI, mostly derivative of Alan Kay's OO/Smalltalk work, running on top of the Alto HW.
This was basically the same senior management team that drove the Xerox plane into the ground that also failed to (IP) protect most of what came out of PARC in the 70's.
So in this case, one might be generous to Steve and say "plagiarism is the the sincerest form of flattery"? And we all know what Bill and Paul did with Steve's stuff, in the same style.
Don't ask me what this has to do with Robben!... _________________ - Mayer
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
