SY said:
So, SY, just that I understand you, are you saying that if JC had given advice the way NP or HD do, his sales would have dropped to the point that he would suffer?
Now I am totally confused. WHAT is he here for, then??
Jan Didden
It's a little more complicated than that. As life usually is. But you might ask, where can one buy John Curl brand equipment? Hmmmm, I guess there isn't such a thing. John is a consultant, he sells ideas and designs, not equipment. Nelson is a terrific guy and quite generous, but I don't think he's shipping free product to people who ask questions on the forum.
As for why John gives away what he does, he'd have to answer that one.
As for why John gives away what he does, he'd have to answer that one.
SY said:
OK I see, but then the argument that JC can't really answer our questions because he would suffer professionally is even more invalid. So why doesn't he? He couldn't seriously think that I or anybody else would take his advise and take his clients away with it, would he?
So, John, why DO you always retreat at the first sign of a critical question??
Jan Didden
Nelson Pass sells equipment. Lots of people seem to like it and buy it. He also gives away for free lots of good information. He doesn't give away the latest proprietary secrets, but he certainly is free with good advice and information about "retired" products.
John Curl sells intellectual property. He really is in a different business than Nelson. Just like an architect is in a different business than a building contractor.
SY is right; expecting John to give away his primary products for free is a lot like expecting Nelson to give his primary products away for free.
Besides, why should John be held to a different standard than everyone else here? I haven't seen all sorts of complaints because 98% of the people who log on don't contribute specialized technical knowledge.
John Curl sells intellectual property. He really is in a different business than Nelson. Just like an architect is in a different business than a building contractor.
SY is right; expecting John to give away his primary products for free is a lot like expecting Nelson to give his primary products away for free.
Besides, why should John be held to a different standard than everyone else here? I haven't seen all sorts of complaints because 98% of the people who log on don't contribute specialized technical knowledge.
janneman said:
Maybe it would affect his business. Would you be pleased with somebody who designed something for you for a fee who then gave away the same information on the internet for free? Would you go back to him or her with more business? Even if you would do that yourself, do you think every client would feel that way? Heck, a lot of consultants' customers stipulate that the consultant can't even reveal that they worked for the customer.
Most consultants I've seen and dealt with are pretty free with general information; that even is part of the marketing for their business. Look at the guys who have columns in the various electronic publications. But, if you ask them to make specific recommendations or do custom work they expect to be compensated. As they should.
John would have to answer this for himself, of course. But from my standpoint I'd wonder just what the upside would be for him to do that? He takes a large amount of abuse for what he does at present. He should jump up and volunteer for more?
CG said:
OK, I can understand that. Although NP might not agree with your analysis 😉
CG said:
... but he isn't; he really is held to the same standard as anybody else. If you'r a newby and it is clear you have a lot to learn, nobody will complain if you take more than you give. But if you introduce yourself as the great JC, and pretend to have seen and done it all before, but then refuse to tell WHAT you've seen and done before, the natural reaction of people is what we are seeing over and over again with Mr C, and not just in this forum.
I'm sure Mr C can teach most of us a thing or two about audio. At least that is what I always thought. But if you answer any critical question with either changing the subject, making snipe comments or saying: "it is because Mr Hawsford told me" or "I heard it from Barry Gilbert when we had lunch" then you start to think: what does this guy really know??
In one of the very first encounters with him on this forum it took two replies before he took off, which caused me to state (perhaps not so smart): "here you either pay up or shut up". Because if not, what's the point of getting involved in these threads?
Jan Didden
I am sorry to tell that some emails I received a few days before the start of this thread prove that its real intention was to clone the Blowtorch, and nothing else. Had anyone ever any doubt about it ?
janneman said:
:>)
Honestly, in this case I think it really is a question of conflicting personalities and ways of interacting with people. I can't and won't argue with your opinion here; it's right for you.
forr said:
Ohh, that was instantly clear for any half-wit who read the very first post. And if JC would have kept quiet it would probably have petered out after a page or two.
Contrary to popular belief, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you get involved in a thread and be fair, or stay out. You can't get in and say, ahh, I got all the answers, and then weasel out. Your credibility goes down the tubes fast.
Jan Didden
I believe the problem is not the assembled, vociferous gaggle here, but rather the lurkers who would copy every schematic and pithy comment for profit.
It would be naive to imagine that information gleaned here were strategically of no value. Much of it is very significant, not just for the DIYer, which is fine, but specifically for the manufacturer and professional designer. Many developments in technology come from the passionate, driven individual, rather than the established, corporate design team. Nikola Tesla is the perfect example. Plying consultancy for a fee is only possible if the information is not available elsewhere at zero cost; this, after all, is what most of us do when we use Google. I own a sophisticated motorcycle; today I replaced the coolant. I perused an owners club site to check the procedure, found a number of useful comments, discovered a service manual someone had copied - and voila, did the entire job myself at minimal cost. I am confident that a well informed audio designer with some initiative and a HDD full of schemats could divine a good portion of the Blowtorch from John's posts - that this information is used by DIYers is not in dispute, but that it could be abused by manufacturers seeking competitive edge is!
This is my point, not to moralize or attribute blame, but simply to point out that all business is conducted according to the Von Clauswitz rules, where paranoia is a survival technique.
Oh, and thank you John (and even PMA, bless him!), you've pointed out quite a few gems which I've absorbed and which could be helpful. I would rather understand the philosophy than the schematics; something like 'teach a man to fish, and he lives for a lifetime'.
Ciao,
Hugh
PS And I thought the doctor analogy was pretty good - I fully agree with Poobah....!!
It would be naive to imagine that information gleaned here were strategically of no value. Much of it is very significant, not just for the DIYer, which is fine, but specifically for the manufacturer and professional designer. Many developments in technology come from the passionate, driven individual, rather than the established, corporate design team. Nikola Tesla is the perfect example. Plying consultancy for a fee is only possible if the information is not available elsewhere at zero cost; this, after all, is what most of us do when we use Google. I own a sophisticated motorcycle; today I replaced the coolant. I perused an owners club site to check the procedure, found a number of useful comments, discovered a service manual someone had copied - and voila, did the entire job myself at minimal cost. I am confident that a well informed audio designer with some initiative and a HDD full of schemats could divine a good portion of the Blowtorch from John's posts - that this information is used by DIYers is not in dispute, but that it could be abused by manufacturers seeking competitive edge is!
This is my point, not to moralize or attribute blame, but simply to point out that all business is conducted according to the Von Clauswitz rules, where paranoia is a survival technique.
Oh, and thank you John (and even PMA, bless him!), you've pointed out quite a few gems which I've absorbed and which could be helpful. I would rather understand the philosophy than the schematics; something like 'teach a man to fish, and he lives for a lifetime'.
Ciao,
Hugh
PS And I thought the doctor analogy was pretty good - I fully agree with Poobah....!!
AKSA said:
If you look at the history of the audio industry, you can see many examples of this. In this age of internet communications, it has only gotten more widespread, I think. I know lots of guys who have willingly shared hard learned information only to see it appear in a product a month or two later.
One of the upsides/downsides of audio is that it is an accessible industry. By that I mean that the cost of entry to build working units is relatively low. For example, you don't see many web pages on line aimed toward the hobby builder of microprocessor chips. That is part of the appeal for DIY'ers, but also a limitation for the people who do this for a living. The development part is much more costly, both in terms of time and test equipment. Not to mention the accumulated knowledge. If someone can skip over that part, by "borrowing" the technology, the rest is relatively easy.
Has anyone considered the obvious, which JC has already stated: the Blowtorch design is locked IP and saying too much is unprofessional and a personal risk? For all the use of pharsed like "two way street", "spirit of cooperation" and "playing fair" in this thread, I'm also curious what JC gets in return for devulging proprietary circuit details. Though so far the DIY community has been more than generous in questioning motives and mailgning character it's true. (Does anyone really believe Curl is here to self-promote a $25K pre-amp to a group who debate the merits of using $4 resistors? Hands up, I have a bridge perfect for you my friends.😉)
The paranoia about the Blowtorch schematic and proprietary information is absolutely ridiculous and pointless. As far as I know, the Vendetta schematic has been circulating around for some time now. From there, it's an easy step to the BT as I'm sure anyone interested in ripping off the design very well knows.
There are others beside Jan, who are not in the least interested in cloning the BT and just can't help wondering (after 150 pages) what hidden agenda drives this whole thing ad nauseam because it sure ain't JC's sunny personality, pearls of wisdom or an effective "teaching" approach.
And yes, I do believe the sheer size of the membership on this forum makes it a very attractive marketing target for profit-motivated professionals.
Regards,
Milan
There are others beside Jan, who are not in the least interested in cloning the BT and just can't help wondering (after 150 pages) what hidden agenda drives this whole thing ad nauseam because it sure ain't JC's sunny personality, pearls of wisdom or an effective "teaching" approach.
And yes, I do believe the sheer size of the membership on this forum makes it a very attractive marketing target for profit-motivated professionals.
Regards,
Milan
rdf said:
There is no two way street here, from my observation, solidified by reading most of the PDF file hijacked and made availible here, John has supplied much more information than has been given in return to this site.
If you don't get it or it's not what want to hear or doesn't fit you world view doesn't make it irrelevant. Most of what I've read on the site has been parroting of textbooks and prototyping through simulation, I'm not seeing many pictures of real circuits (or anything that wasn't copied from a data book or done 20 years ago).
John probably comes to the site to learn and get the same thing that he gives, which is food for thought. That's why I was thrilled to find it. Hasn't quite lived up to the initial impression.
Which is fine.
Don't get up gentlemen, I'm only passing through...
Mike.
The same Vendetta Research which appears not to have released a product in 16 years?
http://cgim.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/bb.pl?vendettaresearc&1&listmodls&3&4&&
It's understandable schematics are floating around. Maybe it's a difference between European and North American intellectual property law but I'll bet a few lawyers fell from their leather chairs hearing it described as 'paranoia'. IP is becoming the central profit engine this side of the pond.
http://cgim.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/bb.pl?vendettaresearc&1&listmodls&3&4&&
It's understandable schematics are floating around. Maybe it's a difference between European and North American intellectual property law but I'll bet a few lawyers fell from their leather chairs hearing it described as 'paranoia'. IP is becoming the central profit engine this side of the pond.
MikeBettinger said:
I'm afraid the info contained in the .pdf file you're referring to has not been supplied by John Curl alone. I've been told by certain parties involved that the file contains their original comments made in this thread and credited to John Curl. This has already been pointed out by other people in other threads here but it all fell on deaf ears. How pitiful.
Regards,
Milan
That unhappy compilation was done by Dimitri Danyuk and I am afraid he did not help JC at all, by doing it.
rdf said:
Absolutely!
I know of a company that invested between $500M and $1000M in a product about ten years ago. They *maybe* got 10% of that back in sales revenues. They dropped the product. At the time, they made an effort to patent a lot of the technology they applied. Now, it seems that the same technology is useful in a somewhat different field. Although the company doesn't play in that field, their patent attorneys understand the value of what had been patented. Last I heard, the company expected to not only recover their original development costs, but make more on top of that because of licensing fees and the like. That's real money, at least in my neighborhood.
An intellectual property attorney explained the situation to me this way. Large companies keep a portfolio or collection of patents. That is valuable in two ways. One is that the investment community often sees that as a valuable asset. Based on the example above, that's not a bad assessment. Second, imagine that company A sees that company B is making a product that might be similar in some ways to what company A makes. In fact, it might even infringe on some patent property. So, company A calls company B and tells them to pay up or see us in court. Not so fast, company B might rely. We see that over in this other product you make, you are infringing on something we have patented. Maybe we should come to some exclusive deal on this.
The other side of this is that small guys, like for example consultants who don't have a huge legal staff sitting around waiting to pounce on this kind of thing, probably get screwed routinely by big companies who just roll over them. The best a little guy can do is to stay below the radar of the big guys.
A big company like Ford (just an example of a big company) could potentially buy a Blowtorch preamp, take it apart and reverse engineer it if they wanted to get into the high end preamplifier business. It's pretty hard to stop that. Potentially Nelson Pass could do the same thing if he wanted to, but it may not be worth it to him. Not only for ethical reasons, but because he wouldn't be happy if CTC reversed one of his products and sold it. So there probably is mutual respect and a kind of unspoken gentlemen's agreement.
But how about some guy who wants to start an audio business in his basement? He might not have the knowledge to design something good himself. Or might not have the tools. He may not have the money to buy a Blowtorch to reverse. But, what if he sees a schematic on a web forum of a Blowtorch that's "free" for the taking? He might decide to sell a half-priced "copy" (some details changed for whatever reason) that he calls a "Candle"? So CTC did all the hard stuff, and now somebody else is supposed to be able to take that information and make money from it? How many people would buy a Candle after seeing an ad like, "Just like that expensive preamp (wink) except for one half price! Why pay more?" How many more Blowtorches would be sold?
For centuries people have had different viewpoints on this kind of thing. It's been reflected in laws, too. Is a dead on copy of a famous painting worth the same as the original? What are forgeries worth? How about plagiarized pieces of writing? Should the law have anything to say about them?
moamps said:
So let me understand this right.
Some guys are mad because they don't think they were credited adequately for their own original thinking.
Some guys are mad because they are not getting enough original thinking from Mr. Curl, so that they might have the chance to build something that they wouldn't credit John Curl for.
Some guys are mad because they disagree with the credit John Curl is getting for being knowledgeable.
Some guys just disagree with John Curl's engineering choices and think he is wrong.
There are yet other guys who fit into more than one of these groups.
Gee, when I make a list like that it becomes really clear.
Guys, I tried to do this gently, but I have to pull the badge here. Keep things on topic, i.e., discuss preamps, not John's personality or motivations. If you want to start another thread on IP issues, feel free to.- Status
- Not open for further replies.