JangleBox Thread - What Happened To It??

shamustwin · Post by **shamustwin** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:29 am

The JB is good on a strat too, that Nowhere Man solo sound comes through, glassy and bright. Can't find it on my pod.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:52 am

Sounds great with a Tele too! Think Pretenders.........

arrow201 · Post by **arrow201** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:00 pm

There is nothing wrong, illegal, unethical or whatever else with the JangleBox.

The Basics
========

The sound trying to be achived from the RM circuit is ? ...not a Rickenbacker
invented sound but, the high compression sound created by the studio compressors
(you experts out there will have to help me out with the brand name of these
compressor(s) ..they certainly were not Rickenbacker

)

Copyright and all that legal stuff
========================

Much as been mentioned about "copyright", "properly-registered intellectual property" ...
Don't confuse the shape of Rics which _is_ an infringement to the electronic circuitry.
What is copyright ? It's easy to google to find out

...in this case, what is
copyrighted, is the circuit diagram:

http://www.rickenbacker.com/pdfs/19515.pdf

Simply, if i took that diagram and posted it on a website without Ric's permission, the
$lawyer$ would be knocking... but, you can't copyright an idea, technique, principle...
....does RCA make the only TVs ? (actually do they make TVs anymore ?

) ...does Ford
make the only automobiles ? ...anyway, you get my point

The Circuits
============

ok...elaborating on the above, what about this, ...again, take a look at Ric's
compressor schematic here:

http://www.rickenbacker.com/pdfs/19515.pdf

...after a bit of googling, take a look at this one used by DynaComp and a variation used by Ross:

http://www.geofex.com/PCB_layouts/Layouts/d&rpub.pdf

Well lookie here ! ...even an electronic hobbyist can tell you these circuits are all virtually
identical ...The clamping diodes, the biasing being fed back to the op-amp (or any active component
used) These are all common "techniques" in compressor units ...you can easily find other schematics
that may appear different, but a closer look would reveal they also use the same ideas.
I never heard of DynaComp suing Ric ...DynaComp can't...there's _no_ infringement. Whether the
circuit is the same or not, it's irrelevant.

BTW, i tried to point out the above last spring in a Ric forum thread, only to get my post pulled.
Being in electronic hardware design way back, for 10 yrs, one of my concerns was $lawyers$ giving
false hopes to Ric for an unfounded case. I also mention in my pulled post to please dont get me
wrong, i certainly agree with protecting rights and admire Mr.Hall for _many_, _many_ things.

>If you are concerned about the JangleBox being a clone of the RM circuit then why don't you make a
>unit (or commission somebody) and sell it yourself?

Most likely to protect the value of the RM guitar...exactly why they're against Janglebox.
i phoned Ric in the later 90's asking this question when i tried to see if i could order
just the RM board

...was told there will be no after market.

"Now what is it about the JangleBox that makes the Rickenbacker experience more fulfilling?"
as mentioned in a previous post, i also agree that 360/12 -> Fender Reverb Twin -> JangleBox
nails the Byrds/Beatles sound ...better than a VOX AC30 (which i tried) IMHO.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:17 pm

Gordon, with all due respect, you might want to stick with coding these days and leave current law to the lawyers.

Circuit are most definitely covered by copyright (as well as patents).

Basic circuit designs or concepts, especially when IC components are used, are obviously not protected; combinations of such building blocks are. If it were otherwise, no circuit could be protected as all electronic designs for the most part use the same component set and adhere to the same laws of physics.

In any case, at this point it has not yet been determined how Talos came up with their design and whether or not it's infringing.

But you are indeed perceptive about why we are not making this type of circuit but I'll add that it's to protect the value of that limited edition on behalf of our customers. An infringed design would also erode that, which is rather our point since obviously we're not losing any sales over this.

myfretless · Post by **myfretless** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:36 pm

I am sure that if RIC had the desire and capacity, it could make A LOT of extra revenue making effects pedals/boxes/racks.

There is more to life than just revenue though. And this is from a lawyer.

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:37 pm

John brings up an interesting point in that RIC wants to protect the value of their LE guitars. I suppose this would be the same reason we don't see 21-fret 360's, checkered binding & f/w inlays (on more models), etc.

arrow201 · Post by **arrow201** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:25 pm

>Gordon, with all due respect, you might want to stick with coding these days and leave current law to the lawyers.

i left hardware because of all the cheap offshore hardware comming in and i could see my days being numbered
...now i'm in software and the same thing happens ...DOH !

>Circuit are most definitely covered by copyright (as well as patents).

circuit _drawings_ are, but even building from a copyrighted circuit diagram is not ...wait...integrated circuit topography
and circuit board layout designs are, but that doesn't apply here. Patents are a different game altogether,
but the RM board isn't patented from anything i've read ...is it ? I believe the circuit has to be innovative for a
patent, which it is not, as it's basically a copy of the DynaComp, which also is not innovative ...it uses standard techniques.

>Basic circuit designs or concepts, especially when IC components are used, are obviously not protected; combinations of such building blocks are.
>If it were otherwise, no circuit could be protected as all electronic designs for the most part use the same component set and adhere to the same laws of physics.

You might find this an interesting read: http://www.muzique.com/clones.htm

"A schematic drawing can be copyrighted... the copyright then protects the drawing (schematic) from other people displaying, selling, distributing,
copying or making derivatives of it without your permission. It provides no protection whatsoever for the circuit depicted therein - anyone can
take the schematic, build a box from it and sell it without violating the copyright on the schematic."

The author is not a lawyer, but has done some indepth research

qmoder · Post by **qmoder** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 11:13 pm

Gordon, thanks for the post I enjoyed your analisis. Very pentrating reading in to this world.
Lawton, I'll give it a try on Tenny if I get around to getting a jangle box. The lead uses tones that you are getting sound very interesting.
Might help out my Dano Twelve some too. I only have that and a Strat Twelve right now and not a Ric twelve yet. My only Ric is my 360 six for the moment anyway.

firstbassman · Post by **firstbassman** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:02 am

I have no dog or expertise in this topic at all. But speaking of electronic designs and patents...
There is a GREAT book about the “simultaneous” invention of the processor chip and the patent fight that ensued:

The Chip - How Two Americans Invented the Microchip and Launched a Revolution

http://www.amazon.com/Chip-Americans-Invented-Microchip-Revolution/dp/0375758283/sr=1-1/qid=1162994259/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-2613528-0431963?ie=UTF8&s=books

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:46 am

Wow. This is interesting stuff. I've been under the weather the last few days, and it's good to come back into the world, seeing this type of discussion (and the B-Bender chat in my own topic section!) and finding myself absorbing yet more information and lore about Ricks and music and patents and...

Thanks, everyone.

myfretless · Post by **myfretless** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:05 am

Hope you feel better Paul.

alecstar · Post by **alecstar** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:33 am

Gordon, Your posts are very interesting and informative. You obviously know what you are talking about. You have made the same suggestion I and probably others have made, suggesting that Rickenbacker make their own unit or have somebody make it for them. John Hall does not respond to that suggestion or to the one as to why he does not just get a JangleBox, dissect it and get to the bottom of the controversy. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to know why and even more important would buy a unit from them if they chose to make one.

bitzerguy · Post by **bitzerguy** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:59 am

Mitch, John Hall did respond to the suggestion of Ric making their own unit. Gordon's post surmised a reason and Mr. Hall confirmed it in his post immediately following.

In fact, Mr. Hall has responded to this suggestion in similar fashion here in this forum, as well as the Ric factory forum, several times.

I'm certain folks that own RMs (or any other Ric special editions) are very appreciative of Mr. Hall's position regarding protecting the value of those guitars.

...Dean

alecstar · Post by **alecstar** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:26 am

I don't see how making an effects box will put that much of a dent in the value of a Limited Edition guitar with internal components. A reissue 59 Les Paul or 54 Stratocaster doesn't effect the value of the originals at all and I suspect the situation would be the same for the Rickenbacker situation. A reissue isn't an original no matter how you slice it.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:28 am

Thanks Brad. For the record, it's a kidney stone which will succumb to surgery later this month. I'm just glad it's been diagnosed and am currently doing fine.