Boog... (Behringer Synths)

[RiK]

At £299 I'm in, day one. Will pre-order as soon as they're available. Daft not to at that price.



In the meantime, fancy a visitor one day in the not-too-distant Ben?

[(o)(o)]

Interesting.. and great price.

I know Behringer have a rep for copying others designs.. but this is rather blatant

So what's the licensing deal here??

Shall be getting some snaps of the Moog Model D and Subsequent 37 in the next couple of weeks for the companies instagram. Probably record a few drones whilst I'm there.

[phattslagg]

How do you mean? The Neutron is an original design. The Model D needs no license because the Minimoog design is well out of patent by now.

[(o)(o)]

Minimoog design is well out of patent by now.

Ah... didn't know that.

[(o)(o)]

Seems not all intellectual property experts believe Behringer’s case is clear-cut..

http://www.factmag.com/2017/04/08/behri ... th-clones/

[phattslagg]

Sounds to me like a lawyer who wants Moog to think they have a chance of successful litigation, so they’ll waste some of their money on him.

[(o)(o)]

Could equally be a lawyer who wants Moog to think they have a chance of successful litigation, so they’ll invest some of their money in him.



It's not like Behringer haven't coughed up before..

"There may still be good will in the name, so if a user was given the impression that [the clone] was somehow authorized by Moog, that is probably actionable.”

I naively assumed there was some licensing agreement with Moog, since they are going with the whole 'Model D clone' line. Most tribute-clones at least modify the naming scheme somewhat.

"Behringer are effectively leveraging Moog’s reputation to promote their own products."

IANAL but some merit? I suspect many people buying this think in their heads they are buying a Moog.

[phattslagg]

I naively assumed there was some licensing agreement with Moog, since they are going with the whole 'Model D clone' line. Most tribute-clones at least modify the naming scheme somewhat.

Only because you didn’t realise it was out of patent, and made your assumption on that basis. That is not the same as genuinely thinking you’re buying a Moog-endorsed product - especially as any such endorsement would be made plain for all to see.

"Behringer are effectively leveraging Moog’s reputation to promote their own products."

IANAL but some merit? I suspect many people buying this think in their heads they are buying a Moog.

No more so than if they were buying any other clone. Rightly or wrongly, “Moog” is the only property here, not the circuitry (which uses different components anyway), not the sonic character (don’t think it’s even possible to protect this), and not the panel layout.

IANAL, but I should imagine that, ironically, Moog would have more of a case if the clone was crap, and therefore served to tarnish the reputation of the original instrument. As it happens, it seems like the “Boog”, as Rik calls it, is as near to identical as you can get. If anything, it might serve to increase sales of the Moog reproduction, as people who can afford £3k+ for a monosynth are just as likely to want an original, both for the form factor and the prestige.

[RiK]

FFS! Had an email from DV247 - My Boog which when I ordered was ‘expected delivery’ of 7th Feb, is now expected on 15th APRIL!!

To add insult to injury, they sent one mail telling me it was expected on 15/03, then 3 minutes later another to say 15/4.

BAH!

[(o)(o)]

I naively assumed there was some licensing agreement with Moog, since they are going with the whole 'Model D clone' line. Most tribute-clones at least modify the naming scheme somewhat.

Only because you didn’t realise it was out of patent, and made your assumption on that basis. That is not the same as genuinely thinking you’re buying a Moog-endorsed product - especially as any such endorsement would be made plain for all to see.

Admitting here I didn't know circuit patents were <20yrs.. but more than that, when I first clapped eyes on the... err.. Booger.. I assumed licensing was involved because.. 'at a glance'.. it LOOKS like a Moog (albeit keyboardless etc). That didn't play out too well when they rubbed up Roland the wrong way :



Now, I'm no expert in trade dress.. a quick gen-up on the net suggests that panel layout is hard to protect.. Gibson failed with their pots -- but protected their super-snappable headstock design with "built in" break-point.. (not sure the stupid tension-increasing angle comes into this tbh)... So it would seem to be some defining feature might need to be argued for.. however with a squint, unlike the SE-02 for example, the Booger has taken Moog's look.

Yeah OK probably more of an ethics issue.. but I would not be surprised if this comes back to bite.

As it happens, it seems like the “Boog”, as Rik calls it, is as near to identical as you can get.

Curious to see the teardowns.

[gravy]

It's super complicated not least because the current Moog Co isn't the Moog that made the model D.

Afaik Moog Music only bought the rights to use the Moog name after the original went tits. They don't necessarily own any technical IP from the old machines.

You could argue they're infringing trade dress but it's a rip off of elements of a design now owned by no one

[(o)(o)]

Intersting. And o0f course Behringer - their legal advisors at least - know this too. Not to mention Moog are tiny by comparison probably can't afford a battle?

Hmm...

[RiK]

As it happens, it seems like the “Boog”, as Rik calls it, is as near to identical as you can get.

Indeed, this was all I needed to know..



It's as close to his original Moog as any other Mini Moog is..

Curious to see the teardowns.

Well, the Behringer is all surface mount and mass production, the Moog is through hole and hand-wired.

Your point is?

[(o)(o)]

Curious to see the teardowns.

Well, the Behringer is all surface mount and mass production, the Moog is through hole and hand-wired.

Your point is?

My point is quite simple : I'm curious to see the innards.

That's as deep as that goes I'm afraid.

No secret agenda.

[gravy]