Patents and Professionalism

David Ilvedson ilvey@sbcglobal.net
Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:12:47 -0700


Bernhard,

Any portion of your method that has been done and published before will make it invalid...imho

David I.



----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: Bernhard Stopper <b98tu@t-online.de>
To: Pianotech <pianotech@ptg.org>
Received: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:32:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Patents and Professionalism


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


This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC