Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MYSTERIES OF THE PROFILERS UNLOCKED TED TALK

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    MYSTERIES OF THE PROFILERS UNLOCKED TED TALK

    Since many of you didn't actually know what profiling is and why you can't copyright the idea of "profiling", I have authored this helpful "Understanding Profiling for Complete Idiots" guide that explains it in less than 20 steps using easy to understand metaphors and advanced mathematical concepts most people learned in 4th grade.

    I made this in an older version of MS Paint, where you can't edit text after you click outside of the box, so ignore the typos.












    #2
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg
Views:	51
Size:	28.6 KB
ID:	6191

    Comment


      #3
      It all makes sense now. I'm buying a 2101.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by thrashinbatman View Post
        Click image for larger version  Name:	Screen_Shot_2020-07-24_at_11.33.38_AM.jpg Views:	7 Size:	28.6 KB ID:	6191
        TLDR

        The implementation of the Kemper is really clever, but you can't actually copyright the idea of solving equations using control variables or passing waveforms through circuitry. Especially if you didn't come up with the equations or the circuits they are being passed through.

        They can copyright the process of what happens after that, and obviously that is terribly complex, but you can't actually copyright the process of solving for variables of various components inside the amp by passing a waveform through them and crunching numbers. Which is the actual bit that involves "profiling", since profiling is graphically representing waveforms. Obviously it's on a much vaster scale and they can arguably trademark the process in which they do things and compare them to get a final result, but you can't actually copyright the "profiler" bit. That's anything that passes a waveform through a circuit and analyzes the result.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Chris View Post
          It all makes sense now. I'm buying a 2101.
          The irony of all this is that those units that are now punchlines are actually heavily cited in the patents for the modern ones as something they derived from, since all the important "ground floor/head of the family tree" are from the 50s, and every patent since is just based off novel new uses for combinations of older patents.

          Anyone who thinks you can patent a process like profiling to be airtight needs to go and look at how many companies are making pitch correction software. Obviously one of them got there first too. Antares probably. You can't hold on to a complex process of hundreds of steps derived from numerous older patents and expect it to stand til the end of time.

          All the important ground floor audio patents are owned by phone companies. Bell Labs beat everyone to the important groundbreaking ones in the Leave It To Beaver era.

          How did the exclusivity thing turn out for the guys who patented MIDI in the 80s? It's not like literally any amp or pedal company can incorporate MIDI into a design. Right? You have to go before the MIDI tribunal and debase yourself before the MIDI tyrants who hold the MIDI patent.

          Comment

          Working...
          X