|
|
Post by Hexspa on Nov 17, 2017 3:51:25 GMT
Someone linked me to Acoustic Absorbers and Diffusers by Trevor Cox and Peter D'Antonio. Not a ton of Google results for normal folks talkin' about this big book. I'm just wondering if any of you can throw two cents into the ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Nov 28, 2017 21:04:39 GMT
Anything by those guys is great, but usually expensive. And often more technical than most people care to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Nov 28, 2017 22:09:27 GMT
Anything by those guys is great, but usually expensive. And often more technical than most people care to deal with. Thanks, Ethan. Good to get confirmation. It seems like an interesting book. I didn't realize that diffusers are just from 1980. Also interesting to note is how Real Traps makes what they call an "abffusive" product; or is it diffsorptive?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Dec 12, 2017 18:52:05 GMT
It's a real QRD diffuser, but made out of "bass trap" material. So it diffuses mids and highs, and traps bass. Here's something that recently happened: I wouldn't normally mention this in public, but this is a small group and I don't really care anyway. It reflects on the other party (D'Antonio) more badly than on me. A few weeks ago I got a letter from a lawyer representing RPG saying they have a trademark on the term "QRD" (really? WTF?!) and insisting we stop using QRD on our web site and other promo material. So okay, sure, fine, glad to. They also demanded our entire diffusers sales history so they can assess damages. LOL, nice try a-hole!  So this is how I replied by email: Hi Jay, Thanks for letting me know about this problem. I had no idea "QRD" was trademarked! I just removed all references on the RealTraps web site. Our product name is the RealTraps Diffuser, and we never used "QRD" as part of the name, only the description of how it works. So I don't see any infringement. Even Wikipedia seems to treat "Quadratic Residue" as a generic description of the design: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_(acoustics)#Quadratic-residue_diffusorsI'll add that RealTraps is but one of a dozen or more companies using the term "QRD" to describe their product: www.auralex.com/product/quadratec/www.primacoustic.com/razorblade/www.gikacoustics.com/product/gik-acoustics-gridfusor/www.atsacoustics.com/acoustic-diffusers.htmlwww.indiamart.com/proddetail/qrd-diffuser-15234772097.htmlwww.adrionacoustics.com/qrd-diffuser/www.kineticsnoise.com/interiors/midtones.htmlwww.diffusercity.com/webercustomfab.com/ultracousticin.com/ultra-fuser-diffuser.phpmixmasteredacoustics.com/quadratic-acoustic-diffuser-free-shipping-solid-wood-frame/I assume you've notified all of these other companies, and hopefully all have done as I have: honored your request to stop using "QRD" as part of their product description. I assume this is satisfactory, but please let me know if you have any further questions. --Ethan |
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 13, 2017 5:55:13 GMT
gph.is/2yk223hI couldn't really think of an appropriate metaphor, I was thinking of Go Fish. Seems like the money is in legal these days. A Texan company is suing Nintendo for a motion software patent infringement used in the Wii which was originally developed to track babies falling down. Numerous copyright cases in music have yielded big wins for plaintiffs (and those hired on their behalf). The game seems to be: come up with something - anything - and, if you fail to market it, you can always sue someone who did something pretty close. But, sure enough, QRD is trademarked: tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:yym5xj.2.5 It specifies wooden panels. I'm no lawyer but I wonder if that means you made one out of vinyl or absorbent material you could maneuver around it. This news saddens me to hear. I can't imagine how playing hardball helps anyone. Recently having visited the RPG website, I found it difficult to acquire their products let alone find prices or any standard sales-type information. Who even associates that term with that company? One would really have to be in the know to make that connection. Imagine if Schroeder patented his initial findings and stopped these guys from improving the diffuser way back in the early 80's. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the timeline but, from their own book, they admit to developing upon his existing research. I don't feel like anyone wins by locking things down. Pushy lawyers don't help. We need a better system which acknowledges a reasonable protection for developers and then a realistic fair-use venue for things to move forward without undue friction. Renewing copyrights and patents into perpetuity then going around strong-arming people is super lame.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ethan Winer on Dec 16, 2017 18:21:11 GMT
I agree, obviously. It's like Band-Aid and Kleenex. Yes, the names are trademarked, but they've been in use for so long that they're generic. Then again, I suppose if Scott Tissues had Kleenex on the box Kleenex would rightly complain. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexspa on Dec 17, 2017 6:19:32 GMT
I agree, obviously. It's like Band-Aid and Kleenex. Yes, the names are trademarked, but they've been in use for so long that they're generic. Then again, I suppose if Scott Tissues had Kleenex on the box Kleenex would rightly complain. Its like buying a Playstation Xbox or a Mackie SSL. Anybody wanna buy a Samick Strat? My bridge in Arizona? |
|
So this is how I replied by email: