Wapin bridge patent

[Jon Ralinovsky]

Carl,
You've put a lot of political arguments into this post, which I won't 
answer right now.  Suffice to say, that Wapin is a relatively cheap 
way of increasing sustain in a piano.  I don't think that piano techs 
will pass up Wapin based on the license fee, but it will take a while 
to catch on.  It's another tool in the rebuilding toolbox.

It is my understanding that Wapin requires the training because some 
of the earlier unsupervised installations got screwed up.  They 
thought they could trust people to get it right, but they changed 
their minds based on the results.

Yes, I am a Wapin installer.

Respectfully,
Jon


>Robert Scott wrote:
>
>  > The whole purpose of a patent is to reward inventors for disclosing
>  > the details that they might otherwise choose to keep secret>
>
>In the Wapin case, how are the inventors rewarded?  And by whom? I submit
>that the inventors are now the victims of large organizations and the
>government.  The greedy patent attorneys at the U Of  C may have caused a
>backlash that will doom the invention.  I could visualize piano techs
>boycotting Wapin, not that it doesn't work, but for other reasons more
>emotional and political.
>The patent system adds to the damage by allowing costs to get out of control
>and the result will be to stifle inovation because nobody but the large
>companies can afford to get a patent and defend it.  Wapin then becomes a
>part of the 99.999 % patents that make no money for the patentees. Sad
>,isn't it?



>  (Plus you get the training,
>  > which is worth something too.)
>
>I'll pass on the training, thanks!

Jon Ralinovsky
Piano Technician
Department of Music
Miami University
513/529-6548