Re: New Midas M32 Console
Arik, stop with this! Get back on topic or get gone.
Sent from my iPad HD
Arik, stop with this! Get back on topic or get gone.
Sent from my iPad HD
Copyright, Patent, General Intellectual Property Discussion (Branch from M32 Thread)
- Thread starter John Roberts
- Start date
Re: New Midas M32 Console
you should really get your facts straight before you post here.
Amusing though it may be, the amount of misinformation you are spreading is getting silly now.
J
you should really get your facts straight before you post here.
Amusing though it may be, the amount of misinformation you are spreading is getting silly now.
J
Last edited:
New Midas M32 Console
Arik,
You may not realize it, but the pro audio community is bigger than this forum. Many who post here regarding their mixing hobby are involved in the industry at a higher level by day. Many, many more do not post. You are doing yourself a great disservice in this thread if future work in pro audio interests you.
P.S. I know people at Apple. None of them would ever discuss their work publicly, or even much privately.
Arik,
You may not realize it, but the pro audio community is bigger than this forum. Many who post here regarding their mixing hobby are involved in the industry at a higher level by day. Many, many more do not post. You are doing yourself a great disservice in this thread if future work in pro audio interests you.
P.S. I know people at Apple. None of them would ever discuss their work publicly, or even much privately.
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Yes, sir! Will be down to technical stuff and reading more. As for Apple, it's indeed a very lip-tight company, but I haven't put any confidential information here, nothing about what me or others around me are working on. All about Foxconn and other stuff is widely publicized facts, nothing to hide. There's a lot more in Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson and other books.
Thank you, it's a great forum. Will stay on topic!
Yes, sir! Will be down to technical stuff and reading more. As for Apple, it's indeed a very lip-tight company, but I haven't put any confidential information here, nothing about what me or others around me are working on. All about Foxconn and other stuff is widely publicized facts, nothing to hide. There's a lot more in Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson and other books.
Thank you, it's a great forum. Will stay on topic!
Last edited:
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Dear TJ,
There is no need for any license as the technology is simply not protected, nor protectable.
A design patent requires a unique ornamental shape that is non-functional and on the other hand, a utility patent can only be obtained if there is a true innovation involved. Neither is the case here where we talk about a simple square box with simple cable tester functionality. Also, the color of the box and the different logos clearly indicate that these are different products so no consumer would get confused.
If you care to look deeper, you will find that the mechanical design of our cable tester is different and so is the circuitry, PCB layout, and in particular, the firmware for the microprocessor.
How many Fender Start versions are out there that all look alike? How many phones look alike? There is a fundamental difference between copying and copyright and simple research on Google, will provide information on these topics. The law not only allows copying, but also encourages copying as long as technology/content is not protected. While some people here might have a different personal view, which we respect, using other people’s ideas is perfectly ethical and again encouraged by the law as it drives competition and evolution. Just imagine a world with only one car, one mixer, one guitar, and one cable tester, the world would be quite boring and static.
Apple did not invent computers or phones, nor did we or any of the companies mentioned here, invent mixers. Innovation is often much deeper and invisible to the end user; value engineering in particular – while often underestimated – is an incredibly challenging and innovative process.
A good example is the X32. While most of our competitors use Windows or Linux as operating systems and therefore require an expensive PC motherboard, we designed and wrote our own operating system from scratch, a huge and difficult task, but a massive competitive advantage. While not visible to the customer, this is very innovative and we are proud of our achievement.
The good news is that consumers have choices and can decide which manufacturer and product suits them. This is a wonderful thing as it creates more competition, all for the benefit of the consumer.
Dear TJ,
There is no need for any license as the technology is simply not protected, nor protectable.
A design patent requires a unique ornamental shape that is non-functional and on the other hand, a utility patent can only be obtained if there is a true innovation involved. Neither is the case here where we talk about a simple square box with simple cable tester functionality. Also, the color of the box and the different logos clearly indicate that these are different products so no consumer would get confused.
If you care to look deeper, you will find that the mechanical design of our cable tester is different and so is the circuitry, PCB layout, and in particular, the firmware for the microprocessor.
How many Fender Start versions are out there that all look alike? How many phones look alike? There is a fundamental difference between copying and copyright and simple research on Google, will provide information on these topics. The law not only allows copying, but also encourages copying as long as technology/content is not protected. While some people here might have a different personal view, which we respect, using other people’s ideas is perfectly ethical and again encouraged by the law as it drives competition and evolution. Just imagine a world with only one car, one mixer, one guitar, and one cable tester, the world would be quite boring and static.
Apple did not invent computers or phones, nor did we or any of the companies mentioned here, invent mixers. Innovation is often much deeper and invisible to the end user; value engineering in particular – while often underestimated – is an incredibly challenging and innovative process.
A good example is the X32. While most of our competitors use Windows or Linux as operating systems and therefore require an expensive PC motherboard, we designed and wrote our own operating system from scratch, a huge and difficult task, but a massive competitive advantage. While not visible to the customer, this is very innovative and we are proud of our achievement.
The good news is that consumers have choices and can decide which manufacturer and product suits them. This is a wonderful thing as it creates more competition, all for the benefit of the consumer.
Re: New Midas M32 Console
This thread became so bloated that I've already forgotten about what the related questions were...
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Time will tell wether competition is increased or decreased by modern market trends. It is what it is. I am glad I am no longer working in those particular trenches. There are still new technologies and new things for me to pursue.
JR
Since this veer doesn't seem to be going away I'd like to amplify or expand upon a few points. (again with apologies for those disinterested in IP.)
Indeed... the technology is deemed "public domain" or free to use.
Yes, the classic example of a design patent is the coke bottle. An iconic and easily recognizable shape, that they protect vigorously. In the MI business it is generally not worthwhile to file design patents on the majority of products that change often and form often follows function. An exception could be guitars, that probably carry design patents on iconic visual features like headstock , tailpieces, etc. Some old classic designs are not protected.
A utility patent is more about how something works and "novelty" or newness is one of the key requirements, besides being new or different, it also must do something useful and not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. This is a gross simplification but the basis. Inventors who secure patent protection for an invention, publish or teach "how" they accomplished their invention in exchange for protected use for a finite time period. After that period of protection expires this protected technology becomes public domain for all to use. (A few of my patents are that old).
indeed
Not a comment about this particular product but a trend that I noticed over the last few decades in response to blatant copying, manufacturers began filing for copyright protection on PCB layouts and even owners manuals. The copyright law was not intended to protect this kind of IP but manufacturers found themselves competing with literal copies of PCB layouts and even owner's manual text. It seems software could be copyrighted but code must be customized for the processor used and some processors allow the code to be locked so it is harder to read and copy. There are publicly reported (and unreported) cases of such literal copying that I won't rehash here.
Strat(ocaster)? Numerous, and apparently not protected, from back in a kinder gentler time when copies were looked down upon as inferior. We live in a new time with generations who grew up copying music and whatever for free off the WWW.
I don't know that the law encourages copying per se, it does not prevent it in most cases. The quid pro quo surrounding utility patents is to expand public knowledge with the publication of an invention, so everyone can learn from the documented innovation and expand upon that. The alternative is that technology is kept completely secret (aka trade secrets), and the growth of public knowledge is slowed down and in extreme cases lost. It is important to remember that IP stands for "intellectual property". Property that posses the characteristics of having both value and ownership, just like real property. There is a continuum of IP ranging from the obvious and legally protected patents and copyrights, to less tangible stuff like ergonomics and human factors engineering, that can make the difference between something that looks like a guitar, and something that is a joy to play and makes music. Some nuts and bolts old-shool products possess years or decades of embedded IP by companies that pioneered the products, and learned all the stuff that didn't work, perhaps by doing it wrong 20 years ago. This vague proprietary IP is not protected but surely has value. IP can even extend to branding where iconic advertising and good will surrounding a brand holds value. Depending on whether you are the winner or loser in "legally" poaching such proprietary IP, it is either clever business, or sleazy. Opinions vary. Many consumers benefit from lower cost knock-offs, ultimately we can all lose if innovation suffers.
I guess there could be a debate about the ethics of copying "other people's" ideas. We all benefit when wisdom and knowledge is shared, while people need to receive fair compensation for their work effort or what is the point of them creating more? It is generally a bad business model to copy someone who did something first, unless you have some other competitive advantage to make your version more attractive to buyers. Doing the same thing for significantly less money is one such merchantable model available to large companies with manufacturing scale and resources. Yes this is legal, and arguably provides customers a lower cost option. A business model based on this alone will eventually run out of innovative products to copy as the companies doing the innovation lose profits and fade away. At some point this is not increasing competition but damping it and the serial copier must come up with their own new ideas. Large companies can stagnate and will often buy smaller more innovative companies to feed internal new product generation. Note: some corporate acquisitions are just for the technology, some to open access to new markets. The best provide both.
Indeed... I spent 15 years designing with a sharp pencil. It is much harder to design a VW than a Ferrari.
I have heaped praise on the X-32 numerous times and it is a notable achievement. Another unobvious feat of value engineering IMO is the motor-fader. Perhaps underestimated for degree of difficulty by people not familiar with such things. So congratulations once again.
Time will tell wether competition is increased or decreased by modern market trends. It is what it is. I am glad I am no longer working in those particular trenches. There are still new technologies and new things for me to pursue.
JR
Idrumtech drum tuner
John, since we got a new thread I'd like to ask you if you are affected by or following the case about idrumtech?
John, since we got a new thread I'd like to ask you if you are affected by or following the case about idrumtech?
Re: Idrumtech drum tuner
I have known Eric (Idrumtech founder) for years through his DrummerConnection website. I even linked to his low cost app from my website since he really was not serious competition for me.
So far it is not affecting me. I probably should not pontificate publicly about his case too much, should my situation change in the future.
=====
In general patent law is in some flux from changes related to recent (and pending future) legislation and even a handful of supreme court cases being reviewed which may also impact how it is ultimately practiced. The focus of legislation is mainly on patent trolls and abuses related specifically to "business practices" patents that can be disruptive. As usual the golden rule is in effect, so large business (with the most gold) are using their influence to protect their interests (AKA crony capitalism).
One recent SCOTUS case ruling will impact who pays for discovery (i.e. proof of infringement). Now the onus will be on the patent owner to prove infringement, while this specific SCOTUS case was related to a licensee who later reneged on royalties he paid before. There can be a significant cost associated with both defending or prosecuting IP lawsuits in court. Not a game for the timid or those with slender resources.
Interesting times.
JR
This is not a large industry so yes I am familiar with the lawsuit. AFAIK the settlement is not public information but the broad strokes are apparent.
I have known Eric (Idrumtech founder) for years through his DrummerConnection website. I even linked to his low cost app from my website since he really was not serious competition for me.
So far it is not affecting me. I probably should not pontificate publicly about his case too much, should my situation change in the future.
=====
In general patent law is in some flux from changes related to recent (and pending future) legislation and even a handful of supreme court cases being reviewed which may also impact how it is ultimately practiced. The focus of legislation is mainly on patent trolls and abuses related specifically to "business practices" patents that can be disruptive. As usual the golden rule is in effect, so large business (with the most gold) are using their influence to protect their interests (AKA crony capitalism).
One recent SCOTUS case ruling will impact who pays for discovery (i.e. proof of infringement). Now the onus will be on the patent owner to prove infringement, while this specific SCOTUS case was related to a licensee who later reneged on royalties he paid before. There can be a significant cost associated with both defending or prosecuting IP lawsuits in court. Not a game for the timid or those with slender resources.
Interesting times.
JR
Last edited:
Re: New Midas M32 Console
.
I've written more than one OS is a day or two - they're pretty simple. It's all the drivers and file systems you might need that are time consuming. I have written FAT12 (for floppy disk) and FAT16 (for SDCard) file systems also - FAT32 requires licensing to use so I haven't bothered yet. There is also OS-agnostic open source code available for some things as well as drivers written by the device manufacturers (usually needing tweaking :?~:-?~:???
.
Re: New Midas M32 Console
You don't just write a multitasking rtos in 'one or two days' from scratch.I've written more than one OS is a day or two - they're pretty simple. It's all the drivers and file systems you might need that are time consuming. I have written FAT12 (for floppy disk) and FAT16 (for SDCard) file systems also - FAT32 requires licensing to use so I haven't bothered yet. There is also OS-agnostic open source code available for some things as well as drivers written by the device manufacturers (usually needing tweaking :?~:-?~:???
Re: New Midas M32 Console
If you say so - I guess you've written more than me LOL. Check out the original public domain UCOS for an example of how simple one can be. Actually funny story - I wrote one on a Saturday (on my own time) when I was doing demo code for Intel's XScale processor and they sat me down in a room and had me prove that I hadn't plagiarized it. They didn't release it with the demo code package though, I think I scared them LOL. I tend to favor non-preemptive multitasking micro-kernels though, better performance and simpler (and yes, doable in a day).
Re: New Midas M32 Console
I may need to ask you to write an FFT for me... Got a few minutes?
JR
I may need to ask you to write an FFT for me... Got a few minutes?
JR
Re: New Midas M32 Console
Hmm, it was a couple years back I wrote the OS I'm using right now on an ARM M0 (Nuvoton part) , here's the only "assembler" in it for those interested - the actual task switch code:
static __asm void RTOS_Switch(uint32_t **oldsp, uint32_t *newsp)
{
// "C" routines do not expect subroutines to preserve R0-R4, R12
// M0 cannot "push" R8+
MOV R2, SP
SUBS R2, #CONTEXTSIZE*4
STR R2, [R0]
MOV R12, R1
MOV R0, R8
MOV R1, R9
MOV R2, R10
MOV R3, R11
PUSH {R0-R7, LR}
MOV SP, R12
POP {R0-R7}
MOV R8, R0
MOV R9, R1
MOV R10, R2
MOV R11, R3
POP {PC}
}
Easy Peasy :razz:
There's lots of PD code for those around - most DSP chip makers have them for free. When I was at Intel the next group over was doing stuff like that in ARM assembler, also stuff like an MP3 decoder - I forget what else.I may need to ask you to write an FFT for me... Got a few minutes?
JR
Hmm, it was a couple years back I wrote the OS I'm using right now on an ARM M0 (Nuvoton part) , here's the only "assembler" in it for those interested - the actual task switch code:
static __asm void RTOS_Switch(uint32_t **oldsp, uint32_t *newsp)
{
// "C" routines do not expect subroutines to preserve R0-R4, R12
// M0 cannot "push" R8+
MOV R2, SP
SUBS R2, #CONTEXTSIZE*4
STR R2, [R0]
MOV R12, R1
MOV R0, R8
MOV R1, R9
MOV R2, R10
MOV R3, R11
PUSH {R0-R7, LR}
MOV SP, R12
POP {R0-R7}
MOV R8, R0
MOV R9, R1
MOV R10, R2
MOV R11, R3
POP {PC}
}
Easy Peasy :razz:
Re: New Midas M32 Console
I miss coders like you. You should see what they teach my brother to code in his Comp. Science class. Shameful in comparison.
I miss coders like you. You should see what they teach my brother to code in his Comp. Science class. Shameful in comparison.
Re: New Midas M32 Console
The entire OS is 142 lines of code which includes the system tick handler, watchdog "voting" and all OS related subroutines that programs can call. It does not include the system init code, only the system tick and OS init code.
The entire OS is 142 lines of code which includes the system tick handler, watchdog "voting" and all OS related subroutines that programs can call. It does not include the system init code, only the system tick and OS init code.
Re: New Midas M32 Console
I prefer working in assembler (i like the direct cause and effect) but find it takes me more than 142 lines to do anything useful.
JR
I prefer working in assembler (i like the direct cause and effect) but find it takes me more than 142 lines to do anything useful.
JR
Re: New Midas M32 Console
~~:smile:. Working in "C" is OK if you have a good understanding of what the compiler is generating - for instance the M0 has no hardware divide so you want to code those as multiply and shifts if you can. I just got burned by a chip maker's driver that used a "port |= bit" instruction where my interrupt routine was coming in the middle of it, calling it again on the same port and screwing it up - it wasn't reentrant/interrupt protected - classic screwup :roll:. I find most of those "free" chip maker's drivers need tweaking...
Don't worry, practice makes perfect LOL. I'd be glad to share if you work with ARM
~~:smile:. Working in "C" is OK if you have a good understanding of what the compiler is generating - for instance the M0 has no hardware divide so you want to code those as multiply and shifts if you can. I just got burned by a chip maker's driver that used a "port |= bit" instruction where my interrupt routine was coming in the middle of it, calling it again on the same port and screwing it up - it wasn't reentrant/interrupt protected - classic screwup :roll:. I find most of those "free" chip maker's drivers need tweaking...
Re: New Midas M32 Console
back in my early (digital) days trying to generate sine waves with a 4 MHz 8-bit platform, I had to be very parsimonious about how many clock tics I used within the ISR. The modern stuff keeps getting better and better.
I think I may have just resolved my problem with my FFT... I was getting some off the wall completely random resilts, and just today realized that I was using a hardware based do loop inside my sine wave generating ISR. Starting a new DO loop when called away from another already running DO loop (inside the FFT) steps on the loop counter, thus the bogus results.
I guess i could just push and pop the DCOUNT register inside the interrupt call, but I just re-wrote the sine wave ISR to not use the hardware DO loop at all, It only costs me a couple instructions per loop. If the ISR gets tight for number of clock tics used (it isn't) I can revisit saving and restoring the DCOUNT register.
[edit] While I suggest people look elsewhere for assembly coding advice, I was not completely accurate. To save and restore a hardware do loop during an interrupt, you need to also push and then pop the DOSTARTL address and DOENDL address. 3 pushes and 3 pops is less clock overhead than 2 ops each loop for a loop that gets repeated 36x, so this saves some 70 clock tics during the ISR. Sorry, I'll take my musing about writing assembler off list now. [/edit]
I'm getting a stable result from the FFT now which is a very good start... and it tracks properly with my fake data....
JR
PS: I have considered buying stock in Arm Holdings (while P/E is a little high for my taste), since they seem to have the hot hardware platform these days. I cut my digital teeth on Microchip so am using them until they piss me off beyond recovery. I love their hardware, I do not love the lethargic customer support, and sketchy documentation. But i really love the hardware. It looks like Microchip has licensed some of their 32bit and higher MCU guts from Arm.
Don't worry, practice makes perfect LOL. I'd be glad to share if you work with ARM
back in my early (digital) days trying to generate sine waves with a 4 MHz 8-bit platform, I had to be very parsimonious about how many clock tics I used within the ISR. The modern stuff keeps getting better and better.
I think I may have just resolved my problem with my FFT... I was getting some off the wall completely random resilts, and just today realized that I was using a hardware based do loop inside my sine wave generating ISR. Starting a new DO loop when called away from another already running DO loop (inside the FFT) steps on the loop counter, thus the bogus results.
I guess i could just push and pop the DCOUNT register inside the interrupt call, but I just re-wrote the sine wave ISR to not use the hardware DO loop at all, It only costs me a couple instructions per loop. If the ISR gets tight for number of clock tics used (it isn't) I can revisit saving and restoring the DCOUNT register.
[edit] While I suggest people look elsewhere for assembly coding advice, I was not completely accurate. To save and restore a hardware do loop during an interrupt, you need to also push and then pop the DOSTARTL address and DOENDL address. 3 pushes and 3 pops is less clock overhead than 2 ops each loop for a loop that gets repeated 36x, so this saves some 70 clock tics during the ISR. Sorry, I'll take my musing about writing assembler off list now. [/edit]
I'm getting a stable result from the FFT now which is a very good start... and it tracks properly with my fake data....
JR
PS: I have considered buying stock in Arm Holdings (while P/E is a little high for my taste), since they seem to have the hot hardware platform these days. I cut my digital teeth on Microchip so am using them until they piss me off beyond recovery. I love their hardware, I do not love the lethargic customer support, and sketchy documentation. But i really love the hardware. It looks like Microchip has licensed some of their 32bit and higher MCU guts from Arm.
Last edited: