Hi Mike. While this is hardly Einstein I agree with you in principle. However my own view here has little to do with ethics and most to do with practicalities. By all means let Bernhard use good money, time and effort to attempt, and perhaps succeed in patenting his tuning method. I should like to point out however that the likelyhood of it surviving the first challange it meets in practice seems quite small to me. This is based on the following facts. 1. The general concept of a P12ths tuning and the idea of basing a temperament on the 19th root of 3 is at this point rather old news 2. A somewhat more refined method of tuning this P 12ths tuning has been disscussed now, distributed for Tune Lab and used for at least 4 years and was not origioned by Stopper. 3. The general method of listening for a <<beatless>> condition for more then one interval at once is very old news. Its very much at the heart of Virgil Smiths approach, Bill Bremmers tempered octaves, and probably a whole batch of folks dating way back. 4. This exact idea of <<beatless>> as described is not something one can precisely define from an aural standpoint. It certainly will come in conflict on more then seldom occasion with variances in the subjective judgment of different ears, and these again in conflict with objective measurement via an EDT as described. In essence this all means that far to much of the aural methods for what Stopper claims as his is prior knowledge and no patents court in the world will look past that should a case ever come up. Added to the fact that the patent comes a full 4 years after an all too similar method clearly developed completely independant and without knowledge of his own and archieved on this list.. namely the so called Brekne P 12ths tuning. It does no good to point out that a mathematical justification for the basic approach existed long prior to my own system as I am not trying to patent anything, and Stopper has made no move towards patenting until now. Added to all this the fact that there has been virtually no interest developed anywhere for the p 12ths concept at large except by myself and other enthusiasts on this list and that Stopper has become aware of this fact, all well before he attempts to patent... well... it all boils down to Johnny come lately. And all this from a strictly practical (legal) perspective. Going through the patent process is just a waste of money IMHO. On top of all this comes the disscussion that has been tossed about on this list the last couple days. It seems pretty clear to me how likely it is any tuner will pay royalties for any aural method. As an ETD algorithm and employed in an EDT... he's got a reasonable product to sell. But then one just has too look at the ongoing dispute between Sanderson and Reyburn to understand how shaky even a reasonably solid patent really is. Nope... I admire the will to research and the thirst for learning. And I am the first to play by the rules as best I can. But there is just no way on earth anyone can enforce a patent on an aural tuning method. I mean... hey guys... we are on planet earth arent we ?? All meant in the best of humour and respect... Cheers RicB Michael writes: Hello List There's been a lot of acrimony lately in the List regarding what = constitutes a "patentable" item. I like to hope that, like other = professions, the Tuning Fraternity like to help each other to the = benefit of that profession and the general public as a whole. Did = Einstein patent his theories on relativity? I know he was awarded the = Nobel Prize in 1921. I think we are in danger of barking up the wrong = tree altogether. Regards Michael G.(UK)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC