4 ms·

It is a shame companies do not donate the actual design documents to a museum of some sort, like the Computer History Museum. Of course things get lost over th

It is a shame companies do not donate the actual design documents to a museum of some sort, like the Computer History Museum. Of course things get lost over the years. I wonder if companies could put their designs in escrow to be released after some number of years so they don't get lost.

kennywinker 5y ago
This is basically the original logic behind patents. You trade making your invention public for legal protection of your exclusive right to that invention for some number of years. It's too bad it doesn't work anymore (or maybe it never worked?). Stuff like this doesn't make it into useful patent documentation, while patents are issued for vague and overly broad "inventions" like "storing numbers in a computer".
- kens 5y ago
  The DX7 patent is actually pretty good: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4554857A https://patents.google.com/patent/US4554857A It accurately describes the architecture of the DX7 and how it's implemented. There's a whole lot that it doesn't explain, but it was very helpful for understanding the chip. (I used a couple of diagrams from the patent in my article.)
- varispeed 5y ago
  I don't know why patents even exist at this point. I have seen many times an obvious thing has been patented, where anyone sane wouldn't think of patenting something like that. Most likely this is to get a PR e.g. "we are using patented technology", but if you worked on a software and then you learn someone has patented something that your software does years later, makes you feel uneasy and there is no defence against that. One thing if companies are doing that for PR, but if "their IP" gets taken over by patent trolls...
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    Patents can be challenged for being obvious.
    - varispeed 5y ago
      If you are a big corporation with deep pockets.
- ajxs 5y ago
  There's definitely a certain uniqueness to the legalese of patent titles. At times they're simultaneously so vague, yet so oddly specific. The Dave Smith quote in the footnotes of my DX7 technical analysis (it's linked in Ken's article) provide an interesting insight into how synth companies approached patenting: "If you have a lot of patents and somebody comes after you, chances are one of your patents will overlap enough with one of their patents that you can negotiate a deal so nobody gets hurt. Whereas if you don't have anything to offer and you have nothing in your stable of patents, then you're stuck" Some of Yamaha's FM synth patents have equally strange names. On the subject of Yamaha's FM patents, it's a shame that there isn't more information available about Norio Tomisawa, the engineer responsible for most of these designs. His name is on all of the FM patents. He played a huge role in the development of modern synthesis.

kennywinker 5y ago

This is basically the original logic behind patents. You trade making your invention public for legal protection of your exclusive right to that invention for some number of years. It's too bad it doesn't work anymore (or maybe it never worked?). Stuff like this doesn't make it into useful patent documentation, while patents are issued for vague and overly broad "inventions" like "storing numbers in a computer".

kens 5y ago
The DX7 patent is actually pretty good: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4554857A https://patents.google.com/patent/US4554857A It accurately describes the architecture of the DX7 and how it's implemented. There's a whole lot that it doesn't explain, but it was very helpful for understanding the chip. (I used a couple of diagrams from the patent in my article.)
varispeed 5y ago
I don't know why patents even exist at this point. I have seen many times an obvious thing has been patented, where anyone sane wouldn't think of patenting something like that. Most likely this is to get a PR e.g. "we are using patented technology", but if you worked on a software and then you learn someone has patented something that your software does years later, makes you feel uneasy and there is no defence against that. One thing if companies are doing that for PR, but if "their IP" gets taken over by patent trolls...
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  Patents can be challenged for being obvious.
  - varispeed 5y ago
    If you are a big corporation with deep pockets.
ajxs 5y ago
There's definitely a certain uniqueness to the legalese of patent titles. At times they're simultaneously so vague, yet so oddly specific. The Dave Smith quote in the footnotes of my DX7 technical analysis (it's linked in Ken's article) provide an interesting insight into how synth companies approached patenting: "If you have a lot of patents and somebody comes after you, chances are one of your patents will overlap enough with one of their patents that you can negotiate a deal so nobody gets hurt. Whereas if you don't have anything to offer and you have nothing in your stable of patents, then you're stuck" Some of Yamaha's FM synth patents have equally strange names. On the subject of Yamaha's FM patents, it's a shame that there isn't more information available about Norio Tomisawa, the engineer responsible for most of these designs. His name is on all of the FM patents. He played a huge role in the development of modern synthesis.