shank strike weights

[William Ballard]

At 10:07 PM +0100 11/16/05, Ric Brekne wrote:
>Our dissagreements relative to your patent are based on two points 
>only.  The first being that in fact you do not have any way of 
>preventing anyone at all to calculate Front Weights except as 
>related to the use of your formula.   I understand your furvour in 
>wishing to deny this, but I have no doubt whatsoever  on the matter. 
>You simply did not patent the general idea of mathematically 
>calculating Front weights... nor could you have to begin with. Such 
>a patent attempt would have been rejected.

Where is the disagreement. A patent always protects the process 
instead of the concept, the means rather than the end (and thus every 
other mans which produce that end). I didn't see anything in David's 
post about having patented (and hence, limiting access to) anything 
more than one particular way of locating front weights to satisfy 
both static (gravitational) and dynamic (inertial) mass-based 
resistance simultaneously. Protected though it may be, I remember 
1.5-2 years ago when he posted a clear enough description of this 
process to effectively place it in the PD. I remember expressing my 
surprise at this move, to him in a private email. His response was in 
part altruistic, but also reminded me of Baldwin Piano's response 
(20+ years earlier) to the fact that their "floating plate" procedure 
had, after several years of use in private rebuilding shops, arrived 
in public, as a PTJ article. Baldwin's decision, in regards to this 
unauthorized disclosure of their patented technique was to shrug and 
say that they'd continue to allow use its use by private technicians, 
but would defend their patent when another piano factory wanted to 
adopt the technique.

>The second being more a dissagreement in your strategic decision to 
>patent at all, or to enforce the patent at the least.  In my view 
>this has hampered the developement of the methodology far more then 
>helped it.  It is fair for us to dissagree on that point I am sure.

Again, I'm not sure that there is anything to disagree on, in the 
matter of whether David's ideas would have fared better in PD or 
under patent protection. Keep in mind that the FW Equation of Balance 
was the final corner of this whole new territory to be explored and 
have its challenges met. It is also the only procedure which David 
has patented. But who's being deprived? There are plenty of techs now 
doing their re-balancing according to BWs instead of simple DWs (with 
half an eye out for cock-eyed UWs), yet for whom setting in smooth 
SWs is not a step which can demonstrate its cost effectiveness. 
Likewise, there are plenty of techs setting in SWs, moving capstans 
and heels, for whom the choice between smooth BWs or FWs. (So if 
there's a 3g disagreement between FWs set by smooth BWs, and FWs 
themselves smoothed, who can declare beyond dispute where that 3g 
disagreement is going to be noticed more by the pianist, put over 
into gravitational resistance or in inertial resistance. The former 
isn't rocket science, the latter would prefer to be.)

But everything up to this point is in PD. At the point where a tech 
gets ready to cross the line from PD into something where a patent 
protection/proscription exists (namely, that last step of FWs 
satisfying both gravitational and inertial requirements 
simultaneously), that tech will be one of the few who has follow 
David's metrology through to its very final application. At this 
point, a rare few.

Such a tech is welcome to use John Hartman's spring loaded device for 
inferring inertial content of a key. There is nothing in David's 
patent of his process which prevents use of another means to the same 
end (in this case, John Hartman's). When they conclude that David's 
method might be a more efficient way, that's when they will have to 
respect his patent.

But Rick, you worry that whatever David held back from PD might have 
prevented his metrology from flourishing in the trade at large. I'm 
reminding the discussion that the amount held back was a single 
component of the metrology's application, and in fact its final and 
most esoteric one. The FW Equation of Balance took shape, what, 6-7 
years ago, and patented maybe 3 years ago? During this same time, 
I've not seen an abandonment of David's metrology (or a refuting 
thereof). On the contrary, I've seen an expansion of his procedures, 
of not just the language of his metrology, both here on PTx and out 
in the real world.

Not to run on too long, just wishing to examine under good light, 
disagreements which really aren't.

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

"I go, two plus like, three is pretty much totally five. Whatever"
     ...........The new math
+++++++++++++++++++++