Korg Poly800/EX800 Users

How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger\ufffds low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Let's hope that this works.

And I suppose with 20% dissadembled you mean you have understood and
commented about 20% of the source code? I would call this good
progress. Two thumbs up!

Thanks, yes I would say I've done a little under 20% with comments.

But I should point out that this is the EX800 ROM (since I thought it
might be easier to start there). And I am mostly working through the
MIDI part of the code first. I've hit a few sections that I'm having
trouble understanding the use of variables in memory.

I'm going to move onto other parts of the code so that I don't lose
momentum and become disenchanted.

I just hope Korg releases a memory map. That would be very helpful.

Cheers,

Mike H.

--- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, "austeritygirlone" <ziggystar@...>
wrote:

>
> Let's hope that this works.
> 
> And I suppose with 20% dissadembled you mean you have understood and
> commented about 20% of the source code? I would call this good
> progress. Two thumbs up!
>

> 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the hardware is obsolete.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

hi there,

well, after having read all these threads, i guess it couldn't be a 
bad idea to let them Korg guys know that at least a couple dozens of 
us are really willing that they release the code for the Poly-800. 
Maybe we could get on the same page as regards what will be asked and 
then act in consequence. I'mm all for M. Hawkins move. Count me in.

Dave

--- In korgpolyex@yahoogroups.com, Atom Smasher <atom@...> wrote:
>
> > 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
>