Fw: Patent Notice

[Erwinspiano@aol.com]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 10/30/2002 12:59:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes:


> Subj:Re: Fw: Patent Notice 
> Date:10/30/2002 12:59:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
>                 Richard 

                           I so didn't wish to give offense and did say , did 
I not ?"with all due respect ,and I did sincerely mean it. I also gave him 
the credit for organizing it  etc. (read the post). Perhaps I could/ should 
have said it differently and ask your forgiveness at the offense caused to 
you or others.
      The subject did invite the legal question didn't it? for discussion. 
     What I did not say was that Some of Davids ideas are new and original 
and have been helpful to me and countless others. Thanks David Stanwood and 
to you Richard for holding my words accountable.
         Regards Dale Erwin

> 
> >>   
>>                     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
> 
> Dale, I enjoy so much of what I read from you, but this post strikes me as 
> very much not in the spirit of collegial brotherhood and support our 
> organization must rest on for it too function. David has a fair claim. His 
> formula, most of his metrology and methods are without any precedent 
> whatsoever. I would just love to see someone try and show the opposite. 
> Bill Garlick and Spurlock made public some documentation about Touchweight 
> and defined it as we know it today, but these quantities led no one to 
> anything but measuring up and down weight, and identifying friction. 
> Stanwood did far more then simply formalize previously known material. 
> To imply that Davids work is simply a thrown together artificial 
> formalization of ideas known and used before is simply wrong, and does not 
> reflect any particular insight into what Stanwood really is all about. Heck 
> there are "informed" people out there on Stanwoods case who dont even see 
> the difference between dead weight hammer measurements and SW. This isn't 
> because they are dumb... its because they haven't really bothered to sit 
> down and figure out what this is about. And it seems to me such effort 
> should be a prerequisite before anyone ventures any "authoritative" 
> comments about it. 
>   
>   
> -- 
> Richard Brekne 
> RPT, N.P.T.F. 
> UiB, Bergen, Norway 
> <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> 
> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A> 
>   


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/28/30/5b/88/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--