Big company Intellectual Property concerns on the forum - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 09:56:19 am
content: So I get this email from the legal counsel at a big company who shall remain nameless, pointing out a competing Chinese product that is violating their IP. Ok.Their concern is this product has been mentioned and discussed on this forum several times, by users, and as such, they "would appreciate your cooperation to strictly moderate postings on the forum regarding this product".i.e. they are asking me to remove and moderate all past and future discussion of this product on the forum.I declined to do so on the grounds that:a) There is none of the companies IP being violated on the forum (which I am strict on and will remove)b) This is what the forum is for, open discussion of industry products.c) Moderation of such things is against the "open" nature of this community forum, and will hurt the reputation of the forum.It seems as though they can't shut down this Chinese product directly, so they have to go after stifling all mention of it by indirect means.IMO they can fight their own battles, this is not the place to do it.Discuss...

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:03:50 am
content: You could accomodate them maybe by editing the first post about this product and mentioning that this product violates the IP of this company.But removing and moderating free discussions on a free open forum sounds very much like censorship

author: ElektroQuark
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:06:48 am
content: Let the big company remain nameless.What's the Chinese product?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:13:58 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on February 25, 2014, 10:03:50 amThat's a possibility. But one poster already pointed that it does anyway.And mention of it is not all contained in one thread.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:19:49 am
content: I don't suppose you could post the whole letter from the big company? In the interests of transparency.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:27:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 25, 2014, 10:13:58 amWell follow your gut feeling, as long as you don't go to battle with these companies, because they have huge warchests which might worst case result in the end of the forum which is something you and we all don't want.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:40:22 am
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on February 25, 2014, 10:19:49 amI don't think I'd like to do that without their permission, and I don't really see a need to do at this stage. They didn't piss me off that much :->

author: jpb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:40:39 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on February 25, 2014, 10:03:50 amIt might be better to state that you have received a statement from company X that this product violates their IP, rather than categorically stating that it violates company X's IP. It might even be better to allow company X to make a statement as a posting and the Chinese company to respond if they like.It is best to avoid taking sides in any way both from the point of view of neutrality and also because you don't want to get involved in any legal dispute with either party.An interesting recent case is that of Dyson and Samsung :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26242865

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:47:05 am
content: Quote from: jpb on February 25, 2014, 10:40:39 amI have invited them to do so.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:49:48 am
content: Quote from: Dawgie on February 25, 2014, 10:03:07 am+1 Just say no to censorship.

author: codeboy2k
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 10:53:04 am
content: Lots of companies make big claims that another company is violating their IP. I'd be curious to know if these are just claims or have they stood up to the test in court?Even if they have WON in court, there is absolutely no precedent for you or anyone else for that matter to stop talking about the infringing product.

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:00:00 am
content: Most IP / patents are BS anyway. No rules in OZ that say you can't talk or discuss technology EVEN if it is IP / patented.I'd ignore them and wait for the next email .. IF there is any.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:00:39 am
content: It's it's the product that is infringing not the forum, their lawyers should be spending time trying to block the sales, import and ultimately bring a case in china against the company that made the product.Not hassling some forum where its been discussed.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:00:52 am
content: The fact that they think they can just make all mentions of a competing product vanish is, frankly,adorable.Whoever this company is, they have some funny ideas about the way the world works.

author: andtfoot
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:05:38 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on February 25, 2014, 11:00:52 amen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:06:55 am
content: Corporate bullies, please expose them so I can make better buying decisions in the future.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:10:49 am
content: Quote from: digsys on February 25, 2014, 11:00:00 amI responded and told them no, it's not going to happen.

author: DL8RI
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:32:02 am
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on February 25, 2014, 11:06:55 amAs far as I understand it, they did not threaten Dave/the Forum but asked him. So that's Okay for me.There are some real bold ripoffs around like the several Hakko-Clones or this indian "GMC"-meters.And there are some people selling this stuff aggressively trying to promote their crap here.I can imagine, the "original designers" not really being happy about that.Therefore I can understand this mail. And -as I said- I think it's Okay as long as they don't threaten Dave.I was Moderator/Administrator in a bigger Forum (>700000 Users) for nearly 10 Years. We had more than one time some "unhappy Company-Lawyer". Some were nice, some were assholes.And I don't think they have to be really worried. As for example a thread I was following was the one about this Indian Gossen-Clones. They were pretty quick unmasked as ripoffs and the seller who wanted to marked this things had a quite hard time.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:41:24 am
content: Firstly I personally think its pretty rude of the company to send a formal email instead of an informal call /email to you! secondly this is a forum to discuss all things electronics, so long as the posts aren't outside the "unwritten rules"; I mean it's like a child walking up to group of strangers and saying don't play with that boy xy because he bent my finger back and then pulled my nose!Some free advice to said company; don't burn your bridges - reach out to the community to help you; tell us your story. surely it makes more sense to go after people selling your infringed products rather than people talking about them? Why not offer an incentive to people to buy direct from you or your dealers.But isn't this the very nature of the game? you make a product, you reap the cheap production costs overseas, you make some profit and you then you fully understand the risks involved about potential IP infringement.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:43:34 am
content: Quote from: DL8RI on February 25, 2014, 11:32:02 amFor most people just receiving a letter from some huge company with a thousand lawyers frightens them. Then asking for "strict" moderation of the forums, when Dave has no legal obligation to do so, they are most definitely attempting to push their weight around.

author: brabus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:49:03 am
content: Honestly, I find the whole situation a bit weird.A Chinese company is violating an IP? OK, but how could a forum censorship help solving the problem?I find the email very unprofessional, and tout court senseless. Why do they have to attack a public forum? We should then block any person who is just talking about that product, or even thinking about it? This is BS.If a company is concerned about writing an email to Dave Jones to solve an IP violation issue, I am sorry to communicate them that their problem is not the Forum, but themselves.Pathetic.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 11:56:44 am
content: Post a notice on your site that you charge $5000 per hour to consider the merit of legal representations sent to your site regarding IPR issues, and that sending you such communications signifies agreement to your terms.Then next time you get such a letter, instead of replying "No", you can reply "No. Invoice for my time spent examining your claims and determining they are spurious: $5000."

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 12:03:10 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on February 25, 2014, 11:43:34 amIn this case I don't think it's a command from anyone high up to target the forum, I think it's just a case of an internal IP laywer being generally tasked with trying to stop IP infringement and they are doing searches and finding stuff like this forum, and they are trying to be "pro-active".It is clear they know they don't have a leg to stand on, and it's certainly not threatening, and are asking for my co-operation in helping them. With the usual subtle lawyer-ish overtones of course. It is far from a cease-and-desist. It may in fact be a bit of a form-ish like response to many forums / websites.

author: DL8RI
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 12:03:45 pm
content: Quote from: dr.diesel on February 25, 2014, 11:43:34 amDepends on the letter/mail. Since Dave saw the opportunity to just say no, I don't see the point to make such a big fuss ("Pathetic", "attack" "Rude") about it. If they now try to threaten the Forum in any way, that's another story. And as I said, if the forum grows more, this will become "daily business" for Dave.Maybe they take the invitation to, instead of removing the product, to talk about it. I would appreciate it. If they don't, they don't.

author: GEuser
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 12:05:03 pm
content: Engineers will fix it all up!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 12:06:16 pm
content: Quote from: brabus on February 25, 2014, 11:49:03 amIt doesn't. In fact it can only make it worse for them. Lawyers don't understand this though.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 12:18:24 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 25, 2014, 12:06:16 pmHowever they do understand the law, and knowing you have no legal obligation to remove said content the sent it anyhow, why? Because they are in hopes of frightening you into removing the content.The letter might not have been directly "worded" threatening, but it doesn't have to be to get their intent known.Thankfully you know your rights, I hope this is the end of their pursuit. If we're lucky they will join the forum with constructive posts and thoughts.

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 12:25:02 pm
content: Dave, do not let them intimidate you with theirlegal crapveiled threats because:1. LEGALis notLAWFUL, which means that not any legal claim is necessarily lawful also.2. This is not a court order, whatever they sent you. It is an extrajudicial request, painted in the dark colours of the intimidation of a possible legal action against you if you will not comply with their (rightful or not) demands.3. You cannot be held responsible for what some people might be discussing about, even if they discussed any possible dark secrets of some corporate entities.Neither THEM losing revenue (because of some discussions your forum hosts, as they claim) is any better than YOU loosing revenue due to any possible departures of forum key contributors in the case you will choose to succumb to their intimidating tactics.For example, you are not responsible for someone finding a copyright notice of company A within the firmware dicompilation lists of a company B product, which is suspiciously identical to a product sold under the brand name of company C. (By the way, isthisthe case?)Moderator: Unwarranted reference to other off topic (religion) posts deleted.-George

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 03:14:11 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 25, 2014, 11:10:49 amI'd probably have added that any further correspondence from them may be made public.

author: liquibyte
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 03:15:11 pm
content: Imagine this scenario. The economy tanks and the governments can't bail shit out fast enough and the world decends into chaos. Who would you imagine would be useful to help rebuild things? Engineers, programmers, mechanics, scientists, lawers?The lawers don't understand that their skillset is an imaginary construct with no real value to anyone in the grand scheme of things and that they are in fact holding back the entirety of humanity with their bullshit. We'll never have the flying cars that the sci-fi greats promised should already be here because of the fear of getting your entire life destroyed for infringing some ill conceived and approved iPatent.I for one am tired of lawers fucking things up. Have a gander at the class of tools running my country. I can only say that they had better hope this isn't the Roman empire all over again because of their shenanigans (cue historical and not religious reference) because I can't think of a more suited class of useless fools to not help teach to fish (purely religious reference).

author: A Hellene
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 03:19:19 pm
content: Quote from: mojo-chan on February 25, 2014, 02:52:19 pmYes, of course this is what was censored; with the exception of the last link about the Chalcidic alphabet and another depleted now link about the five-millennial old Trojan War, pointing at to a couple of historical references I have written at the locked 'Religion Thread' of May 2012.I could attach my original message's backup but I am sure that it will also be obliterated; if you would like to read it, though, I could send it you you by a PM or by email.Thank you,-George

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 03:21:36 pm
content: Not a lawyer... but doesn't everyone hate lawyers until they need one?- You need a lawyer if you are prosecuted to get you the best possible outcome - this should and must remain your right.- You need a lawyer if you are seeking damages for legitimate cases. The McDonalds coffee incident is often brought up as a frivolous case, but do you know what the original demands were? (Recommend you look them up - it doesn't sound so bad once you read into it...)- Also, what happens if you invent a really neat thing - make a few thousand of them and can live nicely on that - then a big corp comes and steals your protected idea and your living. Should you lose?Now, I'm not saying this system is perfect - it's far from it - but without lawyers I think it'd be worse.It's sort of the natural outcome of competition. Competition produces the best system in theory - but in practice it's extremely wasteful; think about how many man-hours and dollars have gone into producing Samsung, Apple. HTC, Nokia, BlackBerry, Sony phones when they could all combine a seventh of that effort if only one company existed.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 03:33:05 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 25, 2014, 11:10:49 amThat is the best course of action. Unless they come up with a court ruling saying you should remove any reference to that particular product...It is a problem they should resolve with the Chinese company who is infringing their IP and/or companies importing/selling that equipment.

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 25, 2014, 03:46:46 pm
content: You know, I kind of imagined Apple trying to remove all references to Samsung from the web (or vice versa). It's a ridiculous idea.Funny request though. In a similar manner, I could, in theory, email Donald Trump and ask him to give me a million bucks in the hopes that he's in a charitable mood.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 01:13:50 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on February 25, 2014, 10:50:24 pmIt's a specific instance of a more general rule: All self-perpetuating systems over time become more complex and parasitical of the wider environment in which they operate. The legal system and all its hangers-on expand in complexity indefinitely, the tax system does the same, parliaments, congresses, executive structures, customs&excise, law enforcement, industrial safety, health schemes, municipal boards, unions, ad infinitum. Cancer is a good analogy, and that extends to either doing something radical about it, or dying.This tendency is identified in the book 'Collapse of Complex Societies' (Tainter) as ultimately a primary cause, common to most examples of social collapse throughout history. Societies intrinsically have a limit to their man-hour, material and energy resources. But elements of the social infrastructure tend to go parasitic, and demand more resources than are available. Because the people operating as units within those structures can't see the broader picture. They virtually never go "Oh hey, my entire career is a net drain on society, I should quit and learn some useful trade."Likewise societies on the whole virtually never have facepalm moments, where they realise "Wait, this is stupid. We really should entirely abolish (patents/copyright/income-tax&theIRS/corporations/the entire body of existing law/Congress/the Presidency/etc) peacefully and just start over."And because they don't do that, all societies ultimately fail(violently), collapse(violently), or have a revolution (violent or ideally not so violent.)The 'collapse/fail' scenarios happen when the resources required to sustain the hugely bloated parasitical self-interest groups and systems, grow beyond the practically available resources. Inevitably. It's just basic thermodynamics - you can't have what doesn't exist.Many argue that some nations today are well into the energy & resources deficit zone already, and are just running on momentum, inertia and delusions. Not to mention theft from other nations. Where's all that gold gone anyway, FED?In the meantime as the parasites grind onwards, you get many trivial examples. Like passive-aggressive letters from lawyers, 'asking' you to do something they have no standing or right to ask. Obviously in the hope that your fear of them will coerce you into compliance.

author: don.r
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 01:43:46 am
content: Personally, I would be more concerned about small company IP as small companies cannot afford the IP legal battles like big ones can. I would be more inclined to help the likes of Dave or other individual creators on here defend their IP rather than a large and deep-pocketed corp who can easily fight their own battles in court. JMVHO. Of course, Dave is under no obligation to defend either group.

author: marshallh
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 02:52:17 am
content: Something that can't go on, won't.

author: DrGeoff
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 03:23:24 am
content: Quote from: Kjelt on February 25, 2014, 10:03:50 amIt's only an allegation, not a fact. Until the allegation is proven and upheld then that is all it will be.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 04:01:19 am
content: I have an idea who this maybe, but we probably shouldn't start guessing.

author: Legit-Design
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 04:06:10 am
content: If it's some ripoff I think people take it as a warning and stay away anyways. If it's from china it has probably been bought from some place that is known for selling fakes and people expect that things that are too cheap are fakes. Therefore it drives people to buy from authorized sellers and having it discussed on the forums only does good to the actual company.

author: TerraHertz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 05:07:47 am
content: Another factor that may be making it awkward for Dave, is that the company in question might be one that loans him stuff for reviews.In which case the 'we're asking you to remove all mention of X from your site' letter takes on a more obnoxious aspect, in that it carries an implied 'or we will stop loaning you nice things.' I wonder if a lawyer could comment on whether that's 'demand with menaces'? Extortion?I suppose it would depend on how well established the practice of loans for review had become.That Dave is being polite about it, instead of doing stuff like naming the company, posting a scan of the letter, or telling them to go take a flying leap, suggests to me that may be the case. Or perhaps he's just a really polite guy.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 05:43:47 am
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on February 26, 2014, 05:07:47 amAs I said, it's a big company, and I suspect it's just some corporate lawyer is just acting on their own accord having been tasked with cleaning up the IP for this thing. I'd be very surprised if it's "the company" deliberately trying to shove their weight around.They weren't rude, so I have no reason to be rude back. I just found their request silly and told them no.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 09:09:51 am
content: They replied with "The intent of my initial message was to raise your awareness about this company."Of course, only after their request was bluntly denied :->So that's the end of it.They are deciding if they will will post directly on the forum themselves about it in order to "raise awareness".

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 09:49:30 am
content: Since Dave clearly stated he won't expose the parties involved, I guess its fair enough to start the guessing game ...My shot ... Siglent with that "Phosphorus" thingy (the hint) vs the big company (c'mon, you should know which by now).

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 10:11:42 am
content: Presumably they realise that "raising awareness" is the very last thing they should be doing, if discussion is taking place that they'd rather was NOT taking place.Quote from: BravoV on February 26, 2014, 09:49:30 amIn which case, if it's who I think it is, they should be much more concerned about their own lack of technical progress over the last, say, 5 to 10 years. Shame, they used to make really decent, competitive kit. Emphasis on "used to".

author: Frost
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 10:42:52 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on February 26, 2014, 09:49:30 amBut sorry, this is only marketing geschwurbel (bullsh...).They all use normal LC-Displays within their new productsand no phosphorus technology like FEDs for example.So where is the big IP to put a LC-Display in a product.

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 02:28:41 pm
content: Quote from: TerraHertz on February 26, 2014, 01:13:50 amNot that it would help anyone anyway. You can't eat gold, or do anything productive with it (well except for making microchips and gold plated connectors, but that needs very little of it).

author: Sigmoid
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 02:33:46 pm
content: Quote from: Frost on February 26, 2014, 10:42:52 amWe're talking about "digital phosphor" (DPO), wildly flaunted as the greatest thing since sliced bread by its creator.It's two things - less downtime between signal acquisition periods, and a digital emulation of the intensity gradation on a CRT display, allowing to see infrequent wave patterns.A well known competitor has made a point of frequently denouncing it as useless and marketing crap tho.

author: Rigby
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 02:40:53 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 25, 2014, 09:56:19 amI agree with this, completely. Not violated here means not your problem.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 03:00:57 pm
content: There is no law ageist talking about any IP. in fact if they have got a patent that knowledge is in the public domain you can't use it directly but you can talk about it and even develop upon it to something else.Gagging is a two edged sword, In order to stop all mention of the opponents product you would have to stop all mention of the original so as comparisons would not be made.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 05:12:49 pm
content: Quote from: Sigmoid on February 26, 2014, 02:33:46 pmwell known fact that sliced bread goes stale, moldy and crufty much quicker than regular bread .DPO is junk. Take one of the Tek 7xx series and flick DPO on. the scope becomes slow as molasses.... it's dead time goes through the roof

author: FJV
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 05:55:31 pm
content: I wouldn't blindly follow the advice given on this forum without knowing exactly it's worth.I would look for advice of a professional lawyer in the relevant field.People I know that have studied law that used to give advice for free have had that advice routinely ignored, because some guy in the pub or on the internet thatsoundedpretty knowledgeable gave different advice.Needless to say that caused a lot of problems for the guy following the wrong advice.I wouldn't like to make the same mistake.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 26, 2014, 06:17:00 pm
content: I just googled for DPO and got a massive dose of deja-vu radiation: I noticed the TDS3000C series scope is still sold, is this the same as the TDS3034 that my workplace has? If so, that's crazy. That thing was so slow... and the memory length terrible... I cannot believe they still sell a scope with only 10kpoints data?

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 27, 2014, 10:23:56 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 25, 2014, 12:06:16 pmOr maybe they do. Making it worse is even more work and dollars for the Lawyers.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 27, 2014, 10:30:51 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 26, 2014, 06:17:00 pmYep, that's Tektronix for you.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 27, 2014, 10:41:43 pm
content: Quote from: FJV on February 26, 2014, 05:55:31 pmI'm not following anyone's advice, I followed my own.QuoteWhy?To anyone with half a clue about anything it was entirely clear that they didn't have a leg to stand on.Jumping right into getting paid advice from a lawyer when you haven't been threatened with anything is just silly, and one the problems with modern society.I knew it was BS and simply stood up to them and politely said no, and they backed down without a fight. Then they admitted it wasn't even a fight to begin with.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 09:52:52 am
content: Good to hear it ended well.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 11:51:08 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on February 26, 2014, 06:17:00 pmIt's basically the same, but a bit faster and with a USB port in place of the floppy drive.It's laughably overpriced for its spec, but I used a 3034B daily for many years and it was always a reliable, trustworthy and highly usable piece of kit. I'm not at all surprised that there's still demand for it, especially in cases where the cost of learning, supporting and testing a new scope is significant. Like, say, the Agilent 34401 DMM... if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 11:51:30 am
content: I bet it's Salae.. and they are referring to the discussion of the cheap Chinese copies.If I am right, then I think they are better off leaving well enough alone. I have a Salae Logic unit and I really like it. It's priced right, made very well and it works great. I can't imagine trying to save a few bucks on a Chinese knock off. As I remember, when someone talked about the Chinese copy and it's price, he was quite roundly criticized and the unit was panned around here.

author: amyk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 12:25:45 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on February 28, 2014, 11:51:30 amBigcompany, and "acompeting Chinese product", so I doubt it...

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 02:44:39 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 27, 2014, 10:41:43 pmAnd I thought that when you said 'discuss' you were soliciting for ideas.Anyway, if you can't give the company name, how about the MD5 hash? It is non reversible.

author: echen1024
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 04:16:04 pm
content: I would bet it's Owon, due to the fact they named their new line the "TDS Series." Siglent SDS2k is possible as well, due to the SPO and the length of which the discussion has gone on.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2014, 06:00:30 pm
content: Quote from: amyk on February 28, 2014, 12:25:45 pmYa, and the cat's been out of the bag for so long with Saleae and USBee that it would be quite pointless to try to undo it now anyway. Ebay is absolutely littered with their clones even though it is extremely easy to get eBay to delete a listing over any alleged IP infringement (takes a single email to have a listing removed within hours), yet they haven't even bothered to do that. Can't imagine they'd try something like this.