MOTM

I suppose it depends on the "scope" of the operation.

If I was *totally dependent* on MOTM for income, had employees, etc etc etc and all I offered
were assembled modules, then NO, I would NOT supply schematics, either.

It's not the worry of "Company XYZ" stealing stuff as much as the slow 'nibbling away' of the
market by DIY'ers that I would target (trying to convince that it's not worth the effort to build
when you can buy. How many people build their own cars, houses or boats?).

Certainly, there is patent protection (saved Moog's butt) but that is a long, involved , $$$
pain. You REALLY have to DESIRE to protect something to go that route. Even so, you have to
"self-police", and it doesn't *prevent* copying, just gives legal recourse. Then it gets nasty
(EMu versus Sequential) and does anybody really "win"?

Other reasons not to give out schematics: pride, embarrassment ("the designs suck, let's not
prove it") and true innovation (Marshall Time Modulator).

Another reason: may people think a schematic contains all necessary info to actually build
something. WRONG! It doesn't contain pcb layout info, parts specs (like special caps) or
considerations like grounding schemes. Errors can propagate for 20 years (the infamous Penfold
book), and the sacred Horowitz & Hill that has glaring screwups, at least in the first edition.

Since MOTM is only 20% of total income, and I am selling *kits*, you get schematics. My
"protection" to some degree is that the modules are 'overdesigned' so that the standard cheap-ass
DIYers ("I am a poor student, but I want a $5,000 modular.") will shy away from such things as
$12 dual matched FETS (I can't count the emails I get about 1K tempcos, and when I say $6.50ea
you think they were buying a Ferrari water pump.)

Paul S.

"Another reason: may people think a schematic contains all necessary
info to actually build
something. WRONG! It doesn't contain pcb layout info, parts specs (like
special caps) or
considerations like grounding schemes. Errors can propagate for 20 years
(the infamous Penfold
book), and the sacred Horowitz & Hill that has glaring screwups, at
least in the first edition."

--I have to put in here and agree with Paul big time. The inclusion of
schematics for our products is to help the kit builder both build and
learn but they are not designed to allow duplication of the product.
People that try this often get something very inferior. Many of the
Blacet products come with in house tested and selected parts that are
vital to the modules operation. This information is not part of the
manual.

I once worked for a company where an employee managed to walk away with
a set of blueprints for everything the company made. He formed a company
and tried to copy the products. Hardly anything worked; he went under
faster than the Titanic. There is "magic" in what we do and like good
magicians everywhere, we don't let go of all the secrets......

Regards,
___________________
John Blacet
Blacet Research
http://www.blacet.com

I agree that schematics are not expected on all products by all consumers.
If I purchased a Surface One, Knobby or some other commercially available
product, marketed via full page ads in Keyboard, and sold at music stores,
no schematic would be expected. I don't think anyone here believes the UEG
or other MOTM format module is anyone's only gig or only source of income.
My point is simply that many of these customers (of whom I am one, but don't
speak for all), in this market expect a schematic when products are marketed
in this forum.

Whether one chooses to provide them or not is their choice. As a consumer,
whether I complain about it is my choice. Several people have expressed
interest in fixing the deboucing problem with the UEG push-button. While a
software solution is not possible because of the hardware configuration, a
hardware fix (by a competent builder) after the fact is not impossible (as
far as I can tell). A schematic sure would make it a little easier. I'm not
asking everyone to comply or agree. But, I am saying I am going to complain
about it. And, I do it publicly in the hope that others will complain and
cause a change. It is the American way.

Larry Hendry


--- Paul Schreiber <synth1@...> wrote:

> To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>,
> I suppose it depends on the "scope" of the operation.

> If I was *totally dependent* on MOTM for income,
> had employees, etc etc etc and all I offered were
> assembled modules, then NO, I would NOT supply
> schematics, either.

< snip >