[sdiy] Monowave goes GPL

[Harry Bissell Jr]

--- tomg <e4m at houston.rr.com> wrote:

> If you want an entire list of Doepfer's.
> You are going about it the right way.

LOL. Touche.
(newbies can check the archives for ancient posts
about this).

> I'll start with Jurgen and Ian's sites.
> It won't take me long. I bet I can
> have the first boards in 6 weeks.

I hope they will be in the tradition of
EFM - the low price leader  :^P  If so put me
down for a few.

> I'm not going to ask permission so
> there's no need to give them any
> credit for their work. I'll pretend that 
> I found it somewhere else or protest 
> that it was someone else's design to 
> start with. No flys on me.....

Correct me if I was wrong... what parts of the
EFM VCF-2E are in question.  Tom's board had an
envelope follower, and a AR (or with mod) ADSR
generator on board.  That certainly is unique
and does not appear in the Taurus. OTOH those
features / design do not appear to have been
copied.  The use of the OTA for recovery may not have
been common BEFORE the EFM board, but clearly it was
not unknown as Bob Moog used it in the Taurus I
when we were (mostly) all newbies.

Suppose someone copies a design, like I did with the
NED / Synclavier... then finds out that the origin
of that design comes from a previously published work.
who is owed the credit ?  In this example, NED took a
design intended for a different use, and applied it to
guitar. This might have been enough to patent it... or
not. The court would decide... patents establish legal
rights. I refer to it as the (Calman) "Gold"
patent...although I know the patent might fail in
court. (in my case, a detailed schematic was not
given... being left to "those reasonably skilled in
the art".  My implemetation of this idea could be said
to be mine. I don't claim its 'my idea')

Disclosing "prior art" is a necessity for all patents.
Concealing prior art would be grounds for review or
invalidation of the patent.

Here's another possible example. The core of Jurgen
Haible's VC-HADSR bears a remarkable resemblence to
the "Blackmer" cell from the DBX expo multiplier
patent. OTOH there is no 'integrator' in the original.
I'd say that the quad-transistor archetecture is
Blackmer's, and the method of using that as a expo lag
is Juergen's. A similar circuit exists from EMS, but
that is a linear circuit and cannot do eponential. So
here is a synthesis of two designs... a multiplier, a
linear lag circuit, and an implementation that allows
the use in an expo lag circuit.  The invention of the
'servo' driving the transistors (barring other
evidence to the contrary) seems to belong to JH.  My
apologies to any designer before "Blackmer"... I'm not
aware of the prior prior art :^)

IMHO, the unique feature of the EFM 'design' was that
Tom made it available to so many people at a price
they could afford. Tom brought moog to the masses...
Moog brought it to Tom.

now WTF are we arguing about anyway. Everyone (me
included) enjoy a big mug of stfu and get back to your
workbenches !!!

H^) harry