I have to agree with Moe on this. However, I do not think "restrictions on
the use of their circuits for commercial exploitation by other companies"
is legally binding. ie. Oakley has no authority over Doepfer. So while one
could argue that Doepfer's alleged cloning is unethical, in the absence of
a patent, it isn't illegal. Besides, there a ways of getting around
patents -- just look at the guy who invented television. Lancaster,
Heinlein, and others have made the case that only way to truly protect a
design is to keep it secret by deliberately not publishing a patent. Of
course, this strategy offers no legal protection against reverse
engineering.
Nor do I think that JH "does seem to be a DIYer for hobby purposes only"
has any relevance -- he's a design engineer whether or not he makes money
from it or not. Whether or not I make money from a song has no bearing
whether its mine.
I would hate to see Synthesis Technology try to keep their designs secret
just to discourage Doepfer from selling a clone. Then again, you can't
clone quality -- it would be like Hyundai trying to clone a 1976 Mercedes :)
Anyway, I love reading the schematics and the Theory of Operation that
comes with each module. Knowing how it works is part of the fun :)
At 1:35 PM -0700 04/22/01, dave bradley wrote:
>
>Nope. The basic transister ladder topology is Bob
>Moog's, now in the public domain. The idea of tapping
>each rung of the filter to provide a separate output
>was actually Tony's idea. Doepfer has a well known
>reputation of suddenly coming out with modules after
>others have published the schematics - even if those
>others have specifically placed restrictions on the
>use of their circuits for commercial exploitation by
>other companies. So how does one deduce whether
>Doepfer actually had an original thought versus just
>lifting the schematic? By their past behavior. If you
>don't publish your schematic, no Doepfer clone. If you
>do publish it, a clone appears. Form your own
>judgement.