BBC "License" for LS3/5a

[sktn77a]

I see all the discussions about bona fide "licenses" from the BBC to build LS3/5a speakers. My understanding is that when a company applies for a patent on a product, and that patent is granted, no one can produce a product that conforms to the patented product without obtained a license for the patent holder to do so. The BBC (apparently) patented the LS3/5a design (waaaaay) back in the 1970s, hence the need for manufacturers to license their design for commercial sale.

Patents typically last approximately 17 years (depending on certain conditions and the issuing country). However, regardless, the BBC patent on the LS3/5a must have expired years ago. So why does anyone need to apply for (and pay for) a license to use the published BBC design after its expiration in the early 1990s?

Thoughts???

 

[Eoin]

I wouldn’t think it was patented, I’d need to google!

 

[calorgas]

Probably as much for the permission to use the 'LS3/5A' name as anything, and/or reference to the BBC on any label which adds gravitas and ties the item to that lineage.

 

[Tony L]

It is just marketing these days. Many/most speakers sold as an “LS3/5A” today bear little if any connection to the original BBC specification. A specification which is exceptionally tight when it comes to components, materials, and measured performance. The aim when they were a studio monitor was that any two made a pair, so if one failed another was sent out of the service dept, not a pair. No way that could be done today with speakers using totally different drivers, crossovers, cabinets etc.

 

[davidsrsb]

I presume that the use of the word "BBC" comes under trademark law or other protections
edit
The BBC exist by an act of Parliament, so the name has special protections

 

[gavreid]

Even within a brand speakers are usually only "a pair" because they have sequential serial numbers. I doubt that most/any manufacturers will take the trouble to match a crossover to an individual set of drivers.

 

[Tony L]

I presume that the use of the word "BBC" comes under trademark law or other protections

It is a paid license. Companies pay a royalty to stick the phrase ‘BBC LS3/5A’ on their speaker. To my eyes this has over the years lost all meaning as so many wearing the label now, whilst lovely little speakers, are not LS3/5As in any real sense as the drivers, crossovers and design are just so different. It has become marketing rather than specification.

 

[Martyn Miles]

I suggest you contact Canonman about the BBC Licence.
He’ll give you a definitive answer.

 

[Rockmeister]

But just LS3 5A is fine and free?

 

[Vinny]

But just LS3 5A is fine and free?

Not if it is a trademark.

Trademark protection is infinite

So far as patent protection goes, the aim is to make them as broad and as non-specific as possible and still get passed by the Patent Office.
If a patent is extremely specific, making something very, very close to the patented item, is a piece of cake.

The classic example of a patent being far too specific was the ladies' shaver that is a dipiaitor that uses a rotating spring with a small bend in it, so the spring closes the coils on one side, which grip the hairs. The spring was patented, but there are many, many ways to produce the same effect, so "copies" were avialable PDQ.

 

[Meursault]

But just LS3 5A is fine and free?

Well, Spendor did the S3/5.
It must be trademark not patent as there have been LS3/5a which have varied from spec. Stirling used different drivers (v2) and Kef had one variation in gloss veneered chipboard (Raymond Cooke LE). These varied from the original design and could not have been mixed with other brands as a matched pair, which is something that the BBC did do from time to time.

 

[sktn77a]

I think that's the key - it's a trademark/copywrite licensing fee, rather than a patent licensing fee. These last longer (I think copywrites are 70 years and trademarks have to be renewed every 10 years). But yes, the BBC has to agree to license the trademark/copywrite and this hopefully would be dependent upon compliance of the product with the original specifications.

 

[canonman]

I suggest you contact Canonman about the BBC Licence.
He’ll give you a definitive answer.

As you know, ealt with it many times on here Msrtyn.

 

[Vinny]

Patents cover novel designs and formulations, not names or designations.

Simple names can be trademarked. No-one here will ever be able to make and sell Marmite, or Gold Blend coffee, or a Ford Capri.

Some things cannot be protected - cheddar (cheese) is now a commodity product, whereas stilton is protected by a PDO.

 

[Martyn Miles]

As you know, dealt with it many times on here Martyn.

Absolutely, John.
( As you know, discussion on the LS3/5A continues unabated...)

 

[Hazelberry]

It is a paid license. Companies pay a royalty to stick the phrase ‘BBC LS3/5A’ on their speaker. To my eyes this has over the years lost all meaning as so many wearing the label now, whilst lovely little speakers, are not LS3/5As in any real sense as the drivers, crossovers and design are just so different. It has become marketing rather than specification.

So the spec has been irrelevant since the demise of the LS3/5As being used as official BBC broadcasting monitors?

 

[Hazelberry]

The classic example of a patent being far too specific was the ladies' shaver that is a dipiaitor that uses a rotating spring with a small bend in it, so the spring closes the coils on one side, which grip the hairs. The spring was patented, but there are many, many ways to produce the same effect, so "copies" were avialable PDQ.

Indeed, a good slapping on the back of the thighs would just as painful & have your eyes watering

 

[Tony L]

So the spec has been irrelevant since the demise of the LS3/5As being used as official BBC broadcasting monitors?

One can argue the BBC is a shadow of its former sell too. Production has been gutted and is now largely outsourced to private companies and I doubt they have any in-house technical research capability left.

The days of BBC monitors ended decades ago and I doubt anyone there today really knows what an LS3/5A was, but if companies want to buy licenses they’ll sell licenses. It is an irrelevance as no way would the modern cost-cut BBC even consider buying in anything as expensive as a modern LS3/5A when they can buy active Dynaudios, Genelecs for a lot less and not even have to worry about amps.

The license is all about marketing to audiophiles now. The BBC certainly don’t buy them.

 

[dalryc]

I think Intel tried to copyright the 80486 as it was getting a lot of competitors using it.
The judge through it out and Intel had to come up with the rather odd Pentium and it's derivatives.
The brought on even more bizzare names, though I do like the AMD Threadripper!

 

[Tony L]

None of this is about copyright as far as I can sell. You do not need a license or pay a royalty to make an LS3/5A type speaker. I don’t think the design was ever patented. You do however need to pay a license fee to the BBC if you want to stick a label on saying it is an LS3/5A (even if technically it isn’t!). It is now just marketing. Falcon can claim to make an LS3/5A as they have remanufactured the correct drivers, reproduced the crossovers and cabinets to a high level of precision, but most offerings today are just lovely little speakers of that basic size and performance.