Bad argument. Period. You think this is an IP issue?PS: all you folks screaming for teardown two seconds after review, I know you don't mean it, but it sometimes seems like Topping/John is some DIY/opensource buddy from your neighborhood without will/right for at least some amount of intellectual property.. should't he publish all the technical documentation right now for us and Topping rivals?
1) If a competitor wants to reverse engineer, the cost of buying one and opening it up and checking it out is de minimus. This would not help competitors because they would buy one anyways to do detailed probing and scope work with the product to truly understand what was done.
2) If it fits the novelty requirements, get a patent to have a monopoly for a delineated period. If it is not patentable, refer back to point number 1.
3) By not doing a tear down, it only prevents hobbyists from seeing what is going on, not competitors. Arguably, this could prevent the one off creation of an amp for an individual and cost a sale, but that person likely would have built something else anyways rather than buy the product if true.
4) This is not calling for schematics and board views, but arguably those should be provided anyways as a means of promoting right to repair. Your argument literally contributes to the growing e-waste issue and promotes mass consumerism in an irresponsible way.
So I really am having a hard time with your rationality. Sorry to necro a comment so old, but I only just saw it and needed to speak out about embedded points, the problem with it not achieving what you think it does regarding competition, and that it only hurts hobbyists AND RIGHT TO REPAIR rather than actually moving the community and the movement for repairing your own devices forward. Go watch Louis Rossmann and his stance on schematics or die for more information on right to repair.
Edit:
As a fifth point, I point to a hobbyist recreating Viktor's 1kHz oscillator. He used the schematics and laid out his board, but had not optimized placement and traces. The difference in performance from Viktor's work was 20dB higher noise level. Just because you know what is there does not mean you can replicate the product. See point number 1 and 2 and 4.
Last edited: