Fw: Patent Notice

[David Love]

To try and get more fluent with the issue I have spent some time reading the
patent itself.  From my reading, and maybe David Stanwood can comment, I
gather that the patent covers the procedure for calculating and implementing
a smooth front weight design as detailed in his protocols.  To briefly
summarize (the patent claims are quite lengthy), this procedure involves not
simply calculating the relationship of front weights to top balance weights,
but the procedure of back leading keys in order to ensure uniform inertial
resistance due to natural variations in the front and back weights of
unleaded keys, a procedure for establishing and executing a smooth front
weight curve, and the use of wippen assist springs to derive uniform balance
weights due to inherent deviations in strike weight ratios between keys.
The patent, if I read it correctly, restricts the use of these formulas and
procedures only for the purpose of achieving this particular goal.  It does
not restrict them for use in other areas which might include the calculation
of strike weight ratios, establishment of target strike weights zones,
determination of the range of front weights in a given system or any other
such applications as one might find useful.

The validity of the patent is a separate issue and one I am not currently
interested in pursuing.  Clearly, David Stanwood has a right to file the
patent and, assuming it is valid, is entitled to the protections such
patents offer under the law.  I have no interest in disparaging David
Stanwood, as I've said before, his methodology has helped me a great deal in
developing an understanding of action performance.

But this discussion can also serve as a vehicle for differentiating between
Stanwood methodology and Stanwood design.  Whereas the former is extremely
useful as a method of refining the analysis and implementation of a more
traditional approach to action design, the latter suggests something which
is, by definition, proprietary.  Some of the aspects of what I observe are
the characteristics of "Stanwood design" are clearly neither new nor
proprietary: the tendency toward high strike weight zones, the use of assist
springs to reduce front weights, the placement key leads toward the balance
rail.  Others, such as the goals and procedures described in the patent,
appear to be somewhat new.  Most innovations are not great leaps but small
steps based on existing research and ideas.  It also happens that some
innovations turn out to have no real practical value, don't pass
cost/benefit analysis, or are more clever than useful.  Though I have
opinions, I can't say I have conclusions.

While I have not looked up the research that led to the early Steinway
action designs (not to be confused with execution) something tells me that
it was no accident that the goal seemed to be something we still strive for:
a balance between key leading, hammer weight and action ratio.  While tools,
methods, money and resources have allowed us to put more energy into higher
levels of refinement, I don't see any real significant differences (magnetic
balancing?).  I don't mean this as anything but a compliment, but I
sometimes think that David Stanwood owes his career to the inability of
manufacturers (read Steinway) to follow the original design.  Is that
because they didn't have the information?  Or were they just not paying
attention.  It's something I'll have to look into...... someday.

David Love



----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Ballard" <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: October 29, 2002 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: Patent Notice


At 8:38 PM -0500 10/29/02, Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote:
>  I wonder as well. With all due respect to Dave S. these
>"Stanwwoodized" ideas are not exactly new or completely original and
>much similar material has been out there but the information has
>certainly been organized and formulated into a cohesive format by Mr
>Stanwood. I suspect if you simply refrain from usage of terms to
>close to the patent material all is well. But how far can Dave S.
>take the argument in reality. To court? Dunn no.
>       DAle Erwin

I know it could seem a shock to us piano technicians that there might
be something in this business which is patentable, considering the
wealth of knowledge of our forbears, as well as many on this list. It
would be interesting to catalog the appearances of these ideas. In
the 1969(?) PTG Piano Action Handbook, the editor mentions the notion
of a friction figure derivable from down and up weights. I'd love to
explore other peoples earlier thinking on weighing action parts as
felt in the leverage.

I remember only scattered "rules of thumb" before David figured out
that weight could be used to measure action leverage.  I am eager to
find out about earlier work. There was a picture on a Schimmel
brochure which fascinated David. It was a key mounted on a pivot and
being weighed, as David does FWs. He asked the president of the
company about that , and was told it was just something put together
for the photo shoot.

At 6:28 AM -0800 10/29/02, Jason Kanter wrote:
>First I thought this was a joke. Then I remembered that my own
>intellectual property attorney told me that under the new
>patent/copyright law, Newton could patent Gravity. Who'se got dibs
>on pi?

And I'm sure that the current patent laws allow for the patenting of
pi. Presumably, specified in the document to 2 decimal points and
having a domain of anything in subsequent decimal points which round
off to specified value for pi. Not only can you patent an irrational
number, but you can also patent one of the major strains of white
rice and all its descendants. (I believe Monsanto did that for an
asian rice, but any patent attorney should know this.)

>Seriously, David, can you prevent people from using a formula?
>Sounds like an attempt at thought control to me.
>..........

There's not going to be any legal action because the market it too
small. (My personal assessment but don't ask me to bet on it.) Anyone
who has worked with David knows the long road covered in his
development of the Metrology.  I think David has earned it. If
someone else put together such a nice system of measurement and
adjustment as David, they'll certainly have earned it also.

I'd love to be filled in.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"All God's Children got Rhythm"
     ...........Ivy Anderson in "A Day at the Races"
+++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives