MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index
 FAQ & Terms of UseFAQ & Terms Of Use   Wiggler RadioMW Radio   Muff Wiggler TwitterTwitter   Support the site @ PatreonPatreon 
 SearchSearch   RegisterSign up   Log inLog in 
WIGGLING 'LITE' IN GUEST MODE

Roland is trademarking its TR-808 and TB-303 designs
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next [all]
Author Roland is trademarking its TR-808 and TB-303 designs
Neoconkers
Full Story Here
Panason
lol lol lol lol lol
DiscoDevil
Amazing this didn't happen years ago
boxxgrooved
Yeah Roland NOT happy with Behringer it seems. After all this time with a lot of other companies producing devices based on the classic Roland series, it seems like this time Behringer went too far.

Why dont Behringer just make their own synths if they can produce them so cheap, they will still sell bucketloads even if they are not clones of anything. They did a good job with the Neutron. I think its time they dropped this cheap marketing tactic and start making their own brand
craigie77
och!… tbh Its roland's own fault for not re-issuing them
the patents for the origionals have obviously expired and they didn't do anything about it.. so it was only a matter of time

I wonder if folks would apply the same moral parameters when talking bout pharmaceutical patents and companies providing the same medication at a fraction of the price

Behringer are cheeky basterds, but roland are lazy basterds….

so the quick brown fox jump over the lazy popstar...
Or you snooze , you loose

Cheep analog for everybody, only the folks who spunked a fortune on the originals are gonna be crying bout it really … BUT I could be wrong about it all..
nectarios
Big R pissed at big B for giving people what they always hoped, big R would give.
Shledge
It's not just Behringer. It also counts for the myriad of current 303/808 clones available at the moment.

The 303 trademark is likely due to the TT303.
nangu
In a better world, this might mean that Roland is finally ready to make ‘real’ new ones. Not DSP. Actual reproductions. Like everybody has been asking for.. For the last 20 years plus..

It’s all bullshit. I’m way too cynical to believe any of the new shit. Whatever..

I’ve seen Roland do nothing but obstruction so far, so I’d be inclined to buy as much Behringer stuff as possible as fast as possible. Too bad I’m broke and won’t be buying anything anytime soon.

I have an Avalon. Fuck Roland and the horse they belatedly rode in on. This thing murders the original 303 in its sleep, and then spoons with the corpse.

There was a time when Roland could have done something useful with their heritage. That time was 1997..
Man-In-A-Suitcase
Shledge wrote:
It's not just Behringer. It also counts for the myriad of current 303/808 clones available at the moment.

The 303 trademark is likely due to the TT303.

those folks who do the RE-303 will have to change the top panel graphics now.
Cedrik Ha
I wonder if the trademarking poses a risk for the RE-303 project or the people who are involved in building them commercially?

I think in case of the TR-808 it makes sense now why Behringer inverted the colors of the knobs and switches on their RD-808 grin

Luap
Man-In-A-Suitcase wrote:
Shledge wrote:
It's not just Behringer. It also counts for the myriad of current 303/808 clones available at the moment.

The 303 trademark is likely due to the TT303.

those folks who do the RE-303 will have to change the top panel graphics now.


Cedrik Ha wrote:
And wonder if the trademarking poses a risk for the RE-303 project or the people who are involved in building them commercially?



It might affect Dinsync/Paul Barker who came up with the RE-303. But Dinsync is just 1 guy selling a few parts to hobbyists. Behringer is chuffing massive by comparison and will be of far more concern to Roland.

Also, my understanding of the RE-303 graphics (as of a couple of years ago anyway), was that Roland had no issue with it, just so long as the panel didn't say "Roland" or "TB-303" on it. But i've no idea if that is still their take on it..

Interesting times though! hihi
Gribs
Isn’t it a bit late for patent filings?

I am not an IP expert specifically but I have a dozen or so patents and have worked on many more. I have also worked on competitive IP analysis and assisted attorneys gathering and evaluating documents for right to practice. The designs inside the classic Roland devices are too old to patent, at least in the USA.

What about trademarking and copywriting designs? I have zero background in that area other than reading about a specific case where a large company went after a small company even though the small company has older (pre-existing the large company’s) trademarks restricted to certain states in the USA. The reason given for the filing was that the larger company needed to show it was actively protecting its trademarks. What happens if a company does not actively protect its trademarks? Copywriting an industrial design might be another ball of wax, though.

Anyway this will be interesting to watch.
craigie77
Gribs wrote:
Isn’t it a bit late for patent filings?

I am not an IP expert specifically but I have a dozen or so patents and have worked on many more. I have also worked on competitive IP analysis and assisted attorneys gathering and evaluating documents for right to practice. The designs inside the classic Roland devices are too old to patent, at least in the USA.

What about trademarking and copywriting designs? I have zero background in that area other than reading about a specific case where a large company went after a small company even though the small company has older (pre-existing the large company’s) trademarks restricted to certain states in the USA. The reason given for the filing was that the larger company needed to show it was actively protecting its trademarks. What happens if a company does not actively protect its trademarks? Copywriting an industrial design might be another ball of wax, though.

Anyway this will be interesting to watch.


I thought you had to show an efficacious improvement on a patent to be able to extend said patent to over a 25 yr period
Man-In-A-Suitcase
Gribs wrote:
Isn’t it a bit late for patent filings?

I am not an IP expert specifically but I have a dozen or so patents and have worked on many more. I have also worked on competitive IP analysis and assisted attorneys gathering and evaluating documents for right to practice. The designs inside the classic Roland devices are too old to patent, at least in the USA.

What about trademarking and copywriting designs? I have zero background in that area other than reading about a specific case where a large company went after a small company even though the small company has older (pre-existing the large company’s) trademarks restricted to certain states in the USA. The reason given for the filing was that the larger company needed to show it was actively protecting its trademarks. What happens if a company does not actively protect its trademarks? Copywriting an industrial design might be another ball of wax, though.

Anyway this will be interesting to watch.

Trade Dress

Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is a form of intellectual property.
CF3
Shledge
Luap wrote:
Man-In-A-Suitcase wrote:
Shledge wrote:
It's not just Behringer. It also counts for the myriad of current 303/808 clones available at the moment.

The 303 trademark is likely due to the TT303.

those folks who do the RE-303 will have to change the top panel graphics now.


Cedrik Ha wrote:
And wonder if the trademarking poses a risk for the RE-303 project or the people who are involved in building them commercially?



It might affect Dinsync/Paul Barker who came up with the RE-303. But Dinsync is just 1 guy selling a few parts to hobbyists. Behringer is chuffing massive by comparison and will be of far more concern to Roland.

Also, my understanding of the RE-303 graphics (as of a couple of years ago anyway), was that Roland had no issue with it, just so long as the panel didn't say "Roland" or "TB-303" on it. But i've no idea if that is still their take on it..

Interesting times though! hihi


It didn't stop Roland going after Cyclonic, hence the case change of the TT303.
latigid on
Man-In-A-Suitcase wrote:

Trade Dress

Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is a form of intellectual property.


thumbs up

Roland has a case that consumers might associate (possible) quality or other problems in similar-looking devices with its own products, by association damaging Roland.
Man-In-A-Suitcase
lol all those t-shirt printers on ebay selling t-shirts with the Roland and Boss logos on them are gonna be next to get closed down, as the Roland and Boss logos are also covered by trade dress/intellectual properly.

From Roland website:

Activity against Counterfeits and IP Infringements

Recently, there has been a significant increase in the infringement of Roland’s IP. This activity has been particularly severe on the internet, and is often present on websites offering counterfeit Roland branded products, products displaying confusingly similar clones of Roland products, those infringing Roland’s trademarks.

Roland is determined to take aggressive actions to stop such activities. In addition to a willingness to take direct legal action against infringers, Roland has also partnered with MarkMonitor® for our IP and Brand Protection activities. MarkMonitor is a leader in the field of global IP and Brand Protection. Specifically, MarkMonitor’s Brand Protection™ technology protects corporate brands from trademark misuse and counterfeit sales. MarkMonitor’s advanced infringement monitoring tools serve Roland globally in round-the-clock monitoring of infringing activities occurring on the internet.
nangu
“Roland has a case that consumers might associate (possible) quality or other problems in similar-looking devices with its own products, by association damaging Roland.”

Seriously? Roland has failed to meet overwhelming demand for it’s products. For decades..

In a spiteful and nasty way. Roland continues to tease products that seem similar to the classic analog products they were designed to ape, but it’s all a scam.
nangu
They try to sell an emulation of the real thing that’s slightly better than the emulation that they sold you last year. It’s embarrassing!
nangu
I think they want to milk this cow forever.

If Roland had re-issued the 303 in 1995, none of these crazy things would have ever happened.

But they put out the MC-303. And the MC-505..

They keep selling a slightly better-sounding failure than last year’s model.
teamhobson
I do not feel sorry for Roland at all. I completely understand why they wouldn't want to develop and re-release their classics, but they can't get pissed when other brands try to imitate their sound and style in order to sell more units.

They are well aware of the greater electronic music scenes lust for their classics and by not acting on it, they left themselves vulnerable to this.
pricklyrobot
As has been pointed out already, trademark is only to do with physical appearance (not functionality or circuit design).
So arguments about the ethics of cloning or Roland ‘not giving the people what they want’ aren’t relevant here. The debate, if you want to have one, should be: is it okay to plagiarize someone else’s graphic design work, or not?

Also, didn’t Roland already sue Behringer (successfully) several years ago, because their (plastic) pedals looked too much like the Boss pedals (down to copying the color schemes, typefaces, etc.) they were cloning?
flashheart
pricklyrobot wrote:
As has been pointed out already, trademark is only to do with physical appearance (not functionality or circuit design).
So arguments about the ethics of cloning or Roland ‘not giving the people what they want’ aren’t relevant here. The debate, if you want to have one, should be: is it okay to plagiarize someone else’s graphic design work, or not?

Also, didn’t Roland already sue Behringer (successfully) several years ago, because their (plastic) pedals looked too much like the Boss pedals (down to copying the color schemes, typefaces, etc.) they were cloning?

Yep, read the article - this is about trademarking (Trade dress) NOT patents. Clearly this is aimed at Behringer, I suspect especially the 100M series clones (that probably don't exist yet...). B are free to make them, just not copy the exact look of the originals (even down to the typeface). The only reason I can think of to copy the originals so closely is to mislead potential buyers IMO.
IR
Cedrik Ha wrote:
I wonder if the trademarking poses a risk for the RE-303 project or the people who are involved in building them commercially?

I think in case of the TR-808 it makes sense now why Behringer inverted the colors of the knobs and switches on their RD-808 grin


It looks more like the TR-08 with the colours of the knobs inverted.

Love the "Computer Controlled". Every single drum machine in the Universe has that same text in the same font.
MUFF WIGGLER Forum Index -> General Gear Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next [all]
Page 1 of 3
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group