Hi Dave,
I read your previous mail as well, and basically I agree to your opinion.
I chose the wording "flow of information" on purpose, because it's
quite neutral. This topic was discussed on synth-diy and on AH, it's all
in the archives. I stepped in on this list to soften things, not to incite
them.
I once had a heated discussion with D. about his offer to buy used synths
to exploit them for CEM3340's (which were ultra rare back then), and
I tried to convince him that he need not rely on a chip that's desperately
needed for repair of Obie's and Prophets. (This was befor Paul located
a bunch of these chips.) I told D. that there is a very active synth-diy
community, including people who are capable and willing to design
a discrete VCO for him, to save these 3340s he was IMO wasting in his
A-100. It was clear that I was not available for such job, but I knew
that some list members would be willing to work for D.
It was a heated debate, and it was settled not by agreement, but by the
lucky incident that a large number of 3340's was found.
Some time later several people pointed out to me that D. announced
several modules which strangely resembled circuits from my web
site. Descriptions and graphics would be so close to mine that there
wasn't even an attempt to conceal their source of inspiration. A possible
conclusion was that D. would have indeed taken a tour around the
web of synth-diy, finding an easy harvest.
My reaction was to avoid making conclusions and accusations,
but to invite people to take a look at the respective web sites and draw
their own conclusions. Which is my policy still. And in practice,
I had to write more emails to calm people down than the opposite.
I mean, I appreciated getting supportive letters, but at times I suspect
it became a fad for everyone to say "D. ripped me off". Sometimes
regarding circuits that came directly from some data book.
I have said it repeatedly: I have no claims. Obviously not for circuits
that are EDP's designs, or Serge's concepts. And even in cases where
the design or concept is mine, I have not made any claim. If I wanted that,
I would have been a fool not to patent it. But that was never my intention.
I have, and others have, published circuits for free personal use on the
growing community of people who were building synths as a hobby.
There was a wonderful non-commercial innocence, with the companies
of old not being in business, or not interested in their analogue heritage
anymore, and an altruistic sharing of resources, both dug from the archives
and (more rarely so) new developments.
Blame it on D.'s alleged action, or blame it on our reaction, this innocence
is lost. And sometimes you see me mourning that. And that's all there is,
from my side. You know, there is two worlds, the business world where
you take what you can get, with patents being weapons, and an unprotected
finding being a trophy to wear with pride - and there is another world
where sharing information is a give and take, and where not quoting
one's sources in considered unethical. Maybe we're just too idealistic.
But I think that MOTM shows that commercial success and giving
credit / paying royalties ∗can∗ be combined. In the end it "pays off"
for both parties.
JH.
> jurgen,
> i`m not in a position to know whether you are right or wrong but on the
"flow
> of information" concept, well after the wasp was produced and had probably
> ceased production, there were articles in the e.m. publications about
using
> the cmos inverters in unusual ways. two i recall are a vca published in
> "polyphony" magazine and one more about general use of the cmos inverters
> with an eye to filters from "electronotes" written by hal chamberlain ( i
> think. have to dig out the article to be sure ). so, these ideas have
been
> "in the air" since the mid-80`s. notwithstanding, if you designed the
circuit
> used you should get credit and at least be paid for your design but if it
is
> a "reverse engineering" job, a "clean room design" or just someone
stumbling
> over something already done and forgotten about and resurrecting it, what
> then? were i to design a vcf using cmos inverters, am i automatically
taking
> advantage of you? ideas and implementations have to be carefully
considered
> here and due respect given to all parties concerned. that is my sole
concern
> here, not bashing anyone.
> thanks for listening.....
> best,
> dave v.
>
>
>
>
>
>