Wapin and ethics

[Carl Meyer]

----- Original >
> So if UCin  lets you use the Wapin for free suddenly they will be good
> guys?

No. But they might be considered less bad.


.  If it turns out to be good income/profit  for
> you, the objections to the patent and fee are moot.

My lifes decisions are not based on income/profit.  At what level of fee
does the decision become not moot?

 If the fee is
> actually impeding business that would be a legitimate complaint.
>

I assume you do not feel the fee is impeding business.  The attendance at
the class in Reno indicates otherwise.



> Now if you install it without the fee the most illegal thing you can
> do is call it "Wapin" and get paid for it as a Wapin.


Are you saying I can install Wapin, call it pasta and get by with it?  Check
with you attorney.


  So what are
> you advocating?  Tell your clients, "I have two or three reasons why
> the patent should not have been granted so I can save you $325."   Or
> explain to clients why they should pay extra for 3 rows of pins
> instead of  two without mentioning Wapin?

You fail to realize that Wapin, at least on the cover of the journal, may
have only two rows of pins.  Is that a half wapin or what would you call it?
And, does it do the job?  Could it be that the string will now scrape up and
down on the vertical pin and cause noise that would show higher order
partials than a "normal" bridge as shown on their websight.  Thirty some odd
partials seemed a little strange to me.




>
> I am pretty sure you are not suggesting  using someone else's  ideas
> for private gain.

Thank you for realizing that.  If Wapin does what it claims to do they
should thank me for giving them a lot more attention than they were able to
achieve at Reno.  If it doesn't, the egg won't be on my face.

Consider this situation, hypothetically.  Wapin has a patent on
straightening up the bridge pin to improve sustain ( I know the lawyers have
made it more complicated than that ).  I come along and patent an improvemen
t that is so good that without it the original patent loses value.  I can't
use my patent because I'd be infringing on theirs and they can't use mine
because they'd be infringing on mine.  Both patents have been issued by the
government on the basis that it's too much work to assess whether the ideas
meets the non obvious clause (we'll just pocket the money and let the
lawyers fight it out at someone elses expense.) I sue them .  They sue me.
Lawyers make money.  The government collects their fees
Two good ideas get lost.  The public loses a better product for less money.
Who are the winners and losers in this situation?

So, you see, the problems always get back to politics.

So, what should we do?  I don't know.  I know lots of questions. I don't
know any answers.  At least none that anyone would support.

Goodnight all!

Carl Meyer  Assoc. PTG
Santa Clara, California


 When discussing the merits of a patent or the cost
> of using it,  there is always an underlying concern; that is
> recognition,
> respect and equitable compensation for original ideas  and cultivation
> of a society that encourages this to happen.
>
> As for it being  patented and why there is a fee, I thought that was
> explained very well at Reno and on the web site.   But think also if a
> patent were not granted for the Wapin, it would still be protected
> under design and trademark laws and hopefully most of all by
> professional ethics.  After all it was invented/discovered by a fellow
> technician with great help from the institution that employed him.
> If the fee too high, we should negotiate.    ---ric
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Meyer <cmpiano@home.com>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:49 PM
> Subject: Re: plate reaction was Re: Pitch Raising to A440.......Or
> Not?
>
>
>
> | When I first heard about Wapin, my first reaction was. $325 to teach
> me how
> | to drill a straight hole?  And I have to agree not to tell anybody
> else?  I
> | remember Baldwin (a privately owned company) offering to let techs
> use their
> | two patents (plate mounting and accujust hitch pins) for free.  Now
> here is
> | the U of Cincinnati ( a publicly funded organization) wanting to
> profit on a
> | patent.
> |
> | Here's where the plot thins.  The patent office no longer enforces
> many of
> | the requirements for getting a patent.  More money in the coffers of
> the
> | department and business being thrown to their buddies, the lawyers.
> It
> | takes a lot of money to overturn or defend a patent.  For a patent
> that has
> | limited application that in itself is prohibitive.
> |
> | The data in the Wapin web sight is not in the same form as the data
> taken by
> | Wienrick in the Scientific American.
> |
> | I attended the minitechnical at Reno given by Wapin.  My motive to
> attend
> | was to verify that in fact they wanted that fee and to glean some
> more
> | technical information.  Yes they wanted the fee and no I didn't get
> any
> | useful information.
> |
> | I was one of three attendees and I think at least one other was one
> of their
> | guys.  In contrast, the verituner class was overflowing.
> |
> | The main thrust of this class was:  The University of Cincinnati has
> a
> | strong legal staff and the University derives much of it's income by
> | liscening patents that it owns.  This appeared to be a source of
> pride.
> |
> | There is a three pin version of Wapin and also a two pin version.
> | Supposedly, you can Wapinize just the killer octave to improve the
> sustain
> | so the soundboard need not be replaced.
> |
> | I'm not saying it doesn't work.  Most of the worlds problems are not
> | technological, they are social, political and economic.
> |
> | So now you know why I keep kicking my feeble brain around trying to
> think of
> | a way to do it even better but in a different way.  Even if I could,
> I'd
> | have a hard time proving it, patenting it, defending it and selling
> it.  Oh,
> | Well!
> |
> | Sorry for the rant
> |
> |
> | Carl Meyer  Assoc. PTG
> | Santa Clara, California
> |
> |
>
>
>