Talk:Behringer/Archive 2

More Edits By Behringer

Hello, I'm Ryan, and I'm the new social media coordinator here at Behringer. Just wanted to give a head's up that I'm looking to edit the page with the same spirit of transparency and communication that Will envisioned. My first plan is to structure this article as more of a company history/chronology, not unlike some other musical equipment manufacturers have done, such as digidesign.

But first, I'm spending some time going over wiki policy. Just wanted to check in, say "Hey." RyanAtBehringer (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal Troubles / Controversy

I see that TheDarxide restored the "legal troubles" section regarding the FCC case. I had removed this header, but left content regarding the FCC ruling into the corporate history as it is a notable event. I'm removing the "legal troubles" again, as following TheDarxide's edits the FCC info is now in the article twice.

I put it back because I hadn't seen that you had incorporated the text - it appeared from the history to have simply been removed Thedarxide (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone - I recognize this is a delicate issue due to my involvement with Behringer, but I'd like some feedback regarding this "controversy" section as I believe it is not fair. Of course, anything posted to Wikipedia has to be citable fact. As this section stands now, it is based on allegations - both Mackie and Roland have alleged wrongdoing on Behringer's part, but judges have dismissed these claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and trademark infringement, as seen here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MACKIE%2FBEHRINGER+LAWSUIT-a061874159

My question here is this - in looking at other Musical Instrument manufacturers' wiki pages, I don't find information regarding allegations - only firm legal decisions. As Mackie's allegations have all been dismissed by the courts and all rulings were in favor of Behringer, it shows that these allegations were wrong. As such this info doesn't qualify as material appropriate for wikipedia, right? With this, it seems appropriate that the paragraph be removed. Please let me know your feedback on this, and thanks much.

I disagree. The case with Mackie was settled out of court, which does not imply a ruling in favour of Behringer. Also, your link does not discuss the trade dress issue, which is, I believe, the crux of the settlement. This is also the basis of Roland's complaints, such as the obvious cosmetic similarities between the BOSS pedals and behringer's effect pedals. That said, your efforts to improve the article are commendable. Thedarxide (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt feedback; as you said, "the case with Mackie was settled out of court, which does not imply a ruling in favour of Behringer.” Conversely, this ruling also does not imply any wrongdoing on Behringer's part. All of Mackie's major claims were publicly dismissed, and all court rulings were clearly in favor of Behringer.

The settlement was reached under confidential terms, so Behringer has no opportunity to tell their side of the story. Hence, anything else is pure speculation, but not citable fact...RyanAtBehringer (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the editor CHM in 2006 "copyright controversey needs to be revised. It reads like someone's opinion piece and not like an encyclopedia." Unless there are clear citations the paragraph should be removed. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable...

ToneOfMouth (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks, at this point I think it's appropriate to call attention to Wiki's neutrality policy. As the page stands now, the citations for the "Controversy" section point out accusations from Roland and Mackie. For example, one of these citations links to "musicgearreview.com." (http://www.musicgearreview.com/article-display/1438.html)

Looking at other articles on "Musicgearrreview.com" illustrates clearly that much of the information on their site arrives in the form of manufacturer press releases, as many of these articles are in fact product announcements. As a press release, this citation, to me, stands more as a reflection of Boss' opinion than as a documentable fact illustrating wrongdoing by Behringer, as it came straight from Boss themselves. Agreed? Anyone?

Furthermore, I'm curious if anyone else feels that these allegations need to be scrutinized under wiki's policy regarding Exceptional Claims and Exceptional Sources - which I'll quote below -

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;

• Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science,medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

• Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Right now the only sources cited to these allegations are tied to manufacturer press releases on music gear review sites - do these qualify as "exceptional" sources when it comes to a subject as serious as allegations of copyright infringement?


Again - "If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." I think this is pretty explicit, and grounds for the "Controversy" section to be removed - which I will do, unless anyone here voices an objection. 
As always, thanks for your help and patience! RyanAtBehringer (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, the text should be supported by reliable sources. What I'm wondering is why there hasn't been any better sourcing than we've seen to date, or why other [potentially libellous text removed - Stifle] and even Apple's website haven't been mentioned. There is a lot of buzz about Behringer in the industry, and the comparisons are available. This section needs expansion and better references. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you've got cites for those, then add them. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to state at the outset that I have no commercial interest in any of the companies discussed below other than as a satisfied customer of each company's products. What follows is my personal opinion based on research I have carried out.

Following a great deal of allegation and heated discussion that took place in the rec.audio.pro and alt.music.4-track Usenet discussion groups back in 2000-2002 I was motivated to spend a lot of time looking into the claims made against Behringer by Mackie and Aphex.

My understanding of these matters in essence is ...

Mackie claimed: (1) that Behringer had copied exactly its then design for an 8-buss audio mixer. Among other things it alleged

   (a) that Behringer had copied the printed circuit board from its product exactly
   (b) that the copy was so blatant that the innards of the Behringer product could be fitted into the Mackie product's case without alteration

(2) further that Behringer had stolen proprietary, protected electronic circuit designs for the microphone preamps used in Mackie's product (3) that Behringer had stolen Mackie's proprietary "trade dress" - what we in the UK would call a "passing off action" - ie, that Behringer presented itself in such a way as to confuse customers into believing that either it (the Behringer company) or its products were those of Mackie and thereby gained unfair commercial advantage or caused harm to Mackie’s reputation or business

Aphex (in a much earlier case) claimed: (4) that Behringer had so copied the design (circuits and construction) of its Aural Exciter electronic audio processing product that it had even copied the company's identifying labels affixed to circuits inside the chassis

As a general comment, it must be understood that there are well established mechanisms which exist for companies to (a) register and protect their genuine intellectual properties and (b) prevent others from improperly exploiting those properties. As a final arbiter, the courts decide on matters of dispute. As the courts have ruled in all its claims of IP infringement against Mackie, I consider it highly improper for Wikipedia to be regurgitating claims made by Mackie that - for the most part - have been shown by a court to be false and are in all cases entirely unproven.

At the time of both claims, Behringer was a much smaller company than either of the opponents who faced it - a significant factor in the outcome of both cases.

In conducting my research, I searched court records in the U.S, Germany and UK, spoke with senior employees of Behringer, Mackie and Aphex, visited Behringer's German offices, researched the various patents claimed by the parties etc. The discussion took place in a public forum and can still be found via a simple search at groups.google.com . The discussion was certainly followed closely by all three companies and, as I challenged each claim and counter-claim in turn, it became increasingly apparent that (a) Mackie could or would provide no evidence to support the allegations and statements being cast at Behringer by it or by others on its behalf, (b) Mackie has done a spectacularly good job at promoting an urban myth about Behringer and (c) none of the companies involved has entirely clean cupboards and their on-going silence on these matters can perhaps be interpreted as a desire to keep skeletons that might otherwise be let out safely locked away.

In the harsh commercial world, the only surprising thing would be if no skeletons existed at all.

The interesting point about the Mackie case is that all of the claims and allegations made by the company or on its behalf are so easily disproven (and were by the courts) yet the popular notion persists that Behringer did it wrong – when my research leads me to believe that it is actually Behringer that was done a very great deal of undue harm by Mackie.

My conclusion after all my research was and remains that the Mackie dispute was fuelled by straightforward commercial self-interest on Mackie's part and had more to do with a desire to improperly exclude a strong competitor from a market it considered its own than a genuine belief that it had been wronged. The Aphex case is a little more complex but again boils down to a commercial spat that does not deserve to be trawled over again and again and certainly cannot be used to paint Behringer as some kind of "serial copier" of others products or designs.

All of Mackie's claims of copyright and other IP infringement by Behringer were thrown out by courts in both the U.S. and (bizarrely) the UK too. Put very simply, Mackie had no case against Behringer for IP infringement and it was thrown out of the court the first time a judge heard its claims.

It's easy to see why. (1) Mackie's first claim (that Behringer copied its circuit boards) can be disproven - and was by a judge - without even opening the case of either product. Self evidentially, the control layout (ie, where all the knobs, switches and buttons sit) differs enormously between the two products. It follows immediately that the circuit boards inside the boxes cannot be identical - or even similar. Closer examination reveals further, significant differences between the operation of the two products (eg; signal flow is different). When the two circuit boards are examined side by side, the only similarity (even to an expert eye) is that they are both printed circuit boards. In fact, the layout of controls on Mackie's product bears a great deal of resemblance to other competing products – eg; the UK produced Soundcraft Ghost mixer. Mackie's claim for circuit board copying was thrown out at first sight by the U.S. court.

(2) Mackie's second claim was a little harder to research. I eventually tracked down the former Mackie employee who designed the circuit in question for Mackie and who gave written evidence in Mackie's claim against Behringer. I also looked at the circuit involved ... and found it in a standard text on analogue circuit design that predates Mackie's claim by several years. Its claim to “originality” required for any IP protection was, at the very best, mighty thin in any event. Mackie's claim for circuit copying was thrown out at first sight by the U.S. court. Mackie has since redesigned the circuit.

(3) Having lost its claim of IP infringement in the most comprehensive and resounding manner, Mackie moved on to claim "trade dress" infringement by Behringer. Given the obvious physical and visible differences between the two mixers that were the subject of this dispute, the very different logos, advertising slogans, distribution channels (the products were not sold through the same retail outlets) it is extremely hard to see that Mackie's claim here had any greater prospect of success - or validity - than its claims of IP infringement. This part of Mackie's claim was not decided by a court, however, as the two companies settled the matter privately before it was heard.

Though few people seem to have bothered, it's worth examining Mackie's behaviour in instigating and pursuing these claims.

I discovered that Mackie had conducted a very successful (if highly unfair) media campaign against Behringer - which it commenced BEFORE it issued court proceedings against the company. For example, it published its allegations and claims against Behringer through press releases sent to music industry and recording publications and via the Internet. Mackie's press releases are, in part, cited by this article to justify inclusion of the section under discussion. From the outset, Mackie's public stance was that it had a water-tight case and it solicited and gained much public support in the professional music community for the supposed "wrongs" done to it.

Cannily, as the issue of court proceedings prevented Behringer from making any public statement on Mackie's claims - and the eventual settlement contains a non-disclosure provision - to this day only Mackie's self-interested and disproven pronouncements are visible on the easily found public record.

Mackie also pursued a strategy of driving up the costs to Behringer of defending the court proceedings issued by Mackie. It eventually became obvious that there was no substance to Mackie's claims of IP infringement - the judge threw them all out on first sight. However, it's worth noting that the case dragged on for over two years before a judge got sight of the evidence and was in a position to make a decision. Two very expensive years for Behringer.

As if this wasn't enough, Mackie also brought suit against Behringer in the UK courts. The question begs to be asked ... why? The issues were never decided by a British judge as, on the not so small technicality that the supposed patents and "registered" IP properties on which Mackie based its case were held to have no standing in a UK court, the case was again thrown out at first hearing – something that should have been apparent to Mackie’s lawyers from the outset. But not before Behringer had been forced to hire UK lawyers, further divert its management and resources between the two claims now being heard on two continents. Recall that Behringer was much smaller than Mackie at this time.

Mackie's strategy of driving up costs eventually gained them an advantage. On my understanding of the merits of the case, Mackie should not just have failed in its claim, it should have been forced to pay compensation to Behringer for the damage it had (and, obviously still has) done to the company's reputation and business. In the real world of courts and lawyers, things are seldom so reasonably fair.

I have it on high authority from a source within Behringer that the company had to settle with Mackie because it could not afford the continuing legal and other costs to fight its case. The details of the settlement reached is, by agreement between the two companies, sealed and neither can discuss or reveal it publicly. I have no knowledge of that private settlement but it is still worth looking at what is known in the public domain.

As part of the settlement, Behringer agreed to withdraw the mixer at the heart of this dispute from the U.S. market. Mackie has made much of this in its publicity, claiming it to be a victory that supports all its claims.

The reality is very different. All of Mackie's claims of infringement or improper behaviour by Behringer concerning this mixer had been comprehensively thrown out by the U.S. courts and I can see no basis on which a court might have ordered withdrawal of the product. Mackie had also applied commercial and legal pressure to Behringer's U.S. distributor that saw Behringer lose its U.S distribution and Mackie gain another important distribution channel in its home market. In effect, it cost Behringer almost nothing to withdraw the product - apart from some loss of face which I'm sure it now bitterly regrets.

To Mackie's cost, Behringer quickly established its own U.S. distribution company ... and introduced a successor to the model of mixer that it withdrew that proved to be an even bigger seller.

Behringer has gone on to become a major manufacturer of audio products with subsidiaries and distributors across the globe. It has not - indeed cannot have - done so by copying others' designs, exploiting workers, using shoddy manufacturing techniques or poor quality components - all as alleged by Mackie at the time.

At the time it issued its court claim against Behringer, Mackie produced all its goods in the U.S. and "stood behind the flag" in much of its publicity and marketing. Much mud was publicly thrown at Behringer accusing it of using "sweat shop" labour and (effectively) producing sub-standard goods from shoddy components. These statements still resonate among consumers though none of these allegations is true, has ever or can be substantiated. Behringer products are manufactured in state-of-the-art facilities in China and undergo stringent quality testing backed by strong consumer guarantees.

Mackie has since been forced to eat its own words - moving much of its production to China where I presume the company is not using "sweat shop labor", shoddy components or "third world" manufacturing techniques but simply taking advantage of the lower production costs and higher production quality that results from modern manufacturing techniques – choosing like so many other companies (eg; Behringer) to invest in a location where costs are lower than at home.

In the case of the much earlier claim brought against Behringer, Aphex had grown its business, very successfully, by renting its Aural Exciter product to recording studios. It (and other companies who had already started to produce similar products) were again not pleased to see a low-cost competitor eating into those profits. Aphex did win damages against Behringer in a German court. Though I believe that Aphex's motives were pure at the time and it strongly believed in its case, Behringer asserted at the time (and still asserts today) that the patents upon which Aphex brought its suit were invalid. Though not quite a one-man band, the Behringer company was at that time too small to effectively defend such a complex legal action against it. However, the U.S. patent on which Aphex's claim succeeded has subsequently been successfully challenged and, were the case run again today, I find it hard to see how the same decision could be reached. Though a senior Aphex director repeated to me the claim about the label inside the chassis, this claim is denied by Behringer and no photographic, documentary or other evidence has been produced to me to support it nor even the broader claim that the construction and components were identical. No non-disclosure agreement is applied to the Aphex case.

Intellectual property law can be mind-bogglingly complex and confusing - but it all boils down to one simple principle:

If I own a piece of intellectual property - whether a copyright in a book or software, a registered design for a machine, a reproduction right to a recording or some other IP - nobody else can use or exploit that property without my permission and - should I so demand - payment of whatever value I alone determine I want to receive in return for that permission.

Simple. And all predicated on the basis that I do, in fact, own the IP in question. Of course, if it can be shown that I don't - or shouldn't - own the IP then all bets are off.

In Mackie's case, it failed to get remotely close to showing that Behringer had copied, used or misused any IP it might own. Its behaviour both before and after it issued suit must be viewed in the light of that simple fact.

In the case of Aphex, events after the event support Behringer's position at the time that Aphex (though it believed it did and that view was upheld by a court at the time) should not have been allowed exclusive use of the IP it claimed. If history is to be written here and factual accuracy is valued at all, if the Aphex case is to be mentioned, these subsequent events should also be stated with equal prominence.

In all, if any of these companies is due mass opprobrium and to be marked down for use of questionable business practices, I would say that Mackie should be cast before the mob - not Behringer. Mackie appears to have acted in such a manner to unfairly exclude from the market a competitor that was producing equivalent products to those it made and offering them at far lower prices. Such behaviour denies consumers the right to decide between competing products and maintains prices at an artificially high level.

The question remains ... what on earth is Wikipedia doing casting *ANY* of these companies to the mob? There are no facts cited to support the statements made on the Behringer page here - just recitation of Mackie's press releases that have been shown to be (using the kindest possible interpretation) factually incorrect.

Unless Wikipedia is to be used as a place for all companies to be pilloried and slandered based on hearsay and unproven claims, the section on the dispute between Mackie and Behringer should be removed - or at least rewritten to reflect the known facts - that Mackie made a claim against Behringer that was thrown out by the competent legal authorities at first hearing and that Mackie's press statements made at the time have subsequently been shown to present an inappropriate and entirely misleading view of its case.

While this whole, sorry mess might make an under-grad research study into how mass hysteria can be turned to commercial gain (and our legal system used as a commercial weapon) it's better, I think, to just delete it and let it slide into history alongside the tens of thousands of similar commercial spats that are ignored with equal vigour.

Eqdynamics (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I always find it suspicious when a new user has only edited this one article but makes strong claims against what Wikipedia should and should not contain.... 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Eqdynamics (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I acknowledge that I'm new here (though I have an Internet presence that I'd lay odds predates most people here) ... which is why I did not edit the ARTICLE but contributed what I know in this discussion. Personally, I find it more worrying that my contribution is questioned merely on the grounds that I am new to this place and even more worrying that though as a newcomer I still managed to find how to sign my post, my challenger provides no signature at all.

Surely the point here is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a place of facts - not one-sided comment and opinion. Public records - court records - show that Mackie's claims against Behringer were entirely unfounded. The only "evidence" cited by those who wish to keep these slurs here are references to Mackie's press releases that predate the court decisions - and are, in any event, entirely one-sided, coming as they do from the company that made the false claims.

Again, I'm new here but the sources described as "Perfectly good" and "okay by all measures" don't meet the standards I'm used to when issuing accusations of illegal acts (which is, after all, what is being done here).

The first citation references a Mackie SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) filing and is described as "Not an opinion piece or ungrounded accusations—this is a serious piece of business law. Reliable primary source".

The document referenced is a legal document in so far as it is a legally required document that listed companies must file with the SEC within which they must disclose to investors any information likely to affect the company's share price. The specific example cited is Mackie's "puff piece" for the benefit of the share market talking up its litigation against Behringer. It is entirely one-sided and has subsequently been shown to be factually incorrect.

Again, it predates the court decisions and was written by Mackie. Its purpose is to maintain or enhance Mackie's then share price. Contrary to the assertion by its proponent, it is an excellent example of "an opinion piece", further one that contains nothing but "ungrounded accusations" .. that were subsequently proven in court to be entirely fabricated and groundless.

The second reference links to a site soliciting money for reproducing material freely available elsewhere. Hardly my idea of a "Perfectly good secondary source". The specific article referenced contains a press release reprinted in the Music Trades magazine at the time reporting the first court decision against Mackie. Again, this provides no support for the proposition that the slur against Behringer should remain in the article - rather the opposite in my opinion.

The third reference links to the same souce as the second. This time it reproduces the press release issued by Mackie immediately before it filed its suit against Behringer - and thereby prevented Behringer from replying or stating its case in public. One sided, unfounded and subsequently proven to be untrue.

I am new here. Please tell me .. is this how Wikipedia works? Articles are edited by self-appointed "experts" who have trouble distinguishing fact from unfounded allegation and appear unable or unwilling to spend the time to understand the issues and piece together a sequence of events before issuing potantially libellous allegations?

Eqdynamics (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In between flurries of real-life work, I've been looking up interesting URLs, but it's been tough slogging. There are a ton of accusatory bulletin board posts which don't have teeth, but I keep thinking I'll run into some that can work here. One of my favorites so far has been the 1994 September interview with Aphex Systems CEO Marvin Caesar who said that Uli Behringer is a "copyist" and a "thief". That he copied the Aphex Systems Aural Exciter Type B, Type D, Type F, then copied the Aphex Systems Expander Gate 612. He also mentioned Behringer copied mfrs Bristow, Rockon, and Mackie (which we already have). http://www.261.gr/aphex%20philosophy.html

I expect I'll have more in a few days. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion and thank you eqdynamics for sharing. I don't understand Binksternet why you are not willing to understand the difference between accusation and fact. Especially that these accusations come from competitors. I would think that telling and spreading lies is unethical - at least that's what my mom told me. How difficult can it be to look at the facts? Repeating the same accusations don't make them more truthful.

Binksternet claimed: "they copied Aphex's Exciter Type D and F." Check out Aphex - they never had a Type D or F Exciter. How do you explain that?

Binksternet claimed: "they copied Bristow and Rockon". I cannot find those companies. How do you explain that? If I overlooked these companies please tell me what products and based on what protected intellectual property?

Binksternet claimed: "Behringer had court cases with BBE, Drawmer and dbx". I have checked and even asked Behringer and they said they never had any cases with them. How do you explain this? Can you provide some evidence?

I am still very confused about this behaviour (shaking his head)Hohan22 (talk) 04:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not me who claimed those things. The first two were claimed by Aphex Systems CEO Marvin Caesar. The last one was claimed by Mackie in their suit. The behavior you are witnessing is someone unearthing the hidden history of Behringer. I'm sure it is confusing. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked you three simple questions and you keep on avoiding them as you keep on avoiding all our previous comments. Why would you spread lies if the facts are obvious? I believe this is not the spirit of Wikipedia. So can you please be so kind to answer my three questions above? Thank you! Hohan22 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not asked me three simple questions. You wrote three times that I claimed things about Behringer. I did not claim anything, I stated that Aphex Systems CEO made some statements in 1994, and I listed those statements that he made. You haven't been able to find a company called Bristow because (I'm guessing) Caesar was probably referring to EQ circuitry from Robert Bristow-Johnson. Caesar's "Rockon" is probably Rocktron. If Caesar says Aphex Systems made certain models, who am I to gainsay him? He was the CEO; he should know. Regarding "BBE, Drawmer and dbx", I made no claims about them—I just repeated from the referenced magazine article that Mackie's suit mentions Behringer copying designs from those manufacturers. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bimksternet: You can spend all the time you want looking through the newsgroups. You will indeed find plenty of posts throwing mud at Behringer. You also won't have to look too hard to find out who I am, either, as I'm the man who got so fed up with the difference between what was being said about Behringer products and my own experience of them - and the very obvious pro-Mackie stance (in effect, every post slung mud then said "don't buy Behringer, buy Mackie instead") that I was motivated to see who and what was behind it all. Most of the discussion took place in a group called alt.music.4-track with some spill-over into rec.audio.pro. As here, people could hide behind anonymity - if you look, you'll see that I didn't (my real name, email address and contact details are on every post I made) - and don't need to here, either. You can see who I am at http://www.biznik.co.uk/about.htm

You have already been challenged on many of the statements you have made here and it's noticeable that, rather than answer the challenges, your only response has been to say that you'll go off to dig up more dirt. It is obvious that (a) you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to the Mackie -v- Behringer dispute and (b) you are actually making up much of the dirt you are throwing.

For the record, here are some facts in direct response to your allegations:

1. Behringer has never been sued by Drawmer, BBE, dbx etc.

2. Apart from the Aphex case, Behringer has never lost an IP infringement case. I mentioned that were the Aphex case to be run again today, Aphex would lose. Why? Because the patent on which Aphex based its case has subsequently found to be invalid. And, while holding up Aphex as a shining example of a wronged company, please take the time to look up a gentleman called Harvey Rubens - a former employee of Aphex whose design for a VCA (a circuit at the heart of analogue dynamics processors) was copied and used by Aphex. Mr Rubens sued his former employer and won. I checked yesterday and Aphex web site still claims that it and one of its founders "invented" the exciter process. While you are trawling the web, please trawl the rec.audio.pro newsgroups and the U.S. Patent Office web site to see whether this claim is true and if you still want to support this company - or whether Behringer may just have been right all along in its stance against Aphex [hint: Aphex patent was withdrawn by the U.S. Patent office as their discovery was shown to be based on prior art - it follows that Behringer did nothing wrong]

3. You are getting confused in that several of the other companies you mention (eg; BBE, dbx, Drawmer) did not litigate against Behringer - they were the subject of legal action or threats of same by Aphex. Aphex lost every time - and, as already said, in the process its patent was shown to be invalid.

4. Your reported comments by Marvin Caesar need to be read in the light of the above facts. I also find it confusing that you claim he said that Behringer "copied Mackie" in 1994 when the first ever allegation of such activity arose in 1997 - three years later. Aphex has other skeletons in its corporate cupboards that needn't be discussed here. It's clear enough to me that in this context, Aphex cannot be held up as evidence of wrong-doing by Behringer.

So, what do we actually have here?

Mackie can be seen as a company that was willing to engage in unfair business practices in an attempt to exclude a (in business terms) better competitor from its home market. You should be aware that it was Mackie that failed as a company after the court case. It narrowly avoided Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after piling up losses of $8.8 million in one year and was taken over by Sun Capital. Though I've never met or spoken with Greg Mackie, everyone I know who knows him says what a nice chap he is in person. That said, he has to take responsibility for actions of his company whle he was running it and he was duly ousted from control by Mackie's eventual new owners. The failure of the Mackie company was inevitable, given the decisions of its management. They took a King Canute approach to the adoption of low cost off-shore manufacturing by (not just Behringer) most of its major competitors and continued to build products that the market judged no better than competing products. Mackie's products were built with out of date manufacturing techniques using a high-cost workforce. Put simply, Mackie could not compete with the likes of Behringer and Samson, Peavey, Soundcraft etc., etc., etc. An individual might praise the company for trying to keep jobs at home - a businessman would see the inevitable failure as they tried to swim against the tide (as Mackie's investors did - putting your citation of the SEC filing in perspective) - and no right thinking person can excuse the way the company behaved in attempting to cause the failure of a competitor, all based on lies.

Take a look at that SEC filing again. You need to read the accounting section. At the time of the filing (1998) in the middle of the court action against Behringer, Mackie's annual turnover is stated as just $17.3 million from which it posted net profits of $1.1 million. All sounds fine - except if you look at the balance sheet where you will see that the company's net worth is just $3 million - in effect the company relied on the $44 million of investors cash to stay afloat - another way of saying that, were the company to cease operations and be wound up, the investors couldn't have their $44 million back. The company was also sitting on over $18 million of inventory - more than a year's worth at then current turnover. This was a company in severe financial straits, still pumping out product that it was unable to sell.

Anyone see what might have motivated such extraordinary behaviour by Mackie's management. Could they have been anything but desperate at this point?

Mackie, a company struggling to survive with a net worth of barely $3 million on a good day (that never came) claimed losses and damages from Behringer of ....

$329 million

That's 110 times Mackie's entire (supposed) worth, the equivalent of more than 20 years worth of turnover for the company across all its products and about 8 times its entire capital base.

Mackie's legal and PR departments ran a coordinated, guerilla campaign against Behringer. In addition to the court cases in the U.S. and the UK I already mentioned, Mackie also sued Behringer in Germany, Spain and Italy. The accusation and the claim in each case was, in effect, identical and based on the same mistruths. Anyone who understands IP law will ask why. There is no legal need to sue in so many different jurisdictions. Mackie's reason was simple - it wasn't trying to win an unwinnable case - it was trying to drive the smaller company out of business before the case got heard - and restore its balance sheet in the process.

If the point needs emphasising, at the time Mackie sued Behringer in the UK, it didn't even sell the product it based its case on anywhere within the EU. Part of the UK judgement that threw out Mackie's claim states that (apart from its failure to prove that it owned the IP it claimed it did or show any evidence of copying by Behringer) it wouldn't be entitled to any damages even if its case was well founded and eventually proven as it couldn't show that it had lost anything as a result. Let alone $329 million.

Each time the case came before a judge (U.S., UK and Germany) it was thrown out. Again, very simply, Mackie never had a case. Their claim was so preposterous that you could see it had no basis just by looking at the brochures for the two products concerned. It's also worth noting that Mackie did not - as it claimed - actually own ANY IP in the design of its microphone preamps. As the UK court documents showed, it hadn't (as it claimed) registered the design (hence the case would have been instantly dismissed by the English judge had it not already failed on the fact that Mackie owned no relevant IP in Europe - even if its claim to own it in the U.S. had been true) and, as I discovered while talking with Mackie's circuit designer, the circuit actually appeared in a free application sheet issued by one of the semiconductor manufacturers. There never was anything proprietary about it at all.

Meanwhile, Mackie's PR department may well hold the candle for running the first mass market manipulation using social media. While looking through all those newsgroup posts, start looking into some of the posters' identities. Your search will be aided by a couple of net-savvy individuals who posted their traces on the IP addresses used to make the posts. You will find several that are worryingly close to Mackie and way too many similarities in the script they trawled out time after time. As if these supposedly separate identities were just cutting and pasting. You'll find almost identical posts under different user IDs across all the audio, live and recording groups.

Turning to Aphex, if ever there were a case of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it.

Behringer never disputed the similarities between its product and that produced by Aphex (any more than other companies producing similr products did). They were NOT identical (as Marvin Casear claimed) but did use similar components and certainly the same - very, very simple - way of working. As for the case, it's actually quite hard to make a 1U 19" rack case look that much different and I truly doubt that any company would be granted design rights on the layout of a few controls across one of those boxes.

The dispute here comes down to the validity of Aphex claim to OWN the IP behind generation of harmonics in audio material. Behringer (based on legal advice it had already obtained) believed it did not. Aphex won by using its greater financial resources to persuade a court that it did. In the court's eyes, Aphex produced a valid patent (that the U.S. Patent Office later decided should never have been granted) and it was for Behringer to show that the patent was invalid - something at the time it did not have the financial resources to do.

Others did, however. The Aphex patent was eventually shown to be based on "prior art" - a nice way of saying they stole the idea from someone else. The company was also shown to have stolen ideas from its own employee. It continues to claim publicly that it invented the concept of "aural excitement". The public, legal record shows that it did not. I happen to know that Aphex knew all long that its patent was invalid. It sued Behringer with that knowledge.

So ... Behringer.

If anything on these matters is to appear in the Wikipedia article it should be this:

Behringer is the victim of having been sued by two larger companies who each used unfair means to press their claims. In both cases Behringer's stance has been shown to be correct and the company innocent of the claims and allegations brought against it.

Binkster and TheDarxide - I challenge you and anyone else here to disprove the statements I have made. Specifically, if you want to persist in editing the main article and perpetrating the smears and lies originating with Mackie and Aphex it is for you to prove they have a factual basis.

There is no factual basis - they are smears and lies.

I say again that the section in question should be dropped from the article.

Eqdynamics (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You're making incorrect assumptions about where I am looking for information and what I am finding. I have been searching through old posts on Dave Stevens's old www.roaddog.com Live Audio Board and the ProSoundWeb LAB that it evolved into: www.live-audio.com. On this bulletin board, nobody ever said "buy Mackie instead", as the membership was initially limited to working, touring audio professionals who would rather see top-of-the-line gear instead; gear that was designed and made with the most robust components. This core group of concert sound mix whizzes was soon joined by a handful of manufacturers reps who provided support and fielded questions about past and future gear. On this bulletin board, in general, both Mackie and Behringer were not held in good light, but Behringer was considerably worse off because of their race to the bottom in terms of cheap components. People said things like "if you buy Behringer, buy two so you have a backup when one fails," and they gave a poor opinion about sound quality coming from Behringer products relative to the original designs that were copied. The gist was not that Mackie was good, it was that Behringer was bad; that Behringer was not "pro" notwithstanding the three letters appended to many of their model names. Behringer gear in somebody's rack marked them as an amateur, except for a few specific pieces such as the Aphex Systems 612 copy, the earliest Behringer Composer units, the ones that were made with more expensive components than later ones.

You also assume that I'm trying to find legal cases, but I'm just trying to source the allegations that Uli Behringer habitually copies successful products made by others. This practice of copying, though perhaps legal or on the border of legal, have had an effect on the company's reputation. Before Behringer, the amount of copying that went on at the top of the pro audio food chain was minimal—it was a gentleman's game. The standard business practice of elbowing and jockeying for position was mostly limited to guys on the sales side of things. Uli Behringer opened and expanded the ugliness to the design side, and his reputation bottomed out among the working pros. These people realized that what he was doing in copying successful designs and selling units that looked like the originals was a practice that was very hard to stop due to the expense of litigation, the small size of the target market, the absence of trademarked and copyrighted designs, etc.

Take a look through the Classic LAB archives and you'll soon see the tenor of posts about Behringer. Do a search for Behringer, or for "B-word" or "B-hringer" etc, since some people so despised the company that they would not add to its searchability by typing the full name. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also been trying to find a secondary source such as a magazine article which discusses the many times that Behringer appears on band riders following the word "no," as in "no Behringer." There are a ton of primary sources, but showing examples such as this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this is not good encyclopedic work. Binksternet (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet: I can see that you have been very busy indeed trying to dig up more very old dirt to support your prejudice against Behringer. However, as it has alreday been stated (by me as well as others) that there are plenty of old newsgroup and web posts that badmouth Behringer I am left wondering what your point may be. Especially when the first of the dozen or so PDFs you now reference includes the words "No Mackie, Behringer or comparable stuff!"

Citing a thousand people who don't like Behringer is of no more use or value here than complaining that the wrong person got elected to office because thousands of others voted for someone else. Behringer each year sells thousand upon thousand of units of its products that now number some 600. That means millions of people HAVE chosen to buy and use Behringer products.

However, BOTH arguments are equally meaningless here. You have accused Behringer (man and company) of illegal activities stretching over many years. Those are very serious allegations and you have been asked to substantiate them. Trying to divert the discussion by now parroting a few people's views of the company's products is irrelevant.

You are being called upon to substantiate your allegations of theft, conspiracy and other wrongdoing.

Can you please:

1. Answer - directly - the questions already put to you and those below.

 a. You claim that Drawmer sued Behringer - provide evidence
 b. You claim dbx sued Behringer - provide evidence
 c. You claim BBE sued Behringer - provide evidence
 c. You claim that Mackie stated the above in its court application - please provide a copy of the court application
 d. You claim that a Mackie press release reproduced word for word in Music Trades is a "Perfectly good secondary source" yet claim that an article on the Dolphn Music web site NOT written by or influenced by Behringer is biased - please explain
 e. You claim that Mackie set out "allegations of historic plagiarization" against Behringer but have failed to support this statement other than by naming companies that (a) do not and to the best knowledge of many people never existed or, (b) have never accused Behringer of such actions or (as you further claim) ever taken legal action against the company - please provide your evidence for these statements
 f. On 11th October you wrote here "If you felt there was a valid arbitration case against me, you would have filed it already. You don't have a case." - please confirm this is still your belief

For the immediate, I would strongly advise you to stop making ever more outlandish allegations and claims that you fail utterly to support - eg; you have recently claimed to know the contents of Mackie's legal claim against Behringer (you don't as you claim it contains allegations that the company never made).

It's clear that, for some unknown reason, you are on a personal crusade against Uli Behringer (the man) when we are discussing an article about Behringer the company. I quote your latest post here: "... but I'm just trying to source the allegations that Uli Behringer habitually copies successful products made by others". I believe again that this is highly inappropriate behaviour that Wikipedia surely cannot tolerate.

As you are looking for dirt on Behringer, I'll give you an intro to plenty that was posted to rec.audio.pro - the newsgroup that was frequented by the great and the good of the U.S. recording industry at the time. It contains my reply to someone calling himself 'JnyVee' and you will see my reference to the very similar discussion I had had with him (if indeed he was a him or it was a genuine person and not a sock puppet) in another group.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/0a1db0440f989249?pli=1

Feel free to work your way through the Google groups archive from there to find plenty more where that came from.

In passing, I'd mention that this example supports the statement I made earlier. Very similar messages to those posted by JnyVee can be found all across the sound and recording newsgroups dated around this time (2003). You will note that all the allegations you raise were raised and answered back then.

To take just one, you accuse Behringer products of being unreliable. Please provide comparative evidence in the form of percentage units returned under warranty. My guess is that you don't have that information and you are just making or repeating wild allegations again. I do have that information and [sigh] yet again your allegations are about as wrong as wrong can be.

Your behaviour has no place in an encyclopedia that is supposed to present facts. Can you not understand that if you want to accuse someone (man or company) of illegal or improper behaviour, you MUST be able to support your allegations with FACTS.

Unless you are able to support your allegations with facts, you must be seen here as someone seeking to do harm and your comments ignored as they deserve no place in sensible discussion.

Eqdynamics (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you credit me with making allegations quite beyond the statements I've made here. You ascribe to me words that came from others, words I quoted. I have been looking to find sources for the bad taint associated with Behringer in the pro audio world and you continue to think I am making claims about who did what in which court of law. I'm not concerned with Behringer's court cases per se, it's just that the ones I know about provide some good material regarding what others think of Behringer. That's the key: I think people's opinion of Behringer is interesting and could form part of the article. I think it significant to the article that the phrase "no Behringer" appears in a host of technical riders, and I believe that the opinion of influential people in the pro audio world has a bearing on the company such that the opinion, suitably referenced, could be given voice here. I don't need to answer your straw man list of questions as my goal here does not conform to your representation of it. I want the Behringer article to be neutral, which means, in practice, that it not contain marketing puff and peacock terms and that the company's history and its place in the market is sufficiently well represented. Certainly, thousands of consumers have voted with their wallets in their approval of the company, and some of these think of Uli Behringer as a modern-day Robin Hood bringing them cheap audio gear, but the anti-Behringer backlash from the top of the pro audio market, though significant, hasn't been mentioned. Finding reliable sources about both the approval from the masses and this backlash from the top has been difficult, but I remain hopeful. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your words and behaviour can be judged for what they are - not what you now claim them to be. Behringer is not a "pro" audio supplier in the sense you are now trying to evaluate it - any more than Mackie is. The comparison you are trying to make is like asking a race driver what he thinks of your Mum's shoppping car. I see you claim to be a "pro" live sound engineer. That very narrow perspective does not qualify you to sit in judgement on a multi-national company that mostly sells consumer goods.

If you and other professional sound guys find consumer grade gear unable to stand up to the rigours of live touring etc. where, it is reasonable to ask, is the surprise in that? The race driver might as well try to win at Indy in the shopping car.

This latest attempt of yours at diversion also entirely irrelevant to the subject matter you are arguing.

If you want to include material on Behringer's "past" you have an obligation to present an objective and factually based report. That does not permit you to recite some juicy allegations that were unfair to begin with and which have been shown to be entirely groundless. Hohan22 has tried to explain the error of your approach in very simple terms - I have used a sledge hammer to tear down all your prejudces and expose your bias.

Your own words - your attempts at diversion and refusal to answer straightforward questions, all the while ignoring factual evidence presented to you is only interesting in revealing your true motives.

In reply you have only thrown up more dirt, no facts and nothing that supports the wild claims amd allegations that you (yes, YOU) have made here.

You really do have to answer the questions that others and I have put to you in this document. You have claimed insider knowledge, claimed that companies have sued Behringer and used Wikipedia's procedures to attack individuals who disagree with you and who HAVE supported their views with facts.

Until you can answer the questions put to you, your views can and must be ignored.

And, by the way, every one reading this will make their own minds up about your motives, just as they do about mine. Neither of us gets to choose what others make of us.

Eqdynamics (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eqdynamics, you continue to insist that I answer your questions point by point. I have been ignoring them because they don't apply—the questions begin as misstatements about me. Still, I will address the questions point by point:

• "a. You claim that Drawmer sued Behringer - provide evidence"

• No, I made no such claim.

• "b. You claim dbx sued Behringer - provide evidence"

• No, I made no such claim.

• "c. You claim BBE sued Behringer - provide evidence"

• No, I made no such claim.

• "c. You claim that Mackie stated the above in its court application - please provide a copy of the court application"

• I don't need to do that because a perfectly reliable secondary source has done it for me: Paul Verna writing in Billboard published July 5, 1997.

• "d. You claim that a Mackie press release reproduced word for word in Music Trades is a "Perfectly good secondary source" yet claim that an article on the Dolphn Music web site NOT written by or influenced by Behringer is biased - please explain"

• Dolphin Music is a music retailer selling Behringer gear, not a magazine. These two guides will help explain Wikipedia's position on sources: WP:SECONDARY and WP:RS. I see your inserted phrase "NOT written by or influenced by Behringer" and I do not accept that this statement made by you is true.

• "e. You claim that Mackie set out "allegations of historic plagiarization" against Behringer but have failed to support this statement other than by naming companies that (a) do not and to the best knowledge of many people never existed or, (b) have never accused Behringer of such actions or (as you further claim) ever taken legal action against the company - please provide your evidence for these statements"

• Paul Verna's Billboard article references Behringer's history of plagiarization as laid out in the Mackie suit. As far as companies that never existed, you appear to be conflating the Mackie suit with the Aphex Systems CEO interview. The companies that never existed are ones that Aphex Systems CEO Marvin Caesar mentioned, and my best guess is that one (Rockon) is Rocktron and the other (Bristow) is audio circuit engineer Robert Bristow-Johnson.

• "f. On 11th October you wrote here "If you felt there was a valid arbitration case against me, you would have filed it already. You don't have a case." - please confirm this is still your belief"

• I haven't changed my mind on this. An arbitration case against one editor isn't the solution to an article content dispute. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, you state that you don't care about facts or legal aspects. In many aspects you KNOW that the truth is different from what you cite. Your whole purpose here is to discredit a person and a company. Isn't that unethical? If you don't like Behringer products, don't buy them. If others don't like the gear or don't want them on their riders, who cares? These are opinions and meaningless as they are not part of Wikipedia. Does anyone know how we can resolve this as I am getting tired? Is anyone familiar with Arbitration or other dispute resolution tools?Hohan22 (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, Thank you for your replies to my questions. Your position seems to be that you are fully justified in your position and actions because you are merely repeating the words of others. Setting aside the fact that repeating statements known to be false is no defence in law or common justice, let's examine what you have been doing here.

You clearly have a problem distinguishing opinion from fact, claim from evidence and it's equally clear that you don't follow even your own rules. Challenged here on 8th October on your previous statements about Behringer, you replied "This article is about Behringer, the company. Discussion in this article about the company are not subject to rules which govern the biographies of living persons." Just 7 days later you crossed your self-imposed line by writing in this page "Uli Behringer opened and expanded the ugliness to the design side, and his reputation bottomed out among the working pros." That is a straightforward statement made by you containing a defamatory allegation against an individual. In the same post, you also wrote "This practice of copying, though perhaps legal or on the border of legal, have had an effect on the company's reputation." By these words .. "Uli Behringer opened and expanded the ugliness" and "This practice of copying", you clearly accuse Uli Behringer (the man) and Behringer (the company) of repeatedly copying the work of others. This, in effect, repeats the statement you made on this page on 29th September (subsequently removed as "potentially libellous" by Wikipedia) that listed a string of companies in relation to whose products you said Behringer was guilty of "theft" - again, your word, your statement and your allegation. As I (and others) have already told you, none of the companies named by you in the text that Wiki had to remove have ever made a claim of copying against Behringer.

The three companies I specifically asked you to confirm had sued Behringer are included in the list of companies from whom you said Behringer stole. Your reply was to assert "No, I made no such claim". In fact, sir, you did. And, by failing to provide evidence to support your words, you are revealed.

Unless you wish to be seen guilty of libel and defamation, you must support your allegations with facts that substantiate your claims. This is what Hohan22, I and others have been telling you. So far, however, you have failed to provide any evidence that Behringer (man or company) has perpetrated the acts of which you accuse them. Despite all the factual evidence given to you that proves the opposite you persist in parading claims made by Mackie in its disproven and discredited press statement, documents based on that press statement and mere opinion from people who happen not to like Behringer's products. You have claimed inside knowledge of the Mackie court case that, when pressed, turns out to be a reference to just another article that again parrots Mackie's original press statement - going on, you claim (the article is not on line and I do not have a copy) to assert that several companies who have, in fact never made such a claim against Behringer, have previously proven that Behringer copied their products. Again, you have been told and given evidence that these statements are untrue yet you continue to parade them as facts.

On 10th October, CGSpeaks gave you Wikipedia's definition of a fact - in reply you repeated the various claims you attribute to Mackie and stated "Nobody disputes these statements" - a claim clearly at odds with the factual evidence already provided to you. In case it's not abundantly clear, I dispute those statements as do others who have taken time and trouble to post here. Specifically, the latter two statements which were not part of Mackie's legal submissions and which you have repeatedly been told are untrue. That you reported CGSpeaks to Wikipedia as a "vandal" looks to me like an abuse of Wikipedia's procedures on your part.

None of the "evidence" you have paraded is adequate to support the allegations that you have made. Like Hohan22, I am getting tired of this. Your bias against Behringer is obvious and your determination to unfairly discredit the company plain. As you seem so keen to persist in your defamatory actions, I think it may be time to just leave you to suffer the consequences. As things stand, you cannot support with facts the section you have repeatedly inserted into the article and you have made defamatory statements on this page about an individual person and a company. By removing your words from the page, Wikipedia distances itself (quite properly) from one of your potentially libellous statements (others remain on this page) but your words are still in the public record and you should be aware that you have opened yourself to a close-up view of how the legal process works.

Your actions and writings are clearly aimed at painting Behringer as guilty of repeated IP abuse and theft. The only information you have provided to support this is based on claims by Mackie and Aphex that have been comprehensively disproven - in the public domain. Reference 34 in the article contains this paragraph:

• "Mackie's initial lawsuit, filed in June 1997, charged Behringer, Samson Technologies, ,Sam Ash Music (the parent company of Samson), and officers of Samson and Sam Ash with unfair trade practices, conspiracy, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement. The suit asked for $327 million in damages. Judges have subsequently dismissed claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and now trademark infringement. A judge also absolved Sam Ash Music of any liability. The trade dress issue is scheduled to go to trial in the fall of 1999."

I would hope that is clear enough even for you. "Judges have subsequently dismissed claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and now trademark infringement" seems pretty clear to me. A press release setting out Mackie's self-interested claims that predates a judicial ruling cannot overturn the clearly stated facts. The trade dress issue was eventually settled - not in terms favourable to Mackie as you have alleged but on "walk away" terms in which no money was paid by Behringer to Mackie.

As for Mackie's motives and behaviours in pursuing its dispute, don't take my word for them. Your Internet trawl must have discovered this page (http://www.answers.com/topic/sam-ash-music-corporation) on the history of Sam Ash Music Corporation (one of the defendants in the Mackie action as stated above). I quote from that article:

• According to the suit, when Behringer decided to enter the mixer market, it formed a "copying partnership" with Sam Ash in order to manufacture "knockoffs" of various Mackie products. In July 1998, Sam Ash and Samson Technologies returned a lawsuit to Mackie, alleging defamation by the Woodinville, Washington-based console manufacturer, alleging that Mackie "engaged in a concerted campaign to defame the reputation, business, and character" of the companies by taking "the unusual step of publishing its complaint on the Internet before trying its weak case in a court of law," stated a press release by Sam Ash. The company believed that the Mackie suit "was an unfair attempt to damage the business of Samson and Behringer and reduce competition in the industry." Samson went on to posit "that the purpose of the lawsuit [was] to obtain discovery of the trade secrets that have made Behringer products strong competition for Mackie."

A fair question to put to you might be why, if you can place so much weight behind the discredited press release initially issued by Mackie, do you not make use of this press release issued by one of the defendants - especially as it was the sole public response to Mackie's claims at the time? Of course, events also proved it to be correct in its analysis. I do understand that it contradicts your prejudices.

I say again, the section titled "Trademark claims" should be removed from the article and you, sir, need to stop your petty crusade. Eqdynamics (talk) 08:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

EQdynamics, where did you spot me claiming inside Mackie knowledge? I have none of that, and I haven't claimed anything like that. The full extent of my connection to people at Mackie is that I once saw Greg Mackie at a distance on the trade show floor of a NAMM convention. Nothing more. On the subject of questioning company connections, you said here that you have seen inside Behringer. You said that you "have no commercial interest" in Behringer, but I wonder which company allows an uninvolved outsider to see their "percentage units returned under warranty"? Which company tells an uninvolved person at a "high level" that they had to settle with Mackie because they "could not afford the continuing legal and other costs..."? You say you traveled to Behringer's Germany office during your research, but you did not say you traveled to Mackie's Washington state office. Who paid for your trip to Germany? Why didn't you fly to Washington? Your apparent energy here in this discussion shows which way you lean.

In your discussion points, you have "Wiki" acting to remove potentially libellous names of companies. What happened was that Stifle, a trusted editor and administrator, removed the names while at the same time inviting me to put them back in if I have a cite. I, too, am a trusted editor as well as a rollbacker. I'm not a Wikipedia administrator because I have not sought the position—in my opinion, being an administrator on Wikipedia takes away from the time that can be spent building articles. I just want to make it clear that we are all Wikipedia and that there is not a third party named "Wiki".

When I wrote here that "nobody disputes these statements" I meant specifically that nobody makes the argument that Mackie did not make the statements they made in their suit. I am not talking about the meat of the Mackie statements, I am talking about the fact of their existence.

Your vigor here in defense of Behringer is commendable, but you seem to be refighting the 1990s Mackie suit. You seem to think I am a Mackie promoter. I am not promoting any company. My goal in this article is to use the Aphex, Roland and Mackie suits as a springboard to a discussion of industry opinion about Behringer the company, and yes, about Behringer the man, with references. All of this very public scuffling had an effect within the pro audio industry, and if I can source it I will include it.

You say that this paragraph should be removed, and you offer a reference from Sam Ash that provides an alternate viewpoint about the trademark and trade dress conflict with Mackie. Other viewpoints from other industry entities don't indicate that the paragraph should be deleted—they in fact add weight to the argument that the trademark friction is significant. Alternate references can be brought in to the paragraph to expand its scope. I'm all for expanding the paragraph, but such significant events in the company history should not be deleted from the article. Binksternet (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the first time Binksternet I see a more moderate tone on your side, which is appreciated. You say that “we are all Wikipedia” but at the same time you’re saying that you have a higher position within Wikipedia as “rollbacker”, which shows that we are not all the same and more important that I would assume it demands you to be even more neutral and objective. I went through many of your postings you have made (and these are thousands) and the only company you have pounded with negativity is Behringer while at the same time promoting Sweetwater which is one of the few dealers that does not sell Behringer. You had initially said that you “had no interest in commenting on other competitors' sites such as Peavey’s” which is clearly not true as can be seen on Peavey’s history section. You stated yourself that “you are angry at Behringer” and that also shows your bias. You accused Behringer “of theft”, a comment which was removed by Stifle as “potentially libelous”.

Binksternet with all respect, your behavior is neither ethical, neutral or unbiased. I repeat, since if you have a higher role within Wikipedia, you must be extra-neutral in your postings, otherwise your own credibility is at risk. I agree with EqDynamics that if ever the Mackie suit should be cited as an “unfair lawsuit that was initiated by Mackie to discredit and eliminate the competitor Behringer and to achieve trade secrets. Mackie lost all lawsuits in the US, UK and Germany and all its claims where thrown out of court. Behringer's stance has been shown to be correct and the company to be innocent of the claims and allegations brought against it.” Hohan22 (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hohan22, I created the Sweetwater Sound page, just like I created the BGW Systems page, the LARES page, the Universal Audio page, the TEC Awards page, the Audio (magazine) page, the Renkus-Heinz page and the Yorkville Sound page. Some of the companies represented compete with each other. So what? None of the pages I have created show me to be biased one way or another, and taken as a whole, they show me to be fair and neutral. In creating them I was attempting to fill some of the gaps in Wikipedia. I was not trying to promote anybody. In fact, the Audio magazine is dead, and BGW Systems is moribund, so it would be hard to promote them. Most of the time when I add to an article it is information about the past, not about the present. Somebody who was trying to promote would concentrate on the present and future.

The suits against Behringer each stirred up a storm of publicity in the audio industry, making them notable in the company history. The paragraph about Behringer's trademark and trade dress conflicts will remain in place. Binksternet (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

When I wrote the Sweetwater article for Wikipedia, I included "See also" links to four of Sweetwater's toughest competitors: American Musical Supply, Guitar Center, Musician's Friend and Sam Ash. None of those four articles refers in any way to its toughest competitors... perhaps because I didn't write them. When I write an article, I try and make it neutral and informative. No promoter in his right mind would add those "See also" links. Binksternet (talk) 11:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

So Binksternet you are saying that you are the authority here that decides what remains in place and what not? Hohan22 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What he's saying is, the section is clearly and appropriately referenced, and therefore, there is no grounds for removal. Thedarxide (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet: What a facsinating reply. I show where you have made public statements that - unless you can support them with facts - have libelled Behringer (the man and the company) and, rather than provide the facts to support your statements you (a) state that you are a higher authority in this place (as if that somehow makes it OK to accuse someone of theft without proof) and (b) try to deflect attention from your actions by impugning my integrity. Some people, it seems, just don't know when it's past time to stop digging.

On 29th September 2009 on this page, you acccused Behringer of "theft" from the following list of eight companies:

1. QSC

2. Line 6

3. MXR

4. Hughes and Kettner

5. Tech 21 Sansamp

6. Denon

7. Drawmer

8. Shure

The page that shows your allegation in context is [1]

These are not words you quoted and can claim were said by someone else. You cannot hide behind reprinted press statements or magazine interviews. They are your words. The list of companies came from you. Personally, I have very great reservations concerning the willingness of any of the eight companies you specified to have their names used by you in this manner.

An accusation of theft is extremely serious. I assume that is why "Stifle" chose to delete your claim from this page. Of course, if you have proof that these 'thefts' occurred, feel free to reinstate your statement. You just added Stifle to the list of people asking you to provide just such proof - and you are still keeping us all waiting. As you made the allegation, it is for you to prove it or be seen guilty of libel and defamation. In order to support your accusation (and head off the risk of a law suit landing on your door mat), you must prove (eg; references to court cases won, statements of fact from the eight companies concerned) that each and every one of the eight companies whose names you have used has suffered copying or illegal use of IP by Behringer (man and company, remember).

You cannot substantiate your allegations as none of the companies you name has ever claimed any infringement of their IP by Behringer. Behringer has certainly never been accused of "theft" (your word) by any of these companies and - in the accepted manner of proving such an allegation - no court has ever passed judgement against Behringer.

For the simple reason that Behringer hasn't stolen anything from any of those companies.

Not only can I not see how making such a vile and untruthful statement qualifies you as any kind of higher being within Wikipedia, I can't see how you can be trusted to edit any article or how anything you say can be taken as truth.

That last sentence might be a bit harsh - were the passage I just called into question an isolated slip of the keyboard. But it's not an isolated passage and I'm not being harsh.

I have already quoted passages where you state that Behringer (man and company again) have been guilty of regular copying and illegal and improper practices. There are others littered throughout this discussion for any passing libel lawyers who care to read them. So the statement I cite above, made by you, is not a lone error. It forms part of a pattern of deliberate and untruthful malice aimed at Behringer.

You are on record as stating that you "hate Behringer". You are clearly not unbiased in this discussion and you are clearly unfit to be entrusted with editing of this article.

More than that, your opinions (for that is all they are) can be and have been shown to be less than worthless and to fall far below accepted standards of common decency, never mind objective truth.

Now, in your attempt to evade your own misdoings, you have chosen to impugn my integrity. Wrong decision. Let's take a look at just the opening paragraph of your latest response:

"EQdynamics, where did you spot me claiming inside Mackie knowledge? I have none of that, and I haven't claimed anything like that."

Yes you did claim that very thing. Right here on this page on 29th September you wrote: "Mackie printed information in their lawsuit about their interpretations of past actions taken by Behringer. The information they included is difficult to obtain elsewhere, so I am glad that their lawsuit contained it. The lawsuit conclusions did not have any bearing on or take away from the allegations of historic plagiarization that Mackie wrote into their suit". I make that three claims that you know what was in Mackie's court filings lodged against Behringer and one claim to have knowledge of the outcome that is not generally or publicly available. You go on to tie that assertion to an accusation that three specific companies - "BBE, dbx and Drawmer" had previously successfully sued Behringer on similar grounds. You have provided no proof that any of these companies has ever so much as spoken to Behringer - let alone alleged copying or taken legal action claiming any such thing. As you've been told, none of them ever have.

To fully compound your deed, you conclude the paragraph just quoted with ".. there was no court decision that undermined Mackie's recounting of Behringer company history." Yet you already knew this statement to be a lie, that none of the companies you named had ever sued or mader any claim against Behringer and that several judges had thrown out Mackie's claims in the most comprehensive fashion. You had already been told so several times by others posting in this discussion and the information is easily found on the web - I provided one reference in my previous post.

"On the subject of questioning company connections, you said here that you have seen inside Behringer."

I can confirm that, as I stated, I have on one occasion visited Behringer's sales, distribution and Research & Development facilities in Willich, Germany.

"You said that you "have no commercial interest" in Behringer"

Absolutely true. Neither I nor any business in which I am a director, partner or interested passer-by has any commercial or other vested interest in Behringer. I'll go further - amongst the tens of thousands of pounds worth of equipment that makes up my humble home studio and the live sound rig I have are about a dozen Behringer products including speakers, mic preamps, headphone amps, guitar effects and signal processors. I can confirm that I own every single item because I bought it myself through a normal retail outlet and paid for it with my own money. Does that satisfy?

.. but I wonder which company allows an uninvolved outsider to see their "percentage units returned under warranty"?"

A company with nothing to hide.

"Which company tells an uninvolved person at a "high level" that they had to settle with Mackie because they "could not afford the continuing legal and other costs..."?"

A company that answered my email asking them why it settled its dispute with Mackie when it appeared to me that Mackie was about to lose its case.

"You say you traveled to Behringer's Germany office during your research, but you did not say you traveled to Mackie's Washington state office."

Er ... that's because I have never visited Mackie's offices nor claimed that I have done so.

"Why didn't you fly to Washington?"

I assume you mean to ask why I didn't fly to Washington to visit Mackie. That's because the company did not reply to my letter asking for their side of the dispute. It certainly didn't invite me to visit - in fact, when I spoke with several of its employees it made it plain that I was "persona non grata". As regards payment, if you have followed the link to my home page and links on from there, you will see that I have been a regular visitor to the West Coast of the USA for some 30 years and that I am perfectly able to fund a side trip to Woodinville, Washington had the need arisen. There seems little point, however, when the company you want me to have visited was not prepared to even answer my correspondence.

"Your apparent energy here in this discussion shows which way you lean."

Sadly for you, my "apparent" energy fails to disclose the bias and conspiracy that you impugn. My energy shows only that I don't like people making wild and unfounded accusations about ANYONE.

It is your questions - coming on the back of the lies and unfounded allegations that you have made that show your bias, prejudice and malice in regard to Behringer.

As you have now made this issue personal, I'd just remind you and anyone else reading this that you are making your libellous accusations behind a veil of anonymity. My identity is plain for all to see at www.biznik.co.uk/about.htm

I share Hohan22's optimism that we might yet see a more moderate approach from you toward this subject. If the information concerning Mackie's claims against Behringer is presented properly - with clear and truthful statements of the outcome and alongside a fair discussion of Mackie's behaviour in instigating the dispute with Behringer and Sam Ash and the manner in which Mackie conducted itself before eventually failing as a business, I have no objection.

But, if you persist in your attempts to foist your prejudices on others and defame Behringer using untruths, disproven claims and libellous statements as you have so far, you will find me the most energetic and, given your most recent decision, where necessary personal of opponents.

As someone who has used the Internet since before it became the Internet, I can recall few occasions when good came from turning a discussion to a personal attack and I suggest that an apology from you for impugning my integrity in this matter would be a welcome way of allowing this discussion to proceed in a civil fashion.

Eqdynamics (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Eqdynamics, did Behringer pay for any of your trips to their Willich office? That question was side-stepped in your response about being considered persona non grata at Mackie.

You say I am on record saying I "hate Behringer". That is false. On the page User talk:RyanAtBehringer I wrote "I'm not a fan of Behringer in any sense, and in fact I am angry at Behringer business practices, but I am fully capable of making sure that the article represents a balanced, neutral viewpoint. I intend to continue this practice."

Regarding me having Mackie insider information: Once again, you are saying that my discussion of the Mackie suit comes from some source other than the Paul Verna article in Billboard published July 5, 1997. I haven't seen the Mackie suit and I don't need to—Verna lays it open for his readers. We seem to be repeating ourselves on this point. Let's lay it to rest.

So, Stifle takes out potentially libellous text, and you put it back in two weeks later in list format. Gee whiz, don't forget Apple Inc., which wasn't removed by Stifle! Why did you return those companies to the discussion and demand an answer? This discussion doesn't require anyone arguing it as in a legal case. If there has been significant, notable opinion about Behringer, the opinion can be mentioned here. It doesn't require court case results to have a mention in the article. I listed those companies because I had seen each one of them in opinion statements about Behringer, and I didn't protest their removal by Stifle because I was continuing to hunt for better sources than online opinion statements. I wasn't yet ready to defend the list of companies, but since you have reposted them, here is what I had which made me list them in the first place:

• Apple Inc. website copied by Behringer: http://createdigitalmusic.com/2009/09/04/behringers-latest-rip-off-job-apple-com/ by Peter Kim of Create Digital Music who writes "Behringer, already a notorious rip-off artist..."
• Line 6 copied by Behringer: further down in Peter Kim's article about Apple he mentions an unnamed Behringer product being a "blatant rip-off of the Line 6 Pod." Other blog writers and discussion boards around the internet serve to name the relevant Behringer product line as the V-Amp. [2] Furthermore, Tom Whitwell, prior to his getting a newswriter position at www.timesonline.co.uk, wrote on a widely followed blog called Music Thing where he posted an article about the copying of the Line 6 Echo Park to make the Behringer Echo Machine. http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2007/04/youd-think-theyd-change-order-of.html
• QSC copied by Behringer. Bob Lee of QSC, a man who has served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the Audio Engineering Society and is currently serving as the AES secretary, has posted comments on internet discussion boards saying that his writing of the RMX amplifier manual was copied in part with the rest subtly reworded by Behringer, and that Behringer was seen by QSC personnel to display the innards of a QSC amplifier in Frankfurt at a Musikmesse convention and claim it as one of their future product models. On the website www.tomshardware.com, a thread that appeared on rec.audio.tech was archived, one regarding Behringer's copying of QSC's RMX series amplifiers. The poster says the "controversy has been all over the SR & audio production web sites and newsgroups...," lending notability to the comparison.
• MXR Phase 90 copied to make the Behringer PH 9 Phaser: On Harmony Central, somebody named Will posted a comment about how he thought the Behringer clone sounded better than the MXR original.
• Hughes and Kettner Red Box was copied to make the Behringer GI100 Ultra G Active DI Box: So says Ron Kimball in a discussion at ProSoundWeb's LAB Lounge.
• Tech 21 copied by Behringer: On www.jsguitarforum.com, someone called TomN says the Tech 21 Trademark 30 was copied by Behringer to become the GM110. On a blog page called Overdrive Plus, "OEDDY" posted a list of Behringer copies of BOSS pedals as well as other audio effects devices from MXR, Line 6 and others. An anonymous poster added that the Tech 21 Sansamp Bass Driver was copied by Behringer to become their V-TONE BASS BDI21. Another poster calling himself "Frank Zen" wrote that Behringer's GDI21 was a copy of Tech 21's Sansamp GT2. At www.thestompbox.net, somebody named "kensmith" wrote that Behringer's BDI21 was a copy of the Tech 21 Sansamp GT2. At Harmony Central, at least two reviewers felt the need to deny that the Behringer BDI21 was a "straight copy of a Sansamp"... a response which indicates at the very least a notable rumor.
• Denon: I can't find the URL I was looking at two weeks ago which made me put Denon in the list. Here's a thread about Behringer copying DJ mixers, but instead of saying Behringer copied Denon, it says both Denon and Behringer copied Pioneer.
• Drawmer copied by Behringer: In the archives of Live Audio Board, Marty Bilecki said that he was sure the Drawmer DS 201 and DS 404 were ripped off by Behringer. At Tom's Hardware, in an archived thread from rec.audio.pro, a poster stated, regarding the Drawmer DL 441 and the Behringer MDX 4600, that it "seems like the behringer is a direct copy, probably with cheaper op-amps and the like." At www.homrecording.com, a person calling himself "Ford Van" wrote that the Drawmer DL 231 was copied by Behringer to become the MDX2100 Composer.
• Shure SM58 copied to become the Behringer XM8500: Here's one thread devoted to the topic at the Live Audio Board archives, as well as another thread. One poster, Jeff Sanders, says they "...are a good rip-off of the SM58."

One interesting opinion about Behringer copying vs. Behringer designing its own products, an opinion I see repeated here and there around the internet, was succinctly voiced on Live Audio Board by John Roberts, veteran audio circuit and product design engineer who has worked with Bozak and Peavey among others, who said "I see two distinct Behringers. The signal processor company that has been around for a few tens of years making distinctive studio boxes. Behringer the mixer company, leveraged Chinese manufacturing, other peoples designs, low prices and minimal support for a significant share of the low price market. This latter philosophy has probably influenced their current signal processor business rather than the other way around."

Most of the above links were ones that initially (two weeks ago) made me think I could find further, more reliable, sources which verify that industry leaders think Behringer is a serial copier of successful audio designs. A few come close. I'm still looking... Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet: I confess that I despair over you. You really don't seem to understand the difference between rumour and innuendo and FACT. Nor are you prepared to stand by your own words and actions, preferring to "reinterpret" or deny them. For example:

"Once again, you are saying that my discussion of the Mackie suit comes from some source other than the Paul Verna article in Billboard"

Actually I am not saying that. I quoted the words you wrote in which YOU made statements concerning Mackie's lawsuit in first person. I assume you did so in order to make yourself or your knowledge on this subject look more impressive. You failed. You look like a fool.

As for your second "reinterpretation", allow me to answer why I named the companies you alleged Behringer stole from. Your words and behaviours are directly relevant to your actions seen here to date and your fitness to have any say in an article discussing Behringer.

What is revealed - and what you are trying so, so hard to avoid - is that you lied. Pure and simple. You lied. When you named all eight of those companies and said that Behringer stole from them, you lied.

Your motivation for lying and acting as you have is unknown. You have refused to answer direct questions put to you (by others, not me) on your employment, affiliations with and interests in companies whose interests you are most certainly trying to further.

When I first pressed you to substantiate your allegations, you chose to attack me personally rather than provide any credible evidence to support your allegations of theft. Here we are several days later and all you can now provide is acres more libellous statements and unsubstantiated accusation that you claim supports or excuses you. It doesn't. You still lied. Your personal attack invited return and the more you write here on this subject, the more apprent it is that you are bereft of understanding of the subject matters in which you claim expertise.

Recitation of a thousand references to opinion pieces containing unsubstantiated allegations would not impress me or anyone else with half a view to fairness and honesty. More importantly however, it misses the point by a mile. When you accuse someone of theft, it is for YOU to provide FACTUAL evidence that supports your accusation. Other people's opinion and wild statement doesn't count. FACTS count.

Provide FACTS or accept that you were wrong to make those allegations and wrong in your attitude to this company.

Is hat clear enough for you?

No matter how many times you provide links to "Johnny said ..." articles, none of that shows any more than some people have a particular view. Please refer to the Salem witch trials - when enough people believe something to be true, common justice goes out the window. Witches can be burned - but that doesn't prove their accusers right. In more modern times, we have plenty of examples of people acting on their wrong-headed beliefs and using them to commit atrocities - the Rwanda genocides [3], conflicts in the Middle East [4], the Holocaust [5] etc., etc.

In each case, a large group of people convinced themselves of their right to perpetrate inhuman acts. History - and a rational standard of proof - has proven them wrong.

Can you see any parallels here? In what way does the standard of evidence you have provided differ from that relied upon by those old residents of Salem?

So lots of people have written nasty things about Behringer (you included, as already established). Lots of people throw out unsubstantiated and unsupportable accusations aimed at the company (again, you included). So what?

Repeating those claims and accusations does not make them real. In fact, none of us has the right to repeat them - whether morally or legally - without being able to substantiate them. As I already told you, repeating a lbel is no defence in law. For your further education, repeating an unfounded allegation, claiming it to be true, is no defence either. Though you repeatedly deny the superiority of the legal system, you are not the one who decides the fairness and reasonableness of your words and deeds. Those are matters for others - as you have repeatedly been warned, ultimately it is for the courts you deny to pass judgement. You certainly have no right to repeat disproven accusations in a place which claims to offer an authoritative view of the company at which the claims and accusations are thrown.

As for making up new ones all of your own ... well, you just beggar belief.

If your purpose in acting as you have was to examine how such claims and accusations enter the popular psyche, it would make an interesting study or article in its own right - perhaps with a footnote link in the article here. However, that is not your purpose. Your actions (by shouting down and silencing anyone who has challenged or opposed you) and your words show that your agenda is to discredit Behringer, the company and the man, by repeating and perpetrating lies and falshoods.

That is immoral and illegal. As you have repeatedly been told by several posters here. Can I try to make your misdeeds here plain?

Reporting that "Timmy said Johnnie threw the stone" may (if you did truly overhear Timmy saying those words) be a factual statement. It is, however, no PROOF that Johnnie did in fact throw the stone - or anything at all. In a court, that's known as hearsay [6] and there exist rules that, for very good reason, exclude such 'evidence' from being used to determine innocence or guilt.

A factual statement is not proof of the fact of that statement. I do so hope that sentence is not too hard for you to follow.

Look back at your "evidence". What do you see? Do you see what the rest of us see? Are there any relevant factual statements? Are there any relevant facts? Or have you just tried to bury this discussion under a pile of hearsay, opinion and innuendo. More, can you see that the argument you present is both circular and self-fuelling? An example; you used Mackie's press release to claim Behringer was guilty of copying, then used the Verna article THAT QUOTED THE SAME PRESS RELEASE (in your words, "a perfectly reliable secondary source") to support your first source. Very neat - the same discredited source used to support itself.

In your other life as a live sound engineer, I bet you're good at hanging speakers in mid air without the aid of stands, wires or any other physical means of support.

And, you very neatly ignore that all you had was unsupported allegation to begin with. Oh, and the fact that the ALLEGATIONS on which you depend had been rejected by several courts as untrue. That annoying, rational standard of proof steps up to shoot you down just as you thought you had the argument to yourself.

So ... you had Greg accusing Uli of throwing the stone ... then Paul saying he heard Greg accuse Uli of throwing the stone.

Congratulations. You'd do well in Salem ... Uli's guilt is obvious ... Let's all burn Uli is your cry. Look - he stole from all these other companies as well ... that guy over there said he heard it from another guy who said he once saw ...

While you're at it, better burn the judges and the court system. They are SO inconvenient when you are trying to make a point, aren't they! Rational process - Pah! Facts - Phooey! Who needs them?

Your repeated refusal to acknowledge that proven, factual court judgements override self-interested claims made by a desperate competitor are as shameful as they are incomprehensible. Just one example, on your use of evidence Kirk Bloodsworth would have deserved to die despite the DNA evidence that eventually proved his innocence [7].

And still you persist. You really can't stop digging the hole you've put yourself in. Let's look at your latest "evidence". I asked you to provide FACTS that supported your claim that Behringer was guilty of the multiple accusations of "theft" that you made against the company and the man. What you provide is more hearsay and innuendo. None of it is worth a bean but we'll look at the first two to show just how worthless they are.

Apple: Your reference is to a blog post by someone who presents an opinion. Not even hearsay this - just a personal opinion. Shamefully for you, the quote you took from the post is itself libellous, being entirely unsupported by fact. One libeller quoting another as support is a pretty poor show - though in essence at least consistent with your use of one discredited source to support itself. The recitation of terms and conditions in the post from the Apple and Behringer web sites only shows how little the poster understands intellectual property. Let me give you an inside view of where this argument falls down. Take a look at http://examples.qcu.be/assets/plugins/QJqDock/example/qjqdock.php where you will see a web site development applet that provides a navigation feature openly stated to be similar to that used on an Apple product. Can you explain to me how that applet exists? Can you let me know which, if any, IP it contravenes? Can you let us all know why Apple (a company notorious for its litigious nature in protecting its IP) hasn't closed down this site? Remember, opinion (eg; "it's not big enough for them to care", "they'll do it as soon as I tell them about it") doesn't count. Cogent explanation supported on a factual understanding of IP law is what's required.

I'll give you a hint: If you pursue your line of argument on this topic, you'll end up with Microsoft being the only company allowed to produce operating systems for personal computers, Daimler Benz being the only car manufacturer, Amazon being the only on-line shopping engine. [repeat examples millions of times]

It would also help greatly if you would take the time you spend looking up these useless references and casting innuendo left, right and centre and instead take the time to learn at least the basics of intellectual property - at least to understand what is and can be validly protected and what can't. You also suffer the common misunderstanding of the entire basis of IP law. It is NOT there to allow one company or individual to prevent others using its ideas. The entirety of the law is predicated on the basis of ENABLING others to use ideas in order to improve, innovate and disseminate those ideas for the wider benefit of society. That some companies choose to use IP legislation as a corporate battering ram doesn't change these basic principles.

As for factual proof that Behringer is guilty of "theft" from Apple, you fail the test. Apple has not accused Behringer of theft. Behringer has not been shown to have stolen anything from Apple. Apple has not been shown to own the things you claim it claims in its on-line Ts&Cs. You and the poster you quote completely misunderstand what it is that Apple and Behringer ARE claiming in their Ts&Cs and why Apple would have no basis for complaint about Behringer's web site.

Your original statement remains libellous. You made an untrue, unfair and malicious accusation.

So, to your second example. Another opinion piece. Here, the fantasist writing it claims that Behringer copied a Line 6 guitar pedal. It doesn't take even a close look to see how far off the mark that claim is.

• The Line 6 case is silver with a very dark green control label. The Behringer case is bright green with a black control label. You'd be hard pressed to believe you were buying a Line 6 product while looking at the Behringer.

• The poster complains that two switches are placed side-by side on both products. I just checked my box of pedals and found half a dozen with similar switch layouts. The rack of gear next to my desk contains dozens more identical layouts! Oh heck, has Line 6 patented side by side switches? Would that be possible? Sensible, even? Should I burn all my guitar panels and set fire to my equipment rack? Of course not.

• Did the poster notice that the mode switch on the two products was in very different places (telling anyone who has ever opened a modern guitar pedal that the circuit boards are very different)?

• Has Line 6 obtained copyright on the words "Mix", "Mod", "Repeat" or "Time" - or perhaps it has registered these words as trademarks? How about the phrase "Ping-pong"? "Slap"? "Sweep"? "Swell"? Surely these are all common terms in regular use in music, electronic and recording circles. I truly can't be bothered to look them all up (you do it as you seem to enjoy wasting everyone's time) but here's Wikipedia on Ping-Pong [8]. You'll find all the others easily enough.

Had you bothered to read a bit further down the page, you'd have found these two comments:

That said, I don't think there's anything illegal about naming your controls in the same manner as a competitor. After all, if there were such restrictions we'd have no conveniently labeled ADSR envelopes, no filter cutoff knobs, and a distinct lack of LFOs on most synth front panels.

1. posted by Anonymous james : 5:50 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if Roland is "OEMing"these for Beherunger. This is done ALL the time. A company makes the product and sells the naked (sans case) boards or licences another manufacturer to make and market the product. The closest (business) model would be DVD players. There are only about 3 or 4 companies that manufacture them, yet there are hundreds of brands for sale.

1. posted by Anonymous Anonymous : 6:08 PM

A couple of people who actually show some common sense.

But - let's get back to your accusation of "theft" by Behringer from Line 6.

Has Line 6 sued Behringer over this pedal (or any other product)? No it has not. Has Line 6 written anywhere to say how hurt and upset it feels about this pedal? Not to my knowledge. Has Line 6 made any public complaint about Behringer, ever? Not as far as I can see - and not as far as you can see either, or you'd have surely shown it here. The quotes above or a dozen other reasons give Line 6 no cause to accuse Behringer of theft. Just one to ponder ... the appearance of one product for retail sale before another does not prove that product was designed earlier. The Line 6 company hasn't done it so what makes you so special and gives you the right to allege "theft" when the company on whose behalf you make the claim doesn't do so? [please answer this question for all eight companies you allege Behringer stole from]

Again, spend less time trying to dig up dirt and go off and educate yourself on the ways of the modern businesss world. Look up the term "OEM" and see how it applies. Look up "industrial design right" and see how it applies. Look up "passing off" and see how it applies. Hell - go back to the RAP and AM4T archives I pointed you at weeks ago and see how far someone like you got when making a similar complaint that Behringer was then supposedly ripping off Samson ... both companies were actually selling a set of identical products that came out of the same factories but badged in their individual colour schemes. They weren't "ripping each other off" - they were COOPERATING in order to reduce costs and deliver products more competitively.

For now, can you please stop acting in such a childish manner toward the adult world of commerce.

So, yet again, you accuse Behringer of a specific "theft" but fail to provide any factual proof to support your accusation. That would be another libellous statement from you then. Another unfounded accusation.

I'm not going to waste more of my time going through the 6 other examples you give. They are - one and all - equally worthless in supporting your libellous accusations against Behringer of repeated "theft".

I accused you of making libellous statements then invited you and told you how to defend yourself from my accusation. You stand having failed in your defence and I doubt I'm alone in saying and believing that you should not be editing an article on Behringer - a company and the man behind it that you have been shown to have libelled repeatedly. You (yes, you again - not someone you quoted) named EIGHT companies you alleged had suffered "theft" by Behringer. Eight times you have failed to provide any proof or evidence to substantiate your allegations. That's eight untrue accusations. These are in addition to the other libellous statements you have made in this place concerning company and man and which, when asked, you have failed to substantiate.

Pretty damning support for my accusation against you that you are biased, prejudiced and motivated by malice toward the Behringer company and Uli Behringer as an individual.

Let's now turn to the way that you abuse Wikipedia's procedures.

I and, I suspect, your other challengers here aren't editing this article because you have obtained higher privileges in Wikipedia and both you and Thedardxide have "rolled back" edits previously made by people who tried to present a more balanced view of this subject. I and others have offered you compromises that present a better balanced and FACTUALLY BASED view of the events you say you want included. You have rejected those compromises and insist on digging around for more innuendo and unsupported hearsay or, even more unworthy, opinion pieces that feed your fantasy about Behringer and which you persist in presenting in a completely one-sided manner.

You are on record here yesterday saying "The paragraph about Behringer's trademark and trade dress conflicts will remain in place." That's pretty clear. A statement of an absolute. You deny discussion, obstruct change, you don't want balance and you have no respect for truth. Your view is what counts in your eyes and, having obtained for yourself this 'god-like' power at Wikipedia you use it to push your false view of events. As has already been seen, if anyone does have the temerity to edit or remove your words you arrange for your words to be restored and further abuse Wikipedia procedures to accuse the contributor of vandalism or sock-puppetry.

Again, you are not fit to edit this article.

Oh - let's not forget your other attempt at diversion. Thank you for noticing that I'm not answering your question about who paid for my visit to Willich. It's such an excellent example of how you refuse to answer a simple question with a rational response. You'd rather use innuendo to attack the integrity of your challenger than answer a plainly put question.

It's obvious that you are conducting a witch-hunt here - against Behringer and against anyone prepared to challenge you. Your question on travel costs (as were all the others that you asked and to which I gave full answers) were clearly designed to deflect from your actions and motives while being ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to the matter under discussion.

Pathetic, truly pathetic.

I declared my background in this issue when I entered this discussion and I have disclosed my identity - something you are not prepared to do. Look as long and hard as you like for evidence that I owe Behringer so much as a favour and you will fail. Look back through the archives and you'll find plenty of others who tried to undermine my integrity and reputation - and failed. I have no reason to support Behringer, company or man. I am NOT supporting Behringer as you obviously think. I am supporting truth and decency - concepts you don't seem to understand.

My profession is designing software. I and my companies develop original ideas. We own IP - copyrights, trade marks etc. and my livelihood depends on proper, legal operation of those rights. If Uli Behringer were shown to have actually stolen someone else's IP I would be the last person to stand in his or his company's defence.

The fact is, however, despite all the claims, accusations, innuendo and lies thrown at the man and his company one simple basic fact remains. No theft of IP or other wrong-doing has ever been shown to have taken place.

You are entitle to (as you say) dislike Uli Behringer, his company and the products it makes. You are entitled to decide not to buy them. Where you have factual experience (eg; a product hasn't worked well in a given use) you are free to report your experiences and advise others who may have similar needs.

You are not entitled to cast out unfounded accusations that you cannot support. You are not entitled to fabricate lies about the man, his company or its products.

You are part of a mob-culture conducting a witch-hunt that has no place in a civilised society. Shame on you sir for your words and actions.

As for Behringer, let me speak as I find. Had the company wanted to curry favour with me, it could so easily have tried when I visited its premises in Willich. It's common in the commercial world to give visitors "corporate gifts" as a memento of the visit. Behringer gave me ... not even a company mouse mat. That's nothing, so as to satisfy your paranoia om this issue. I had to request the company's latest brochures before leaving. What they did give me was a friendly greeting, great courtesy, free and open access to all areas of the buildings (even, after signing a non-disclosure agreement, their R&D department and sight of plans and products then yet to be marketed), the ability to stop and ask questions of any employee I chose and free access to company records. I have enough experience to recognise when a company is trying to hide things from me and equally recognise when a company acts because it actually has nothing to hide. I spoke with and questioned dozens of Behringer employers, picking some of them entirely at random, and it is beyond belief that they all lied to me.

I have to confess I was given tea and sandwiches while on Behringer's premises - though in my defense I did pay for my evening meal and bottle of wine before flying back home. In all, including travel, the visit took two very full days of my time and if you knew my day rate you would realise just how pathetically childish your insinuation that Behringer's invitation bought favour truly is.

I have never met Uli Behringer in person - though I'd be more than happy to share a beer or a meal with him if the occasion arose. Uli Behringer was not in Willich at the time of my visit - he was in the company's Singapore office (if my memory serves me well) and the company very kindly set up an ISDN video call so that I could speak with him and ask several very direct questions very directly. I assume the company recorded the video call (as is common in the corporate world).

To save you the time and pathetic embarrassment of further innuendo, there was no favour asked and no favour given at any time then or since. I am not someone to whom manufacturers "give" or "donate" items for "testing". I am someone who speaks as he finds and pays out of his own pocket for the goods and services he owns and uses.

And, for the record, had Mackie been half as approachable as Behringer, I would have paid my own travel and other expenses to visit them to hear and see their company, products and operations - probably driving up from California after one of my regular visits to the Monterey car fest and probably driving a Maserati for good measure. Further, for the record, I was contacted by Marvin Caesar of Aphex who presented his views on Behringer to me in similar vein to the article you cited. In return, I presented to Mr Caesar the facts I had learned and have stated here concerning Aphex, its claim against Behringer, its treatment of Harvey Rubens and questioned the morality of its actions over the years. I stand by what I have written here.

On what I've seen and experienced here so far, if this is the way Wikipedia is allowed to work, then Wikipedia is discredited. The time is long overdue for someone at Wikipedia to remove all the libellous and false statements made about Behringer during this discussion, AND remove your "higher being" rights (as you have patently abused them) so that a sane and civil discussion can proceed toward a fair and unbiased presentation of Behringer as a company, with contributors able to make additions or corrections without fear of being trampled upon.

Eqdynamics (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The personal attacks need to stop. You are welcome to comment on specific article issues, but the tit-for-tat arguing is not productive, and I certainly do not approve of your comment that I have "rolled back" other editors comments. Thedarxide (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Locations

I've added some info about various Behringer offices. Citations forthcoming.RyanAtBehringer (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Guitarman987 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Culture

Hey folks, I added a 3-part "Corporate Culture" section akin to what I've found on some pages for other companies. I'm working on a citation for our "Seven Behringer Values" and am hoping to have that up by next week. As always, feedback welcome and encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanAtBehringer (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I added some more detail from the citation (8) but it got removed which I don't understand. I believe it is useful and unbiased information with full citation. Can you please comment. Thanks "The new manufacturing hub comprises of a series of buildings in a campus-like setting. Each building has a distinct function, including factories for electronics, wood, speaker assembly, digital pianos and electric guitars, warehouses, logistical operations, receiving areas for suppliers, as well as R&D and administrative offices. Extensive infrastructure such as different canteens, several dormitories, a library, recreation facilities and on-site medical assistance complement the 2 million square feet compound." (Guitarman987 (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarman987 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dolphinmusic.com is not a reliable source. The facts given were largely promotional fluff, statements of the obvious akin to "the sky is blue". In a manufacturing complex of that size, of course there will be buildings devoted to logistics, R&D, administration, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Wiki so sorry for my questions. Why is Dolphinmusic not a reliable source? Who decides what source is reliable? Based on my 12 years of China manufacturing experience, I find the content intersting as it is surely not standard. The high level of integration plus the facilities for employees such as libraries and hospital are clearly not standard. I find the content indeed interesting including the 2 million square feet an important number. Thanks Guitarman987 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Gibson and Peavey and find lots of marketing language whereas Behringer is quite neutral. Both companies only have citations from their own website. Again I like to understand who decides what source is reliable and what content is interesting for the community. Thanks Guitarman987 (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The dolphinmusic.com is not a reliable source because they are a retailer who stands to benefit from good Behringer press, not an online magazine with a (hopefully) neutral point of view. Read WP:RS for more information about reliable sources. Who decides what text stays and what goes? The editors who are involved here, by consensus. There is no formal connection between this article and the ones about Gibson and Peavey. If you want to go over to those articles and help them be more neutral, feel free. I don't want to; I just want to make sure the Behringer article stays neutral and doesn't get too promotional. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found a good source called "entrepreneur" and added material strictly from citations even trying to leave the sentences unaltered. I apologize for the multiple references as I still need to learn how to combine them. I would appreciate if someone could tell me where I can find the paragraph on Wiki about this topic. So I hope that my contributions this time are accepted by the community as I have done this to the best of my knowledge. I am amazed how much has been contributed to Wiki by people like Binksternet and I might start indeed to work on other sites. Thanks Guitarman987 (talk) 06:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:REFNAME for information about how to make one reference work for multiple sentences that need to be cited. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet and very much appreciated. Can I ask you how many years you have been contributing here? It almost looks like you do this fulltime;-)Guitarman987 (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Two years, two months. :)

Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for you for spending so much time here. I guess you don't need much sleep:-)Guitarman987 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ernst & Young

This sentence has been used in the article:

"2008, Uli Behringer was one of the finalists in “Entrepreneur of the Year” by Ernst & Young of Germany."

It is anchored by this reference which lists a total of 60 such finalists: http://www.ey.com/global/Content.nsf/Germany_EoY/Sieger_und_Finalisten_-_Die_Finalisten

I think this mention is worthless, as there are so many finalists that it waters down the strength. The sentence is puffery and should not be included. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Binkesternet I have a different view. The "Entrepreneur of the Year" award is indeed a very reputable accolade. Allow me a personal remark. I am new here and just got familiarized with Wiki so I don't have your experience. I have been reading the comments and the history section here and it is pretty obvious to me that you don't like the Company, remove anything positive and emphasize on the negative part. Frankly I don't believe it is in the spirit of Wiki to rage a personal vendetta. I also see that you contribute a lot to Wiki which is fantastic so hopefully you take my comment in a positive way:-) CheersHohan22 (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of talking about me, talk about the issue at hand, about why you think the Ernst & Young bit deserves a mention. I have explained why I don't think it is good (the cite's strength is watered down because Behringer is only one of 60 finalists noted), now you must explain why you think it is worth keeping. Binksternet (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it is an official/reputable award and properly cited.Hohan22 (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove it. It's about the man, not the company, and as an aside I agree with the point that 1 out of 60 isn't terribly notable. Thedarxide (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised as I thought this is about consent. I respectfully disagree to remove it.Hohan22 (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that the Ernst & Young bit is well cited. The question we are discussing is about the value of the sentence here in this article... Would you include student attendance awards for Uli Behringer if they were well cited? Probably not! The Ernst & Young mention is stronger than attendance awards but weak in comparison to winning a professional award. If I were Uli Behringer's best friend I would say take it down because it looks bad. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you are obviously not his best friend, couldn't you be more happy if it looks bad??? Seriously I am not sure what an 'Entrepreneur of the Year" finalist award has to do with a student attendance award. If you were fair you would either cite that he was one of 60 finalists among 1000 contestants (whatever the number is) or you would drop the number 60. I can't believe we are even discussing this issue here. Let's give the man some credit - he built a USD 200 million enterprise in 20 years and gives 3500 people work. I wish I had achieved that:-)Hohan22 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he was one of 60 is factual and puts the accolade, such as it is, in context. As I have said, I don't believe it has any merit in the article at all - it is not about him. There is no requirement to "give him credit". WP requirements are that the article is NPOV, and attempts to puff the article with misleading facts are going to be frowned upon by established editors Thedarxide (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thedarxide I would probably agree if it was General Motors etc. as there is no Mr. General Motors, but Uli Behringer is the Company Behringer and the Company Behringer is Uli Behringer. Look, the whole article is basically about him. I do not see anything misleading about the undisputed fact that he was awarded for building his Company aside from 59 other people who also got awarded. Sorry for being a pain here but can we agree to disagree or am I getting shot by a firing squad now?:-)Hohan22 (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The achievements by Uli Behringer do not need the Ernst & Young sentence—they stand on their own merit. His life's work is bigger than being one of 60 finalists in the German office of Ernst & Young. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Patents

Hey all, I've added a list of Behringer's US patents, I followed the formatting I found here: Emile_Berliner but replaced dates applied for/ issued with inventor credit. I find a "Citation template" for handling patent citations, but I'm not sure if there's a listing standard.

As per the norm, feedback is welcome/appreciated. Looks like you all have been busy around here, Thanks for contributing!RyanAtBehringer (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole section is unnecessary. If Behringer were particularly known for an invention, they might be of value, but otherwise, there is nothing notable here Thedarxide (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

CoolAudio Acquisition

Hi there, I have found an interesting article which I have posted. I hope I have done everything right here - if not please let me know so I can fix it. Thanks guysGuitarman987 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Addressing my Missing Citations

Hello everyone, I know I've got some "Citation needed" tags that need to be addressed. I'm spending Friday at my local library digging through the periodical searches and should have all this stuff addressed by Tuesday, thanks for letting it slide for a bit. RyanAtBehringer (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Striking "Trademark Disputes"

Hello again - taking a closer look at this section, we find that both of the sources mentioning accusations of trademark dispute come straight from competitors who stand to benefit from tarnishing Behringer. I feel this source is far from neutral. The citation for Mackie's case links to a Mackie press release (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1997_June_18/ai_19518852/) - To me, this accusation is merely an opinion as the allegations weren't proven in court. Meanwhile, the other citation (http://sec.edgar-online.com/loud-technologies-inc/10-q-quarterly-report/1998/05/14/Section1.aspx) only shows that accusations were filed, but not that they were proven to be true. Removing this section on the grounds that allegations don't count as facts. Reactions? RyanAtBehringer (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is also affected by trying to remove anything negative. You need to remember that your editing, as your predecessors, may constitute a conflict of interest. Thedarxide (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Found an interesting Wiki policy about biographies and living persons. This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Hohan22 (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Behringer, the company. Discussion in this article about the company are not subject to rules which govern the biographies of living persons.

The sources you complain about are easily replaced by better ones. The trademark dispute was widely reported. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the sources supplied:

• http://sec.edgar-online.com/loud-technologies-inc/10-q-quarterly-report/1998/05/14/Section8.aspx which is a filing by Mackie with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Not an opinion piece or ungrounded accusations—this is a serious piece of business law. Reliable primary source.
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5264/is_199902/ai_n20420920/ is an archive of the Music Trades article of February 1999. Perfectly good secondary source.
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1997_June_18/ai_19518852/ is an archive of a Business Wire article of June 18, 1997. Perfectly good secondary source.

These sources are okay by all measures. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<==Adding another source: Billboard magazine from 1997. This excellent secondary source tells the reader what was in the Mackie suit. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, I am confused. If someone accuses me of lets say eating little children, files a frivolous lawsuit and makes it public, how would that complaint or the magazine that picks it up be a credible source unless I have been proven guilty and there are clear court documents that prove it? Mackie and Behringer are strong competitors and nothing has proven Behringer of any wrongdoing. On the contrary, Behringer won all court cases so why is it fair to repeat the baseless accusations here? Wouldn’t it be rather correct to claim that Mackie did wrong of falsely accusing Behringer? Everything you cite here comes ultimately from the same source which is Mackie’s complaint that has been proven wrong. Would you be OK if someone files a lawsuit against you, accuses you of all kinds of bad stuff just to tarnish you and then posts it everywhere? Hmm, (shaking head) something tells me that this can’t be right.Hohan22 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackie printed information in their lawsuit about their interpretations of past actions taken by Behringer. The information they included is difficult to obtain elsewhere, so I am glad that their lawsuit contained it. The lawsuit conclusions did not have any bearing on or take away from the allegations of historic plagiarization that Mackie wrote into their suit... there was no court decision that undermined Mackie's recounting of Behringer company history. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of a fact is "a piece of information about which there is no dispute." Therefore, by definition, statements in a legal complaint cannot be facts, because they are disputed one-sided. Complaints contain false statements, frequently inflammatory allegations or simply opinions. Consequently, under Wikipedia's own policies, only court orders or decisions qualify as facts. When you have those, please cite them. Until then we need to revert back to stifle's version.CGspeaks (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CGSpeaks, I have issued you a vandal warning for taking away referenced content. You appear to be a single-purpose account formed for the purpose of article reversion. The facts that are in the article are not in doubt, and are not in serious dispute. What's in the article is worded very specifically:

• Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement...
• Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.
• The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which...
• The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.

Nobody disputes these statements. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet you violate Wiki's policies on multiple accounts: - By definition a competitor's legal complaint is not a reliable source. Please read Wiki's policy that only court orders or decisions qualify as facts. You yourself have removed several previous comments and claimed that they are not credible. See history. - You state "that you are angry at Behringer and dislike their business practices". You negatively edit Behringer's site but favorably edit its competitors’ sites or dealers that do not carry Behringer products such as Sweetwater Music. This violates Wiki's neutrality policy. See archive - Your have made "potentially libelous" comments about Behringer which have been marked and removed by Stifle. See archive. This all raises a question mark on your integrity and motives as your actions are no different from your accusations against Behringer. I hope you are not working for a Behringer competitor. I suggest that we report this case to the Wikipedia arbitration board for clarification. Until we have a clear decision I will remove your comments and go back to the original version.Hohan22 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My source was not the primary source of the Mackie legal document; my source was the ideal secondary source of the magazine article which was describing the Mackie legal document. Perfectly verifiable and quite suitably reliable.

My integrity remains clear—I'm here to make sure the Behringer article doesn't get too far into rah-rah territory, a puff piece praising everything the company does. More than that, I want the article to be accurate. The company has a history marked with legal conflict, and ignoring the conflict is not accurate. If you felt there was a valid arbitration case against me, you would have filed it already. You don't have a case. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to ignore my other comments about your motives and actions as you have previously made inaccurate and potentially libelous statements which were removed by Wiki. You have also not answered my question if you work for or with a Behringer competitor as you are clearly biased which you confirm yourself ("I am angry at Behringer")? You also claimed earlier that you have no interest in editing Peavey, but when I looked into Peavey's history section, I found your name and comments. This obviously raises questions. I am not familiar yet with Wiki's arbitration process but if you are, I would appreciate if you start the process. I am all for accurate information and when you look at the FCC case, no one will dispute that Behringer failed to meet its obligation, got fined and corrected its mistake. This case is properly documented and supported by official court rulings. The Mackie case is different. The ruling was clearly in favor of Behringer and the company seems to have won against Mackie who had seem to have had no ground for its lawsuit. Now show us the court rulings for drawmer, bbe, etc. and cite those properly so we are all in agreement. I think you agree that we need to be neutral, reasonable and fair.Hohan22 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already stated my suspicions about the behaviour of recent contributors, and I will request an admin perform a sock puppet test if necessary. I *am* a non-interested third party, I have no commercial relationship with any audio company, and I am in complete support of Binksternet's editing. You don't seem to understand that leaving potentially negative information in the article *is* neutral. Thedarxide (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hohan22, I didn't answer your comments about my motives because the accusations are groundless. I am an independent audio engineer by trade, and I am not married to any one manufacturer. In fact, I have hosted public shootouts between various pieces of gear belonging to various manufacturers, and most of the manufacturers sent me free samples, after which I reported both the bad and the good traits observed. I am not swayed by manufacturers. I am swayed by performance. Binksternet (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Contributors

It's not assuming good faith, but I am always suspicious when new users sign up and only edit a single article that is currently under-going contensious editing. Thedarxide (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)