because it's still inferior plugin when it comes to functionality, just because it looks similar at first doesn't mean it's anywhere close,
for me, that Tbtech EQ is borderline fraud because those analog curves do no saturation

 

It's a Smart and very functional design, a Step Forward even.. (just as EQuilibrium type UIs were at one point..)
but to me that's a BS Patent.

Just like patenting the gradation of a Thermometer,
or the interface of an Oscilloscope, or a Digital watch..

Someone had to be the first to put numbers on an LCD screen,
but you can't really patent that.. or shouldn't be able to.


And how many patents would FF infringe if Everything was patented?
They didn't invent Spectrum Analysis, or Fourier Transform for that matter..

They didn't invent all the maths involved in each process,
nor the Conceptual background that makes the idea of an Audio Compressor..

They didn't invent OpenGL or whatever api they use..
(and you know how complex that shit is..
just developing an API of their own to display the plugs will take decades of work)

Let's charge them a ton of money, crush their company and hinder progress because:
they're copying the ideas/work of other ppl for economic benefit, cause that's the basis of their software -> other ppl's ideas and work.

 

First of all, you are free to buy a product or not.
You are also free to invent and manufacture a product yourself and then offer it on the market.

Why do we have patents? ----> www.epo.org/en/new-to-patents/why-do-we-have-patents

Go to the library and look at the technical books that people have written with the aim of preserving and passing on knowledge.

The 1 x 1, i.e. arithmetic and writing, that you learned in school is common knowledge and the basis of society.

FabFilter is just a product, if nobody buys it anymore it will disappear from the market. So there is a need for a FabFilter Pro-Q3.

 

Or, lol, even a particular setting on a resonant eq etc, if anyone remembers the BOZ's reaction to UAD's "Voice of God" plugin, and their subsequent release of "Bark of Dog" v1.. and his write up on that back about 12 years ago.... (the blog post he made has since been taken down, but it was pretty funny in it's indictment of UAD for selling a simple digital resonant high pass filter for $100 at the time which could be accomplished with essentially any stock daw eq)....

 

Then you are talking about the money side. I can understand and don't want to argue your argument. At least when everything is a exact same copy. On the other hand reality seems more complicated than that.

Ideas are picked up and invented further. I don't think the inventor of the first guitar amp circuit with preamp gain and master control should be taxed everytime a manufactur is designing their amp around this concept. Innovation would stuck and the world would be a place where everybody blaming each other constantly about copying them.

The on-topic question would be: is Fabfilter loosing their hard earned money since the Kirchhoff EQ came out? Who is ready to answer?
I have absolutely no idea, if I'd had to guess, I said no. There might even be a case they even gained popularity, because in almost every case Kirchhoff have been mentioned there was some discussion about Fabfilter (most saying "I stick to Pro-Q").

 

Plagiarism is not against the copyright laws because what the laws protect is the codes, not the ideas. So it only gets accusations and what will be hurt is their fame, not their purse.

 

i knew that they looked alike a little bit but not this much alike when you put the pictures next to one another
like that it looks like the same company made all the plugins and slap different name brands on it lol...

 

Certain types of inventions are excluded from patentability, e.g. scientific theories, mathematical methods, aesthetic creations, plant varieties or animal species, as well as processes for business activities or programs for data processing systems.

Spoiler: The 10 Most Patent-Strong Companies in the World (2023)

The 10 Most Patent-Strong Companies in the World (2023)

1. Huawei (5,071 patents)
2. Samsung (4,760 patents)
3. LG (3,498)
4. Qualkomm (3,275)
5. Ericsson (1,969)
6. Siemens (1,889)
7. RTX (1,822)
8. BASF (1,445)
9. Philips (1,299)
10. Sony (1,213)

 

Copyright and patent are very distinct from one another from a legal standpoint. In casual conversation one might conflate the two, but where it counts, they are very different concepts.

Also a software engineer at Apple, presumably for Logic, filed this patent. How did you come to the conclusion that it was Fabfilter?

 

Last edited: Nov 24, 2024 at 4:39 PM

Does FabFilter have a patent? Yes, they have filed a patent for their spectral analyzer.
You can read it here: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-9530396-B2

From the patent website, I quote:

US-9530396-B2 - Visually-assisted Mixing of Audio Using a Spectral Analyzer

Processor-implemented methods and systems for visually-assisted mixing of audio using a spectral analyzer are disclosed. The system calculates and displays a spectral view for each track in an arrangement in a multi-track view. A user can then request modification of the spectral view. In response to this request for modification, the system automatically adjusts associated mixing parameters for the modified track so that the spectral output of the track substantially matches the user-requested modified spectral view. This allows a user to visually mix an arrangement by imputing a desired spectral result and having the program make the changes necessary to achieve it.

 

Thank you @LL. With you, this place is never short of a bit of culture!

 

I don't really see how they can patent those knobs. Yes, they do clearly look like a distressor, but it looks like they were taken from a bank vault safe first.

 

Last edited: Nov 24, 2024 at 6:39 PM

You can't patent the look of the knobs, but you can patent the method of operation of the knobs and attempt to trademark their looks.

Gibson has a history of pursuing legal action when companies copy the "open book/moustache" shape on the headstock on guitars, for which Gibson holds a trademark.

 

There are also a lot of pirated copies with fake logos on ebay...!
ebay then notifies users that their ad has been deleted. If it says Fender on it, I want Fender inside.

 

If anyone truly believes litigation is fun or always worth the output for the input, then they are uninformed.
It's not pleasant for anyone involved regardless of who is right and who is wrong or who wins and who loses.
Any undertaking of this nature should mean that it is so blatantly theft in every possible way that the original product is suffering as a direct result. So does it do exactly the same things or only look the same? People can grasp other similar questions that anyone should ask before doing anything so financially, emotionally and time consuming as litigation.

 

API are another company who have successfully applied pressure to non-licensed hardware and software companies that have imitated their dual concentric knobs.

 

Gibson can always suck a d, as those mf'ers are the ones who shut down StudioVision, Galaxy, and everything Opcode, and then moved on to f with Oberheim....

I have a nice Custom Les Paul and an SG, but I don't play them if I can avoid if over my superior Strats and whatnot, as I'm still pissed 25 years later....

 

generalizing is totally wrong and plays in those peoples hands but deep check what he could meant instead of dropping the usual program ...would love to drop some comparing numbers but im not allowed

 

I actually know the fellow who invented the touch screen. I broke a bone in my hand punching him in the jaw after he punched my little brother way back in like 1973 at summer camp. Can I patent that?

This post is copywrited.

 

Yeah I read that part but it was not filed by Fabfilter.