Is this as bad as my gut feels it is?
Moog sells its business to InMusic
191–200 of 206 posts
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know, that’s what I said his essay was about: Lisp knowledge would have prevented 9/11 and can prevent future hijacking attacks. Thanks for providing additional details - it's a treat to re-read his thoughts on 9/11
Likewise, knowledge of effective hijacking prevention techniques could be relevant in defensive program and system organization. I don't think his point is very good because array overruns in a heap can be exploitable. Lisps (and other kinds of run-times) don't necessarily separate code from data in their heaps.
I agree the point is trash!
It's interesting that he feels shame about the article enough to delist it, but still believes he has a useful point enough to leave it up without linking to it
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has accused O'Donnell of failing to pay him royalties after acquiring Akai, repeatedly calling him unscrupulous and a "bastard" in interviews. This seems extremely straight forward to sue against? Basically the claim is either never paid for specific sales (very easy to win) or stated number of sales is lower than expected (requires lots of disclosure). OR, maybe he did win in court and they simply ignored the cour…
The situation might seem "extremely straightforward" to you, but it is an expensive and time-consuming kind of legal dispute, because it requires discovery of years of business records, expert witnesses in forensic accounting, and likely a trial to establish whose interpretation of key contract terms is the controlling one. That means years and at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work, at the end of wh…
> then he'd have to find a lawyer willing to take it on contingency, meaning he'd pay as much as half of any award at trial, after legal costs were deducted
right, so "extremely straight forward". You seem to think that "giving up a lot of money" somehow invalidates it being "straight forward".
Also, I didn't didn't say it was easy (hence the "requires lots of disclosure" actually i mean discovery so thanks on that correction) - it is definitely not. But it is straight forward and very well defined. Royalty law is similar to family law in that there are a LOT of cases with lots of lawyers specializing in this. If you believe his case is special, I assure it, it is not.
Straight forward and easy are not the same things.
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never seen an expression pedal or any other keyboard pedal with a power cord.
They would if they had control voltage out. Electro-Harmonix ships an expression pedal with the HOG2 that uses an accelerometer rather than a pot, and that also takes a power cord or batteries.
interesting. In my 20 years of using expression pedals, I've never seen that before. OP was suggesting it was somehow unique that a pedal would not have a power cord, but I'd reckon it's unique if it does have one.
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#195Hardware synths, in particular the varieties that Moog makes, are at peak relevance again and who knows if that will remain the case. The brand was certainly sucking wind for a good 30 years of its history previously. Cashing out that equity now is a shrewd move...especially as consumer spending has gone to who knows where.
I think the answer is no. They may be more prevalent and widely adopted, but there's essentially no point in owning a hardware synth. It's been heading this way for a while, but the 5 years or so has really seen software modelling synths become almost free from drawbacks compared to soft synths. I say this as someone that loathes soft synths, and loves playing with the hard synths. I absolutely despise the mouse inte…
> DAWless machines are being loaded with single board computers that can run plug-ins.
Like the newest Ableton Push.
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Soundwise those are quite poor copies. No they're not... at least on the clones I have, they nailed it. And yes I have the originals.
Some people keep saying this, but I can hear a very clear difference. It's like people who say that Arturia's VSTs are exactly like the real thing - to which I can only say "Huh???"
"differences" is not the same as "poor copies". You can even hear differences between different exemplar of the same analog synth, depending on components selection, calibration, age, etc.
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#197I'm guessing this has something to do with how the employees were trying to unionize. RIP Moog, good luck to those employees
Moog was actually employee-owned.
Only in a marketing sense. A good friend of mine started a union drive there about a year ago and was met with fierce opposition from management, who proverbially holds the keys to the kingdom. Contract negotiations were ongoing when this happened
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation might seem "extremely straightforward" to you, but it is an expensive and time-consuming kind of legal dispute, because it requires discovery of years of business records, expert witnesses in forensic accounting, and likely a trial to establish whose interpretation of key contract terms is the controlling one. That means years and at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work, at the end of wh…
> then he'd have to find a lawyer willing to take it on contingency, meaning he'd pay as much as half of any award at trial, after legal costs were deducted right, so "extremely straight forward". You seem to think that "giving up a lot of money" somehow invalidates it being "straight forward". Also, I didn't didn't say it was easy (hence the "requires lots of disclosure" actually i mean discovery so thanks on that c…
Sorry, I'm just using the dictionary definition of "straightforward," which is "easy to do or understand." I'm also a lawyer, and no lawyer on Earth would call a Hollywood-accounting case straightforward.
Perhaps we're using different terminology. I concede you are consistently writing it as two words, so maybe you don't actually mean the English word "straightforward."
Have a nice day.
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation might seem "extremely straightforward" to you, but it is an expensive and time-consuming kind of legal dispute, because it requires discovery of years of business records, expert witnesses in forensic accounting, and likely a trial to establish whose interpretation of key contract terms is the controlling one. That means years and at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work, at the end of wh…
Any ideas on potential ways to avoid this kind of outcome when going into a royalty deal in the first place?
[deleted]
Re: Moog sells its business to InMusic
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
The situation might seem "extremely straightforward" to you, but it is an expensive and time-consuming kind of legal dispute, because it requires discovery of years of business records, expert witnesses in forensic accounting, and likely a trial to establish whose interpretation of key contract terms is the controlling one. That means years and at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work, at the end of wh…
Any ideas on potential ways to avoid this kind of outcome when going into a royalty deal in the first place?
It's just business, unfortunately. You can engineer a solid contract, but then the side with the leverage will look at it and say no. And that side is probably not yours; otherwise, you probably wouldn't be selling your business.