From tonysounds@yahoo.com Tue Nov 09 10:58:55 2004
Subject:Re: Why did Hammond get the virtual B3 right?

Ok, I guess this means you ARE Dave from Voce. If Roland did what you accused them of, then yeah, you should have sued them. If they substantially copied your design, why didn't you?

A recording using a sampled instrument being sold is indeed a product. What determines whether something is tortable or not is the amount and quality of that sample (content). Can I be sued for using a flute sample? No. Can I be sued if I use a loop of the flute lick from "Can't You See" by the Marshall Tucker Band, or "Locomotive Breath" by Jethro Tull? You know it. And what's more, if you've been through this yourself, you know it as well.

As for Clavia making an instrument based on the two items you described, does the Electro work on the same architecture? Did they sample your boxes???

T


vocedave2002 wrote:

Isn't a recording using a sampled instrument also a product if it's
released for sale. No... Sorry the law would side with me on this
one. I've been there. Check with a lawyer if you don't believe me.

You do bring up an interesting point thought. I suppose I should
have sued Roland when they reverse engineered the V3 for the VK-7
line. After all, I had an eye witness who saw the disassembled unit
in Japan. And I probably should have sued Clavia when then called DR
music and asked to buy a V5 and Electric Piano. DR would have sent
them too if Clavia hadn't said they were buying them to make a
keyboard product based on them.

/Dave

--- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, tonysounds wrote: