Really?

Status
Not open for further replies.
not_this_shit_again.jpeg
 
What's the problem? Is it an inferior product being sold as something else? If it's sold as an Amplifone flyback, and it can installed for that application and it works ok, then what's the problem?
 
What's the problem? Is it an inferior product being sold as something else? If it's sold as an Amplifone flyback, and it can installed for that application and it works ok, then what's the problem?

the design was made by Cinelabs and stolen and reproduced for cheaper in japan or wherever. So selling these is undercutting the original maker not supporting it. there was a thread about this before when a member here started selling the knockoffs. The recent arcadeshop board vs the japanese knockoff is basically the same topic too. Although Bob doesn't post here so I'm sure he's unaware. Now that we're all aware I'm sure none of us will buy the knockoffs, right?
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with it at all but there sure were plenty of people that did when Arcadecup came to the forum offering these. So does Bob get special treatment for doing the same thing even though it was viewed as a travesty when it was done by someone other than Cinelabs?
 
I have no problem with it at all but there sure were plenty of people that did when Arcadecup came to the forum offering these. So does Bob get special treatment for doing the same thing even though it was viewed as a travesty when it was done by someone other than Cinelabs?

Short answer yes.
 
Was the design stolen or was it more like people went to the manufacturer in China that was making them for Cinelabs and bought the flybacks direct ?

Here's my guess: Bob orders enough flys to justify working directly with the source(s) that make em so a casual phone order went something like this: I got wind a while back that somebody in china reverse engineered an amplifone flyback. Was this your company? Great, i'll start buying these from you as well. I'll take 50!

So is Bob an asshole or an asset?
 
Was the design stolen or was it more like people went to the manufacturer in China that was making them for Cinelabs and bought the flybacks direct ?

Is there actually a difference? If I design something and pay someone to manufacture it does that give them the right to sell my design to other people?


So we can leave out the word stolen and say it went down like this. cinelabs makes the design and places an order with a company in japan to manufacture. They of course need to provide the details of the design so the item can be made. The company then proceeds to use cinelabs design to make more than cinelabs had ordered and sell them to other sources for less than they are charging cinelabs to buy them.
 
Last edited:
did the original designer register a patent on his design
if not then anyone can reverse engineer the item and reproduce it all they want

or even with a patent all a manfacture needs to do is change a few design tradmarks and its again fair game

i understand trying to protect others in the comunity but hell if somone has designed a product and is only able to produce the item in small runs and charge xxx amount for the item
im all for another company mass producing the product and selling for xx amount



also who is to say that the product in? is not a totaly difrent design created by someone els
if one person can creat a replacment part for these old games who say another person cannot come up with the same replacement on their own


i say the more availiblity of repro parts the better

this is nothing new esp in this hobby companies have been making hacks and strealing others work since pong all you can do is do your best to cover your butt and patent your work and create any and all security possible to prevent reverse engineer of your design
 
-did the original designer register a patent on his design
if not then anyone can reverse engineer the item and reproduce it all they want


no clue if it was patented or registered. Japanese have been notorious for not recognizing US patents anyway.

-i understand trying to protect others in the comunity but hell if somone has designed a product and is only able to produce the item in small runs and charge xxx amount for the item
im all for another company mass producing the product and selling for xx amount


the flaw in this logic is that most of the people in this hobby that make these types of items would simply not produce them if they knew another company would come along and cut into their profit and produce the item cheaper.


-also who is to say that the product in? is not a totaly difrent design created by someone els
if one person can creat a replacment part for these old games who say another person cannot come up with the same replacement on their own


in this case we're pretty sure this is an exact copy. If it were different there wouldn't be an issue. No one is mad at jrok for making a multiwilliams even though Clay made his version years before.



-this is nothing new esp in this hobby companies have been making hacks and strealing others work since pong all you can do is do your best to cover your butt and patent your work and create any and all security possible to prevent reverse engineer of your design

yes but as I mentioned it's very common for japanese companies to not recognize US patents and copy rights. What's even more ridiculous is they can ignore a patent or copy right, produce the product and then sell it in the US. A small hobbiest or even company has little chance of getting the company in Japan to stop selling and producing their bootlegs.
 
Bottom line is it's just another weak smear campaign by Chris. Nothing new other than the fact its Bob Roberts this time instead of me.

/yawn

Not a smear campaign at all Dave, just an interesting topic that warrants some discussion. If this were anyone other than Bob, i guarantee your whining ass would be all over the topic.

Why don't you take a nap for a while, and when you get up with a better attitude, pm me for my phone number and we'll discuss your smear campaign rant. I've told you serveral times to pick up the phone but to this day you still don't have the balls.

Can we get back on topic now?
 
Last edited:
Ok. My opinion on this is the same as it was on the Arcadecup topic - so?

While Cinelabs created the replacement first, they patterned it off of an original design by Amplifone. I just checked their website and don't see any license agreement or patent information showing they have exclusive rights to this. They took an original design and figured out a compatible replacement. They contacted a company overseas to produce it. If that company decided to produce more and sell them to other retailers, that's not my fault. I can choose to buy from who I want. If Cinelabs sells it for $50 and Bob sells the same thing for $30, then it seems Cinelabs has marked it up quite a bit (assuming they're from the same factory) and will need to lower their price if they want us poor buyers to purchase.

I'm sure somebody somewhere has a similar argument about the replacement flybacks for the G07, etc.

And this is assuming that someone like Bob - who probably has a good buying relationship with whomever manufacters these flybacks - didn't just say to these guys, 'Hey, I have a lot of people asking for this flyback. Here's a good one. Can you make me some?"

There's nothing wrong with independent people deciding to do the same work and sell it separately. It's call free enterprise. If the work isn't copyrighted, then anyone can do it. If the work is copyrighted, they can contact Bob or Chad or whomever to stop it from being sold here...
 
Ok. My opinion on this is the same as it was on the Arcadecup topic - so?

While Cinelabs created the replacement first, they patterned it off of an original design by Amplifone. I just checked their website and don't see any license agreement or patent information showing they have exclusive rights to this. They took an original design and figured out a compatible replacement. They contacted a company overseas to produce it. If that company decided to produce more and sell them to other retailers, that's not my fault. I can choose to buy from who I want. If Cinelabs sells it for $50 and Bob sells the same thing for $30, then it seems Cinelabs has marked it up quite a bit (assuming they're from the same factory) and will need to lower their price if they want us poor buyers to purchase.

I'm sure somebody somewhere has a similar argument about the replacement flybacks for the G07, etc.

And this is assuming that someone like Bob - who probably has a good buying relationship with whomever manufacters these flybacks - didn't just say to these guys, 'Hey, I have a lot of people asking for this flyback. Here's a good one. Can you make me some?"

There's nothing wrong with independent people deciding to do the same work and sell it separately. It's call free enterprise. If the work isn't copyrighted, then anyone can do it. If the work is copyrighted, they can contact Bob or Chad or whomever to stop it from being sold here...

Your scenario is pretty close, with a few exceptions.....Mark/Cinelabs basically reversed engineered the Amplifone high voltage unit. He paid the Chinese company to manufacture them. Once said company got Mark's money and shipped him his supply....they added it to their web site and started selling it to anyone and everyone. Mark actually paid quite a bit more per unit than what the manufacturer charges other people. Mark got stuck paying all tooling, set-up, and prototyping fees. That is why Mark/Cinelabs can't compete with others pricing.

Bob buys a lot of his flybacks from this same company. I see he's also added the WG6100 high voltage unit. I'd bet Bob's rep notified him of their "new" products.

Edward
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom