|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 27, 2015 20:28:15 GMT -6
I would also delete any posts that make comparisons between the different products.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jun 27, 2015 20:32:50 GMT -6
Also wanted to add. Long live jeffs shit!
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 27, 2015 20:43:33 GMT -6
The problem is undoubtedly stuff being marketed as "classic API" without permission. If API fails to defend their trademark, they lose it to the public domain. That's just how trademark law works. It's no different than the service mark for a band. There is the whole case right there. They have known about Jeff for years and said nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by Rock Kennedy on Jun 27, 2015 21:21:50 GMT -6
Crap. I've been ramping up to produce my own API clone called the....
ApplePro iPre
Now I am a little nervous that API might object to the name.
Ok, on a more serious note, I have an Seventh Circle Audio unit. Wonder if I should load up on an API clone or two, before that becomes an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 27, 2015 21:54:08 GMT -6
Apparently, anything that can be reverse engineered is safe...as long as you aren't causing confusion with the trademark. But any trademark holder has the obligation to defend their trademark in a timely manner. They can't wait for 7 years and then come in and sue when it would cause great harm to the defendant.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 27, 2015 23:16:26 GMT -6
Apparently, anything that can be reverse engineered is safe...as long as you aren't causing confusion with the trademark. But any trademark holder has the obligation to defend their trademark in a timely manner. They can't wait for 7 years and then come in and sue when it would cause great harm to the defendant. I still want a pair of those sweet assed CAPI compressors. Why can't money grow on trees? |
|
|
|
Post by ngallio on Jun 28, 2015 3:17:31 GMT -6
I second Steigear.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Jun 28, 2015 7:51:54 GMT -6
A rose by any name. Personally I'd buy Jeff's gear if he called the company "Dumpster Squeezin's Audio". Given the abundance of legendary captains in popular culture I think CAPN opens the door for a lot of great puns for equipment names - but who really cares? What really matters is the gear itself. Although I should add that I would really think twice about using a "T" for Tennessee - CAPT might be a little too close to kaput for some!
The kits he's producing makes API's gear seem a pretty quaint by comparison. I definitely agree with the sentiment that, if anything, API should step up their design\manufacture game rather than get mired down in litigious nonsense about minutia. It goes without saying that there's going to be a lot of grey area when you open something like the 500 series format up for open source development - If you ask me API should be a little more prepared to roll with it. At the end of the day when you litigate nobody wins but the lawyers and it's just financial resources that get funneled away from both parties, to say nothing of the bad PR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 9:32:28 GMT -6
Except that defending their trademark is not minutia. For all we know somebody was about to launch another API claiming that they had surrendered it.
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 28, 2015 10:23:39 GMT -6
So ballpark time frame , how long until we'll know whats gonna happen to CAPI ?? Whens the trial and all that ?
|
|
|
|
Post by superwack on Jun 28, 2015 10:27:34 GMT -6
Except that defending their trademark is not minutia. For all we know somebody was about to launch another API claiming that they had surrendered it. True and, who knows, maybe API has been following people's suggestions and Jeffs popularity and are about to release the API 512V or something with a more vintage circuit, output attenuator, etc. and are trying to clear out competition? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 10:42:11 GMT -6
I really don't think they need to clear out competition. The most valuable thing they own is that trademark. If they are seeking investment, securing it would be right at the top of any potential investor's requirements. Don't forget, they make expensive consoles that they need to be able to finance the construction of. Jeff isn't really in competition with them outside the hobbyist market.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jun 28, 2015 10:58:21 GMT -6
Except that defending their trademark is not minutia. For all we know somebody was about to launch another API claiming that they had surrendered it. I know someone who knows an attorney 8) I don't believe CAPI is treading on API's trademark, they are certainly doing nothing legally out of line in comparison to what thousands of other companies have done for years. API has certainly known of CAPI, and had 7 years or so to step up on CAPI if they thought they were violating their trademark or anything else, it defies precedent for them to come after CAPI NOW, it's simply not legal to knowingly sit by quietly while a business builds public rapport and value, and once it's established go in for the kill... so it's NOT a legitimate complaint, the whole case could/should be thrown out of court on that basis alone(ask fender how that worked out on the strat and tele trademarks). Not to mention there are many other things I read in the API filing that seem they could constitute fabrication and/or defrauding the court? If it turns out they were fibbing? Judges don't like that...much... at all... CAPI is a well established entity, the idea that API was unaware of them for the past 7 years is utterly absurd, if JS can afford to go up against them, the case should get thrown out of court, then maybe he can sue them for defamation and hassle, but probably only after the local DA is done bringing charges to API for defrauding the court? Bottom line is this was stupid of API, and good for no one but the attorney's. BTW, I am not an attorney, i just play one on RGO  |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 28, 2015 11:08:15 GMT -6
I think Bob's point is that, API's trademark is their most valued asset, and to retain it they must........well, protect it. That's US law. It may have nothing to do with CAPI and everything to do with internal API issues and defending their legitimate API trademark against an onslaught of clones (or other company) that we are not aware of yet. I don't think any of us would deny them the opportunity to protect whats theirs. HOW they do it is where the rub comes in. Jeff's company with "cAPI" in the name may just have been the easiest and lowest fruit to pick. None of us know. That's kind of the point. Time will show all. It's a drag that Jeff has to go thru this. Hopefully API and him can work something out and save Audio money from going to shark attorneys who have nothing better to do that parse minutia...
|
|
|
|
Post by bradd on Jun 28, 2015 13:24:08 GMT -6
So ballpark time frame , how long until we'll know whats gonna happen to CAPI ?? Whens the trial and all that ? All that's happened so far is that a complaint has been filed. A trial date would not have been scheduled yet. Average time here in Missouri between filing of a case and trial in a civil case is about two years. In addition, very few civil cases (particularly complex cases such trademark/patent cases) go to trial. Better than 95 percent are resolved in some fashion prior to trial. Civil trials are extremely expensive and most business types do not want to risk their livelihoods to twelve folks who know nothing about their business. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 13:27:05 GMT -6
The website URL classicapi.com and home page picture of an API console is about as blatant a case of trademark infringement as you could get. |
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 28, 2015 15:43:44 GMT -6
The website URL classicapi.com and home page picture of an API console is about as blatant a case of trademark infringement as you could get. Lets all hope Bob is not a member of the Jury .  |
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 28, 2015 15:45:10 GMT -6
So ballpark time frame , how long until we'll know whats gonna happen to CAPI ?? Whens the trial and all that ? All that's happened so far is that a complaint has been filed. A trial date would not have been scheduled yet. Average time here in Missouri between filing of a case and trial in a civil case is about two years. In addition, very few civil cases (particularly complex cases such trademark/patent cases) go to trial. Better than 95 percent are resolved in some fashion prior to trial. Civil trials are extremely expensive and most business types do not want to risk their livelihoods to twelve folks who know nothing about their business. Wow , thats a long time to wait . I wish it was next week to just get it over with . |
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Jun 28, 2015 16:01:34 GMT -6
2 sides to the story here I can see both using classicapi is dodgy api let it slide while it was just kits. Now they are selling in the same market space complete units using the name classicapi is not really acceptable.
Hope both party's can resolve this without paying lawyers to much money. IE just let ClassicAPI change their name hand shake, smile and get back to work. I do want one of their kits and couldn’t care less what its called.
|
|
|
|
Post by ionian on Jun 28, 2015 16:10:36 GMT -6
What is the stuff API did with the VPR? Did they steal that idea like they did the knobs? Dan - The issue I had with the VPR alliance is that API presented it as some kind of altruistic gesture, which it is far from. API makes it sound like that if a piece of gear gets the VPR seal of approval, it means your gear fits the specs of a lunchbox and should work fine. API, being one of the larger and more well known audio companies (like SSL for example) has been able to spin the VPR seal into a form of currency. Due to API's ubiquitousness in the audio world, they've managed to convince the great unwashed into thinking the VPR is some kind of a seal of approval, which it kind of is, and so it carries some weight. But what API doesn't tell you is that any company that manufactures its own 500 series power supply (like Radial, Purple, BAE, etc) that can compete against API's 500 series racks, doesn't qualify for the VPR alliance seal. That's why you don't see any Purple modules with the VPR seal. Nor Radial, BAE, etc. Any company who makes a 500 series rack can't be VPR approved even if their module is within VPR specs. So at its core, API is saying to these companies, "We've managed to turn the VPR seal into carrying some weight with the public. If you want the VPR seal, then play ball and don't make 500 series power racks otherwise you don't get the VPR seal..." And you can see that it carries weight because half the times a new 500 series module is released, there's always people clamoring, "Is it VPR approved?!" as if that's some kind of seal of quality. In the end API created the VPR alliance to present some kind of perceived goodwill while what it really is, is just another attempt to strongarm its competitors. Any time there's a thread about the VPR alliance on the purple site, I'm one of the first there telling the truth. At that point APISez usually not only doesn't address what I said, but leaves the thread and doesn't return. Which I guess in the end only strengthens what I said. I'm surprised I haven't been banned yet but I'm sure it's coming. The Mighty one on that site doesn't like it when you call his advertisers out on their hypocrisy and I've gotten infractions in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by ionian on Jun 28, 2015 16:20:23 GMT -6
Chandler has done fine building EMI clones. Lol..there was one thread on the purple site where someone had made a clone based off some early stuff at EMI and Wade was the first one in that thread to let the builder know that he turned them into EMI's lawyers! I pretty much called Wade a rat, old him to grow up this isn't high school, Wade got super defensive, and a mod locked the thread before I could slap Wade around some more. Hahaha classic.... Chandler does fine at building EMI clones because anyone else who tries to build an EMI clone, he rats them out! I never get tired of that purple site. Most likely for all the wrong reasons, though... |
|
|
|
Post by dandeurloo on Jun 28, 2015 16:26:31 GMT -6
Chandler has done fine building EMI clones. Lol..there was one thread on the purple site where someone had made a clone based off some early stuff at EMI and Wade was the first one in that thread to let the builder know that he turned them into EMI's lawyers! I pretty much called Wade a rat, old him to grow up this isn't high school, Wade got super defensive, and a mod locked the thread before I could slap Wade around some more. Hahaha classic.... Chandler does fine at building EMI clones because anyone else who tries to build an EMI clone, he rats them out! I never get tired of that purple site. Most likely for all the wrong reasons, though... Btw, Chandler doesn't have many of the rights they say they do. Much like API. |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jun 28, 2015 16:32:32 GMT -6
AFAIK, it's legal to copy a design "verbatim" for personal use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 28, 2015 16:34:32 GMT -6
Chandler absolutely has a license from Abbey Road. I haven't looked lately but there used to be a link to Chandler on Abbey Road's website.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jun 28, 2015 16:38:40 GMT -6
The website URL classicapi.com and home page picture of an API console is about as blatant a case of trademark infringement as you could get. I feel weird disagreeing with Sir Bob Olhsson haha, but Jeff's had the name Classic Audio Products of Illinois(CAPI) for at least 6 years, and API has known about it, precedent is set. Jeff's making no secret about his fanship of the OLD API equipment, I also see no name brand markings on the console picture, it would take an assumption, or an experienced engineer to decide that it was an API console over say an Olive console, or even another type of console with Vemaline knobs on it, experienced engineers don't just stumble onto Jeffs site, they are there for a reason, so I don't see a problem with the picture either. I just don't think API has a real case. |
|
