Data logger

[John Formsma]

Yes, this is very true. I generally try to buy products from the
innovator rather than the imitator. That's what I would want done to
me were I ever to invent anything.

Speaking of that, I do think that the argument for intellectual
property has great merit. Think of it this way, which will make it
more personal:

Let's say you designed a tuning lever from materials readily
available. It was a great design, so you patented it, and started
selling it. Along comes Joe Piano Tuner, sees how good your design is,
copies it, and sells it. He says to himself, "I know I can easily find
these materials for 1/8 of the lever selling price, and with a little
labor, I can make me some money."

Now, obviously that would be wrong because it would be breaking patent
law. It would not be wrong for Joe to copy the lever for his own
personal use. However, once he begins to sell it, he has stepped over
the line.

Similarly, it would not be wrong for the piano owner to go out and
purchase all the necessary items for an undercover install for his
personal use. But, if we do that, we are illegally selling someone
else's design and ingenuity.

Therefore, what I must do is sell the official DC product. It is the
moral thing to do, given the intellectual property argument. (And,
given the assumption that DC does indeed have a patent on the
undercover, which I haven't personally checked. But it sounds like
they have their ducks in a row here, and I bet they indeed have a
patent on it.)

JF

On 4/29/07, Mike Spalding <mike.spalding1 at verizon.net> wrote:
> You could also consider the research, innovation, and real world
> performance improvements introduced by Dampp-Chaser over the last
> decade, not to mention their outstanding warranty technical support, and
> decide if you want to support that activity, or stiff them for, what ,
> about $10 less  per unit?
> just my 2 cents
> Mike