Fulltone Plimsoul

[clamup1]

hey anyone gotten one and tore it apart yet. a friend of mine got one and he likes it better than the OCD. i doubt hell ever let me borrow it anytime soon.

[Mark Hammer]

Got a good review in the current Guitar Player....of course, what doesn't?

[slacker]

It's patent pending, so it must be good, presumably the patent document will be available somewhere 

[Taylor]

I searched USPTO for patents issued to anybody named "Fuller" (that's his name, right?). Nothing yet.

However, the description says pretty clearly that it's a "clippers in opamp feedback loop" stage (TS) followed by a "clippers to ground" stage (DS-1). So nothing revolutionary, which you could easily knock together in an evening.

Of course, I'm not forgetting that parts values play an important role in these kinds of circuits, but breadboarding these 2 building blocks in series, and swapping some caps in, would get you in the neighborhood pretty easily.

Hard to imagine a patent could be granted for something like that.

[slacker]

Yeah I had a quick look for Fuller and Fulltone, couldn't see anything. Given the description on the website it could be as simple as an OCD with LEDs as clippers to ground with a pot to dial them it, like the AMZ warp controls.

[clamup1]

that doesent sound ground breaking. i have a ts and a ds1. i might have to hook them both up

[The Tone God]

Patent pending does not necessarily mean it is patent worthy. Although it would be a waste of money to try unless that is just someone in marketing spotting off without knowledge but I believe it is illegal in the US to claim patent pending when you have not submitted for a patent.

Patents are a waste of time IMHO anyways.

Andrew

[clamup1]

the ts i have is one my friend sold me that i almost immediatly modded. ive been telling him about it now and i think hes interested. i might have to trade him the modded ts for the plimsoul for a week or something lol

[puretube]

My Tone God:

Patent pending does not necessarily mean it is patent worthy

= true.

I believe it is illegal in the US to claim patent pending when you have not submitted for a patent.

= true, not only in USA...
but I doubt Mr. Fuller would utter such claims if they weren`substantial...
Maybe the patent-file was invented/applied by s.o. else???

Patents are a waste of time IMHO anyways.

= IYHO  (In Your Honest Opinion)...    


Ian:

Yeah I had a quick look for Fuller and Fulltone, couldn't see anything

couldn`t find it either... - but did you see this very week`s latest foot-controlled distortion-patent-file by a certain "Neal Schon"    

[Taylor]

I don't really know anything about Fulltone or fuller, and don't want to impugn anyone's ethics.

But would it be possible to file for a patent (and receive one) for some obscure and unimportant part of a device, and then claim "patent pending" or "patent granted" status for this device honestly, even if the important parts of the device are nothing special?

In other words, could someone for example make a distortion pedal which has some novel (but relatively pointless) way of turning the LED on and off, patent this LED switching, and then make it out like the distortion pedal is truly special because it has patented technology, even though the patent has nothing to do with the sound?

Just curious, and again I have no reason to think that this is the case here.

[R.G.]

I have no clue whether the pedal in question has a patent pending; presumably it has some kind of patent pending, or the maker has decided to take whatever chances they take with the legal system. It seems unlikely to me that Fulltone would take those chances.

The USPTO site says that "The law imposes a fine on those who use these terms falsely to deceive the public." That leaves the question of (1) whether the *intent* was to deceive the public, which only a court could decide and (2) whether the fine is big enough to have any deterrent effect. If the fine is $100 and sales go up 200%, it's a cost of doing business. If the fine is 200% of the sales price of each item, it's enough to prevent prudent men from doing that.

There is the question, previously mentioned, of whether the "patent pending" is on anything to do with the workings of the pedal, or on the brightness of the light, or something equally insubstantial. Presumably if the patent was on the new thread shape of the screws that hold on the bottom plate, a court could conceivably decide that putting "patent pending" was justified.

Searches on patent applications are likely not to be successful; as the USPTO notes:

Most patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000, will be published 18 months after the filing date of the application, or any earlier filing date relied upon under Title 35, United States Code. Otherwise, all patent applications are maintained in the strictest confidence until the patent is issued or the application is published. After the application has been published, however, a member of the public may request a copy of the application file. After the patent is issued, the Office file containing the application and all correspondence leading up to issuance of the patent is made available in the Files Information Unit for inspection by anyone, and copies of these files may be purchased from the Office.

The (ab)use of the term "patent pending" and "patent applied for" probably has a long history, as does any term designed to shave the edge of business practices. I'm sure it also has a history of valid, honest use.

Does anyone remember "PAF" humbuckers? Yep, Patent Applied For.

[bwanasonic]

I found Mike Fuller's comments about the Plimsoul at his site interesting. He seems a bit bemused at the OCD clones that have arrived on the market, and has decided it's not even worth gooping the Plimsoul.

As for the architecture, one of my favorite OD pedals is the Nobels ODR-S, which seems to be a TS style OD with a Ge Diode clipping stage, and a 3-band EQ. They are even nice enough to provide a schematic: http://www.nobels.com/en/index.htm . Maybe if I tried swapping out the Ge diodes with LEDs I'd get some interesting results. Maybe someday I'll pick up a spare to mod.

K

[Dragonfly]

I found Mike Fuller's comments about the Plimsoul at his site interesting.

K

I licensed a design a few years back to a company that combined hard and soft clipping, much like what Fuller is doing with the Plimsoul (I'd guess). Makes for a cool/interesting sounding pedal (obviously depending on the rest of the architecture).

[Mark Hammer]

Patents and I.P. aside, if something sounds decent, is well-built, provides a service to musicians, and sells for a reasonable price, what's the big deal?

Somewhere out there are a bunch of grumpy bakers kvetching about something being sold in a grocery chain as "artisan bread", and they're all, like, "Man, it's JUST flour and yeast, for crying out loud.", and "Yeah, I wish *I* could get $3.99 a loaf for my white bread", and "Harumph, stick an 'artisan' label on something and you can sell any old crap for twice the price".

[DougH]

Patents are a waste of time IMHO anyways.

Agreed. Esp in this industry.

[azrael]

What a goofy name, though. Plimsoul. :p

[zombiwoof]

What a goofy name, though. Plimsoul. :p

It's a British term for sneakers.  There is a band called the Plimsouls, and there was a song in the sixties (Jeff Beck) called "Rock my Plimsoul".  You must be pretty young, all old dudes like me are familiar with the term.  I think Fuller uses the term because it evokes the British sound that the pedal emulates.

Al

[azrael]

Well, me not being British doesn't help. 

[zombiwoof]

Well, me not being British doesn't help. 

I'm not British either, but I've listened to my share of British rock!.

Al

[azrael]

Ah I don't really listen to lyrics, nor did I ever get into Jeff Back. More Page kinda guy...