[sdiy] Legal issues of cloning

[Richard Wentk]

I think Tom covered it. Adding extra features won't protect you from legal action, because key circuit features and techniques are patented, and your new features won't change that.

But most vintage patents have expired now, and the lack of legal action suggests the big names don't really care about chasing down imitators. If nothing else it would be bad PR.

In any case, most new designs use modern components. So the schematics aren't identical. And it's difficult to argue that - say - a VCA or a gain cell is a rights infringement.

I don't know what the situation is with the 2600 clone. I think technically Gibson owns the rights via Rhodes, who bought ARP. But the patents have expired, and I doubt there's anything actionable in a modern version of the schems.

It's interesting just how little legal action has happened in this area. Apparently it's enough to say your modular filter is *based on* the CS-80/etc and/or to give it a silly name, and the big co's lose interest.

Richard

> On 6 Oct 2013, at 08:37, "GGG" <ggg at fgi.lv> wrote:
> 
> Dear collegues,
>    There are lot of classical synth clones arround, available as DIY
> kits - I've built TR909, Polivoks VCF, CS-80 VCF, there are active
> discussions on ARP 2600 clone KIT, about to be on sale.
>    I wonder, what are the legal issues of cloning synths? What's a
> procedure of getting permission (I doubt, it's easy to get a permissoin from
> producers , like Korg or Yamaha, just because of hudge scale of companies
> and beurocracy and Polivoks is dead end at all). If a developer of the clone
> adds some sigificant upgrades to the original schematics - is this still
> considered as a direct clone, or what's a degree of upgrades, one should
> add?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Girts
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Synth-diy mailing list
> Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy