David, I work on a response to Israel´s constructive post (free of sarcasm, thank you). But it takes some time since he said much, i have to do 5 Onlypure´s today at first. So be patient one or two days. regards, Bernhard ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 3:33 AM Subject: Re: marketing a patented tuning Was OnlyPure > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC