JP6K 1.7 update (64 bit)

[Cyforce]

I s this going to be Mac and PC or PC only

PC only, is build with Synthmaker

[osiris]

Geez Adam ...11 pages & you haven't even released it yet.
1)I googled supersaw copyright & found nothing. Call it what you like, but I'd just leave supersaw alone to keep it under Roland's radar.
2) The GUI looks greaat, but people will bitch & kvetch about everything. Make it an original.
3) Are you using the new free phase oscillator or whatever it's called for synthmaker? I've read this is what the original was.
You better hurry & get this done because I can hear people's head's exploding.
Much luck.

[Shabdahbriah]

It still has bugs and its in Alpha, but its slowly getting there.

I'd be receptive to an "alpha" version, to start building-up some presets.

[adamszabo]

Geez Adam ...11 pages & you haven't even released it yet.

Its not my fault it turned into a copyright thread

About it being SM, people have to understand that Im just a hobbyist, and I do this for fun, not as a job, and I havent learned any c++. Having to learn c++, the vst sdk, would take me years. I do know the logic behind synthesis and all, and SM provided me the fastest way to make it a reality for you guys. But ill learn c++ if you wanna wait another 5 years for this

Also, SM does not mean it will sound bad. This whole synthedit and synthmaker deal got such a bad views because its "easy" to make synthesizers and people who do not even know what a filter does, try to attempt to make synthesizers, and of course it will sound bad. However, with many years of synthesizer experience I DO know what im doing.

Im also at the end of the Uni, so I cannot work 100% full time on this, and I still have some things I have to add that are just there on the gui. Also, redesigning the interface made me think that I could add a few more things that I did not think of so you will get a nicer experience with the synth.

I am aiming to get it done by january, so we can all celebrate 2011 with a proper supersaw emu

[AdInfinitum]

Again a some misinformation posted.

The computer code running the JP-8000 is copyrighted, whether Roland registered the software or not.

SUPERSAW may be protected under patent law if the circuit was novel, non-obvious and Roland filed patents to protect it.

A good rule of thumb to remember, if you copy from someone else, most likely, you are infringing their rights. If you are original, then you are the one that has rights.

Arturia made a highly accurate rep,ice of the Jupiter 8. It was probably in Arturia financial interest to be able to use the Jupiter 8 mark and trade dress to sell more product. That is what trademark licensing is about. You can sell more product using a valuable trademark than making up your own mark.

[osiris]

Who cares how you made it. It sounds great, and as long as it doesn't chew CPU, I think you have a winner/

[AdmiralQuality]

Unfortunately, with IP law, there are few clears cut cases of "do it, it's OK " or "don't do it, you are infringing." Most cases fall somewhere in between those extremes. The trick is to advise your client in a way that achieves their business ends with the least amount of risk of sufficiently pissing off the other side.

Everything is about "risk" - assessing the risk and then making a business determination of whether to take that risk.

You can do anything you want - crack software, download a song, create a VST instrument. - It is only when a judge tells you that you can't (enjoins your use), that the infringed can get the infringer to legally stop. Many companies send cease and desist letters, but unless the recipient of that letter stops of their own volition, the only way to get them to stop is for a judge to tell them to. Many companies send demand letters with no real intention to sue because that costs a lot of money. Most hope that the other side is rational and will make the rational biz decision to stop. Again, cost/benefit analysis goes into the decision to sue.

In general, unless the trademark infringement is willlful, the court will not award monetary damages only enjoin the infringing use. Thus, unless the mark has value, a company won't sue to merely enjoin the use.

Lots of game theory involved and gamesmanship.



Finally, at least in the US, you do not need a Federal registration to acquire trademark rights. Thus the fact that Roland doesn't own a registration for SUPERSAW does not mean that Roland doesn't have trademark rights in the term.

Most other countries do rely on registration to acquire TM rights though (EU for example).

Brad Pitt owns a right of publicity in his image, name and likeness. You generally cannot use his image for commercial purposes without his permission. There are First Amendment exceptions to this right. He can also own a trademark in various aspects of his name (for example, if he used his name on a product - think George Foreman and those electric cooking grills).

The product configuration of the JP-8000 would fall under trade dress law (similar to regular trademark law). However, Roland would have to demonstrate that the product configuration has acquired distinctiveness in order to enforce rights in the trade dress.

Fair use of a trademark is using the descriptive or nominative word in a non-trademark sense, I.e. Not to indicate the source of a product. Thus, it is generally Ok to say that XYZ is an emulation of the ABC vintage synth. It is always recommend not to use a logo when trying to claim fair use, since a logo is not a
nominative use of the mark.

What HE said!

[AdmiralQuality]

Again a some misinformation posted.

The computer code running the JP-8000 is copyrighted, whether Roland registered the software or not.

Yes, but the PURPOSE of that code isn't. The JP-8000 (etc) code only runs on some obscure DSP chips that are in the hardware device, it's of absolutely no use to someone trying to make a Windows/Mac plug-in. (Well, again, it's of use for seeing what they were TRYING to do, just not HOW to do it.)

SUPERSAW may be protected under patent law if the circuit was novel, non-obvious and Roland filed patents to protect it.

Not a circuit, it's just code. (The JP-8000, etc, were among the first "virtual analogs" in existance.) The code, yes, is 100% copyright to Roland. The IDEA.... I don't know...

A good rule of thumb to remember, if you copy from someone else, most likely, you are infringing their rights. If you are original, then you are the one that has rights.

So, can Moog sue me for Poly-Ana? Because the analog synth was Bob's idea. 100%.

Arturia made a highly accurate rep,ice of the Jupiter 8. It was probably in Arturia financial interest to be able to use the Jupiter 8 mark and trade dress to sell more product. That is what trademark licensing is about. You can sell more product using a valuable trademark than making up your own mark.

The real Jupiter 8 didn't have effects stuck in the middle of every voice. Arturia bought rights to the name/logo of the synth they were (loosely) emulating. Hopefully for them, they sell enough to pay for it.

[Gamma-UT]

Not a circuit, it's just code. (The JP-8000, etc, were among the first "virtual analogs" in existance.) The code, yes, is 100% copyright to Roland. The IDEA.... I don't know...

It could be patented. The rules on patents that involve software are not entirely clear and vary from country to country. It's often easier to patent an algorithm by describing its implementation on hardware than it is to attempt to get a specific patent for the software implementation. The patent would, if it existed, still apply to a software implementation.

So, can Moog sue me for Poly-Ana? Because the analog synth was Bob's idea. 100%.

Not any more: Moog's original patents expired long ago. But Moog did sue (or at least threaten it) because there are a number of version 1.0 synths from the 70s with 'Moog-like' filters that were not in the version 2.0 models. And Roland's diode filter design can be seen as a neat way of getting around the Moog ladder filter (if not as elegant).

[AdmiralQuality]

Not a circuit, it's just code. (The JP-8000, etc, were among the first "virtual analogs" in existance.) The code, yes, is 100% copyright to Roland. The IDEA.... I don't know...

It could be patented. The rules on patents that involve software are not entirely clear and vary from country to country. It's often easier to patent an algorithm by describing its implementation on hardware than it is to attempt to get a specific patent for the software implementation. The patent would, if it existed, still apply to a software implementation.

So, can Moog sue me for Poly-Ana? Because the analog synth was Bob's idea. 100%.

Not any more: Moog's original patents expired long ago. But Moog did sue (or at least threaten it) because there are a number of version 1.0 synths from the 70s with 'Moog-like' filters that were not in the version 2.0 models. And Roland's diode filter design can be seen as a neat way of getting around the Moog ladder filter (if not as elegant).

Yes, Moog sued some contemporaries for lifting their EXACT SAME circuit. But as there's no circuits in software, does it apply? (And I honestly don't know the answer to that, I just hope the people running Moog now are as nice as Bob was. That's what the lawyers always miss.)

I actually came up with Moog's ladder filter 100% independently. It was only after I had "invented" it in software that I found out it was the classic design. (My code flowchart looks just like their circuit schematic.) Not every patent that's stolen is actually "stolen", sometimes the same thing gets independently invented, twice.

[trimph1]

There might only be a certain number of set ways that a ladder filter can be done IMO--

Just like Class A amps I guess---

[Urs]

And Roland's diode filter design can be seen as a neat way of getting around the Moog ladder filter (if not as elegant).

In some cases it was quite elegant, eg. in the SH-5 - they simply grounded the collectors which effectively made the transistors operate as diodes. So it might just have been a minimal change to the design.

[Gamma-UT]

Yes, Moog sued some contemporaries for lifting their EXACT SAME circuit. But as there's no circuits in software, does it apply? (And I honestly don't know the answer to that, I just hope the people running Moog now are as nice as Bob was. That's what the lawyers always miss.)

It depends. If the code emulated the circuit behaviour of the filter, then I imagine it would be possible to argue that the design infringed. If you emulated the response of the filter using another method, probably not. But it's one of those things that could go all the way to court. I don't think there's a good example in this business but in the wider electronics field, this does happen because you can implement functions in hardware, in programmable logic or in software. What matters (from a patent perspective) is the algorithm.

I actually came up with Moog's ladder filter 100% independently. It was only after I had "invented" it in software that I found out it was the classic design. (My code flowchart looks just like their circuit schematic.) Not every patent that's stolen is actually "stolen", sometimes the same thing gets independently invented, twice.

It happens all the time - and as Moog's design is such an elegant one, it's possible that people did stumble on the same design without cracking open a MiniMoog in the 70s.

In general, the recommendation that lawyers make to engineers is to never read patents because the penalty for "wilful infringement" (we knew how it worked and we copied it) are generally higher than those for accidental infringement. You often see the rhetoric about wilful infringement in press releases made by companies about these cases, generally when a company is trying to get the ITC or whoever to block imports of an offending product.

[Elektronisch]

Geez Adam ...11 pages & you haven't even released it yet.

Its not my fault it turned into a copyright thread

About it being SM, people have to understand that Im just a hobbyist, and I do this for fun, not as a job, and I havent learned any c++. Having to learn c++, the vst sdk, would take me years. I do know the logic behind synthesis and all, and SM provided me the fastest way to make it a reality for you guys. But ill learn c++ if you wanna wait another 5 years for this

Also, SM does not mean it will sound bad. This whole synthedit and synthmaker deal got such a bad views because its "easy" to make synthesizers and people who do not even know what a filter does, try to attempt to make synthesizers, and of course it will sound bad. However, with many years of synthesizer experience I DO know what im doing.

Im also at the end of the Uni, so I cannot work 100% full time on this, and I still have some things I have to add that are just there on the gui. Also, redesigning the interface made me think that I could add a few more things that I did not think of so you will get a nicer experience with the synth.

I am aiming to get it done by january, so we can all celebrate 2011 with a proper supersaw emu

why not to make out of this a Proper JP emulation if it gone so far already ?

[Gamma-UT]

And Roland's diode filter design can be seen as a neat way of getting around the Moog ladder filter (if not as elegant).

In some cases it was quite elegant, eg. in the SH-5 - they simply grounded the collectors which effectively made the transistors operate as diodes. So it might just have been a minimal change to the design.

I should really have written "not as elegant a filter as the Moog structure". The Roland approach was certainly inventive and elegant in an economy-of-design sense.