Patents and Professionalism

[David Love]

If the P12 tuning is not new and is therefore in the public domain, you
cannot patent it, or it would be useless to.  

David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Bernhard Stopper
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 10:47 PM
To: Pianotech
Subject: Re: Patents and Professionalism

Ric,

I do not patent the P12 tuning with this patent filing.
I do patent a new method that reach a state of the P12  tuning that
cannot 
be reached by any other previous method.(i.e. the elimination of the
beats 
of octaves and fifths, when played together in chords,due to the
symmetry of 
beats that occurs only in the P12 tuning). This elimination possibility
was 
not recognized until now, and is use it explicitely in the new method to

build the temperament completely by 3-note chords, of octave and inner
lower 
fifth and octave and inner upper fifth, played at the same time. And
this is 
a new method. And therefore patentable.

You can repeat as often as you want that the P12 tuning concept is not
new. 
This is not the point.

best regards,

Bernhard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
To: "pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Patents and Professionalism


> 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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives 

_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives