A tuning can not be patented but a method can regards, Bernhard ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net> To: "'Pianotech'" <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:55 PM Subject: RE: Patents and Professionalism > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC