[7oi]

These news are of course good, but they sure bring up conflicting feelings in me. I mean, they should open source just about anything, seeing how they have unapologetically used other peoples designs as “inspiration” for their gear for decades for their own benefit. Sure, it has resulted in a lot of more affordable gear (I mean, super savings on development costs) and I really appreciate that, but it’s also at a cost. Innovators in the business get less business when there are cheaper devices “inspired” by theirs on the market, resulting in less funding for future innovations to inspire future Behringer gear. Then, of course, the whole Behringer vs Peter Kirn thing was just something that has left a permanent distaste in my mouth whenever I hear or see the name Behringer.

But I get it. Like someone commented here, the do seem like a sort of Robin Hood in the music gear world (although its not always just products from big companies that “inspire” Behringer products), making these expensive pieces of gear much more approachable for enthusiasts on a budget. Approachability is good and I love the idea of it. I just really wish it didn’t have to be at someone else's expense.

[mrob]

Companies like Behringer are necessary for patents to be ethically justified. The deal with patents is a temporary monopoly in exchange for greater competition once the monopoly expires. Cheap re-implementations of expired patents is the patent system working as intended.

[7oi]

Agreed. I have no gripe with companies reviving extinct hardware, such as multiple companies have with the TB-303 (Behringer included). Patents should even have a shorter lifespan IMO (although I admit I don’t know how long they last now). Sitting comfortably on a patent just encourages stagnation.

[Jolter]

The product designs Behringer are often accused of plagiarizing are generally not patented.