Talk:Behringer/Archive 3

Fresh Start
I have archived the prior talk page as it was excessively long and was descending into personal attacks and "he said" "she said". If there are specific issues with current article content, please start a fresh section below. Thedarxide (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thedarxide: My apologies. I mistook your reinstatement of the FCC section.

I'll make no comment now on your decision to archive the discussion to date. However, unless something else has changed that I am unaware of, are we not all still in a position here in which Binksternet has asserted his right to control this article - despite having a very strong personal antagonism against the subject company?

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the assertion that the controversial section he wrote is "well sourced" when his references are (1) to the original allegations made by Mackie subsequently to be shown to be false by several courts of law and (2) to a magazine article that relies on (1) for its source. Requests for factual sources that support the contended views have, by his own admission, produced nothing. Yet he refuses to remove the section or even add the several opposing references that have been submitted in the discussion you have now archived.

How do we proceed over the controversial sections of this article when one person with greater editing privileges acts to stifle views he does not agree with - and where he is unable to support his own edits with factual references?

I have suggested that the controversy is taken out completely. I am aware of your personal view that negative information is as valid as positive information. I agree. However, the point remains that all information - negative or positive - must be based on fact. Not innuendo or prejudice and certainly not on false statements. The article as it currently appears presents a false view of the circumstances and resolution of both Mackie's and Aphex's claims against Behringer.

The controversy and issues behind the contested section are ancient (the most recent dispute is over 12 years old) and complex. Other than the short descriptions offered which have already been refused, any attempt to explore the background to these issues will inevitably be extended and, as the issues involve several companies, has no place being held within the article of just one of the parties involved.

Neither Mackie nor Aphex pages on Wikipedia contain any mention of their disputes with Behringer yet both companies have a history of acting no better than Behringer's detractors would portray and arguably less attractively.

If it is deemed important that this chapter in the history of the commercial audio equipment industry is documented in Wikipedia, I would like to propose the following:


 * 1. A separate article is created in which the full background of the disputes between Aphex, Mackie and Behringer can be examined. The practice of many companies in the industry who produce products similar to each other can also be explored and the reasons behind that (eg; OEM manufacture, cooperative R&D and/or manufacturing, proper or improper use of intellectual property legislation) can be explained.


 * 2. A link to that article is placed on each company's main article in Wikipedia


 * 3. No 'short-hand' discussion of the disputes and issues surrounding them should appear in any of the individual company's main pages (to avoid this argument flaring up again)

I anticipate a cry that this proposal ignores Behringer's "history" - by which people usually mean the accusations that are to this day thrown at the company. In the setting of an encyclopedia I argue that it is for such people to show that their accusations are firmly based in fact - not opinion or circular references to earlier disproven allegations.

Factually, the company has only ever lost one IP lawsuit (the one brought by Aphex) and the basis on which that case was won has subsequently been overturned in that Aphex did not at any time legitimately own the patent rights it relied on in making its claim. Behringer was no more wrong in its actions than the other companies Aphex attempted to sue who successfully showed that its patent was invalid. The true basis and resolution of the claim brought by Mackie is about as far from the popular conception as might be imagined.

It is grossly unfair to allow disproven accusations and repeated falsehoods to be portrayed unless at least balanced by facts setting out the actual course, resolution and consequences of events.

I wait with interest to see how you and other Wikipedia editors deal with this matter.

Eqdynamics (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's comments are of no interest to me. I don't believe that he has asserted any right to edit the article more than any one else, and he certainly hasn't stifled debate - the archived page is proof of that.  The contents of the Mackie and Aphex pages again are of no interest to me at present.  The issue at hand is with a particular section of *this* article.  The contents of which are adequately sourced, and do not, as you say, represent a false view.  Please address the content as it stands:


 * In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages.
 * True


 * In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.
 * True


 * The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Marks.
 * True

The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.
 * True


 * Behringer has won at least one court case against Mackie for infringement—on November 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit board layout was not covered by U.S. copyright laws.
 * True

If am incorrect in these assertions, please, succinctly, state why. Thedarxide (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong in most of your assertions.


 * In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages.

Correct
 * In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.

False. The suit is not factually known to contain any such claim. Nobody has provided a reference to prove this statement - only a reference to a magazine article that repeated a Mackie press release that itself did not make such claims. Even if the suit did contain such a claim, it was subsequently shown to be false as no other manufacturer (other than Aphex) had brought suit against Behringer at that time.
 * The problem here, I feel, is corroborating what the Billboard article actually says. Long shot, but does anyone have a copy?
 * Found a copy here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=%22Mackie+Sues+Over+Knockoffs%22&source=bl&ots=tfIYksOl70&sig=-30-GfSG4LCDFMqIgA6v0o-90vA&hl=en&ei=LBPeSvC4FdyQjAfG75Vl&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Mackie%20Sues%20Over%20Knockoffs%22&f=false

The article seems to support exactly what is written in the article. Thedarxide (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Marks.

Again, where is the evidence to support this statement? Mackie's claim has never been in the public domain and is now locked under the terms of the final settlement. To say that Mackie made this claim is pure speculation. Where is the reference that shows how much Aphex Systems won? Where can it be shown how much the company actually received? For the benefit of even-handedness, it must be stated with equal prominence that Aphex's claim to own the patent on which its original claim was based (actually covering all of its Exciter products) and on which it "won" the case was subsequently overturned by the US Patent Office and it lost several other cases it attempted against other companies brought on almost identical grounds to those it brought against Behringer. Behringer was, therefore, correct in its original reply to Aphex's claim that it had nothing to answer as both company's products were based on prior art and therefore neither deserving of patent or other IP protection.
 * Again, same problem, same reference.
 * The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.

False on all counts. No reference can be made to claims made in Mackie's suit as explained above - any such claim is pure speculation. In addition, BBE, dbx and Drawmer have never filed suit against Behringer so the statement itself is false and has no place here.
 * Ditto.
 * Behringer has won at least one court case against Mackie for infringement—on November 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit board layout was not covered by U.S. copyright laws.

True but improperly stated. As the reference I gave in the now archived discussion proved, ALL of Mackie's claims of copying, trade mark infringement and other IP infringements were thrown out by all the courts that heard them in the three jurisdictions where they came before judges. Mackie's final claim of trade dress infringment never came before a court as both parties agreed to withdraw before judgement was sought. The settlement was a legal "walk away" from which no inference can be taken. Certainly not the inference that Mackie somehow "won" anything from its action. Subsequent events prove otherwise.
 * Can you re-provide the reference to the update on the trade dress issue? If there is no joy in establishing the content of the billboard article, I would strip that section to the first line "In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages.", and then go on to state the court case timeline and outcomes.  What do you think? Thedarxide (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The statements as they stand and taken together paint a deliberately negative view of Behringer that is simply not justified by the facts of the case.

I say again, if you are intent on presenting this material, then in the interests of honesty and fairness the actions and involvement of the other parties accused by Mackie (in particular the Sam Ash Music Corporation) must be presented. Mackie's destruction of Behringer's U.S. distribution network must also be discussed and the consequences of the action on both companies should be presented.

Mackie was already in severe financial difficulties (as shown by the SEC filing that was incorrectly interpreted and arguied in the archive discussion) and the public statement by Sam Ash at the time it filed its countersuit against Mackie - which also made allegations (subsequently shown to be correct) about Mackie's motives in bringing the suit against it and Behringer.

Mackie, having failed in its attempt to harm and unfairly exclude a competitor from its home market was forced to reverse its publicly stated moral stance, move its production to China and eventually lost so much money that it was bought cheaply with massive losses to its original investors. Greg Mackie and the other managers responsible for the Behringer/Sam Ash claim were immediately thrown out of the company by its new owners.

Sam Ash Music Corporation continues as a successful business. Behringer continues as a successful - and now far larger, multi-national business.

This fuller description of the case brought by Mackie and its outcome paints a very different - and truthful - picture of the events and their consequences.

Anything less presents only half-truths and unfairly perpetuates an entirely wrong view of Behringer.

Eqdynamics (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thedarxide: I am interested in your statement that you do not "believe that he [Binksternet] has asserted any right to edit the article more than any one else..". You cite the archived discussion as "proof of that".

Can you comment on his claim in the archived discussion that the disputed section under discussion will stay. That sounds like an assertive statement that his view overrides others to me. And his earlier reversal of an edit by one of the contributors to the discussion who challenged his view - attached to an asssertion (subsequently repeated by him) that he did so because he had higher editing rights - with the strong implication, at least, that his view prevailed over other contributors.

Alternatively, can you give an assurance that, should I or anyone else edit the article in a way that offends Binksternet's views but follows Wikipedia policies that he will not deface the contributions or amend the views presented?

Thank you

Eqdynamics (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll address your points above in the morning - thank you for responding to these individually. I am not discussing other contributors, my concern is sorting this mess out.  Therefore I can give you no assurance.  From my point of view, it is imperative that the article remains neutral, and factual, and I will work with *all* parties to ensure such a resolution.  That does mean keeping the discussion regarding the article focused. Thedarxide (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is because of my experience with Wikipedia's procedures that I made the absolute statement that the trademark dispute paragraph will stay in the article. I've seen enough to know that a significant event in an entity's history, one which was commented upon by a wide variety of media sources, one which follows WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:V, will always end up staying in an article when it is opposed by parties that have no references.
 * I would comment further, but I'm on the road gigging and today was a 19-hour uphill slog with insufficient crew. I'm bushed! Later. Binksternet (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope this is not seen as a personal comment. Binksternet's problem in the statement he just made is that (a) I and others HAVE provided references that support our proposed changes and (b) the references on which he relies have been shown NOT to support his views - in many cases to contain factually false claims or be based on hearsay or personal opinion and not FACT. Eqdynamics (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The darxside, why are removing my comments on this discussion board? I was responding to Binksternet's accusations that Behringer copied QSC, Line 6, Apple site etc.Hohan22 (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained last night on your talk page. Those comments have been archived and therefore your response is out of place.  It is also distracting from trying to resolve the issue.  As I said, if you wish to challenge Binksternet, do it on his talk page. Thedarxide (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I am really puzzled. Binksternet has made accusations and I am providing facts to prove that these are wrong. First I am not allowed to make changes on the article and now I am not allowed to clarify issues in the dicussion board. You cut me off but allow Binksternet to publish his propaganda? Is this the spirit of Wikipedia that only a few people can determine what will be published and what not? What comes next? Removing all my comments and blocking me?Hohan22 (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * sigh*. The accusations you refer to have been archived, which is why I am suggesting you talk it to individual talk pages.  Clarifying the issue at hand is exactly what I am trying to do.  If you want to contribute to the discussion of the offending paragraph, please do so. Thedarxide (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The July 1997 Paul Verna article in Billboard is a good secondary source. What are the sources that contradict it? We can put both the Verna and its rebuttal source into the article, if the rebuttal is also a reliable, verifiable source like Billboard. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thedarxide: On a point of courtesy, you have inserted comments into my text, above. This mechanism is contrary to the conduct of this discussion as seen so far and I consider it bad form. Especially as, yet again, you have not signed your insertions to make it clear where they originate.

Thank you, however, for providing a link to the Billboard article in Google's archives - very useful. I don't know how many times I have to explain that the Billboard article and the Music Live article do not report FACTS but opinion - ALL of it, in both cases, subsequently shown to be fabricated and untrue. I'd like to look at a few of the statements made in the Billboard article to illustrate just how far away from factual it is.


 * The article claims that Aphex collected "$1,186,800" in damages from its 1987 claim of patent infringement against Behringer referring to Mackie's legal filing as its source. Regardless of the fact that Mackie's legal papers have not been shown to contain any such statement, the statement itself is untrue. In fact, even if you go right back to the source (Aphex itself) you won't find such figures or claims. The private correspondence I have received from both companies on this matter that reveals to me the actual figure Aphex received is clearly inadmissable here, but I will provide a reference to a contemporary article in the UK magazine Studio Sound that repoted the outcome of an appeal in the dispute between Aphex and Behringer. Note that at no time was Aphex awarded a sum anywhere close to US$1.1 million - the court initially awarded a far lower sum that Aphex found unacceptable. Kindly note that the Studio Sound article reports a publicly verifiable record and IS a "perfectly good secondary source" under Wikipedia's guidelines. Also kindly note that the article predates the Billboard article by 5 months.


 * Studio Sound, February 1997, SECTION: Pg. 8
 * HEADLINE: SOUNDINGS
 * GERMANY: A recent German court judgement has found Behringer in breach of equipment design copyright held by Aphex Systems and AKG Acoustics. The ruling concerns Aphex' Aural Exciter and involves a settlement of $450,000 (US). The latest development follows a ruling made in 1992 on the suit - which was originally filed in 1987 - that Behringer had infringed Aphex' copyright, but which had been challenged by Aphex over the size of the financial settlement. The appeal successfully saw the penalty raised, but not to the $910,000 sought by the US-based Aphex.


 * The article states that Behringer is a Swiss company. The company was formed in Germany and has never been based in Switzerland.


 * The article states that "Mackie refers to similar disputes between Behringer and Drawmer, dbx and BBE". Again, the claim that this statement was included in the legal papers cannot be verified. What can be verified is that the allegation is untrue. Behringer has never been in dispute with any of the companies mentioned.


 * The article goes into some detail of allegations made against Sam Ash Music Corporation which Mackie accused as co-defendant in its claim. Sam Ash filed a counter suit against Mackie and won. Proof can be found in articles already cited by Binksternet. All of the allegations made by Mackie were judged to be untrue by the court.

The Billboard article cannot be relied upon as a source with any credibility for the purpose currently presented in the Wikipedia article. As has already been pointed out - and is obvious from a reading of the article itself - the entire article is based on UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS allegedly made in Mackie's legal claim for IP infringement against Behringer. ALL of Mackie's allegations were subsequently found to be untrue by several courts. As I have shown, above, the article contains a number of errors of fact that were known at the time. At best, it might only be useful in supporting a statement that the allegations attributed to Mackie represented that company's opinions at that time.

Re your use of "Again, same problem, same reference" and "Ditto" remarks - straight back at ya! :)

It looks as if someone from Behringer itself has now joined the discussion and that the disputed section has now (as I suggested several times) been removed from the main article. Unless you disagree, I propose to say no more on this matter at this time. Thank you for your time and contributions to the discussion.

Eqdynamics (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for writing my comments in line with yours - I did so to preserve the flow of the discussion. I didn't sign each post to avoid clutter.  And I'm afraid I do disagree, it is unacceptable for a representative of the company to remove sourced content from the page.  They are welcome to join this discussion.  I have to agree with Binkersternet regarding the Billboard article.  However, if claims were subsequently found to have been untrue, I have no problem incorporating referenced material to that effect into the section, but I would have said that material is already there? Thedarxide (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem regrettable - and a clear breach of Wikipedia guidelines for a company representative (if that's who "EdatBehringer" is) to delete material from the article. I'm sorry to see this discussion come to this. That said, as I have been trying to say for over two weeks now, the section we have been discussing has surely come to the attention of Behringer ans its legal department. It may be the action taken is the lesser of several options under consideration. Best to wait and see what happens, I suggest, before anyone rushes to do anything rash.

The reputation of a multi-million dollar international business is under the microscope here and - as I have tried to warn time and again - the section as it was most recently visible would have had the legal department in most companies jumping up and down in a frenzy. Binksternet and Thedarxide are arguing to resurrect disproven allegations dating back between 12 and 22 years. A very, very good reason indeed needs to be shown why a company cleared of all wrongdoing in regard to these allegations should again have its name besmirched. As I have not seen even the faintest sign of anyone allowing a balanced view to pertain, EdatBehringer (whoever that is) may just have done you both and Wikipedia a favour.

Binksternet in particular might be advised to moderate his attitude and bullish statements. In particular, people, as you haven't done so yet, now might be an especially good time to park the prejudices and start listening to what others have been saying about the very significant difference between fact and opinion.

Eqdynamics (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not arguing that disproven allegations should be in the article. I'm arguing that it was reported, in a highly visible source, that certain events occured, then these should be stated.  If, as I believe you're suggesting, Behringer was going to take legal action regarding Wikipedia content, they would also need to take action against the magazine's in question which published the claims.  As I have already said, I have no problem going on to report that in fact all allegations were dismissed but I think we're still missing a reference for the trade dress part?. Thedarxide (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What was reported and what you refer to as “certain events”, is that allegations were made, not that the substance of the allegations were factual or true. That determination is left to the finder of fact, which in this case determined that the allegations were unfounded. Basing information on disproven or unfounded allegations violates Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and undermines Wikipedia’s goal of providing an unbiased and neutral point of view. This is true whether the information comes directly from the disproven or unfounded allegation or indirectly through a 3rd party source referring back to the disproven or unfounded allegation, such as a newspaper or magazine article.

I note that I do not find such disproven or unfounded allegations on the pages of other companies, including the companies cited in the same unfounded allegations as those certain editors persist in attempting to add to this page. Further, from an institutional standpoint, if Wikipedia is intended to provide an unbiased neutral point of view, then pages must be edited using consistent standards. Therefore, either disproven or unfounded allegations should not be included on company information pages– as I believe is consistent with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or they should be included on all company information pages. Selectively including disproven or unfounded allegations for only certain companies, implies an institutional bias and partisan point of view which unfortunately undermines the credibility and relevance of Wikipedia. EdatBehringer (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Trademark Claims
The allegations in the Mackie complaint, which form the basis for the “Trademark Claims” section Binksternet persists in attempting to add to the page are not facts according to Wikipedia’s own policies. The allegations were not found to be valid by any court. The citations he attempts to use in support of his edits also rely upon the same discredited allegations cited in the complaint and therefore do not constitute a truly independent source. Further, the allegations are old news, are not referenced on the pages of any of the other involved parties and unproven legal claims are not the type of information included on company pages.EdatBehringer (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to see the source for your statements. What are the reliable, verifiable references you used to make the assertions you give above? What we have here are a very few articles in Billboard, Music Trades and Studio Sound. There are no sources that I know of which can verify the actual court case, which means the accounts that have been published are the ones that will be quoted here. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, Darxide: Behringer does not have to prove its innocence. Moreover YOU have to prove its wrongdoing, which is not only Wikipedia's clear policy but also common sense (in dubio pro reo). If you have no sources for FACTS - which you confirm - then you only repeat unfounded accusations which is unethical and libelous. This paragraph must be removed unless YOU can provide facts such as court decisions. Can't someone start a dispute resolution process? I am tired of this nonsense - sighHohan22 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a court of law, it is an encyclopedia. What we use to edit this article are reliable, verifiable sources. EdatBehringer has entered a request for MedCom attention, and I agreed to take part if they accept the case, but it is likely they will bump the request back down to the "lower courts" of Request for Comment or Third Opinion. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Justification of Trademark Claim Removal and Analysis of Binksternet's Biased Editing
I am trying to ensure a neutral, reliably sourced article, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. According to Wikipedia’s policies, editors should “assert facts, but not opinions.” Wikipedia’s policies define a fact as “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.”  Binksternet has violated this principle by repeatedly basing comments about Behringer on allegations made in legal complaints. A legal complaint is a one-sided (often inflammatory) recital of allegations and opinions made in the course of a dispute. A finder of fact is responsible for determining the validity of allegations made in a complaint. Allegations made in a complaint are not considered factual until a determination is made by the finder of fact. Therefore, by definition, allegations in a complaint are not fact and should not be the basis for statements posted on Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia’s own policies, only a decision by a court or “finder of fact” qualifies as fact.

Binksternet has engaged in an editing war and persists in attempting to insert comments about a trademark dispute that are based on allegations in a complaint filed by a competitor of Behringer. Binksternet persists in these attempts, even though the final decision by the finder of fact did not support the allegations cited by Binksternet.


 * Binksternet Applies Different Editorial Standards To Different Pages He Edits, Based On His Opinion Of The Page Subject.

Binksternet’s bias is further demonstrated by the fact that he authored pages for a number of companies that compete with Behringer, including Carvin, Universal Audio, BGW Systems, Sweetwater Sound and Yorkville Sound. However, Binksternet applies different editorial standards to the Behringer page than to the other professional audio company pages he also edits.

For example, on multiple occasions, Binksternet insisted on removing a reference to an award won by Behringer as one of the finalists in “Entrepreneur of the Year” by Ernst & Young of Germany. Binksternet stated that the award is “worthless” and is watered down because there are so many finalists. However, Binksternet applied a different editorial standard on a page he edited, for awards won by another professional audio company – Sweetwater Sounds. For example, on the Sweetwater Sounds page, Binksternet included an “Inc. Magazine” award for being the 351st fastest growing private business in the US in 1995 and a reference to an “Indiana Governor’s Art’s Award”. I do not believe that the Sweetwater Sounds awards acceptable to Binksternet are qualitatively different from the Behringer award Binksternet sought to remove as “puffery”.

Further, none of the other professional audio company pages Binksternet created contain any sections on legal disputes. Other editors have also noted this point, and attempted to remove the dispute section, but Binksternet persists in having the section reinstated.


 * Binksternet Statements Indicate a Bias Against Behringer.

Binksternet has made comments which call into question his ability to remain neutral. Binksternet has stated that “I'm not a fan of Behringer in any sense, and in fact I am angry at Behringer business practices.” Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC). Given Binksternet’s stated bias against Behringer, it is clear that he cannot provide a neutral point of view on the company, which ultimately undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.

Behringer has reached out to Binksternet and attempted to establish a constructive dialogue in the hope of achieving an appropriate resolution to this problem. Binksternet's response was that he was not interested in engaging Behringer directly. [See Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)].

Binksternet has created a long-term problem by persistently editing the Behringer page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources and insists on giving undue weight to a minority view – in this case, a legal complaint filed by a Behringer competitor which ultimately was dismissed by the finder of fact. This disruptive behavior by an editor, such as Binksternet, harms Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor such as Binksternet continues with impunity. The sheer volume of edits by Binksternet to the legal controversy section of the Behringer page underscores the persistence of the problem.
 * Binksternet Engages in Disruptive Editing.


 * Binksternet Engages in Tendentious Editing.

Binksternet has engaged in editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. Binksternet has engaged in repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors.

An example of Binksternet’s tendentious editing was his repeated insertion of a statement accusing Behringer of “IP Theft”. Again, Binksternet’s comments were based on allegations contained in a complaint filed by a competitor. This comment was ultimately removed by “Stiffle”, via Wikipedia’s Arbitration Process. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABehringer&action=historysubmit&diff=317371757&oldid=317329259)


 * Binksternet is Improperly using Wikipedia’s Policies to Further His Own Agenda.

Binksternet is engaged in an edit war and improperly claiming that other editors are engaged in vandalism by reverting his comments. Binksternet is engaging in this activity in an effort to damage Behringer’s repution. This behavior, in addition to improperly damaging the reputation of Behringer, undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. As noted by Wikipedia, engaging in improper claims of vandalism may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.


 * Binksternet has Rebuffed All Efforts To Resolve Differences.

Behringer has made several efforts to reach out to Binksternet to discuss resolution of the problem and has even invited him to visit Behringer’s office to meet in person with management. Binksternet responded that he “do[es] not wish to communicate off-wiki nor do I intend to come visit.”

Binksternet’s editing of the Behringer page violates Wikipedia's own guidelines and policies and is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Wikipedia. Binksternet has repetitively and intentionally made unconstructive edits to the Behringer page. Binksternet has rebuffed all efforts to informally resolve the matter. It is clear that the parties have reached an impasse and that Binksternet intends to persist with his editing in violation of Wikipedia’s policies.


 * Because we are at an impasse with respect to Binksternet's edits of the Behringer page, and have been unable to resolve this matter informally, I feel that it is now appropriate to invoke formal mediation in order to encourage a productive editing environment moving forward. I have invited Binksternet to participate in mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Behringer

EdatBehringer (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have restored the content, as there is a constructive debate in place on this talk page which you have yet to contribute to. You should realise that you are potentially in a conflict of interest position and could also be viewed as biased, and therefore it is all the more important that you engage with editors who are trying to resolve the issue.  Thedarxide (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors have requested that the section be removed. At this point, the discussion does not seem to be productive, but rather seems to be going in circles. I am only seeking to ensure a neutral, reliably sourced article. As I noted above, the allegations in the Mackie complaint, which form the basis for the “Trademark Claims” section Binksternet persists in attempting to add to the page are not facts according to Wikipedia’s own policies. The allegations were not found to be valid by any court. The citations he attempts to use in support of his edits also rely upon the same discredited allegations cited in the complaint and therefore do not constitute a truly independent source. Further, the allegations are old news, are not referenced on the pages of any of the other involved parties and unproven legal claims are not the type of information included on company pages. EdatBehringer (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The section you deleted contains information about specific events that were commented about in the pro audio and music business communities. Very little else that Behringer has done merited such press from disinterested parties. As such, the various stories encapsulated in the small paragraph about trademark disputes must be told in the encyclopedia article about Behringer. Your participation here is welcome—what you are welcome to do is to add to that paragraph, using verifiable and reliable sources, so that Behringer's viewpoint can be brought out next to the viewpoints of other observers. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. I believe that your edits are biased and do not conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just the tone of your comments indicate a biased position - “Very little else that Behringer has done. . . .”  I fail to understand your persistent attempts to falsely tarnish the reputation of Behringer with these unfounded allegations dating back more than 10 years. If, as you claim, the unfounded allegations in the Mackie complaint must be discussed on the Behringer page (irrespective of whether the comments are factual or comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines) then these same comments must be discussed on the pages of the other parties involved in the litigation. Further, if we follow this logic, then to ensure a consistent approach across Wikipedia, any unfounded allegation contained in any complaint filed against any company which received any mention in the press should also be discussed.

I have invited you to participate in mediation to address the issues I outline in my previous comments and to ensure that the Behringer page is edited in a neutral unbiased manner using the same standards as used with other company pages. I hope that you will accept the offer of mediation and enable us to work through these issues in a collaborative, professional and respectful manner. EdatBehringer (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I invite you to add to the article the public and verifiable evidence that shows Mackie's claims to be unfounded allegations. This would be good information for the reader.
 * Points:
 * Ten and twenty-year-old events in a company's history are not to be swept under the rug if they are significant. This is not a forward-looking, glossy brochure advertising Behringer; it is an encyclopedia article telling the reader both about the company's past and its current story.
 * Feel free to add the relevant information to the Mackie article, the Aphex Systems article, the Roland Corporation or Boss Corporation articles, the Sam Ash article and the Samson Technologies article. I am not stopping you.
 * Wikipedia is less concerned about whether a statement is factual than whether it is reliably referenced, neutrally stated and verifiable. Simply asserting that something is not factual without referring to the public word of another expert or reliable source doesn't get very far. In the typical article that has two different versions of "facts", two or more conflicting experts are represented for the reader to compare.
 * Any consistency between articles in the same category is usually the result of editors who work hard to gain consistency. Otherwise, various editors have various interests, and their editing activities rarely result in consistency. Comparing one article to another is not a sure way to get the desired change—there is no rule that articles about like subjects should be alike.
 * More than four hours before you wrote that you hope I will accept the offer of mediation, I accepted. What remains is for the MedCom folks to gauge the case and decide whether to address it. I will participate fully in mediation if they pick it up, but they usually ask that less formal mediation methods be tried first. This case has not been taken to Request for Comment nor has it been submitted to Third Opinion. Going to MedCom as a first step is like asking the United States Supreme Court to take a case that has never been tried elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet and Thedarxide insist on driving this discussion round in circles. I have previously quoted one of the references that Binksternet originally cited - that just happens to answer the questions both he and Thedraxide are again putting here and now.

Reference 34: ''Music Trades, February 1999. Archived at Entrepreneur.com as "Mackie/Behringer Lawsuit." Retrieved on September 8, 2009'' includes the following:


 * "Mackie's initial lawsuit, filed in June 1997, charged Behringer, Samson Technologies, ,Sam Ash Music (the parent company of Samson), and officers of Samson and Sam Ash with unfair trade practices, conspiracy, trademark infringement, and trade dress infringement. The suit asked for $327 million in damages. Judges have subsequently dismissed claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and now trademark infringement. A judge also absolved Sam Ash Music of any liability. The trade dress issue is scheduled to go to trial in the fall of 1999."

I refer in particular to the sentence:


 * "Judges have subsequently dismissed claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and now trademark infringement."

That sentence confirms what has been stated - repeatedly - by a number of other potential contributors here, that ALL of the allegations repeated in the disputed section, originally laid by Mackie, were found to be untrue. All of Mackie's very specific and numerous claims and allegations set out in quite some detail in the Billboard article constantly referred to and relied upon by Binksternet and Thedarxide were found by several courts to be completely groundless.

Turning to Mackie's final claim of "trade dress" infringement, it is not for anyone else to disprove the value assigned to this aspect by Binksternet and Thedarxide. It is for them to establish what significance of this part of Mackie's claim and for them to show - by properly cited references - that Mackie's claim had some basis. Repeatedly demanding that others, in effect, prove them wrong in their assertions and bias toward this specific matter, does not do credit to Wikipedia.

Both Binksternet and Thedarxide have been told - again, repeatedly - that this part of the case was eventually settled privately between the parties under confidential terms. Neither has produced as much as a single word othat says anything at all about the settlement and both have ignored the reference I provided that describes the settlement.

Thedarxide is on record here saying ".. the trade dress issue, which is, I believe, the crux of the settlement" Thedarxide (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which leads to the question - what qualifies Thedarxide to state that this aspect is "the crux of the settlement"? Is Thedarxide a lawyer? a Judge? a specialist in intellectual property law?

Why should this aspect be the "crux" of either the settlement of - as Thedarxide's subsequent conduct illustrates - the discussion here?

I have very severe doubts that Thedarxide has any notion of what trade dress infirngement is or involves. Neither Thedarxide or Binksternet has shown any real understanding of IP law. Neither editor has provided any reference or other material to substantiate their views. Nothing has been produced to show what Mackie was claiming in its trade dress claim. There is nothing on public record anywhere that says anything more than the parties eventually settled this part of the dispute on undisclosed and confidential terms.

By trying to turn this into more than that simple statement, both Binksternet and Thedarxide are demonstrating anti-Behringer bias yet again. What qualifies them to read into a settlement something that cannot be shown to be there? Their actions and persistence on this matter discredit them and Wikipedia. They move beyond the use of discredited allegation into an area where they are asserting that THEIR PERSONAL opinion - entirely unsupported by any reference or fact - should guide this discussion.

As to the claims made by both Binksternet and Thedarxide that they are willing to include material that counters the view they want to put forward, I refer to (1) reference 34, in part extracted above that shows the factual outcome of the material aspects of Mackie's suit and (2) the references I provided on Sam Ash Music Corporation (the co-defendant in Mackie's suit) - that (a) show the valid and correct interpretation of both the value of Mackie's allegations and that company's motives in bringing the suit and (b) the fact that Sam Ash was successful in its countersuit against Mackie - hence substantiating the statements made at (a).

Neither Binksternet nor Thedarxide has used these references or inserted them into the article.

What both have done is repeatedly reinstate the disputed section - word-for-word in its disputed and biased form. These actions have most definitely dissuaded me from editing or contributing to the article itself. As I have already said several times, I see no point in doing so when others (ie, Wikipedia accredited editors) with "higher being" status here repeatedly remove or reinstate any material they choose.

On the question of bias, too many examples exist to repeat them all again here. Both Wikipedia accredited editors have made statements that clearly evidence bias against Behringer.


 * Take just one very clear example. I refer to the paragraphs quoted above from citation 34 in the article.
 * The disputed section contains the sentence "In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages." This statement paraphrases information contained in the two references quoted. It does so selectively. It gives the reader the impression that Behringer was the only defendant accused by Mackie - when it was not. It fails to mention that one of the defendants (Sam Ash) filed a counter-suit against Mackie claiming damages of its own. And more.
 * As to the outcome of Mackie's suit and allegations, though the statement presented includes a reference to Ref.34, the statement of the full and final resolution of the main parts of Mackie's claims contained in Ref.34 "Judges have subsequently dismissed claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and now trademark infringement. A judge also absolved Sam Ash Music of any liability." is ignored in favour of the very much watered-down statement "on November 30, 1999, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that circuit board layout was not covered by U.S. copyright laws" - an apprently paraphrased statement as I cannot see it as a quote in any of thereferenced material.
 * It has to be further noted that the statement given is neither accurate nor a proper representation of the facts comprised within the actual court judgement. Ref. 34 actually says "In its dismissal of the copyright claim, the court noted that Mackie's circuit board designs were not covered by the U.S. copyright office."
 * The statement presented in the article suggests that Mackie's claim may have been lost because circuit boards 'in general' may not be covered by U.S. copyright. That is incorrect in fact and implication. Ref. 34 provides a correct statement that Mackie lost its copyright infringement claim because Mackie's circuit boards were not covered by U.S. copyright. This distinction is vital to an understanding of the dispute between Mackie and Behringer as it shows that Mackie's original claim of copyright infringement was unfounded and improperly made - not because of some legal technicality but because its specific circuit boards did not qualify for copyright protection (and Mackie - as shown by the Billboard article) claimed copyright on a large number of its circuit boards.

The disputed section contains other examples of selective editing, obviously intended to promote Binksternet's biased (and openly admitted) dislike of Behringer rather than provide an even and factually based presentation of the material.

The discussion (especially the now archived material) contains numerous examples of bias by both Wikipedia accredited editors and multiple, repeated libellous statements made by Binksternet against Behringer.

On the question of misuse of Wikipedia procedures


 * Both Wikipedia accredited editors have asserted and used their "higher being" powers to trample the actions of others and stifle debate. Both have repeatedly stated and acted on their statements that their view shall prevail. The action most recently taken by Thedarxide in AGAIN reinstating the disputed section is most shameful, given that the section is clearly in dispute, there exist clear arguments that its content is innapropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and an arbitration process had already been requested to resolve the dispute. At the very least, the arbitration process should have been allowed to run its course before any further action was taken on the disputed section. This action begs the question, just why both Binksternet and Thedarxide are so desperate to keep the disputed and inflammatory statements in public view. Why can they not wait for the arbitration process to decide? Why does their view have to prevail RIGHT NOW?


 * Binksternet can clearly be seen to have used accusations of "vandalism" and "sock-puppetry" to both silence critics of his behaviour and justify his restoration of the disputed material.


 * The archived discussion contains multiple examples of challenges to statements made by Binksternet in which he was asked to substantiate statements he made. In each and every example he failed to provide any credible or relevant material to support his earlier statements. In several cases, Binksternet asserted his/her "higher being" rights as an accredited Wikipedia editor and used those rights to stifle the challenger and/or remove contributions made by them that did not fit with Binksternet's views.


 * When I first entered this debate, I took time to set out the background and resolution of the dispute between Mackie and Behringer at considerable length. I made statements of how I had come to research the subject and references to Internet sources that showed a far earlier debate on this very topic, containing references to high quality sources of factual and verifiable information and, in passing, my true identity. Thedarxide immediately responded with an accusation that I was a biased contributor and immediately questioned my right to contribute to the debate or question the validity of the disputed material: "Again, I always find it suspicious when a new user has only edited this one article but makes strong claims against what Wikipedia should and should not contain.... 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)" (unsigned - I had to look in the history to find my accuser). I see this as an attempt to scare off somebody presenting views that Thedarxide did not agree with. It is not an action that solicits or supports open debate.


 * Thedarxide unilaterally shut down the initial discussion - vitally hiding from view the included references, evidence and answers to questions both he and Binksternet have continued to put here - by using an archive mechanism not available to others involved in the discussion. The reason stated (that the discussion was becoming too personal) looks less and less credible as the circular and biased arguments continue to be put forward by both Wikipedia editors with "higher being" rights - an accusation that archiving was used to shut down a debate that was asking too many questions they could not answer looks increasingly justified.

I do not believe the original discussion should have been archived. Especially as I have since had to use more of my time repeating information, references and answers already given in the now archived discussion and repeatedly questioned again by both Wikipedia accredited editors in this "Fresh start".

I cannot see how either Binksternet or Thedarxide could have acted more clearly in demonstrating their willingness and determination to silence people they see as opponents, stifle contributions and deny others the ability to contribute to Wikipedia while exhibiting clear bias against the company that is the subject of this article.

Eqdynamics (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Blimey....
 * Reference 34. This does not show that ALL claims were thrown out.  It states, as you do go on to say, that the trade dress issued is scheduled to go to court.  The fact that this this was settled confidentially is not referenced, but were it to be, I would have no problem with its inclusion.  In fact, you are free to do this yourself.  You refer to a reference that I haven't used (I don't know what it is) - be bold and put it in.  The only actions by other editors so far has been to remove it, not improve it.
 * I would appreciate it if you would stop bringing my credentials into this and presuming my motives. My qualifications and experiences are not topics for discussion.  I have also stated, several times, that I have none of the  "higher powers"  that you keep referring to.  I have made a concerted effort to engage all parties in resolving this, in the correct manner, and your unfounded statements that I am attempting to "silence contributors" is an example of why I archived the previous talk page.  Note *archived*.  Not removed, hidden, deleted or in any way restricted.  It is clearly available at the top of the page.  The intention was to have a clean, easily followed discussion where contributors could track what had been discussed. without wading through endless paragraphs of accusations.  Again, no "higher powers" were invoked here.
 * Selective quoting is used in the section because the article is about Behringer, not, for example, Sam Ash. You are welcome to add the information regarding the counter suit to the Sam Ash article.
 * An arbitration process has NOT been started for this article. Two editors have agreed to be party to mediation - this is for them alone.

Thedarxide (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thedarxide: I truly do begin to despair. Is this a place for sensible debate or some kind of "Alice in Wonderland" world where denial and deflection trump truth and common sense?

I see that you haven't (yet again) attempted to actually answer or challenge any of the pertinent points I made. Nevertheless, I will address the four points you raise, for the sake of clarity and transparency in the order you raised them:


 * Please read what I wrote. I did not say that Ref.34 shows that "ALL claims were thrown out" as you claim. I wrote this:
 * ".. that ALL of the allegations repeated in the disputed section" are shown to be untrue by Ref.34. My claim is specific to the allegations you have recently reinstated to the article and not to the entirety of Mackie's suit as you believe.


 * In case I haven't made myself clear, I would have appreciated it if you hadn't attacked me personally the very instant I entered this debate. Yet, you chose to question my purpose and my integrity without even looking at the evidence and references I provided. I cite that as one example of the way your actions have discouraged debate and contributions here from that very first barb you chose to throw. What entitles you to operate such double standards? I could have also asked you several times to substantiate statements that you have made about me personally here. You can deny as you please but your actions are not conducive to fair and civil debate and (as I'll come to in a moment) the entirety of your actions and motives is fairly called into doubt.


 * Selective quoting is always dangerous. In the passages inserted by you and Binksternet - the ones you defend so vigorously and have again reinstated - it has been used not, as you say, to simplify the issues or the parties but clearly to present a false view. The first statement lays out a broad set of accusations - stated to have been laid against Behringer alone. Yet the statement you provide of the outcome is mealy-mouthed and addresses only one part of one of the allegations made in the first statement - thereby leaving the reader with the impression that the other allegations stand. The actual wording in the reference used has been ignored - even though it answers ALL the allegations set out in the first statement used. Accusations of improper use of selective editing are well founded. After the errors have been pointed out to you and Binksternet so many times, your insistence in preserving them intact shows at the very least a very high degree bias and, after so long, leaves you open to suspicions of malice or worse.


 * Again you hide behind Wikipedia procedures to excuse your actions. Whether the process started is arbitration or mediation, the fact remains that the section you reinstated remains in dispute and you should be ashamed of having reinstated it before it could be given due consideration. Yet again, this is evidence of your belief that your view shall be the only one to prevail here.

I am sure that you and Binksternet are convinced that you are acting here from the highest and purest of motives. Let me assure you that you are not and set out in simple terms, that I truly hope you can understand, what you are actually doing.

What you are doing here is just plain wrong. You cannot use the excuse that you do not understand the difference between a factual statemen and a statement of fact because I and others have explained that difference to you several times and in several different ways.

You are basing your actions on your claim that because the material you are using to weave your attack on Behringer exists in fact, you are entitled to use the material as you see fit - ignoring later materials that show the earlier allegations to be untrue. Your behaviour is that of one who cries "once accused, always guilty" or "there's no smoke without fire" as justification for stringing up an innocent man.

You claim the material you seek to present is essential to this article on grounds of "public interest". You haven't shown that there is any public interest in dragging this subject back into the spotlight - you have merely claimed that to excuse your behaviour. You and Binksternet are behaving like the lowliest of gutter journalists in slyly taking juicy bits of gossip and weaving them into a story that paints an entirely false picture of your victim. You have been given opportunity after opportunity to either stop what you are doing or - at the very least - allow other voices to present a balanced and factually based view.

You have denied and very effectively prevented both.

You are attacking a multi-million dollar international company with thousands of employees. It may appear an easy target to you but your attacks on the company's reputation and revenues put ordinary people's jobs in jeopardy.

What is so noble, heroic or justifiable in that?

If I were the owner of Behringer, I would have tired long ago of having my company's name repeatedly dragged through the mud by self-appointed "experts" whose only skill is the ability to read some old press clippings of juicy allegations - long since thoroughly and completely shown to have been false and malicious, made by a desperate competitor making a last ditch effort to save its business by telling the tide to turn back.

It may make you feel big or important to be here editing an article and sitting in judgement on a company, an individual and thousands of employees. But you are actually playing in a big ticket game and I can only hope that you have the means and courage to prove yourself as right and justified as you claim should your target be one thousandth as willing to resort to use of the law as the company whose actions you are so keen to defend and promote.

As you will not let the issue of Mackie's trade dress allegations die, let's look at them. The first thing to be said is that your presumption and repeated assertion that Behringer has a case to answer here is itself an act of bias.


 * Go back to the Billboard article and read the detailed description of Mackie's allegations in support of its claim to trade dress infringement. Note that ALL rely on collusion by Sam Ash Music in allegedly providing Behringer with a sample of Mackie's 24-8 mixer and the subsequent allegations that the article goes into great detail to describe what is alleged to have happened to that mixer.


 * Whle reading the Billboard article, note that Mackie's allegations of trade mark, copyright and trade dress infringements (they are separate things) are also ALL tied to the alleged actions of Sam Ash Music and Behringer acting in concert.


 * Now read Ref.34 which states that (a) Sam Ash Music had been cleared by the court of any liability in relation to Mackie's allegations and (b) that sentence I quoted and you have sought here to dismiss as irrelevant "Judges have subsequently dismissed claims of conspiracy, unfair trade, and now trademark infringement." Now look further up in Ref.34 for the sentence that you have used: "On November 30 the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer."


 * Taken together, those two sentences show that ALL of Mackie's claims of wrong-doing by Behringer were comprehensively THROWN OUT by the courts - apart from the trade dress allegation.


 * More significantly, what those two sentences confirm is that no court believed the evidence placed before them by Mackie. Had you or Binksternet actually done as you have alluded to on occasion and examined the original court documents you would have seen just how ludicrous Mackie's evidence actually was and begin to understand why it was INSTANTLY thrown out by every judge that looked at it.


 * Return to the Billboard article and read it properly. Note that the separate legal accusations of separate infringements - of copyright, of trademarks, of unfair trade practices, of conspiracy and, oh yes, of trade dress - all rely on the same alleged set of actions alleged to have been performed by both Sam Ash Music and Behringer.


 * As both Sam Ash Music and Behringer have been found innocent of all the other alleged infringements and the evidence behind ALL the alleged infringements (inluding that of trade dress) had been so comprehensively dismissed, it follows that Mackie never had a case for trade dress infringement. ALL the evidence in the public domain used to allege any other conclusion has been FACTUALLY found by several courts to be no more than a pile of stinking poo.

I can hear you shouting from here that I still haven't DISPROVED Mackie's allegation of trade dress infringement.

And there's your problem. It is not for me, for Behringer or anybody else to disprove it. If you or Binksternet want to make more of it than is in the public record it is for YOU, sir, to PROVE that Mackie had more behind this part of its claim than it had behind any of the rest.

If you attempt to do so, you will immediately face the same problem that Mackie faced - namely that with ALL of the evidence it had presented to all the courts in support of this and its other alleged IP infringements discredited it had to come up with something new to keep its claim alive. What it then claimed can be boiled down to this simplified example: I allege you are infringing my trade dress by using the same size and shape of paper as me on which to send out your company's correspondence.

The simple FACT that it introduced some new evidence prevented the judge from ruling on this final alleged infringement so triggering a new hearing and the prospect of further legal costs.

Now, it does not matter whether you believe what I have just written on the trade dress issue or not. Because the FACT remains that it is for nobody but YOU to PROVE that there was a shred of credibility behind that last, vestigial and sorry rag of a claim by Mackie.

The fact that you have not, and can not - yet still continue to assert that it justifies your attack on Behringer is all the proof anyone needs of your bias on this subject - and your lack of fitness to be editing this article.

For now, I have to say again - shame on you both for what you are trying to do here.

Go and tilt falsely at windmills elsewhere.

Eqdynamics (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The tone, word choice and phrasing of Binksternet’s comments underscore his bias against Behringer. Binksternet states that the unproven allegations are “not to be swept under the rug”. Binksternet’s phrasing connotes that Behringer has something to hide. This is crazy. What is Behringer trying to sweep under the rug? – the fact that Mackie failed to prove its allegations against Behringer or that Behringer did not lose the law suit? The only point in editors such as Binksternet or thedarxcide persisting in repeating these unproven allegations (which are nothing more than gossip, lies, innuendo and rumors until proven in court) is to tarnish the reputation of Behringer.

Unfortunately, the true effect is to undermine the credibility and relevance of Wikipedia. According to Binksternet and thedarxcide, as long as a source can be found which repeats the gossip, lie, innuendo, rumor or opinion, the comment can be posted to Wikipedia. This type of conduct has no place on Wikipedia. Basing information on disproven or unfounded allegations violates Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and undermines Wikipedia’s goal of providing an unbiased and neutral point of view. By ignoring Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, certain editors are turning Wikipedia into an Echo Chamber for Gossip, Lies, Innuendo, Rumors and Opinion. Ultimately, it is the reputation of Wikipedia that is damaged if this behavior is allowed to continue.EdatBehringer (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Redraft 1
This is a redraft of the section in question taking into account suggestions so far, and further information that I found this morning. Please either edit directly or provide a modification below - I do not mind which. Reference numbers are for those currently in the article or are indicated if new.

In June 1997, Mackie accused Behringer of trademark and trade dress infringement, and brought suit seeking $327M in damages.[30][31] In their suit, Mackie said that Behringer had a history of copying products by other manufacturers and selling them as their own.[32] The Mackie suit detailed an instance in which Behringer was sued by Aphex Systems for copying the Aural Exciter Type F—in that case Aphex Systems won 690,000 Deutsche Marks.[32][New 4] The Mackie suit also mentioned similar cases filed by BBE, dbx and Drawmer.[32] On November 30, 1998, the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Washington, dismissed Mackie copyright claims that Behringer had infringed on Mackie copyrights with its MX 8000 mixer, noting that Mackie's circuit board designs were not covered by the U.S. copyright office[33][34]  The same case was taken before a UK court in April 1999. Despite Behringer's admission that "they purchased one of the Plaintiff's circuit boards to copy it; and they admit taking the circuit, or a substantial part of it, and using it in their own board", the case was found in Behringer's favour. [New5] Further accusations regarding trade dress were settled in November 1999 when both parties agreed to a confidential settlement. [New1]

In 2005, Roland Corporation sued to enforce Roland's trade dress, trademark, and other intellectual property rights with regard to Behringer's recently released guitar pedals. [New 2] The two companies came to a confidential settlement in 2006 after Behringer changed their designs. [New 3]


 * New1 - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-57427517.html
 * New2 - http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/page-45960_32_0.html
 * New3 - http://mixonline.com/news/headline/behringer-roland-lawsuit-041006/
 * New4 - http://www.261.gr/aphex%20philosophy.html
 * New5 - Mackie Designs Inc v Behringer Specialised Studio Equipment (UK) Ltd [1999] All ER (D) 411


 * This is a pretty good rewrite, but how about a chronological sequence instead? Start with Aphex, move to Mackie, end with Roland/BOSS? Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible Thedarxide (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This (unsigned - is it you again "Thedarxide"?) draft continues to paint a false and unjustified picture of the subject matter it purports to present. It makes inappropriate and incorrect ise of its materials and ignores references already provided by other contributors that oppose the author's views.

Eqdynamics (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is me again. It was signed, and I've accidentally knocked my signature out with a subsequent update.  I implore you, again, to edit the section I have presented to one more suiting. Thedarxide (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have previously submitted two suggested wordings for this section (if it is to remain). Both suggestions were rejected by you and Binksternet and discussion of them shut down when you archived the thread they were in.

You gain no credits here by this sham of fair handedness.

As for editing the section you have presented, my comments above, supported by the explanation I have already provided, explain why I will not. Not only does your draft remain as biased and one-sided as ever, I see that you have continued to dig around for documents you believe support your opinions of the company and have now decided to expand your vector of attack on Behringer - despite and in the face of the legitimate dispute over the content you have already produced.

You still fail to comprehend the difference between a reported ALLEGATION and a FACTUAL OUTCOME determined by a court or a settlement.

It is not your job, nor the job of Wikipedia to second-guess the outcome of commercial disputes or present them in a slanted way as you do.

Your evidence base for the claims (for that is all they are) you have now added is mighty thin. A couple of reports of ALLEGATIONS and I see you have now incorporated the amateur interview with Marvin Caesar in which he made a series of slanderous, unproven and malicious accusations about Uli Behringer. Apart from what this says about your standards of evidence, this latter article is excluded under Wikipedia's own policies as it presents unsubstantiated defamatory claims against a living person.

This article was also discussed in the earlier discussion that you archived and the specific content you wish to use shown to contain inaccurate, untrue and libellous statements. That this did not stop Binksternet from proceeding to repeat and elaborate on its libels should offer you no encouragement now to do likewise.

As I have already stated to Binksternet, repeating a libel or causing it to be repeated is no defence to the accusation that you are making that libellous statement yourself. You have no "fair use" protection here. And a "belief" that the libel may be true is no defence either as, yet again, the burden of proof falls upon the person making the statement. In using this document or basing opinions upon it you are exposing yourself to a direct claim for libel. Please take note - lack of knowledge is not a defence in law. You also have no lack of knowledge as to your actions as you have repeatedly been told that you are acting illegally and unethically. You cannot go on acting as you do. Either of you. I don't intend to remind you of this again.

You have also put your personal spin on the case that Mackie presented to a UK court on the same subject matter and with the same evidence base as that they brought in the U.S., Germany, Italy and Spain - all at the same time. Your presentation of the court's views and judgements is yet again highly selective, opinionated and does not properly or truthfully represent the judgement reached. It also ignores the pertinent and highly relevant background to why Mackie chose to take the same claim to so many courts in so many countries at the same time.

Go back to the discussion you chose to archive and read the reference I provided to the article in a respected UK legal journal that discussed the case and the judge's ruling in detail. As I have also already presented a factually based report of the outcome of the UK case and explained the judgement, and its basis in law, and its relevance to the dispute between the companies overall, supported by the weight of published legal opinion, I am not going to do so again. Go and read what I wrote.

As I suspect that almost no-one else reading this will be able to access the legal document you have now cited as a reference, can I assume that you will post a copy on-line for everyone to see? And (as the original is quite a weighty tome) will you also please be a bit more specific in saying exactly which part(s) of the document you rely on in forming your interpretation that the court's judgement was reached "Despite Behringer's admission ..."?

Just as glaring as the way you are selectively using the material you reference to continue to paint a bad picture of Behringer is your continuing refusal to make use of references provided during this discussion and the earlier one that you chose to archive that support a very different view of the company that opposes the one you present again here.

Your decision to ignore references that oppose your view is not the act of someone looking for a balanced and fair view of the subject. It is the act of someone who wants to peddle his own opinion.

I stand by what I wrote here some time ago. The issues surrounding the dispute between Mackie and Behringer are both very old and very complex. It is apparent that you lack the knowledge or experience to either understand the issues involved or provide a balanced presentation of those issues. This subject is a 'can of worms' that, if opened, requires pages and pages of detailed explanation if it is to be presented in a way that most people are likely to gain a balanced understanding of it.

The same can be said of the dispute brought by Aphex - though it is even older and has been reported with even less accuracy than the Mackie case - and that IS saying something! For example, I see that you continue to mis-state the amount awarded to Aphex in damages though I have provided you with a reliable and accurate reference to the actual, and much lower sum the company was eventually awarded on its appeal for even more.

The Roland dispute is newer but represents an every day commercial disagreement between two companies. There is no purpose in mentioning it here other than to give the impression that Behringer is a company frequently sued by its competitors for unfair acts. As others have already said, if you wish to behave this way toward Behringer, Wikipedia must present every claim made against every company mentioned in Wikipedia. You would do well to research the archives for other claims brought by other companies and individuals against some of the companies you have mentioned here to get just a glimpse of where that leads.

And just how sadly deficient your understanding of this entire subject truly is.

Eqdynamics (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If, as you say, Behringer "is a company frequently sued by its competitors for unfair acts", then this is information suited to be presented in some fashion in the encyclopedia article about Behringer. You have been invited to help shape that presentation but you argue for its total removal. You repeatedly characterize the Aphex and Mackie suits as "old" and thus not worthy of mention. There is no reason why significant information of any age should be kept from the article. If, as you say, the subject of Behringer's trademark friction is a "can of worms" then perhaps we need a new article with sections devoted to each Behringer conflict. In that case, this article could simply list the conflicts and the outcomes, and the reader, if interested, could click on the Behringer trademark conflicts link and read further about the details. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet: Has it come to this, that you have to misrepresent my words by taking them out of context?

I did not at any time say that Behringer "is a company frequently sued by its competitors for unfair acts". Go back and read again.

What I ACTUALLY said - in relation to Thedarxide's latest addition of the settled dispute between Roland and Behringer - was that he had "no purpose in mentioning it here other than to give the impression that Behringer is a company frequently sued by its competitors for unfair acts."

See the difference?

Please don't misquote me. It does you no favours to act even more like a gutter-snipe than you have so far.

Your following argumennt that the information deserves to be included in an encyclopedia immediately falls flat on its face.

You go on to try to paint me the villain for arguing (as I have done from the outset) for the disputed section to be removed. I stand by the - very detailed - explanations I have already given for that view.

Again, I have to say that your entire premise in insisting on the inclusion of this section is based on your assertion that the information must be included on grounds of public interest.

You have yet to show any evidence that a true and proper public interest ground exists. A salacious one - akin to the gutter press techniques you and Thedarxide use to present "facts" maybe. A public interest in the sense that the public has a need or right to be informed of BEHRINGER'S past - absolutely not. You both continue to work from the false premise that Behringer somehow has a case to answer. It does not. It was sued. It was shown to be innocent of all allegations brought against it by a competitor. End of story.

If you want to make more of it, you must show very good reasons for doing so - and suppot yourself with facts. Not opinion and innuendo - which is all you have provided thus far. Apart from the libellous statements you have repeatedly made, of course.

My reasons for not wishing to edit the content produced by you and Thedarxide are on record but in essence:


 * 1. My previous suggestions of balanced wording were rejected by you both
 * 2. The currently proposed draft is inaccurate, untruthful and, if anything, even more heavily biased against Behringer. Any edits by me or anyone else seeking to balance the presentation will only result in further argument and flames from one or both of you - or you will again use your "higher being" rights to remove or render the edits worthless
 * 3. This matter cannot be resolved here as the disputing parties are too far apart. I assume that is why someone from Behringer has attempted to invoke Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. That process need to be allowed to proceed - in whatever form it takes - before ANYONE can decide whether the disputed section is a valid component of this article.

The sheer weight and detail of my contributions to this discussion are evidence enough of my interest in and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. However, as I now find myself saying yet again, to edit the article itself is pointless while you and Thedarxide repeatedly act to ensure that your views prevail.

As for your last suggestion, am I dealing with an adult or a child that either can't read or can't remember what he/she read?

I proposed precisely what you are now suggesting - ie, that the entire discussion of the way that companies use and misuse IP legislation for competitive advantage should become a separate article and links placed on the pages of all companies mentioned ... in the discussion that Thedarxide unilaterally decided to archive.

That suggestion was rudely rejected at the time.

Regardless of any merits in the suggestion, I do not see any merit in pursuing that idea at present, as I believe it would do no more than transfer the argument to a different place in Wikipedia.

The fundamental questions raised by this dispute need to be settled before any productive progress can be made here.


 * Is this a place concerned with the presentation of information in an even-handed manner supported by facts - or is it a scandal sheet that sets itself as judge and jury based on discredited gossip and innuendo?
 * Is Wikipedia prepared to have all commercial disputes between all companies across the planet argued out again in its pages?
 * Should Wikipedia editors be allowed to hijack sensitive subjects in a way that stifles debate and dissuades potential contributors from adding to the body of work here?

Your behaviours and actions throughout this discussion give me a lot of concerns. I want to understand Wikipedia's attitude to these questions before I decide whether I wish to attach my name to any article here.

Eqdynamics (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read No personal attacks regarding your saying that I act like a gutter-snipe. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet: You're right. We shouldn't let this descend into personal attacks. I withdraw my description of you as a gutter-snipe. In doing so, may I remind you of the apology you owe me for the personal attacks you made on me in the now archived discussion? Of course, anyone going there to read what you tried to allege about me will also be able to read the libellous statements you repeatedly made about Behringer, and thence form their own opinion of you - can't they? Eqdynamics (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

ABUSE I wish to place on the record here that Binksternet has now TWICE removed a section I wrote as part of this discussion. He has now also deleted the section where I complained about his first deletion. The deleted sections can be seen in the history of this page or on my talk page where he sets out his reasons for his actions which I dispute and intend to take up as a formal complaint.

It is entirely unacceptable that one of the parties disputing the facts in this matter should take it upon themselves to delete material they dislike within the DISCUSSION.


 * Binksternet has in the past made unfounded accusations about my integrity and qualifications to contribute here.


 * Binksternet has made multiple libellous statements.


 * Binksternet has repeatedly reinstated the disputed section of this article and repeatedly asserted his right to force his views over those of others.


 * Binksternet has repeatedly and continuously failed to substantiate his many claims, accusations and allegations and failed to support his actions with reasonable argument.


 * Binksternet's tactics are to attack anyone who disagrees with him, accuse them of "vandalism" or "sock-puppetry" and delete material they contribute that he personally disagrees with.


 * Binksternet is already the subject of one formal complaint against his behaviour here brought against him by Behringer itself.


 * His behaviour to date is already the subject of a significant section of this discussion - Justification of Trademark Claim Removal and Analysis of Binksternet's Biased Editing which appears higher on this page.

ALL of these statements are relevant to this discussion and, in particular, its conduct. All of these statements are factual and can be seen to be so by reading this discussion and the earlier discussion unilaterally archived by Thedarxide.

Eqdynamics (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It has been explained on your talk page why this section has been removed. Your accusations towards another contributor do not further the discussion towards improving the article.  They also contribute to why I made the decision to archive the prior version.  The general recommendation for talk pages is 32KB.  This page is almost 3 times that, and the previous was over 4 times.  Thus the need for the content to be focussed on the issues at hand.  That you go on to say that an analysis of his editing behaviour takes up a significant section of this page shows you recognise the problem.  Thedarxide (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation of my words and the actions that you and Binksternet have taken. When contributors to a debate act in ways harmful to that debate, it is right and proper that their behaviour forms part of the discussion. Not to "win" points but to establish a proper environment in which debate can proceed. The fact that so much space is taken up discussing Binksternet's behaviour is not - as you allege - evidence that this discussion has gone on too long - it is evidence that many contributors here consider his behaviour unacceptable and one (so far) has taken the time and trouble to document it and make a formal complaint about it - under the Wikipedia procedures you both like to state as protection and grounds for your actions. The section of this discussion that I wrote and Binksternet deleted contained mo "accusations" aimed at either of you. It contained a factual analysis of the behaviours exhibited by both of you during this discussion and ... offered an olive branch. I offered to "let bygones be bygones" - effectively offering both you and Binksternet a clean sheet approach and a way to conduct this discussion on whatever level YOU chose. He deleted that. Then deleted the post where I complained about him deleteing it. Just as both of you have in the past deleted material that you dislike or diagree with, repeatedly enforcing your own biased views - on the subject matter of this article and on the conduct of this discussion. It is notable that neither of you ever engage in the discussion itself. You are yet to answer the criticisms of the way that you have both sought to present the disputed article section - preferring to evade actual debate ON THE SUBJECT and employing double standards and abusive actions to stifle that debate. If you think that is the way to conduct a proper discussion of the subject here, I truly beg to differ. Eqdynamics (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the discussion had gone on too long, I said it was drifting off topic. I also ask you, again, from stating that I have deleted material - I have not. Thedarxide (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for inserting this comment out of time sequence - it belongs here as a response to the previous post. TheDarxide is toying with words. Material "deleted" from these pages remains visible in the history sections. Discussion that he has "archived" remains visible in the Archive pages. Funstionally, there is no difference other than name between these two actions. In both cases, the material is removed from plain view and anyone else wishing to participate here can only find it by laboriously trawling through the background pages. As neither Thedarxide nor Binksternet has ever sought consensus before acting to delete material or reinstate the disputed section in the form they favour, it is clear that they act here as bullies determined to have their views prevail. It must also be noted that both of them refuse to engage in debate on the subject matter. They refuse to answer criticism of their views and provide no references to substantiate their views nor contradict the views of others that are supported by references. Their actions are not conducive to proper, open debate. Eqdynamics (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason I am being semantically picky is because of the accusations of "higher powers". It is possible to delete material from Wikipedia, but I do not have this power.  Thedarxide (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason you are being "semantically picky" is just a further attempt to deflect from your behaviours. If, as you say, you have no "higher powers" here, what exactly is it that gives you the right to remove from view material that others should have an opportunity to see and comment on? You act unilaterally - in effect as judge, jury and executioner - in your interpretations of Wikipedia guildelines and in your actions - that I have yet to see ANYONE support. On the other hand, I and several others have very clearly stated our opposition to your actions. Eqdynamics (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thedarxide you indeed removed also my comments and left a comment on my page after I provided valuable information why Binksternet's views were wrong and onesided. Quote: "I have removed your argumentative comments from the talk page as they are not furthering the discussion. If you would like to assist in improving the article, please comment on the issues at hand. If you wish to argue with another contributor, I suggest you take it to their talk page. Thanks. Thedarxide (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)"

Let's zoom out and look at what's really happening here. We have several editors who have explained and proven why Binksternet is biased, his material is not citable as it comes from Behringer's competitors and why he presents a wrong and distorted view of the history. At the same time EqDynamics' and other comments (including mine) get simply ignored and even removed. This article and even the discussion section is dominated and even censored by editors such as Binksternet and Thedarxide who seem to have higher rights. From all I have read this clearly violates Wikipedia's own policies. Anyone disagrees?Hohan22 (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed, as they violated talk policy. Not deleted.  And, for the final time, I don't know what you think "higher rights" are, but I do not have them.  Thedarxide (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If, as you say, Thedarxide, you have no higer rights here, is it not reasonable to ask what gives you the authority to unilaterally (ie, without discussion or warning) remove material from view, reinstate material removed from view by others in a way that sees yuor view enforced, preach to us on how to conduct ourselves? Unless you can show that you have been appointed by Wikipedia to police this place, your conduct can only be seen for what it is - unfair attempts to stifle debate. If you merely claim greater experience here, then shame on you for not showing greater tolerance to those of us who are new and are having to come up to speed as quickly as we can.
 * I have no more rights than you do, although I would say that I know policy better through virtue of experience. However, I think I have shown tolerance - rather than remove the material that Binksternet did (twice), I explained why this should be so. Thedarxide (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You have not "explained why this should be so". Both you and Binksternet have given your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's rules as excuse for your actions. The difference is huge.


 * You have also only provided your opinion when called upon to do so. Your opinion is also not visible in the palce where you chose to act, so is not visible to others who may challenge it. You have no right to delete contributions made by others and no right to reinstate defamatory material to the main article, especially while that material is not only in dispute but the consensus of argument opposes its inclusion and/or its content. Eqdynamics (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Even greater shame for refusing to participate in the debate by replying to any of the criticisms lain at the disputed material. I would take you a good deal more seriously if you would take time to answer the points I have made ABOUT THE SUBJECT MATTER under dicussion here. Eqdynamics (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the criticisms were laid out as simple, factual objections with suggestion I might respond to them better. The problem is that your objection to my redraft was "draft continues to paint a false and unjustified picture of the subject matter it purports to present. It makes inappropriate and incorrect ise of its materials and ignores references already provided by other contributors that oppose the author's views.".  This does not help to improve the content, it merely establishes what your opinion of it is.  I have asked you repeatedly to offer your own version, and you have not.  Your only contributions this morning, for instance, have been to continue to attack my actions. Thedarxide (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * More interpretations? Go back and read - rather than state further false opinion. The passage of mine that you quote is ACTUALLY a factual comment on the material you presented as a redraft. If you and Binksternet would both stop misrepresenting statements by taking words out of context you might see that this statement is supported by factually based argument that need not be restated here yet again. If you disagree, please provide reasons why.


 * Read back and you will see that I, Hohan22 and others have several times suggested alternate wordings for the disputed section. Hohan22's was deleted by Binksternet and replaced by the original, defamatory text that you subsequently restored again when it was removed by a Behringer representative. My two suggestions were shouted down and the discussion in which they were presented then "archived" (in commonly accepted parlance "deleted") by you.


 * You will find plenty of reasoned and referenced argument contributed by me in this discussion. You have ignored all of it. Positive debate does NOT depend entirely and uniquely on proposed alternatives or additions. That is no more than another attempt by you to hijack this debate by insisiting that it can only take place under your rules and your personal interpretations of the rules.


 * In a proper debate, when the basis of a statement is questioned, it is for the person making that statement to support it. Your and Binksternet's statements and words have been repeatedly questioned yet you both ignore all challenges and ABUSE Wikipedia procedures and functions by deleting material that you dislike.


 * It is is very clear that you have, so far, had no intention of engaging in debate but are playing a tactical game aimed at bullying your challengers and imposing your views against the consensus here.


 * If you disagree with that statement, remove the disputed section while debate continues and reply to the many questions and challenges already put to you. Also, assure everyone here that you and Binksternet will not simply delete or corrupt any edits made to the article unless such changes are first discussed here and are supported by consensus. If you dislike or disagree with what I or others say, or wish to portray anything others write as "accusations" or "personal attacks" as you have previously alleged, choose to answer, deny or ignore as you see fit. But leave the words in place so that other readers can form their own opinion of them. If you are right in your interpretations, others will support you. Deleting material only demonstrates that you are unable to provide answers to support yourselves but prefer to evade, deny and deflect attention from your actions.


 * I have put these requests for an even playing field to you previously and you replied by denying and rejecting them. That puts you in opposition to, not just Wikipedia's procedures, but accepted standards of civilised debate.


 * If, as you claim, you want a free and open debate here, these are the topics that should be discussed:
 * Whether a section that discusses and comments upon past legal and commercial disputes between Behringer and other companies has any place in this article
 * As part of that first decision, if it is agreed that such material is valid, how Wikipedia will balance its inclusion with the inclusion of similiar material of disputes between other companies described in Wikipedia
 * Again as part of that decision, how balance and fairness can be maintained and the part played by other parties in these disputes can be portrayed
 * Again as part of that decision, how the subject and conduct of the disputes can be presented in a manner that presents the facts in a balanced and fair context appropriate to all concerned parties
 * Again, if the material is to be included, how to present it in a factual manner, using the referenced sources in a balanced way that properly presents the issues disputed giving due regard to the sequence of events and outcomes decided by court process and, where disputes were settled by agreement rather than process of law, shows no bias to either disputing party
 * Again, if the material is to be included, that proper consideration has been given to the potential for harm or damage to any of the parties whose actions or interests are discussed. This factor has to have special weight where the issues concerned are old unless it can b clearly shown to be true that the actions discussed form part of a larger and continuing pattern.


 * The above are basic foundations for a proper and civilised debate on the material disputed here which is insisted upon by you and Binksternet alone. It should be noted that no other voices but yours have been raised in support of the inclusion of this material and nobody has come to the defence of the actions taken by either of you. The issues raised by inclusion of material describing disputes between companies are, as I have repeatedly said, complex and weighty. A decision to include such material within Wikipedia cannot be taken by the presumptive actions of two editors acting in oppposition to other voices.


 * If ...
 * you both are willing to engage in a true debate on the subject matter based on the above foundations and starting - not from a presumption that the material MUST be included but from a neutral position that asks WHETHER it need be presented
 * you both agree to refrain from deleting ANY material that you dislike for any reason
 * you both agree to allow the article content and presentation to be determined by consensus and not seek to impose your views against that consensus
 * you both agree that references must be used fairly and selective editing that slants the view presented in any direction must not be used
 * you both agree that opinion such as "Despite Behringer's admission ..." that you are both guilty of including must not be used but that the material must be presented in a factual and even manner


 * ... you can both agree to abide by these principles and conditions, I am willing to see this page "archived" and engage with you in a proper discussion intended to resolve the disputed section. Note that such discussion will first call upon you and Binksternet (as the proposers here) to substantiate your view that presentation of old commercial disputes is necessary for the "common man" to gain a proper and fair understanding of the Behringer company. You will also be asked to substantiate and support with reasoned argument (ie, not presumption, opinion nor innuendo) each statement you wish to include and show that both the statement and its presentation show no bias. This is no more than you have been asked - repeatedly - to do so far. Other contributors will be held to the same rules and conditions.


 * The current disputed section and the "Redraft" can be seen to be defamatory and damaging to Behringer. Not only does this contradict Wikipedia guidelines, it opens both Wikipedia and the authors as individuals to the possibility of legal actions. When I have said this in the past, you have interpreted my words as threats rather than the friendly warnings actually intended. My proposals here are intended to avoid the possibility of such potentially harmful events befalling either Wikipedia or either of you - through the simple mechanism of playing fair to the parties concerned.


 * If, on the other hand, you are not prepared to discuss the subject on this basis, let everyone else interpret your motives and actions in the light of that decision.


 * Eqdynamics (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * May I remind you not to make legal threats? The relevant Wikipedia position is stated here: No legal threats. If you think there is some statement in the article that contains libel, you can report it to Libel. Statements that are thought to be "damaging to Behringer" but which are supported by reliable, verifiable sources, and presented in a neutral manner, are not to be removed simply because they may damage Behringer. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh! Aside from saying that you can't remind me of something that has never happened in the past, I'd have to ask you to show me where I issued any legal threats. As for libel - you have made numerous libellous statements here. Look the word up if you don't understand it. There's no need to restate them again here but, for the sake of clarity, we are not talking about Statements that are thought to be "damaging to Behringer" - we are talking about a list of companies whose products you said Behringer had stolen and which, when asked you failed to substantiate a single instance of. We are also talking about statements you made about Uli Behringer - a living person - which again you have failed to support. We are also talking about the disputed section of the article, written by you which has been selectively edited to portray a view of Behringer that you again cannot substantiate. A libellous statement about an individual person or company is a serious matter. I'm not "threatening" you or anyone when I try to warn you that you are on thin ice and should take care. Eqdynamics (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The tone, word choice and phrasing of Binksternet’s comments underscore his bias against Behringer. Binksternet states that the unproven allegations are “not to be swept under the rug”. Binksternet’s phrasing connotes that Behringer has something to hide. This is crazy. What is Behringer trying to sweep under the rug? – the fact that Mackie failed to prove its allegations against Behringer or that Behringer did not lose the law suit? The only point in editors such as Binksternet or thedarxcide persisting in repeating these unproven allegations (which are nothing more than gossip, lies, innuendo and rumors until proven in court) is to tarnish the reputation of Behringer.

Unfortunately, the true effect is to undermine the credibility and relevance of Wikipedia. According to Binksternet and thedarxcide, as long as a source can be found which repeats the gossip, lie, innuendo, rumor or opinion, the comment can be posted to Wikipedia. This type of conduct has no place on Wikipedia. Basing information on disproven or unfounded allegations violates Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and undermines Wikipedia’s goal of providing an unbiased and neutral point of view. By ignoring Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, certain editors are turning Wikipedia into an Echo Chamber for Gossip, Lies, Innuendo, Rumors and Opinion. Ultimately, it is the reputation of Wikipedia that is damaged if this behavior is allowed to continue.EdatBehringer (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is precisely the reputation of Behringer that I am trying to report as accurately as possible. The way you serve it up, the "reputation of Behringer" refers to the wished for current and future reputation of the company. For me, it means the existing past and current reputations. Wikipedia's role is indeed to serve as an echo chamber in that it reports significant events that were given popular voice in established media channels. Wikipedia isn't here to help Behringer quash unflattering representations in the media and so reshape its history such that its image can be carefully crafted by company PR experts. Wikipedia's credibility can not be hurt by the careful adherence to its own guidelines—the presence in this article of verifiable and reliably sourced text presented in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For any here who are just checking in, I'd like to point out that an official Behringer representative who was working to improve this article was fired by Behringer because he refused to interfere with the paragraph about trademark and trade dress, which in early July 2009 was called "Controversy". This editor, who went by Will at BEHRINGER, stopped editing after relating his fate. Will at BEHRINGER did not try to have the Controversy paragraph deleted. Why is that? I have to conclude that Will at BEHRINGER understood it to be a significant part of Behringer's history. The probable motive of Will's announcement of his being fired was, several days prior, the deletion of the paragraph under discussion by an editor who called himself UliBehringer. Will clearly wanted to distance himself from this reversal in company policy. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous two posts by Binksternet show why any further attempt at meaningful discussion here is pointless. There is no reasoning with somebody so blinded by whatever rage drives her. You cannot argue with a blind zealot. And her hooligan behaviour makes this a place where no truth or accuracy can dwell.

Wikipedia is the loser here - not Behringer.

Eqdynamics (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet’s outrageous comments underscore the fact that certain editors are intent on ignoring Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines and hijacking Wikipedia to further their own personal agendas. Sadly, Wikipedia is becoming nothing more than an Echo Chamber for Gossip, Lies, Innuendo, Rumors and Opinion. EdatBehringer (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not adhering to Wikipedia policies. I am trying to ensure an unbiased, neutral point of view, consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. According to Wikipedia’s policies, editors should “assert facts, but not opinions.” Wikipedia’s policies define a fact as “a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.”  Binksternet has violated this principle by repeatedly basing comments about Behringer on allegations made in legal complaints. A legal complaint is a one-sided recital of gossip, lies, innuendo, rumors and opinions made in the course of a dispute. A finder of fact is responsible for determining the validity of allegations made in a complaint. Allegations made in a complaint are not considered factual until a determination is made by the finder of fact. Therefore, by definition, allegations in a complaint are not fact and should not be the basis for statements posted on Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia’s own policies, only a decision by a court or “finder of fact” qualifies as fact.

Further, Binksternet talks about “reputation”. Reputation is by definition an opinion, and does not qualify as fact under Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Binksternet is using a series of unproven and unsubstantiated gossip, lies, innuendo and rumors to support his perception of Behringer.

There is no editorial reason to retain the trademark controversy section. A decades old lawsuit which Behringer did not lose, and which had no effect on Behringer’s business, is not material to the history of the business. How many other company pages contain information on lawsuits that the company did not lose and which did not impact the business?

Multiple editors have provided ample evidence that the trademark section does not comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia enacted these standards to avoid abuse of the service and prevent it from being used as a weapon to inflict damage on individuals and companies. These protections are particularly important because editors are allowed to hide behind a cloak of anonymity in the comfort of their homes, in say, California or the UK, and avoid accountability for their actions.

If Wikipedia actually enforces its own policies and guidelines, the trademark controversy section must be removed. If Wikipedia fails to enforce its own policies, and allows editors such as Binksternet and thedarxide to use the service as a weapon to inflict damage, it is Wikipedia that will ultimately suffer the greatest damage. EdatBehringer (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't have it two ways: you belittle the trademark dispute paragraph by saying that there is a "decades old lawsuit" which "had no effect on Behringer's business" but then you say that its inclusion is a "weapon to inflict damage"... What is this paragraph that can be dismissed as having no effect but which can inflict damage? Binksternet (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Roland suit was only a few years ago, and while it was settled privately, it still led to Behringer changing the design of its pedals which mean that what was presented at the NAMM show were very different from the ones that hit the streets. This was in the public eye and got a lot of press.  No one is passing comment on the allegations themselves, merely recording the FACT that they were made, as did many, many other places. Thedarxide (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of having it both ways. By repeating the unfounded allegations (Echo Chamber) you are trying to create the false impression that the dismissed lawsuit was some sort of major event for Behringer. This is simply false and a violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures.

Thedarxide’s comments are baseless and draw an unwarranted connection between another unfounded lawsuit and Behringer’s business practices. Again, simply untrue and a violation of Wikipedia policies and procedures.

As mentioned above, there is no editorial reason to retain the trademark controversy section. Referencing decades old lawsuits which Behringer did not lose, and which had no effect on Behringer’s business, is not material to the history of the business. How many other company pages contain information on lawsuits that the company did not lose and which did not impact the business?204.11.205.11 EdatBehringer (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The section I have suggested meets WP:V. This is the standard.  Reliable sources have published information, and we have reported it.  I have already shown how the Roland suit alone affected Behringer's business.  The "other pages" argument isn't up for discussion, we're discussing this article. Thedarxide (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The other pages argument is absolutely up for discussion. Jimbo Wales has said that providing an unbiased, neutral point of view is "non-negotiable". Pages must be edited using consistent standards. This applies both to individual pages and generally to pages within the same category. Therefore, either disproven or unfounded allegations should not be included on company information pages– as I believe is consistent with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or they should be included on all company information pages. Selectively including disproven or unfounded allegations for only certain companies, implies an institutional bias and partisan point of view which unfortunately undermines the credibility and relevance of Wikipedia.EdatBehringer (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem putting the same information on other pages. However, context needs to be considered.  Taking Roland again, the lawsuit is of no real consequence to them.  To Behringer, however, it lead to an entire product range being redesigned in the public eye, which is much more consequential.  You are free to add content to other articles. Thedarxide (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a clear distortion of reality - saying that a lawsuit is of no real consequence to the party bringing the suit. Context? What context - only using unfounded allegations (gossip, lies, innuendo and rumor) to try and damage companies and individuals with whom you have a personal problem? Again, the allegations were unfounded and the court failed to find merit in Roland's claim. Yet another example of your bias, distortion of the facts and continued willful disregard of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This conduct only serves to further undermine the rapidly diminishing credibility of Wikipedia.

I further note that you attempted to shut off discussion on the institutional bias issue. Your attempt to stifle debate confirms that the discussion process has been hijacked by the personal vendettas of certain editors, such as thedarxide and Binksternet, who are attempting to assert their superior editing privileges to undermine Wikipedia's stated non-negotiable goal of providing an unbiased neutral point of view. EdatBehringer (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If Roland's allegations were unfounded, why did Behringer redesign every one of the 80 BOSS pedal copies that they announced and displayed at NAMM in January 2005, such that when the pedals hit the market, they were not the same as those displayed? Could it have been that Roland's lawsuit made valid points? We won't know because contrary to what you wrote above, the court did not fail to find merit. What happened was that Roland and Behringer settled out of court, under secret terms. There's no way that you can spin the Roland court case without a reference. Numerous observers, though, noted the difference between Behringer's NAMM pedals and the pedals as introduced following the lawsuit. Binksternet (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Roland, themselves, noted the difference and were satisified, per most releases. Thedarxide (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Some new editors have expressed a desire for dispute resolution or mediation. I'd like to describe the options open to the editors who do not like what has been happening here. The official Wikipedia guide can be read here: Dispute resolution.

This dispute about Behringer trademark friction seems to me to be past the point of asking for the help of an editor and past the point of asking for a third opinion.

First thing to note is that Wikipedia generally separates conflict arising from the subject matter of an article, and conflict arising from disruption by editors. The two dispute paths separate and converge in various dispute resolution fora. Both paths begin with:
 * Requests for comment. This is an "informal, lightweight" dispute resolution forum that addresses all concerns related to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
 * Content disputes
 * Content noticeboard is an informal forum where content can be discussed.
 * RFC is informal dispute resolution regarding content. This specific article would go to the category covering companies:
 * Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies
 * Mediation Cabal is an informal mediation forum for disputes.
 * Mediation Committee is a formal mediation forum for resolving content disputes.
 * Arbitration/Requests is the final resolution forum for disputes.
 * Disputes regarding editors
 * RFC is a forum for discussing editors who have violated Wikipedia policy.
 * Mediation Cabal is an informal mediation forum for disputes.
 * Arbitration/Requests is the final resolution forum for disputes.

I hope that helps sort the options for any who seek a wider venue. Binksternet (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

List of useful references about trademark and trade dress conflict
Feel free to add references to this list while keeping them in chron order. Binksternet (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * May 1997 http://web.archive.org/web/20030817182206/http://www.sweetwater.com/insync/05/21/1997/ Sweetwater is visited by Marvin Caesar who says "Uli Behringer proudly makes direct copies of successful products"
 * June 1997 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1997_June_18/ai_19518852 Mackie Designs Inc. files lawsuit to stop "knockoff" products; Company seeks damages of $327 million. Business Wire
 * June 1997 http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Sam-Ash-Music-Corporation-Company-History.html Sam Ash Corporation brief history, including 1993 dealer agreement with Mackie, June 1997 lawsuit from Mackie and July 1998 return suit against Mackie.
 * July 1997. Verna, Paul. Billboard http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA34 "Mackie Sues Over Knockoffs: Behringer, Sam Ash Are Defendants."
 * February 1998 http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0002Tx Samson announces that the case brought against it by Mackie was dismissed.
 * February 1998 http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0002Tx Mackie announces the case against Behringer and Samson would proceed to substance.
 * May 1998 http://sec.edgar-online.com/1998/05/14/17/0001047469-98-020293/Section8.asp Loud Technologies Inc. LTec Quarterly Report (10-Q) Item 1. Legal Proceedings
 * July 1998 Verna, Paul. Billboard "Sam Ash, Samson Sue Mackie" page 40
 * February 1999 Music Trades. http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/61874159.html Archived at Entrepreneur.com as "Mackie/Behringer Lawsuit."
 * November 1999 http://web.archive.org/web/20051215164536/http://www.loudtechinc.com/news/1999/11081999.html Archived announcement by LOUD about the resolution of legal disputes between it and Behringer
 * February 2002 http://www.261.gr/aphex%20philosophy.html Interview with Aphex Systems CEO Marvin Caesar
 * March 2005 http://www.musicgearreview.com/article-display/1438.html "Behringer Sued for Cloning Renowned Boss Guitar Effects Pedals"   Musicgearrreview.com
 * February 2005 http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/page-45960_32_0.html Roland sues Behringer over cloning BOSS pedals
 * March 2005 Sonicstate.com http://www.sonicstate.com/news/2005/03/07/roland-aim-to-show-behringer-whos-boss/ Roland Aim To Show Behringer Who's Boss: Lawsuit filed against Behringer for range of Boss-a-like pedals
 * April 2006 http://mixonline.com/news/headline/behringer-roland-lawsuit-041006/ Roland and Behringer announce they've settled the lawsuit over trade dress

Bulletin board posts about Behringer made by reliable people
Much of what I've been able to find online about Behringer has been posted by people whose names and areas of expertise are known. What, if any, of these posts can be used here? Note that if any can be used, they would have to lift themselves above mere blog posting level by virtue of the person posting. For instance, if a film article used a blog posting by Roger Ebert as a reference, the source would be judged suitable because of the fame and expertise of the person being quoted. Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Some instances of reliable people:
 * John Roberts, former Peavey design engineer, former Bozak design engineer.
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58721/7160/0///72/#msg_58721
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58600/7160/0///72/#msg_58600
 * http://www.livesoundint.com/lab/lab/messages/archive4/101288.html
 * Andy Peters, independent USB audio design engineer.
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58683/7160/0///72/#msg_58683
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58693/7160/0///72/#msg_58693
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58805/7160/0///72/#msg_58805
 * Dave Stevens, founder of Live Audio Board.
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58632/7160/0///72/#msg_58632
 * http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/58694/7160/0///72/#msg_58694
 * George Perfect, recording studio owner.
 * http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_thread/thread/565a93ab6ed4defd/fd856a037121ac5b?hl=fr&
 * http://groups.google.fr/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_thread/thread/bdf27b7b1f8d22e4/b75bbe96dc8f08bd?hl=fr&q=behringer+lawsuit+group:rec.audio.pro+author:george+author:perfect#b75bbe96dc8f08bdq=behringer+lawsuit+group:rec.audio.pro+author:george+author:perfect#fd856a037121ac5b
 * http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/0a1db0440f989249?pli=1
 * Michael Leidel, Customer Support Manager from Behringer.
 * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.4-track/msg/9704c7a572f3d6a0?q=behringer+lawsuit&start=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=12
 * Martin Caesar, CEO of Aphex Systems.
 * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.4-track/msg/9704c7a572f3d6a0?q=behringer+lawsuit&start=10&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=12
 * Peter Kim, blogger behind Create Digital Music.
 * http://createdigitalmusic.com/2009/09/04/behringers-latest-rip-off-job-apple-com/
 * Tom Whitwell, newswriter with www.timesonline.co.uk and founder of the popular blog musicthing.blogspot.com.
 * http://musicthing.blogspot.com/2007/04/youd-think-theyd-change-order-of.html
 * Bob Lee, Tech Services Group at QSC, Secretary to AES.
 * http://www.livesoundint.com/lab/lab/messages/archive6/62701.html
 * http://www.livesoundint.com/lab/lab/messages/archive4/116542.html
 * mmmm....I'd prefer it if they were made in a formal environment. I'd be happy for them to support another source, but I wouldn't want to use them in isolation. Thedarxide (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Behringer service
What about a section in the article about Behringer service and support? We could include both official PR announcements such as this one and third-party articles about Behringer service and support. I've seen stories of great Behringer service experiences, and stories of abysmal service, especially during 1999–2000 in the U.S. when all service under Samson ceased until it was reorganized under Behringer, but with the loss of several thousand service items that Samson had in queue. Here's a tech writer from Louisville Music News who comments about how Behringer requires its dealers to stay away from repairing the gear, unlike other manufacturers, and about how the service policy is straight replacement, not repair. Just curious about the relative merit of such a section. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)