> I showed them your email, but I'm sorry to tell you that we cannot
> comply with your request. It is our general policy not to release this
> kind of information - How we design, code and develop our products is
> part of our long-attained equity as a company and we simply do not in
> any circumstances release that information out into the public.
============================
Mr Kovarsky, you've probably never heard of me. I've published some
hardware modifications to the Poly-800 series of synthesizers that seems
to have contributed quite a bit to it's cult following.
Since both the software and hardware of the Poly-800 series of synths are
entirely obsolete, it would seem that Korg would have absolutely nothing
to lose from releasing details about the software. Further, it would
demonstrate that Korg is a company that puts long-time loyal users ahead
of obsolete secrets.
We all know that software details of the Poly-800 would reveal no useful
information at all about any current gear made by Korg. Nor would this
information be useful to anyone wanting to make a new synthesizer; partly
because the feature set is limited by modern standards and partly because
the hardware is obsolete.
I would certainly understand Korg not wanting to release software details
about these synths in the 80s, or even 90s, but this is 2006. The software
details of the Poly-800, known to be limited by features and then-current
hardware, are absolutely useless except for one thing: breathing new life
into an old hardware synth with a loyal following.
I'm hopeful that a mutually beneficial arrangement can reached with Mr
Hawkins: Perhaps you can release the code to him with a non-disclosure
agreement? This would allow him to independently breath new life into this
old synthesizer (and share his compiled code), without publicly releasing
any company "secrets".
If Korg were to publicly release such information at this point in time,
it would only demonstrate that Korg is willing to allow (or even
encourage) independent support for long obsolete gear. Nothing could be
more helpful in selling new gear than confidence that the gear will be
supported long after it's been forgotten. The good PR that Korg could gain
by releasing the obsolete code for an obsolete synth with a loyal
following is priceless. I will certainly consider this in future
purchases; not all synthesizer/effect manufacturers consider such
information to be a secret after 20+ years.
While I certainly understand that these details are the property of Korg,
and that Korg had invested resources into it's development, I just can't
see any justifiable reason to keep the code locked up at this point. Nor
can I see how it might benefit Korg in any way to keep the code secret. I
can certainly understand that the code was, at one time, a very valuable
asset to Korg and worthy of being locked up. While locked in a safe that
asset certainly must have depreciated to zero within the last several
years, if not earlier. Thus, it's "equity" to the company is currently
much greater if it's released than it is if it's kept secret. If there's
anything that I've overlooked in my reasoning or I don't seem to
understand, please feel free to contact me and let me know what I'm
missing.
I hope that you can understand my reasoning, and that you may be able to
advocate this position within the company. Perhaps a request such as this
should be directed to R&D, or the legal department. If that's the case,
please send their contact information to me and Mr Hawkins, so we can
pursue this further.
Thank you for your time.
--
...atom
________________________
http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808
-------------------------------------------------
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
-- Charles H. Duell,
Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899