£25,000 Audiophile Pre-Amp repair video by Mend It Mark

[BrianHG]

@3:55,  Can someone please explain to me why everyone misunderstands what a patent is.
No, if the circuit design was patented, just showing a copy of said patented schematic cannot get you in trouble or get a website or video taken down for illustrating said patent's documentation.

Having a patent means your invention's design and schematic is available to the public for review and anyone can share said patented documents.  Otherwise, Google Patent's who has copied the US PTO database would be illegal and the US PTO (other countries included) would not have their patents available for search and review to the public.

The only thing having a patent gives you the right to sue someone for monetary damage if they produced a copy of your patented invention where they made a profit from said sales, or they prevented you from selling your invention.  It must be proven in court that said monetary damages have taken place before you can claim damages from the infringing party for a calculated amount of funds.  You may also send a cease and desist notice.

A little less known, is you are manufacturing your own patented gizmo, you must place a copy of your patent number somewhere on your device, otherwise, you may loose your protection rights to that device.  This is why almost all patented devices or even patented software have all their patented numbers written down easily accessible by the end user.

[EEVblog]

@3:55,  Can someone please explain to me why everyone misunderstands what a patent is.
No, if the circuit design was patented, just showing a copy of said patented schematic cannot get you in trouble or get a website or video taken down for illustrating said patent's documentation.

It's worse. You can't patent a schematic. try it and watch the patent attoney laugh in your face.
You can patent how part of a circuit works, but not the actual schematic in how it's drawn. And certainly not the entire product schematic.
The exact schematic is what copyright is for.
So if say Apple produced and internal schematic and someone photocopied that and shared it, that would be copyright infringement.
But if you reverse engineer and redraw the schematic, that is not copyright infringemnet. Very clear case law here.

[magic]

Hello,

This is Tom Evans here. Please delete this thread immediately

A little less known, is you are manufacturing your own patented gizmo, you must place a copy of your patent number somewhere on your device, otherwise, you may loose your protection rights to that device.  This is why almost all patented devices or even patented software have all their patented numbers written down easily accessible by the end user.

Is it really the case? I mean, Microsoft patented some parts of FAT32 filesystem. Where can everyone see the notification about it?

[coppice]

A little less known, is you are manufacturing your own patented gizmo, you must place a copy of your patent number somewhere on your device, otherwise, you may loose your protection rights to that device.  This is why almost all patented devices or even patented software have all their patented numbers written down easily accessible by the end user.

That used to be the case, and older products often had a long list of patent numbers on them, typically moulded into a plastic part so they wouldn't easily wear off. However, I think this requirement was dropped some years ago, at least in most countries. You certainly don't see those patent number lists like you used to.

[timeandfrequency]

To summarize  (updated on 20241216)

Mend It Mark  [first video]
The £25,000 Pre Amp that went Wrong Tom Evans Mastergroove SR mkIII
[URL placeholder, video was taken down due to 'copyright' claim]

Mend It Mark  [second video]
The £25,000 Pre-Amp Repair and the Copyright Strike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=yPIrCaeVtvI   (edit URL to remove space characters)

Article from Hackaday Author : Maya Posch

Louis Rossmann
Tom Evans audio proves that their $30,000 audio preamp is garbage by filing a bogus copyright claim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=gJYIhLQJtTs   (edit URL to remove space characters)
https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/tom-evans-audio-proves-that-their-30,000:1

Louis Rossmann
Tom Evans Audio doubles down on a bad decision
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=qYpPNCzQCVQ   (edit URL to remove space characters)
https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/tom-evans-audio-doubles-down-on-a-bad:3

Louis Rossmann (added on 20241216)
Mastergroove repair by Mend it Mark & an honest message to Tom Evans audio  (upload of Mark's first video + 5 min 20 sec foreword from Louis)  (39 k views)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=6hVe_spuJQI   (edit URL to remove space characters)
https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a/mastergroove-repair-by-mend-it-mark-an:1

Many other YT channels uploaded Mark's first video (mainly low res)

- On Odysee (7 k views) Account name : 'Anonyme'
https://odysee.com/The-%C2%A325,000-Pre-Amp-that-went-Wrong---Tom-Evans-Mastergroove-SR-mkIII

- NickT6630  (41 k views) [20241215 : 61 k views !] [20241216 : 78 k views !]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=uJ35ufUh2Tw   (edit URL to remove space characters)

- 'Brettbob Brettbob'
- '84johnhead'
- 'M0UAW'  (20241216 : 5.7 k views)
- 'GTI1dasOriginal'
- 'Trevor's Bench'  (6,8 k views) [20241216 : 10 k views]
- 'matt moran' (Update 20241215 : video has been removed from this channel)
- 'Stephen McGregor'
- 'Mr.HatnBootz'
- 'MVVblogTV'
- 'Norbert2'   (3 incomplete uploads)
- 'Mateusz Petryszyn'
- 'Twobob Club'  (13 k views) [20241216 : 16 k views]
- 'David McGinn'
- 'Marten Electric'
- 'Turntable Guy'
[hint : to locate Mark's first video on the channels above, use the YT search feature on the channel page and type 'Mend It Mark' or 'Tom Evans']


Other stuff about the same topic

- 'Martin Piper' reaction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=vFcHGAs2QLQ   (edit URL to remove space characters)

- Funny rant from 'Audio Masterclass'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=93QlQN_1yUA   (edit URL to remove space characters)

- New video from 'Audio Masterclass'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=XWIdMjG-TCU   (edit URL to remove space characters)

- Scott's (Defpom's Electronics Repair) reaction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?  v=15AiQv-EiGM   (edit URL to remove space characters)


Date format used in this post is YYYYMMDD  (ISO 8601)

*** Post history  ***
Update #1 : typo
Update #2 : added the 'Twobob Club' channel
Update #3 (20241215) : added the 'David McGinn' and 'Marten Electric' channels, added a hint how to find the video, typo in Odysee URL, added Odysee URL for Louis videos, added some view counts, new video from 'Audio Masterclass'
Update #4 (20241216) : added 'Turntable Guy' and 'Louis Rossmann' channels, added video from Defpom, updated some view counts

[DenCraw]

... and the schematics?.

              .... just kidding

[BrianHG]

Hello,

This is Tom Evans here. Please delete this thread immediately

A little less known, is you are manufacturing your own patented gizmo, you must place a copy of your patent number somewhere on your device, otherwise, you may loose your protection rights to that device.  This is why almost all patented devices or even patented software have all their patented numbers written down easily accessible by the end user.

Is it really the case? I mean, Microsoft patented some parts of FAT32 filesystem. Where can everyone see the notification about it?

Note that for software, the patents only need to be listed somewhere inside some document connected with the software.  Example, on Altera's Quartus, on the about page, they have a mass of patents which are listed.

Also note that if you do not intend to protect your patent, or make the patented tech available for public use, or the patent has expired, its obvious that you may not bother listing the patent number anymore.

The last time I was told to add a patent number on a device was in the mid-late 90s.  As of today, I do not know if the rule has changed, but I do know if you intend to protect your patent rights, you still need to offer a means of giving those seeking if your technology is patented with your patent number.  IE: you cannot hide that your tech is patented as a surprise gotcha for your competitors.

[rsjsouza]

Just a lighthearted comment about this whole situation on another audio-oriented channel.

[BrianHG]

@3:55,  Can someone please explain to me why everyone misunderstands what a patent is.
No, if the circuit design was patented, just showing a copy of said patented schematic cannot get you in trouble or get a website or video taken down for illustrating said patent's documentation.

It's worse. You can't patent a schematic. try it and watch the patent attoney laugh in your face.

Actually, technically, you can patent a schematic, however, it is a fruitless endeavor.
All a competitor needs to do is alter, add or remove a single resistor or capacitor value and they are no longer infringing on your patented schematic.

So, you need to patent the end concept and function of you design so that no one may create a similar functional device.

[BrianHG]

Louis missed the buck on this one.  Others have already uploaded copies of the video and have yet to be taken down.  As stated in his second video on the subject, he is doing other things in the mean time before uploading this video to his channel next week, a week before X-mas.  The instant retaliatory hit will now be gone and nothing will be seen or happen until after new years at this point which may be so long in time, even the pre-amp manufacturer may have given up on copyright striking at this point.

[coppice]

Actually, technically, you can patent a schematic, however, it is a fruitless endeavor.

You can't actually patent a schematic. You can use a schematic in a patent, and then describe the bit that makes it novel. Its that definition of the novelty which is the actual patented thing. Copied exactly as in the schematic, or executed in another way deemed to be applying the same technique, gets you in trouble. Copying the rest of the schematic doesn't. The schematic is just supporting material.

[Xena E]

So this is still a hot topic?

The complaint was copyright infringement.

To copyright a schematic, (at least in the UK, which is applicable here), you must publish that schematic in the public domain, and clearly mark each diagram as being subject to copyright.

Now that doesn’t protect the device from being cloned by others, it just gives you sole rights to that exact piece of literature, diagram, or artwork.

Now as Tom Evans Audio has never it seems publicly published a service manual for the Mastergroove pre-amp, not even as a for sale document, the secrecy no doubt to cover up the fact that there was nothing unique or patentable about the design in the first place.

That document could then reasonably be argued to be the copyright of the Mend it Mark YouTube channel as the first published schematic of the design: as such I'd personally make those reverse engineered drawings available online, and claim copyright for myself, if it were me, just to flip the bird at Tom Evans

It seems copyright of electronic schematics doesn't impress anyone, except the spineless mutts in charge of youtube.

I will make a prediction that Tom Evans Audio won't be suing anyone, for anything. No legal entity would risk their reputation on trying to pursue this in a court of law, unless Tom Evans Audio has enough dough to finance a nuisance law suit which if their annual returns are anything to go by, they haven't.

X

[coppice]

To copyright a schematic, (at least in the UK, which is applicable here), you must publish that schematic in the public domain, and clearly mark each diagram as being subject to copyright.

Even that is legally very weak. There is a reason they passed special copyright legislation for chip masks, and introduced the "M" symbol you see on chips. People found the existing copyright laws didn't actually protect what is essentially a schematic drawn on silicon. The laws that specifically protect a mask set don't give any additional protection to any other form of schematic.

[Xena E]

To copyright a schematic, (at least in the UK, which is applicable here), you must publish that schematic in the public domain, and clearly mark each diagram as being subject to copyright.

Even that is legally very weak. There is a reason they passed special copyright legislation for chip masks, and introduced the "M" symbol you see on chips. People found the existing copyright laws didn't actually protect what is essentially a schematic drawn on silicon. The laws that specifically protect a mask set don't give any additional protection to any other form of schematic.

Yes.

The copyright laws are archaic, they were only really intended to protect authors of written works from plagiarism in the first instance.

Basically you have to copy the content verbatim to be in any real danger of litigation.

X

[coppice]

To copyright a schematic, (at least in the UK, which is applicable here), you must publish that schematic in the public domain, and clearly mark each diagram as being subject to copyright.

Even that is legally very weak. There is a reason they passed special copyright legislation for chip masks, and introduced the "M" symbol you see on chips. People found the existing copyright laws didn't actually protect what is essentially a schematic drawn on silicon. The laws that specifically protect a mask set don't give any additional protection to any other form of schematic.

Yes.

The copyright laws are archaic, they were only really intended to protect authors of written works from plagiarism in the first instance.

Basically you have to copy the content verbatim to be in any real danger of litigation.

One of the early things that copyright laws were specifically developed to protect were maps, and naval charts, which are not a million miles in nature from a modern schematic. Still, somehow, those laws don't work for a schematic.

[Xena E]

There again, it would require that the infringment were a verbatim copy, and the defendant had directly benefited.

In the case of a schematic or a nautical map this would be the same. Fair use of the schematic would be to use the information to repair the relevant equipment as in Mark's case.

Fair use of a nautical map would be navigation.

Unfair use and copyright infringement would only extend to verbatim copying of the published work for gain, for example sale of the circuit diagram directly, or the map for others to use in navigation.

It can and has been argued that images on the internet can constitute infringement, but only if it is verbatim, in full, and for financial advantage.

Very difficult to case prove however.

The most usual copyright litigation cases these days must IMHO be that of music and video entertainment.

X

[artag]

Comparing a schematic with a map is particularly relevant since it clearly isn't reasonable to copyright the source, which is the natural environment. Whether a developer could copyright the arrangement of roads in a development is perhaps more feasible but I rather doubt would be permitted.
 

[EEVblog]

To copyright a schematic, (at least in the UK, which is applicable here), you must publish that schematic in the public domain, and clearly mark each diagram as being subject to copyright.

You don't have to publish something in the public domain to hold copyright.
If a company produces a schematic internally for company use and someone makes a direct copy of that and publishes it, the person who copied it is going to lose that copyright case very quickly.
And anyone who distributes it (say a forum like this one) and does not remove it when requested, will also lose any legal fight very easily.

[Xena E]

To copyright a schematic, (at least in the UK, which is applicable here), you must publish that schematic in the public domain, and clearly mark each diagram as being subject to copyright.

You don't have to publish something in the public domain to hold copyright.
If a company produces a schematic internally for company use and someone makes a direct copy of that and publishes it, the person who copied it is going to lose that copyright case very quickly.
And anyone who distributes it (say a forum like this one) and does not remove it when requested, will also lose any legal fight very easily.

The devil is in the detail there.

If Tom Evans has produced a service manual that Mark had stolen and illegally distributed for personal gain, then yes, Mark gets taken to the cleaners.

But firstly he has to prove he holds the prior art and then that he has claimed copyright for it.

It could mean formally publishing it and offering it for sale, or making it freely available for fair use.

For instance, a book.

Alternatively it could be notarised as being intellectual property, though in that case it would not be possible to claim damages against someone who could prove independent development of the same work if the original were kept secret. And it would have to be identical.

It is then the burden of the plaintiff to prove that it was stolen. Reverse engineering a commercial product, particularly one that has no patents applicable to it, is not theft.

It's no good producing the document after the fact with some half baked claim that you did it first.

It is so much more easily proven that, say, a music video has been copied and uploaded illegally.

In any case, in this instance Evans claimed woo woo futuristic technology for something that was known art, and has not yet produced any copyright material to substantiate his claim against Mark. (And he can't if he has not registered the material which isn't possible as Mark created it himself!)

This is about Evans bullying a creator on You Tube who augments his income from his repair business by producing interesting and informative content, theres a lot of shit on there that needs deleting before any videos that Mark has produced.

If Evans takes this any further, (ie., successfully sues anyone), I'll eat your sweaty daks!

(Opinions my own, and not those of EEVBLOG)

X

[EEVblog]

The full letter from Tom:

https://www.maverick-hifi.com/post/repair-of-%C2%A325000-phono-stage-that-tom-evans-said-couldnt-be-done-13527150?trail=40

You can fully understand this now from my position, he leaves me no choice other than to protect my business and reputation by taking legal action against him.

But issuing a copyright strike?
Sound like he's basically admitting he's doing this to proect his "reputation", and not his copyright (which obviously was not violated anyway).

[Halcyon]

The full letter from Tom:

https://www.maverick-hifi.com/post/repair-of-%C2%A325000-phono-stage-that-tom-evans-said-couldnt-be-done-13527150?trail=40

You can fully understand this now from my position, he leaves me no choice other than to protect my business and reputation by taking legal action against him.

But issuing a copyright strike?
Sound like he's basically admitting he's doing this to proect his "reputation", and not his copyright (which obviously was not violated anyway).

I also love the bit where he says opening the case voids manufacturer's warranty. That's not true at all, even in the US I believe. Same with "unauthorised repair" clauses; Those aren't enforceable either (at least here in AU). Anyone with the appropriate skills can repair a device without impacting it's warranty. Same reason why not having your vehicle serviced by the manufacturer or dealer generally won't void the manufacturer's warranty.

However, if you break something, or do something wrong, that's entirely on you then.

[BrianHG]

Actually, technically, you can patent a schematic, however, it is a fruitless endeavor.

You can't actually patent a schematic. You can use a schematic in a patent, and then describe the bit that makes it novel. Its that definition of the novelty which is the actual patented thing. Copied exactly as in the schematic, or executed in another way deemed to be applying the same technique, gets you in trouble. Copying the rest of the schematic doesn't. The schematic is just supporting material.

You would have to precisely describe your schematic in words as your claims at the end of your patent.  However, you also must prove no one have ever done something similar in the past and what your are doing is truly novel.  Again, a patent like this is useless.  The rest of your comments are correct practice.

This is why I said, technically, it is possible to do so, but you will never see it in practice.
Very early on in patents, like the invention of the first stapler or paper 3 hole punch, or a mechanical valve for a steam engine, the claims may have specifically described the mechanical schematics of the illustrations, however, today, the more likely claims cover the innovative concept itself as locking down an entire concept field is where you truly gain monetary value from your patent.

The best hope is to be granted a grandfather patent in a new field or business where you become the sole dominator for 18 years.

[timeandfrequency]

The full letter from Tom:

https://www.maverick-hifi.com/post/repair-of-%C2%A325000-phono-stage-that-tom-evans-said-couldnt-be-done-13527150?trail=40

You can fully understand this now from my position, he leaves me no choice other than to protect my business and reputation by taking legal action against him.

But issuing a copyright strike?
Sound like he's basically admitting he's doing this to proect his "reputation", and not his copyright (which obviously was not violated anyway).

The letter written by Tom Evans and reproduced by member 'Paullongcase' on the 'Maverick hifi forum' is the same that @themadhippy already posted on this thread recently (reply #51).
So nothing new about that. So does the riddle about who sent the preamp in a basic card box. As you said @Dave, the latter information is "irrelevant when it comes to the copyright takedown".

Actually, as you underscored, Tom Evans' whole letter does not provide any serious argument regarding copyright infringement.

Tom Evans just seems upset and jealous because he couldn't charge the owner of the preamp a few thousands Pounds for this repair. A wise professional that sells such expensive gear (including almost 'alien technology') who wants to promote his image of excellency would have done the repair quite for free, even after the end of the warranty period. This is exactly what some well-known manufacturers with a well-established reputation do.

Mark did the repair successfully, by following his usual way : he just replaced the parts that were broken and showed (as usual, I would say) extensive skills on how to repair the enclosure without having original spare parts. Was Tom Evans so naive to expect that Mark would need to buy him some genuine spare parts  ?
Mark's goal was clear : repair the preamp at minimal cost. He succeeded. And the preamp owner must be pretty happy about that.
 
Update #1
Rather than applaud Mark for his good work, Tom Evans chose to ask YT to take down the preamp repair video.
As a side effect and due to the Streisand effect, he's currenty damaging his own reputation.
From here, I hear the aliens laughing.

[EEVblog]

Louis put the video up:

[Zero999]

The full letter from Tom:

https://www.maverick-hifi.com/post/repair-of-%C2%A325000-phono-stage-that-tom-evans-said-couldnt-be-done-13527150?trail=40

You can fully understand this now from my position, he leaves me no choice other than to protect my business and reputation by taking legal action against him.

But issuing a copyright strike?
Sound like he's basically admitting he's doing this to proect his "reputation", and not his copyright (which obviously was not violated anyway).

The letter written by Tom Evans and reproduced by member 'Paullongcase' on the 'Maverick hifi forum' is the same that @themadhippy already posted on this thread recently (reply #51).
So nothing new about that. So does the riddle about who sent the preamp in a basic card box. As you said @Dave, the latter information is "irrelevant when it comes to the copyright takedown".

Actually, as you underscored, Tom Evans' whole letter does not provide any serious argument regarding copyright infringement.

Tom Evans just seems upset and jealous because he couldn't charge the owner of the preamp a few thousands Pounds for this repair. A wise professional that sells such expensive gear (including almost 'alien technology') who wants to promote his image of excellency would have done the repair quite for free, even after the end of the warranty period. This is exactly what some well-known manufacturers with a well-established reputation do.

Mark did the repair successfully, by following his usual way : he just replaced the parts that were broken and showed (as usual, I would say) extensive skills on how to repair the enclosure without having original spare parts. Was Tom Evans so naive to expect that Mark would need to buy him some genuine spare parts  ?
Mark's goal was clear : repair the preamp at minimal cost. He succeeded. And the preamp owner must be pretty happy about that.
 
Update #1
Rather than applaud Mark for his good work, Tom Evans chose to ask YT to take down the preamp repair video.
As a side effect and due to the Streisand effect, he's currenty damaging his own reputation.
From here, I hear the aliens laughing.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that under UK consumer protection law, Tom Evans would have been obligated to repair the amplifier for free, irrespective of the warranty, given the extortionate price of the product.

Assuming that letter is genuine, he comes across as a petulant child who's been caught with their pants down.

I question the legality of selling such a 💩 for that price. An arguement could me made that it's fraud.