View Single Post
Old 10th January 2020
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Rob Ocelot's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrosive.Abuser View Post
@ daviddever

Hi David, - No, but they did use the name, - and manufacturing department of Moog, to help their company "realistic" develop and sell a "financially" cheaper product.
Although, after receiving my 3rd Moog Grandmother, and still having issues, I'm beginning to wish I still had my old MG-1 instead...
Is the MG-1 a case of 'open practice' cloning though?

It was a co-branded synth (both companies logos are on the product). The design and manufacture is Moog using specs and parts that Tandy specified (and somewhat of lesser quality than Moog usually used at that time). Moog later leveraged the designs in the Rogue and Taurus II once the exclusive sales period for Tandy expired.

Roland and Multivox might be a better example of open cloning. I'm still not sure if the two companies had a friendly agreement that later soured or if it was an outright case of blatant design theft. Some of the Multivox designs are outright copies of Roland/Acetone products and others are 'close but not quite' versions. One version of the story I've heard is that both Roland and Multivox bought the same designs from a 3rd party company named Hillwood. Even the post-Roland Acetone designs seem more like Multivox ripoffs than Roland's own products. And then you have Korg/Univox...