This kind of pisses me off

[TheGimp]

This has been going on for 30+ years. Back in 78 when I was at Clemson I read about a company making a clone of another companies IC. They basically made masks of all the layers and duplicated the device. Including the flaws and the doodle in one corner. It was clearly evident that they cloned the part, and IIRC they lost in court. Masks are consider artwork and protected by (?) copyright law.

Company ABC produces product DEF which company XYZ clones down to the letter (logo). Company ABC sends company XYZ a C&D (Cease and Desist) notification.

Company XYZ removes the copyrighted LOGO and continues producing their product.

Company ABC files suit in federal court (they are in different states) for losses due to company XYZ infringing on their design.

Case goes to court and judge looks at product and sees (1) no patents, (2) no unique features not already documented in prior designs ("Prior Art"), as pointed out by the attorneys for company XYZ.


Who will win?

Company ABC because they designed a product which company XYZ has cloned?

Or, Company XYZ because there is no law prohibiting such copying unless there is (1) copyright infringement, (2)Trademark infringement, or (2) patent infringement, and none of these apply since company XYZ has removed the offending LOGO?

[xk49w]

This has been going on for 30+ years. Back in 78 when I was at Clemson I read about a company making a clone of another companies IC. <snip>

I recall something about the original clone of the IBM PC BIOS. It was a clean room design. Someone took the BIOS chip, wrote a spec describing its behavior, and someone else built silicon to match the spec. The bugs were duplicated as well.

[TheGimp]

In the original clones they just copied the ROMs. That ended up going to court which sided with IBM. I think TSMC or ACER did the clean room conversion where one team decoded the ROMs and wrote a high level definition from it. The high level definition was passed through a third party to the second group (no contact between first and second group) and the second group wrote new code from the high level spec.

This passed court as not being a clone and acceptable as it did not violate copyright of the original code.

[Cliff Schecht]

Lately I've been wondering how IC designers reverse engineer somebody elses silicon.

There are companies that do nothing but RE devices. They tediously identify all components on the top layer and make a schematic. Then remove the that layer and move on to the next, etc... It is very tedious work, but many of these companies are VERY good at it.

I've been working with some low noise instrumentation amplifiers where one is the newer replacement for the other (namely the AD620 and INA129). I was just sort of curious how TI managed to squeeze more bandwidth and lower noise into the same package without having the schematics handed over from ADI..

Why do you think the schematic was handed over? It could have been reverse engineered or it could have been a completely new design. There are alot of talented analog IC designers that are capable of designing a better part. It could be easy or difficult depending on how hard the original design was pushed. Also, we can always move to another technology CMOS vs Bipolar, spend more current, increase the die size, etc... Bandwidth and lower noise can almost always be overcome with better design/tradeoffs. BTW, the package is normally very low on the list of issues in cases like this, although it is an issue mostly related to bond wire inductance.

I figured either the big companies or somebody was reverse engineering the IC's. I didn't know they actually pull them apart layer by layer, that's pretty darn cool.

It wouldn't be that hard to design a drop-in replacement using your own technology, especially for a company like TI with some very solid CMOS, Bipolar and BiCMOS processes as well as top notch designers. I guess having your own in-town fabs can't hurt either. I should know the answer to my own question, I use a TI process in my research and know how well they do perform.

I guess my confusion is really over how close the TI part is to the AD part. Since I don't have schematics of the internals of both IC's I'll just continue to treat these in-amps as black boxes with good specs. It isn't critical for me to know anyways, just a morbid curiosity I guess.

[TheGimp]

TI and AD probably use different processes. This forces TI to RE the devices to understand the structure, but then they have their own engineers layout a device optimized for their process.

This has the further advantage of being "court proof" in that TI does not have to worry about litigation.

I worked for TI (Tiny Income) for ten years in the Industrial Controls Division. So while I'm not intimately familiar with the SC group, but I did work with some of the patent attorneys at TI while I was there.

If you can't copyright it, patent it. If you can't patent it, sue the pants off the competition over the design any way. Patents and copyrights are tools to protect IP (Intellectual Property) to prevent competition from cloning your products and stealing your engineering and development effort.

The company that bought the Industrial Controls division from TI is just as adamant about Patents as TI was. We patent everything we can, not because the IP is important on it's own (some of my patents are almost ridiculous), but because there are companies in the far east that will clone products and dump them on the entire world market. Patents can be used to stop this when it is obvious that the devices are clones but there is no specific law against cloning hardware.

I guess that pretty much sums up my opinion on cloning hardware. My understanding is there is no specific law against it. Company ABC would lose against company XYZ unless there was patent content in the hardware.

Trade secrets are only good when they are kept secret (Coca Cola, KFC, etc).

[M Fowler]

I was not asked very nicely by Stu-Daddy to modify my post on page one if you care to read and I can either post the email or send you a copy if you like.

[daydreamer]

Mark, I read the original post to mean that you were impressed by the amp in someway and just wanted to visit to see how he does it (And the disclaimer WAS missing for those two companies.)

He was obviously on edge and read into your comments stuff that wasn't there (we all do it sometimes!) He must be working too hard; from what you guys have told me, it's a hard life building amps...

I thought his apology was good, and that was the end of the matter. It's sad to hear he came out swinging when he didn't need too. I hope he can bring himself around to apologize again, it's forums like this that increase the mystique of the amps in question, his company like many others get business from here....

Ironically, I opened the paper yesterday and I see that Two Rocks Amps are now being imported into Melbourne. I wouldn't have known what they are if it wasn't for TAG.

(You guys have made me actually want to hear these amps, so case in point.)

Come on Stu Daddy; deep breaths, no hard feelings, and back to the ball game!!

(what is it with America and suing people anyway?. )

[Bob Simpson]

I was not asked very nicely by Stu-Daddy to modify my post on page one if you care to read and I can either post the email or send you a copy if you like.

I read your original post, Mark.

I don't need to see his request. Although, I'd kind of like to.
I can't help slowing down to look at a car crash...

I already have seen enough not to do business with him, and I'll retell the tale every time I have an audience.
Maybe he'll still be in business in a year...
Some are...

You need any co-pilots on that road trip to Michigan?

Bob

[Colossal]

AmpGarage Posts
Stu-Daddy: 2
M Fowler: 3,895

[Stu-Daddy]

I received a threat from Stu-Daddy that he would sue me for the slanderous statement I posted: the disclaimer statement he posted on ebay which he then modified. Also saying my posts could be construed as threatening because I wanted to take a road trip in a motor home?

I am quite sure the rest of you understood that I enjoy visting with fellow amp builders and have plans to attend amp shows when I retire but apparently I am not welcome to bring a motor home anywhere near Michigan so I quess I better tell Bruce Egnator I am not coming to visit his shop.

Boy this guy is a piece of work.

Stu-Daddy here
Again with the defamation I don't deserve this kind of treatment from Mr.
Fowler as I've done nothing to him,but ask him to remove the original slanderous remark he made about my company Stu-Daddy Amps.
I simply requested Mr Fowler to remove the slanderous remark that he posted about me.
I am expected to read his intent about an ambiguous road to trip to Michigan ?
(delete the rhetoric about how I spoiled his trip,because I didn't).
I don't know Mr.Fowler so I couldn't possibly understand what his intent was when he made that statement.
I also have no idea of the references that he keeps making about me posting on ebay "the disclaimer statement he posted on ebay which he then modified."
I don't post on ebay,and the modified disclaimer statement that he made
in his original post is what I wanted removed to begin with.
I don't look for trouble but it has found me again on this forum.
I want to apologize again to this forum for the trouble that I've cause defending my companies reputation against Mr. Fowlers slanderous post that he's sees fit to drag thru this forum.
Since Mr. Fowler has removed the original offending post,and hopefully
will remove the latest slanderous posts.
We can continue on with our lives and chalk this up to a big misunderstanding.

[TheGimp]

if he has been here for 4 years and only made two posts, I would surmise he was here to harvest information.

I've not been here long enough to know any of you well, but I didn't read anything threatening in Mark's post. It just read to me that he was excited to make a road trip to see another commercial TW Style Amp.

[Stu-Daddy]

if he has been here for 4 years and only made two posts, I would surmise he was here to harvest information.

I've not been here long enough to know any of you well, but I didn't read anything threatening in Mark's post. It just read to me that he was excited to make a road trip to see another commercial TW Style Amp.

Stu-Daddy here:
I didn't say the remark was a threat,I said this,it also includes the original remark that Mr. Fowler wrote that I objected to:
To whom it may concern,
You will be advised to remove the slanderous quote that you have posted on The Amp Garage
or you will be sued for defamation.
DISCLAIMER: Stick-it-to-Daddy Amps is not affiliated with Marshall Amplification, Vox Amplification, Ampeg, Celestion, Echoplex, Gibson, Laney, Peavey, Mesa Boogie, Fender Musical Instruments Corp, Trace Elliot, Hiwatt or Ibanez. Showman, Princeton, Super Reverb, Twin Reverb, Vibro-Champ, Vibrolux, Tone-Master, Vibro-King, Harvard, Bandmaster,Bassman, Pro, Pro-Reverb, Super, Twin, Deluxe,Deluxe Reverb,Vibroverb,Vibrolux Reverb, Tremolux and Concert are all trademarks of Fender Musical Instruments Corp.
Also your other remarks might be considered as threats.
I would suspect Stu-Daddy has a friend on TAG or he himself is a member. Interesting history repairing since 1989 and located in Michigan.

[TheGimp]

Ok, I thought (wrongly) you took offense at his roat trip comment.

[Colossal]

I am expected to read his intent about an ambiguous road to trip to Michigan ?

You would have more insight into that statement if you had been here for a while and knew some of the members on a more personal level. That was a completely innocent statement about a roadtrip. Mark routinely travels to meet with players and builders who share the love of music and amps.

I don't know Mr.Fowler

Exactly

so I couldn't possibly understand what his intent was when he made that statement. We can continue on with our lives and chalk this up to a big misunderstanding.

Which is why threatening a guy you don't even know with litigious action on comments taken out of context in a place you have very little history with...seems like a big misunderstanding. Mark's a helluva nice guy and a friend to many here.

[Stu-Daddy]

I received a threat from Stu-Daddy that he would sue me for the slanderous statement I posted: the disclaimer statement he posted on ebay which he then modified. Also saying my posts could be construed as threatening because I wanted to take a road trip in a motor home?

I am quite sure the rest of you understood that I enjoy visting with fellow amp builders and have plans to attend amp shows when I retire but apparently I am not welcome to bring a motor home anywhere near Michigan so I quess I better tell Bruce Egnator I am not coming to visit his shop.

Boy this guy is a piece of work.

Stu-Daddy here:
Mr. Fowler was advised to remove the slanderous posting or that he would be sued and here's the email itself:
To whom it may concern,
You will be advised to remove the slanderous quote that you have posted on The Amp Garage
or you will be sued for defamation.
DISCLAIMER: Stick-it-to-Daddy Amps is not affiliated with Marshall Amplification, Vox Amplification, Ampeg, Celestion, Echoplex, Gibson, Laney, Peavey, Mesa Boogie, Fender Musical Instruments Corp, Trace Elliot, Hiwatt or Ibanez. Showman, Princeton, Super Reverb, Twin Reverb, Vibro-Champ, Vibrolux, Tone-Master, Vibro-King, Harvard, Bandmaster,Bassman, Pro, Pro-Reverb, Super, Twin, Deluxe,Deluxe Reverb,Vibroverb,Vibrolux Reverb, Tremolux and Concert are all trademarks of Fender Musical Instruments Corp.
Also your other remarks might be considered as threats.
I would suspect Stu-Daddy has a friend on TAG or he himself is a member. Interesting history repairing since 1989 and located in Michigan.

I need to get a motor home and road trip.
I will have these remarks reviewed as well.
Regards,
Stuart Hopkins CEO
Stu-Daddy Amps
Since the slanderous remark had been reposted for all to see ask yourself
if it was you, and the slander was directed at you.
What would you do ?
Again I apologize for all of the trouble to this Forum