Patent violations?!

[Peter Snow]

Hi Dave,

A happy accident for them, I guess. Aphex must have made a fortune on
that device.  I remember when you could not pick up an album in the
record store that did not have "Recorded with the Aphex Aural Exciter"
(or something like that) on the back. And later other more sarcastic
artists would put "NOT recorded with the Aphex Aural Exciter" on their
album cover. Shows how pervasive that device was at the time.

It has always puzzled me that a circuit that adds distortion can
actually "clarify" or enhance a sound.
I wonder how far down in the frequency range the distortion can occur
before it actually appears as distortion and not as enhancement? Anyone
built one of these and experimented with it?

Cheers,

Peter

Dave Halliday wrote:
> 
> It was a loong time ago but I seem to remember an interview with the person
> who "invented" the Aphex device and it came about because they were
> assembling a kit amplifier and made a mistake somewhere.  They liked the
> sound and proceeded to have someone figure out what was happening and they
> made a business out of it.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Snow [mailto:psnow at magma.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 2:48 PM
> To: Jules Ryckebusch
> Cc: synth-diy at node12b53.a2000.nl
> Subject: Re: Patent violations?!
> 
> Hi Jules,
> 
> Yes, I remember that article and the ensuing letters in EM.  As far as I
> can remember Aphex went even further and claimed that anyone using that
> device to record a song would be liable to pay them royalties on every
> sale of that song!  Heavy stuff.  But I think some legal type wrote in
> and said they were full of kaka and the whole thing died, right? Makes
> you wonder how Aphex could justify charging what they did for their
> product if it was so close to your circuit. That was a nice, simple,
> elegant circuit too. It's still on my list to build, along with your
> PAIA compressor. Arrrgh I wish I had more time!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter
> 
> Jules Ryckebusch wrote:
> >
> > I published the "build a ten dollar harmonic sweetener" in Electronic
> Musician in
> > 1987. Technically it close enough to the Aphex Aural Exicter that they
> claimed it
> > violated there patent(s). The only thing they could claim was that it
> could not
> > be used commercially. They actually claimed that it could not be used for
> a
> > commercial recording too. I was not in any legal trouble as I was just
> publicly
> > showing how to do something, not commercial production.
> >
> > Jules Ryckebusch
> >
> > WeAreAs1 at aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > In a message dated 5/11/00 8:47:11 AM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > <<And would I be allowed to publish a circuit to which patent rights are
> > >
> > > still active? >>
> > >
> > > I think it's OK to publish your derivative circuit.  After all, the
> original
> > > patent is in its own way a very public disclosure of the idea.  The
> original
> > > inventor takes a certain amount of risk by patenting, because the
> process
> > > actually exposes his idea to a lot more people than if he had just gone
> ahead
> > > and put his idea directly to commercial use without patenting, but kept
> the
> > > details secret.  This, indeed, is one of the several reasons Don
> Lancaster is
> > > so vehemently opposed to the use of patents (in most cases).  Anyway, as
> long
> > > as you aren't trying to make money with the derivative, I don't think
> you can
> > > get in trouble for telling people how you did it.  Keep in mind,
> however,
> > > that I learned everything I know about the law from watching Ally
> Mcbeal,
> > > Matlock, a shop-worn videotape of To Kill a Mockingbird, and last year's
> > > congressional hearings on Monicagate.
> > >
> > > Michael Bacich