I'm waiting for Bernard's response to Israel's post....? David I. $400 for a license? ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: Israel Stein <custos3@comcast.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Received: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 09:50:25 -0700 Subject: Re: marketing a patented tuning Was OnlyPure >At 12:53 AM 4/17/2005, "William R. Monroe" <pianotech@a440piano.net> wrote: >>I think Alan hit this on the head by saying that this new improved tuning, >>as it were, is quite likely not so improved over the way the rest of the >>world tunes (and perhaps not so original, as others have alluded). >> >>Think for a moment, how many clients, (performers or otherwise) know their >>instrument is out of tune. Consider now, how many of those can tell the >>difference from one temperament to the next. Consider now, those who can >>discern if some of your thirds are not quite right. Consider now, how many >>can tell if Bernhard Stopper tunes their piano, or anyone else in the world. >>Consider now, how many of these who say they can tell the difference at any >>of these levels really can. >Bernard's delusions do not end here. I ran his scheme and his financial >numbers past a marketing executive. After she finished laughing, she said >that his financials do not add up to a small fraction of what it would >take to promote a brand name to retail clients on a worldwide scale - or, >for that matter, even in a limited territory. The willingness to pay a >premium price for a service is mostly dependent on name recognition - and >there is no way that this scheme can supply that kind of name recognition >without pouring millions of dollars into a visibility campaign in advance >of rollout. But then, perhaps, Bernard has Bill Gates bankrolling his >scheme... :-) >His projected revenue also will not be sufficient to legally protect any >patent infringement - especially on an international scale - and the >projected revenue increase from a possible $10 premium on the price of a >tuning will not yield sufficient revenue for his licensees to undertake >legal action on their own to protect their license. (Larger premiums are >impractical). There just isn't enough revenue here to motivate an attorney >to work on a contingency basis, so any legal costs for protecting this >license would have to be paid up front. So, a license that cannot be >protected legally is essentially worthless. Caveat emptor, folks - Bernard >has no legal obligations towards his licensees if the promised additional >income does not materialize or if unlicensed imitators steal your >clients... General Motors would not have any dealers if it could not >legally protect its trademarks and brand names - but it has the resources >to do so. Bernard will not have the resources to protect his licensees... >Then again, is Bernard vetting his licensees or training them in basic >tuning methodology? Or is he just offering to sell the license to all >comers? Because the most wonderful tuning system, in the hands of a poorly >trained practitioner, will still yield imprecise temperaments and >intervals, poor unisons and unstable tunings. Since the most likely initial >buyers of Bernard's license are likely to be tuners who are desperately >looking for gimmicks to help with building clientele - that is, beginners >or poorly trained tuners - his system is just as likely to develop the >reputation as a gimmick used by charlatans to pry more money out of people >for no good reason. So, if anyone pays attention to this system at all on >the retail level, it is just as likely to be negative - as a gimmick for >incompetent tuners to impress rubes... >I certainly don't see where concert venues and promoters are going to drop >their relationships with their current technicians and go hiring some >unknown (at a premium rate, no less) just because he or she can flash a >license for a gimmicky-sounding tuning scheme. And as far as artists - >well, Bernard, when you have 100 artists make your tuning system a >condition in their performer's contract, who have the kind of clout that >can motivate a concert hall or promotion organization to fire their >technician in favor of your licensee let us know, we might take you >half-way seriously. >So it seems that anyone who sends Bernard $400 up front for his license (if >a patent ever happens) would be buying a pig in a poke - a license of >questionable utility that cannot yield sufficient revenue even for adequate >legal protection of the license itself. If you find yourself in need of >cash, Bernard, I suggest you sell your licensee list (when you have one) to >some marketing outfit that sells bridges in Brooklyn, real-estate in >Florida and investment opportunities on the Internet for a share of their >profit - you might do quite well... >By the way. Don't hold your breath to be invited to demonstrate your >"method" at any PTG convention. Since you are promoting a commercial >product for sale, you would have to pay for a booth and - of course - pay >your own expenses. If you do that, you could be given an opportunity to >teach a "sponsored" class - along with the other manufacturers and >distributors of products and services who have been exhibiting at the PTG >conventions for years and years. Only those who are willing to share their >knowledge and experience with no strings attached are sometimes subsidized >by the PTG when they teach and demonstrate their knowledge. This open >sharing of knowledge for the good of the entire profession is one of the >basic tenets of this organization, and so perhaps it is time to think about >a legal effort on the part of the PTG to oppose your patent application... >We do have a lawyer, you know, and it appears that in the opinion of quite >a few PTG members your licensing scheme is not in the best interest of the >profession... >Israel Stein >>Seriously - and no, Bernhard, we are not joking around hear to allay fears - >>the number of clients in the world, let alone in my area, that could >>possibly tell the difference, is so absurdly small (nonexistent here), as to >>be laughable. The end result of your trying to patent this method is to >>alienate many in the industry by your pretensions. And for what. I say >>again, people who cannot differentiate on this level sure as hell aren't >>going to pay more for that Stopper Tuning. Those who might pay more, in >>most cases, are paying for ostentation and tongue fodder, "I have this >>instrument tuned in the Purely Whatever, it is the best in the world." >> >>Even when you can tell, by analyzing intervals etc., see what happens during >>the performance. I doubt anyone will hear a thing, except that your unisons >>are not clean. >> >>Just my not so humble opinion. >> >>William R. Monroe >_______________________________________________ >pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC