Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Roland sues Behringer

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:32:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

BEHRINGER SUED FOR CLONING RENOWNED BOSS GUITAR EFFECTS PEDALS

(Los Angeles, February 24, 2005)- Leading electronic musical instrument and
equipment manufacturer Roland Corporation ("Roland") has sued Behringer
International GmbH and its subsidiaries ("Behringer") to enforce Roland's
trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights in and to the
famous guitar effects pedals manufactured, distributed and sold by Roland's
division, BOSS, as well as other Roland products.

BOSS has long been an industry leader in the design and manufacture of
guitar effects pedals, recording equipment and other musical instrument
accessories. In addition to their unparalleled sound, the BOSS pedals
feature a unique combination of aesthetic design elements which have served
to establish BOSS as an instantly-recognizable brand and to distinguish BOSS
pedals from pedals manufactured by others.

The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, alleges that at the January, 2005 National
Association of Music Merchants ("NAMM") industry trade show, Behringer
announced the launch of a line of guitar effects pedals which replicate the
distinctive design features of the BOSS pedals with such painstaking detail
that the Behringer pedals are nearly indistinguishable from the BOSS pedals.
Roland contends that this is no coincidence, and that the overall look and
feel of the Behringer pedals is intentionally designed to confuse consumers
as to the origin, sponsorship or affiliation of the Behringer Pedals, and to
capitalize and profit from Roland's success, its impeccable reputation and
the goodwill that it has developed over years of hard work.

The Complaint alleges that in an effort to gain industry acceptance of the
cloned pedals, Behringer falsely assured industry retailers that the
Behringer line of pedals was approved and endorsed by Roland.

Roland's subsidiary and exclusive United States distributor Roland
Corporation U.S. has joined the suit as plaintiff. Plaintiffs are suing
Behringer for trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition and
a number of other causes of action aimed at protecting plaintiff's
intellectual property rights.

Dennis Houlihan, President of Roland Corporation U.S. commented: "Imitation
is not flattery, and is far from sincere, when the subject is Roland's
valuable trade dress. Roland has expended monumental effort and substantial
amounts to create and promote the design elements of its BOSS line of guitar
effects pedals. Behringer's replication of the famous BOSS trade dress has
caused extensive damage to Roland and its reputation, and Behringer's false
claim that Roland has endorsed Behringer's unadulterated infringement is
unconscionable."

More about : roland sues behringer

Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:32:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Hanson wrote:



> its impeccable reputation



Well, except for the user manuals.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:32:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

What I don't get about Behringer is: if they want people to think they
don't copy/cause "confusion" (in a legal sense, obviously not in a real
one), why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like a kidney
bean, and their pro version double spaced rack, that although the
interface is different, really brings to mind the Line 6 products that
preceded them? Why not put them in original looking boxes and at
least slightly diffuse the argument ?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 1:32:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

vdubreeze@earthlink.net wrote:
> why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like a kidney
> bean,

I thought it looked kinda like the body of a kidney-bean shaped
electric guitar.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 3:07:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the
AR-133.


Client comes into your studio and asks "Do you have that cool DI shaped
like an airplane hanger?" are you even going to acknowledge that he
might be looking for a different product?
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:55:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ben Hanson wrote:
> BEHRINGER SUED FOR CLONING RENOWNED BOSS GUITAR EFFECTS PEDALS
>
> (Los Angeles, February 24, 2005)- Leading electronic musical instrument and
> equipment manufacturer Roland Corporation ("Roland") has sued Behringer
> International GmbH and its subsidiaries ("Behringer") to enforce Roland's
> trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights in and to the
> famous guitar effects pedals manufactured, distributed and sold by Roland's
> division, BOSS, as well as other Roland products.
>
> BOSS has long been an industry leader in the design and manufacture of
> guitar effects pedals, recording equipment and other musical instrument
> accessories. In addition to their unparalleled sound, the BOSS pedals
> feature a unique combination of aesthetic design elements which have served
> to establish BOSS as an instantly-recognizable brand and to distinguish BOSS
> pedals from pedals manufactured by others.
>
> The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
> District of California, alleges that at the January, 2005 National
> Association of Music Merchants ("NAMM") industry trade show, Behringer
> announced the launch of a line of guitar effects pedals which replicate the
> distinctive design features of the BOSS pedals with such painstaking detail
> that the Behringer pedals are nearly indistinguishable from the BOSS pedals.
> Roland contends that this is no coincidence, and that the overall look and
> feel of the Behringer pedals is intentionally designed to confuse consumers
> as to the origin, sponsorship or affiliation of the Behringer Pedals, and to
> capitalize and profit from Roland's success, its impeccable reputation and
> the goodwill that it has developed over years of hard work.
>
> The Complaint alleges that in an effort to gain industry acceptance of the
> cloned pedals, Behringer falsely assured industry retailers that the
> Behringer line of pedals was approved and endorsed by Roland.
>
> Roland's subsidiary and exclusive United States distributor Roland
> Corporation U.S. has joined the suit as plaintiff. Plaintiffs are suing
> Behringer for trademark and trade dress infringement, unfair competition and
> a number of other causes of action aimed at protecting plaintiff's
> intellectual property rights.
>
> Dennis Houlihan, President of Roland Corporation U.S. commented: "Imitation
> is not flattery, and is far from sincere, when the subject is Roland's
> valuable trade dress. Roland has expended monumental effort and substantial
> amounts to create and promote the design elements of its BOSS line of guitar
> effects pedals. Behringer's replication of the famous BOSS trade dress has
> caused extensive damage to Roland and its reputation, and Behringer's false
> claim that Roland has endorsed Behringer's unadulterated infringement is
> unconscionable."
>
>
>
as anyone can sue anyone for any reason
we will justn have to wait for the courts to go through applicable
patents and allagations
base our opinions on the conclusions brought forth by the court decision
havingf never seen either partys products close up
it may just be a pissed off competitor angry that a pedal is being
marketed at 19.95 tearing a new era into thier 80.00 pedal market
but simply filing a complaint means nothinng except the legal teams will
be eating well this year
I will support the courts decision which ever side it falls on

george
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:55:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:55:50 +0000, George Gleason wrote:

> as anyone can sue anyone for any reason
> we will justn have to wait for the courts to go through applicable
> patents and allagations
> base our opinions on the conclusions brought forth by the court decision
> havingf never seen either partys products close up
> it may just be a pissed off competitor angry that a pedal is being
> marketed at 19.95 tearing a new era into thier 80.00 pedal market
> but simply filing a complaint means nothinng except the legal teams will
> be eating well this year
> I will support the courts decision which ever side it falls on

Even if this weren't starting to be a recurring pattern (think back to the
Mackie case against Behringer) I'd still not be inclined to wait and see.

Having traded away most of my stomp boxes years ago, I still would seek
out the Boss pedals over a $20 Behringer knockoff - simply because you
typically get what you pay for. I'm sure that they're the best sounding
pedal at that price point, but without even having heard them I will wager
that they are as thin-sounding as the onboard effects they put on their
low-end mixers.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for inexpensive gear. Just spend a
little more time covering up your tracks, or better yet... try to make a
name for yourself that doesn't involve constantly getting sued. It really
damages the rep of any of the better pieces that you put out.

- dsb


--
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I an therefore excused from saving
Universes." -- Ford Prefect
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:55:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:31:40 -0500, DuchovnySexBomb <yeah@right.com> wrote:

....
>Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for inexpensive gear. Just spend a
>little more time covering up your tracks, or better yet... try to make a
>name for yourself that doesn't involve constantly getting sued. It really
>damages the rep of any of the better pieces that you put out.

You're right. Look what happened Microsoft <g>.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 6:55:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:45:53 -0800, Steve Jorgensen wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:31:40 -0500, DuchovnySexBomb <yeah@right.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for inexpensive gear. Just spend a
>>little more time covering up your tracks, or better yet... try to make a
>>name for yourself that doesn't involve constantly getting sued. It really
>>damages the rep of any of the better pieces that you put out.
>
> You're right. Look what happened Microsoft <g>.

God forbid Behringer gets the 800 pound gorilla spin machine that is the
MS Marketing Department.

- dsb


--
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I an therefore excused from saving
Universes." -- Ford Prefect
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:06:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <422f1d8c@mustang.speedfactory.net> transparency_76@hotmail.com writes:

> Dennis Houlihan, President of Roland Corporation U.S. commented:" . .
> Behringer's replication of the famous BOSS trade dress has
> caused extensive damage to Roland and its reputation. . . "

I seriously doubt that, but marketing people have a tendency to get
pretty touchy about those things.

> ". . . and Behringer's false
> claim that Roland has endorsed Behringer's unadulterated infringement is
> unconscionable."

Either they did or they didn't and I guess Roland should know this. I
can't imagine why Roland would have said "Hey, we really like those
new Behringer pedals because they look and work just like ours."



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:08:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:32:40 -0500, Ben Hanson
<transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> BEHRINGER SUED FOR CLONING RENOWNED BOSS GUITAR EFFECTS PEDALS
>

(snip)

>
> and that the overall look and feel of the Behringer pedals

Hey, the look and feel of the accelerator pedal on my Diesel Mercedes
(1982, 300k miles and still going, knock wood) is the same as the look
and feel as the one on my wife's Chevy.

Maybe Damlier Chrysler should sue GM for selling a "cheap imitation" of
their "look and feel standard."

This is the Apple v MS lawsuit (over the placement of the recyle bin in
win3.1, iirc) all over again.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:08:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Charles Krug wrote:


> This is the Apple v MS lawsuit (over the placement of the recyle bin in
> win3.1, iirc) all over again.
>



There was no recycle bin in that version.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:08:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Charles Krug" <cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:acFXd.355516$w62.231926@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

> Hey, the look and feel of the accelerator pedal on my Diesel Mercedes
> (1982, 300k miles and still going, knock wood) is the same as the look
> and feel as the one on my wife's Chevy.
>
> Maybe Damlier Chrysler should sue GM for selling a "cheap imitation" of
> their "look and feel standard."
>
> This is the Apple v MS lawsuit (over the placement of the recyle bin in
> win3.1, iirc) all over again.


Maybe you missed the original pictures Behringer posted on their website around
NAMM '05 time. They've been updated, but you can see the originals on the
excellent Music Thing blog when they posted this news almost a week ago:

http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...

"Look and feel" and "identical" are not the same thing.

John
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 7:08:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"S O'Neill" <nopsam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hsadnQtgkIA8v7LfRVn-qg@omsoft.com
> Charles Krug wrote:
>
>
>> This is the Apple v MS lawsuit (over the placement of the recyle bin
>> in win3.1, iirc) all over again.

> There was no recycle bin in that version.

True, although I think there were third party add-ons. MS started
supporting the recycle bin (sorta) in win95.

Note that the MS recycle bin is supported mainly by the Windows Explorer
Shell, and that files deleted by other means are not usually covered.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 16:08:38 GMT, Charles Krug
<cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:32:40 -0500, Ben Hanson
><transparency_76@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> BEHRINGER SUED FOR CLONING RENOWNED BOSS GUITAR EFFECTS PEDALS
>>
>
>(snip)
>
>>
>> and that the overall look and feel of the Behringer pedals

They look like the design was altered just enough so that they aren't
exact copies: http://www.behringer.com/EQ700/index.cfm?lang=ENG

Other stomp boxes look similar enough that I would say Behringer may
be able to put up a legal defense.

But that's only MHO, and courts being courts, may see it otherwise.
May depend on who can afford the most lawyers.

Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:05:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:
>
>
> They look like the design was altered just enough so that they aren't
> exact copies: <http://www.behringer.com/EQ700/index.cfm?lang=ENG&gt;

Like <http://rolandus.com/products/details.asp?catid=3&subcat...;

True, there are only so many ways one can lay out a graphic EQ, but the use of the gain on the right, the line separating the EQ sliders from th gain, and the LED over the top of the line are rather similar.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<vdubreeze@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1110386525.625284.261220@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What I don't get about Behringer is: if they want people to think they
> don't copy/cause "confusion" (in a legal sense, obviously not in a real
> one), why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like a kidney
> bean, and their pro version double spaced rack, that although the
> interface is different, really brings to mind the Line 6 products that
> preceded them? Why not put them in original looking boxes and at
> least slightly diffuse the argument ?
>

This is the case (imho) of most Beh'RINGER' products. It simply shocks
me that anyone can get away with copying even the final delivery shapes
of previously existing products that are already well placed in the market.

It's like they're making a huge statement... "You know that amp modeler
everybody likes? Well hey, ours *looks and works just like it* but for
about 1/4 of the price." Something just isn't right there, but not being a
patent attorney or even having much legal experience for that matter,
it's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is that's so damned wrong
about it. But it's *very* WRONG.

From (as you say above) the 'kidney bean' amp modeler (why couldn't it
have been a kidney bean shaped compressor?) which *obviously* has
the underlying intention of attacking it's pre-existing counterpart... to the
the "Ultra-DI", which could not be mistaken even in the slightest, as to
being a virtual clone of the BSS AR-122, down to nearly the exact shape
of the package... which until the BehRINGer was released, held an
extremely unique delivery design and function set.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:17:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
news:95HXd.75239$uc.11538@trnddc08
> <vdubreeze@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1110386525.625284.261220@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

>> What I don't get about Behringer is: if they want people to think
>> they don't copy/cause "confusion" (in a legal sense, obviously not
>> in a real one), why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like
>> a kidney bean, and their pro version double spaced rack, that
>> although the interface is different, really brings to mind the Line
>> 6 products that preceded them? Why not put them in original
>> looking boxes and at least slightly diffuse the argument ?

If a shape is neither patented nor copyrighted, then its in the public
domain.

> This is the case (imho) of most Beh'RINGER' products. It simply shocks
> me that anyone can get away with copying even the final delivery shapes
> of previously existing products that are already well placed in the
> market.

It's really sad that almost 100% of all ice cream cartons have one of 3
different shapes. Thus inexpensive ice cream looks a lot like the
high-priced stuff.

> It's like they're making a huge statement... "You know that amp
> modeler everybody likes? Well hey, ours *looks and works just like it*
but
> for about 1/4 of the price."

When the patents, etc run out, then this is what can happen. Another view is
in a competive environment, a company has exclusive rights to their
technology for only a limited amount of time, and then they have to innovate
again.

> Something just isn't right there, but not
> being a patent attorney or even having much legal experience for that
matter,
> it's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is that's so damned wrong
> about it. But it's *very* WRONG.

Not really. We seem to be able to accept the idea that anybody can make
pretzel-shaped pretzels.

> From (as you say above) the 'kidney bean' amp modeler (why couldn't it
> have been a kidney bean shaped compressor?) which *obviously* has
> the underlying intention of attacking it's pre-existing counterpart... to
the
> the "Ultra-DI", which could not be mistaken even in the slightest, as to
> being a virtual clone of the BSS AR-122, down to nearly the exact shape
> of the package... which until the BehRINGer was released, held an
> extremely unique delivery design and function set.

I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the AR-133.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:35:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> <vdubreeze@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1110386525.625284.261220@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>What I don't get about Behringer is: if they want people to think they
>>don't copy/cause "confusion" (in a legal sense, obviously not in a real
>>one), why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like a kidney
>>bean, and their pro version double spaced rack, that although the
>>interface is different, really brings to mind the Line 6 products that
>>preceded them? Why not put them in original looking boxes and at
>>least slightly diffuse the argument ?
>>
>
>
> This is the case (imho) of most Beh'RINGER' products. It simply shocks
> me that anyone can get away with copying even the final delivery shapes
> of previously existing products that are already well placed in the market.
>
> It's like they're making a huge statement... "You know that amp modeler
> everybody likes? Well hey, ours *looks and works just like it* but for
> about 1/4 of the price." Something just isn't right there, but not being a
> patent attorney or even having much legal experience for that matter,
> it's hard to put a finger on exactly what it is that's so damned wrong
> about it. But it's *very* WRONG.
>
> From (as you say above) the 'kidney bean' amp modeler (why couldn't it
> have been a kidney bean shaped compressor?) which *obviously* has
> the underlying intention of attacking it's pre-existing counterpart... to the
> the "Ultra-DI", which could not be mistaken even in the slightest, as to
> being a virtual clone of the BSS AR-122, down to nearly the exact shape
> of the package... which until the BehRINGer was released, held an
> extremely unique delivery design and function set.
>

David
there is noting unique going on here
look at all the 31 band eq's that are visual similar, amps, mics
that is why there are patents
if a patent is violated then there is a actionable offense
if not there is NO offense
and it is up to the courts to decide if they were serving what the
m,market expects things to look like or copying
it is NOT very wrong until the courts say it is wrong
I do not see the DI example One is chrome and 20$ one is blue and 120$
I do not see how anyone would confuse the two
anymore than one would confuse a Mazda 626 with a Mercedes
george
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:35:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <TlHXd.118617$Th1.24593@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> g.p.gleason@att.net writes:

> I do not see how anyone would confuse the two
> anymore than one would confuse a Mazda 626 with a Mercedes

Actually, it's not that hard confuse the two until you get in and
drive them. I trust there are differences that will be apparent to
those to whom it makes a difference. There are others who will say
"OK, so it's not a Mercedes, but it'll get me down to the hospital for
my weekly electrocardiogram just as well as the Mercedes and it's a
lot cheaper." Just like audio gear.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 9:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DuchovnySexBomb wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 15:55:50 +0000, George Gleason wrote:
>
>
>>as anyone can sue anyone for any reason
>>we will justn have to wait for the courts to go through applicable
>>patents and allagations
>>base our opinions on the conclusions brought forth by the court decision
>>havingf never seen either partys products close up
>>it may just be a pissed off competitor angry that a pedal is being
>>marketed at 19.95 tearing a new era into thier 80.00 pedal market
>>but simply filing a complaint means nothinng except the legal teams will
>>be eating well this year
>>I will support the courts decision which ever side it falls on
>
>
> Even if this weren't starting to be a recurring pattern (think back to the
> Mackie case against Behringer) I'd still not be inclined to wait and see.
>
> Having traded away most of my stomp boxes years ago, I still would seek
> out the Boss pedals over a $20 Behringer knockoff - simply because you
> typically get what you pay for. I'm sure that they're the best sounding
> pedal at that price point, but without even having heard them I will wager
> that they are as thin-sounding as the onboard effects they put on their
> low-end mixers.
>
> Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for inexpensive gear. Just spend a
> little more time covering up your tracks, or better yet... try to make a
> name for yourself that doesn't involve constantly getting sued. It really
> damages the rep of any of the better pieces that you put out.
>
> - dsb
>
>

the other side of the coin is roland perhaps wanted some press and knew
this would create a buzz about their stuff even if they are eventually
judged against
this is what mackie did, mackie knew before they filed their law suit
that is was baseless or they need to hire better lawyers
george
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 10:48:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:yMWdnf7cA7IK27LfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
> news:95HXd.75239$uc.11538@trnddc08
> >
> > From (as you say above) the 'kidney bean' amp modeler (why couldn't it
> > have been a kidney bean shaped compressor?) which *obviously* has
> > the underlying intention of attacking it's pre-existing counterpart... to
> > the "Ultra-DI", which could not be mistaken even in the slightest, as to
> > being a virtual clone of the BSS AR-122, down to nearly the exact shape
> > of the package... which until the BehRINGer was released, held an
> > extremely unique delivery design and function set.
>
> I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the AR-133.

My bad on the model number... and of course, from the colors and the brand
names, there is no 'confusing' the two. But I think you must understand at least
a little of my point here. BSS created a DI with a very unique 'function set'....
an XLR mic input, ground lifts, battery/phantom switch, 20 and 40 dB pad
switches, and the standard 1/4" input & loop out, and the standard low-z
XLR output. I don't recall ever seeing this combination in a DI before the
BSS was released. You also have to admit, that the *shape* of the BSS
was also unique to that of any other DI... especially the large rubber sides.

Suddenly, along comes a silver colored DI box of almost precisely the
same (formerly unique) shape and rubber sides, with all of the components
of the exactly the same feature set, yet it's called a Behringer, is constructed
of low quality parts and costs less.

Is there *really* any doubt in your mind as to where this design came from?

DM
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 11:14:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Three points:

1. The article cited by the OP is clearly a press release generated by
either Roland or its attorneys; and

2. While I haven't seen the complaint, it SOUNDS like a complaint for
violations of the federal Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies
(injunction, damages) for use of either trade dress (distinctive
appearance) or service marks that in actual practice are likely to
produce confusion in the minds of consumers about the origin of the
goods or services in question, i.e., leading them to buy the infringing
product thinking it is the plaintiff's product.

3. The articles do not mention any alleged patent infringement.

It doesn't appear to me that anyone here is apt to buy the Behringer
unit because they believe it to be a Roland. Having looked at the
photos, I'd say Roland has an uphill battle.

Don
March 9, 2005 11:47:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 9 Mar 2005 08:42:05 -0800, vdubreeze@earthlink.net wrote:

>What I don't get about Behringer is: if they want people to think they
>don't copy/cause "confusion" (in a legal sense, obviously not in a real
>one), why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like a kidney
>bean, and their pro version double spaced rack, that although the
>interface is different, really brings to mind the Line 6 products that
>preceded them? Why not put them in original looking boxes and at
>least slightly diffuse the argument ?

I am not a fan of Behringer products and don't own a single one.
However The V-amp you were referring to looks to me like an electric
guitar body not the bean shape of a POD which I do own. It is also a
different color. The Stomp boxes in question also look like all stomp
boxes, but bear no particular resemblance to the Roland ones that I
can see. I only looked a few online a minute ago, but them seem
obviously enough to me to be not confused.
March 9, 2005 11:53:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:04:12 -0600, "John_LeBlanc"
<john__leblanc@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Maybe you missed the original pictures Behringer posted on their website around
>NAMM '05 time. They've been updated, but you can see the originals on the
>excellent Music Thing blog when they posted this news almost a week ago:
>
>http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...

These are not the ones I saw on there website a moment ago this is
clearly something I'd be pissed about if I were Roland.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:00:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Buster Mudd wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the
>
> AR-133.
>
>
> Client comes into your studio and asks "Do you have that cool DI shaped
> like an airplane hanger?" are you even going to acknowledge that he
> might be looking for a different product?
>

I would ask him what his prefrence is
if is hasn't a clue then it will make no diffrence
it not rocket science to know the names of the gear you like
George
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:03:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:yMWdnf7cA7IK27LfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
>
>>"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote in message
>>news:95HXd.75239$uc.11538@trnddc08
>>
>>>From (as you say above) the 'kidney bean' amp modeler (why couldn't it
>>>have been a kidney bean shaped compressor?) which *obviously* has
>>>the underlying intention of attacking it's pre-existing counterpart... to
>>> the "Ultra-DI", which could not be mistaken even in the slightest, as to
>>>being a virtual clone of the BSS AR-122, down to nearly the exact shape
>>>of the package... which until the BehRINGer was released, held an
>>>extremely unique delivery design and function set.
>>
>>I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the AR-133.
>
>
> My bad on the model number... and of course, from the colors and the brand
> names, there is no 'confusing' the two. But I think you must understand at least
> a little of my point here. BSS created a DI with a very unique 'function set'....
> an XLR mic input, ground lifts, battery/phantom switch, 20 and 40 dB pad
> switches, and the standard 1/4" input & loop out, and the standard low-z
> XLR output. I don't recall ever seeing this combination in a DI before the
> BSS was released. You also have to admit, that the *shape* of the BSS
> was also unique to that of any other DI... especially the large rubber sides.
>
> Suddenly, along comes a silver colored DI box of almost precisely the
> same (formerly unique) shape and rubber sides, with all of the components
> of the exactly the same feature set, yet it's called a Behringer, is constructed
> of low quality parts and costs less.
>
> Is there *really* any doubt in your mind as to where this design came from?
>
> DM
>
>
yes I see no relationship
in fact I perfer nthe behringer as the bss doesn't do all that well and
if I have to use a low end DI i perfer to pay 20$ for it

if you ask me for a di i will hand you the Countryman influenced Radial JDI
George
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:14:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <422f1d8c@mustang.speedfactory.net> transparency_76@hotmail.com writes:
>
>
>>Dennis Houlihan, President of Roland Corporation U.S. commented:" . .
>>Behringer's replication of the famous BOSS trade dress has
>>caused extensive damage to Roland and its reputation. . . "
>
>
> I seriously doubt that, but marketing people have a tendency to get
> pretty touchy about those things.
>
>
>>". . . and Behringer's false
>>claim that Roland has endorsed Behringer's unadulterated infringement is
>>unconscionable."
>
>
> Either they did or they didn't and I guess Roland should know this. I
> can't imagine why Roland would have said "Hey, we really like those
> new Behringer pedals because they look and work just like ours."
>
>
or a story often told is often told wrong
I am withholding judgment till the courts have a chance to toss it about
then I will either support or condemn roland based on the court decisions
george
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:29:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You can't see it? The top row is Gehringer, the bottom is Electro
Harmonix and Roland.

Al

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:29:35 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>here are some pictures of both
>where is the resemblance?
>http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...
>
>I don't see it
>George
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:45:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Arny Krueger <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote:

> When the patents, etc run out, then this is what can happen.

Stronger! That's what's *supposed* to happen. The purpose of patents is
to make technology public. To spread inventions. In return the inventor
gets a limited period (20y?) of protection. Once the patent runs out it
is intentionally in the public domain. If one want's to protect an
invention forever then a patent is not the way.

Lars


--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
aim: larsfarm@mac.com
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:02:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1110389850k@trad...
>
> In article <422f1d8c@mustang.speedfactory.net> transparency_76@hotmail.com
> writes:
>
>> Dennis Houlihan, President of Roland Corporation U.S. commented:" . .
>> Behringer's replication of the famous BOSS trade dress has
>> caused extensive damage to Roland and its reputation. . . "
>
> I seriously doubt that, but marketing people have a tendency to get
> pretty touchy about those things.
>
>> ". . . and Behringer's false
>> claim that Roland has endorsed Behringer's unadulterated infringement is
>> unconscionable."
>
> Either they did or they didn't and I guess Roland should know this. I
> can't imagine why Roland would have said "Hey, we really like those
> new Behringer pedals because they look and work just like ours."
>
I heard that Uli went to Roland with the idea, and Roland said, "sure, we
welcome the competition" as in "you'll never produce something anyone will
by instead of our product" and then Behringer does, and says later, "oh,
yeah, they'll have a street price of $20".

No matter how much they don't sound like Boss, that's gonna kill market
share numbers.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:14:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> Willie K.Yee, M.D. wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> They look like the design was altered just enough so that they aren't
>> exact copies: <http://www.behringer.com/EQ700/index.cfm?lang=ENG&gt;
>
>
> Like
> <http://rolandus.com/products/details.asp?catid=3&subcat...;
>
>
> True, there are only so many ways one can lay out a graphic EQ, but the
> use of the gain on the right, the line separating the EQ sliders from th
> gain, and the LED over the top of the line are rather similar.
>
>
afaik production units are not even shipping yet so this all might be a
tempest in a tea pot over artists renderings
or prototype mock-ups
go to behringers web site
and they are just illustrations no photos
George
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:56:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>>> here are some pictures of both
>>> where is the resemblance?
>>> http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see it
>
>
>
> George, I think you need better glasses.
>
>
>
>
one says BIG MUFF in two inch tall letters , the other doesn't, the
knobs are all diffrent, the names are diffrent and as far as I know te
cases are diffrent Boss being cast metal B's being injection molded plastic
it would be impossible to confuse these units
George
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 1:56:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:GaLXd.357376$w62.276710@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Kurt Albershardt wrote:
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>>>> here are some pictures of both
>>>> where is the resemblance?
>>>> http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see it
>>
>>
>>
>> George, I think you need better glasses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> one says BIG MUFF in two inch tall letters , the other doesn't, the knobs
> are all diffrent, the names are diffrent and as far as I know te cases are
> diffrent Boss being cast metal B's being injection molded plastic
> it would be impossible to confuse these units
> George

George:

When I first saw their NAMM announcement on their website, the first thing I
thought was "man, they are going to get sued by Boss." I was really
disappointed because I've liked some of their recent stuff like the DEQ2496,
ACA8000 and DDX3216. These units are clearly Behringer originals. The reason
I was disappointed was because clearly the B crew can come up with enough of
their own ideas.

But, if you check the pix of the pedals now posted on the Behringer website,
these boxes look much different from what was originally posted. These look
nothing like the competing brands (save the "Big Muff" which is probably out
of patent protection). It seems like someone made a big SNAFU.

Craig
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:04:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:40:48 +0000, George Gleason wrote:

> the other side of the coin is roland perhaps wanted some press and knew
> this would create a buzz about their stuff even if they are eventually
> judged against
> this is what mackie did, mackie knew before they filed their law suit
> that is was baseless or they need to hire better lawyers

I'm pretty sure that Roland isn't starving for press. Neither was Mackie
at the time of their case. Both companies have established names for
themselves in the music industry by offering up some pretty solid stuff,
and at times some damn great stuff.

My only point is that Behringer isn't really doing much to further their
name by constantly offering up products that "coincidentally" look and
feel just like a higher priced competitors' products. Ultimately their
higher quality products suffer from their actions. If they want to aim
low, then it really doesn't affect the person who is out looking for the
best sound.

- dsb


--
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I an therefore excused from saving
Universes." -- Ford Prefect
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 6:21:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play on wrote:
> You can't see it? The top row is Gehringer, the bottom is Electro
> Harmonix and Roland.
>
> Al
>
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:29:35 GMT, George Gleason
> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>here are some pictures of both
>>where is the resemblance?
>>http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...
>>
>>I don't see it
>>George
>
>

what I am saying is they do not look anything alike,that I can see
George
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:07:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110428079.229228.88820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> dcerickson@sbcglobal.net writes:

> It doesn't appear to me that anyone here is apt to buy the Behringer
> unit because they believe it to be a Roland. Having looked at the
> photos, I'd say Roland has an uphill battle.

I think that anyone shopping for these units will be able to recognize
that one is made by Behringer and the other one that looks similar is
made by another company and is attractively less expensive.

Some will buy the less expensive one without comparing the performance
figuring that they're all the same anyway.

Some will compare the two and buy the one that does what he wants. If
they both are about the same, he'll almost certainly buy the cheaper
one. This is as it should be.

Some will ask here if there's any difference and they'll get a
lecture about reverse engineering and copyright/patent infringement
instead of valid performance information. Or they'll be told that
they're pretty much the same (which may be true) and that they should
either:

- Buy the original because of the quality, the reputation, or
potential resale value

- Buy the copy because it's cheaper, it works just as well/better,
and they're all made in China today anyway.

And so it goes.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DuchovnySexBomb wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:40:48 +0000, George Gleason wrote:
>
> > the other side of the coin is roland perhaps wanted some press and
knew
> > this would create a buzz about their stuff even if they are
eventually
> > judged against
> > this is what mackie did, mackie knew before they filed their law
suit
> > that is was baseless or they need to hire better lawyers
>
> I'm pretty sure that Roland isn't starving for press. Neither was
Mackie
> at the time of their case. Both companies have established names for
> themselves in the music industry by offering up some pretty solid
stuff,
> and at times some damn great stuff.
>
> My only point is that Behringer isn't really doing much to further
their
> name by constantly offering up products that "coincidentally" look
and
> feel just like a higher priced competitors' products. Ultimately
their
> higher quality products suffer from their actions. If they want to
aim
> low, then it really doesn't affect the person who is out looking for
the
> best sound.
>
> - dsb

Good points. Hey guys, I'm lookiing at it this way: How much could it
have cost Behringer to make it *look* different? Almost nothing, I'd
say. Remember generic products in the 80's? B/W packaging that said
'cigarettes' or 'macaroni' or whatever. To save money. So if Behringer
just wants to save $, why didn't they do a generic design? I think that
would have been a low-cost, even more distinctive, marketing option.
But they didn't, did they?

How many of you defending Behr go around complaining about 'today's
all-sounds-alike' music? Behr's lack of ethics and sounds-alike music
both stem from the same social problem: acceptance of laziness/lack of
originality/unwillingness to invest more time/effort/$ into an
endeavor. At the very least, I don't want to hear behr's defenders
bemoaning unoriginal music. That would be hypocritical. Wish I had time
to google threads to see who said what about musical clones.

Let's support originality by not supporting clones.

PS -I've used some behr products but never owned any. By choice.

Mikey Wozniak
Nova Music Productions
This sig is haiku
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:30:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

DuchovnySexBomb wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 18:40:48 +0000, George Gleason wrote:
>
>
>>the other side of the coin is roland perhaps wanted some press and knew
>>this would create a buzz about their stuff even if they are eventually
>>judged against
>>this is what mackie did, mackie knew before they filed their law suit
>>that is was baseless or they need to hire better lawyers
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that Roland isn't starving for press. Neither was Mackie
> at the time of their case. Both companies have established names for
> themselves in the music industry by offering up some pretty solid stuff,
> and at times some damn great stuff.
>
> My only point is that Behringer isn't really doing much to further their
> name by constantly offering up products that "coincidentally" look and
> feel just like a higher priced competitors' products. Ultimately their
> higher quality products suffer from their actions. If they want to aim
> low, then it really doesn't affect the person who is out looking for the
> best sound.
>
> - dsb
>
>
press was the ONLY reason for the mackie suit

Mackie was not even let into the court room with their baseless claims
the judge threw mackie out without a trial

There is no resemblence in the foot pedals either
it is clear from the pictures posted(I have never seen either product
first hand) that it is a generic stomp box
it would be easier to confuse a yamaha and Neve desk than these units
george
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 12:37:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<vdubreeze@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1110386525.625284.261220@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> What I don't get about Behringer is: if they want people to think they
> don't copy/cause "confusion" (in a legal sense, obviously not in a real
> one), why do they make their floor amp modeler shaped like a kidney
> bean, and their pro version double spaced rack, that although the
> interface is different, really brings to mind the Line 6 products that
> preceded them? Why not put them in original looking boxes and at
> least slightly diffuse the argument ?
>

???
I think you might be mistaken in this case - the V-AMP isn't kidney shaped -
it is shaped more like a guitar - and it doesn't look like a POD.

see here : http://www.behringer.com/V-AMP2/index.cfm?lang=ENG
and here : http://www.line6.com/products.html?category=3

Not that I am defending Behringer..........

Geoff
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

<paul@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:9gou2197213rrsuvfrlgopgis05aeds7eo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:04:12 -0600, "John_LeBlanc"
> <john__leblanc@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Maybe you missed the original pictures Behringer posted on their website
>>around
>>NAMM '05 time. They've been updated, but you can see the originals on the
>>excellent Music Thing blog when they posted this news almost a week ago:
>>
>>http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...
>
> These are not the ones I saw on there website a moment ago this is
> clearly something I'd be pissed about if I were Roland.

No question about that, Paul. I happened to check the Behringer site around the
time the original photos were posted and I couldn't believe what I saw. It was
pretty brazen, in my opinion. Reminded me a lot of a two year old; give 'em an
inch...

The Boss pedals are pretty simple to knock off looks wise, but can you imagine
the deliberate choice to knock off the Big Muff and Small Stone?

John
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:36:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 23:14:39 -0500, Don Erickson wrote
(in article <1110428079.229228.88820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):

>
> Three points:
>
> 1. The article cited by the OP is clearly a press release generated by
> either Roland or its attorneys; and
>
> 2. While I haven't seen the complaint, it SOUNDS like a complaint for
> violations of the federal Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies
> (injunction, damages) for use of either trade dress (distinctive
> appearance) or service marks that in actual practice are likely to
> produce confusion in the minds of consumers about the origin of the
> goods or services in question, i.e., leading them to buy the infringing
> product thinking it is the plaintiff's product.
>
> 3. The articles do not mention any alleged patent infringement.
>
> It doesn't appear to me that anyone here is apt to buy the Behringer
> unit because they believe it to be a Roland. Having looked at the
> photos, I'd say Roland has an uphill battle.
>
> Don
>

A well thought out response. We all have to make decisions about to whom we
give our money. That's one of the ways we vote these days.

Mine will go to Roland before it goes to Behringer.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:44:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:
> Buster Mudd wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >>I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the
> >
> > AR-133.
> >
> >
> > Client comes into your studio and asks "Do you have that cool DI
shaped
> > like an airplane hanger?" are you even going to acknowledge that he
> > might be looking for a different product?
> >
>
> I would ask him what his prefrence is
> if is hasn't a clue then it will make no diffrence
> it not rocket science to know the names of the gear you like

So you must believe the Gibson lawsuit against Ibanez in the 1970's (or
more recently, against the PRS Singlecut) are groundless, yes?
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 3:32:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John" <ssconmag1@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BE55DFCE.2BFE%ssconmag1@verizon.net...

> Show us.
> Start with a rap posting Apr 15 1999 from Martin Caesar of APHEX.
> Show me the refutation. Please. I don't ENJOY being wrong...

Just to help things along, here's the post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/6...

John
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:08:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 09:30:17 +0000, George Gleason wrote:

> Mackie was not even let into the court room with their baseless claims
> the judge threw mackie out without a trial
>
> There is no resemblence in the foot pedals either
> it is clear from the pictures posted(I have never seen either product
> first hand) that it is a generic stomp box
> it would be easier to confuse a yamaha and Neve desk than these units

If you can't see a clear resemblance between the pedals then that is
totally in your realm. However, doesn't seem particularly odd that DOD,
Digitech and many of the other stomp box manufacturers have been able to
create less expensive or comparably priced products that have an entirely
unique shape to them? It is apparently not that difficult to do when a
company is so inclined.

- dsb


--
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public-duty gland and a natural
deficiency in moral fibre, and that I an therefore excused from saving
Universes." -- Ford Prefect
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 4:19:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

George Gleason wrote:
> Buster Mudd wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >>I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the
> >
> > AR-133.
> >
> >
> > Client comes into your studio and asks "Do you have that cool DI
shaped
> > like an airplane hanger?" are you even going to acknowledge that he
> > might be looking for a different product?
> >
>
> I would ask him what his prefrence is
> if is hasn't a clue then it will make no diffrence
> it not rocket science to know the names of the gear you like


He *has* told you what his preference is: it's the cool DI shaped like
an airplane hanger. Except that the one you (or Arny) is offering him
isn't really the one he asked for, it's a copy. And if it sounds like
ass -- or, more specifically, if it has limited headroom, which in my
experience would be the most apparent difference between a Behringer &
the BSS it's ripping off -- that's not your client's fault for not
being specific enough, that's Behringer's fault for decepetive
marketing.
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 5:12:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 03:21:26 GMT, George Gleason
<g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>play on wrote:
>> You can't see it? The top row is Gehringer, the bottom is Electro
>> Harmonix and Roland.
>>
>> Al
>>
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 21:29:35 GMT, George Gleason
>> <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>here are some pictures of both
>>>where is the resemblance?
>>>http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2005/03/behringer-sued-b...
>>>
>>>I don't see it
>>>George
>>
>>
>
>what I am saying is they do not look anything alike,that I can see

I disagree. The Behringer stuff looks a whole lot like the Boss
pedals to me. But then I am very familiar with this stuff, being a
guitarist. Most people who make stomp boxes go out of their way to
have a recognizable, distinctive design to their products shape, color
schemes, etc... while on the other hand it looks pretty obvious that
Behringer was doing the opposite.

Al
March 10, 2005 5:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1110483851.018362.50330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
mr_furious@mail.com says...
>
> George Gleason wrote:
> > Buster Mudd wrote:
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > >>I have an Ultra-DI, and see no confusion, appearance-wise with the
> > >
> > > AR-133.
> > >
> > >
> > > Client comes into your studio and asks "Do you have that cool DI
> shaped
> > > like an airplane hanger?" are you even going to acknowledge that he
> > > might be looking for a different product?
> > >
> >
> > I would ask him what his prefrence is
> > if is hasn't a clue then it will make no diffrence
> > it not rocket science to know the names of the gear you like
>
> So you must believe the Gibson lawsuit against Ibanez in the 1970's (or
> more recently, against the PRS Singlecut) are groundless, yes?
>
The Ibanez *was* a copy. The PRS, though obviously going
after the same market, was most defitenly NOT a copy, and a
severe travesty of justice, in my opinion.
--
---Michael (of APP)...
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/6/austinpowerplantmusic...
!