<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   Jon Page wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The system is pretty simple and straight forward. I don't see what everyone's objections are. Why is a person or institution not suppose to benefit financially from an idea or product. Do you have something against Capitalism?</blockquote> Quite the opposite... My point is exactly the opposite.. Stop getting hung up on what you think you read, and try and understand where a person is comming from. Wapin has everything (capitilism wise) to gain from being more informative about how there product does what they claim it does up front. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  It is easy to copy, but the patent laws could get you into trouble if discovered.</blockquote> Be that as it may copies will be made... Hey.. I didnt make the world.. I just relate to it the way it is. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Perhaps one reason for 'getting with the program' is that they want to maintain a standard/procedure and a guarantee of your compliance.</blockquote> I see no conflict with a relatively complete informative description of the product and the goal of maintaining a standard/proceedure and a guarantee of my compliance. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Don't make a big deal about it. Ask for the application, sign and return it, view the literature and decide if you wish to pursue it. No money spent except for postage. Then if you install the system, you send them a minimal royalty. It a no-brainer.</blockquote> It was not quite that simple when I contacted Wapin late last year. And it seems to me that it is not me who's makeing a big deal of it. I simply expressed my opinion that Wapin would be better served by a more complete description of what the product does and how it does it. The reactions against standpoint seem to me to be overdriven. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  I believe it's not paid until completion (customer) or sale of the piano, so someone other than you pays the royalty. If your biggest objection is just the royalty, then you're just being cheap. Someone put time and energy into this product and would like to reap the benefits. I have no problem with paying someone their due.</blockquote> Give me a break. Of course the inventor should be able to reap benifits from his invention. And I dont have any objection to that. AGAIN::::::: !!! he would reap MORE benifits by employing a more informative sales strategy... <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  If it were your idea, would you just give it away? I think not.</blockquote> Thats another discussion... we are not talking about me.. But as long as you are on about something I have not brought up, advocated, or even mentioned... Perhaps you dont enjoy the fact that the "inventor" of the internett decided not to patent, precisely so that folks like you and me can use this wonderfull invention in such a free and inexpensive way that we do. Perhaps you think it would be more condusive to creativity, invention, education.... etc etc ad absurdum if we all had to pay some royalty to the fellow each time we got on line ???? <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Jon Page</blockquote> You really should try and see where a fellow is comming from before jumping all over his case Jon. Your replics address an argumentation I do not stand for nor support in any general sense. In fact I simply am saying that it irritates me to see just a bunch of non-informative hype when considering looking into a product... and it has the tendency to turn me off to it. I am far from alone in this. Secondly that Wapin would make MORE money,,, reap MORE benifits by being a bit more forthcoming instead of attempting an over protectionist policy that wont accomplish anything anyways. In the end... you make money by selling products.. good quality ones.... not ideas. My view <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  At 09:40 PM 02/15/2000 +0100, you wrote: >Exactly my point... in the end everything Wapin is trying to protect for its own >profit will come out.. and if its really worthwhile... there will be the >inevitable  copies, variations etc etc ad absurdum. Better to compete on the >level of quality, workmanship, support and all these positives. That road can be >started on right away by loosening up on enough detail so that interested techs >(and there are many) are not scared away by this particular combination of >expense and prior secrecy. Say what you like... my opinion is Wapin does >themselves no favour by not offering a reasonalby complete technical >explaination. > >Be that as it may.. the patent office is open for viewing and I personally am >going to download a copy of whatever I find on Wapin and figure it out on my >own. > >ANRPiano@AOL.COM wrote: > >> In a message dated 2/14/00 7:13:05 PM Central Standard Time, >> bake@spa.att.ne.jp writes: >> >> << It is very expensive to apply for, >>  aquire, and maintain a patent and that cost is reflected in the cost of an >>  installation license fee ($325 BTW). >> >> >> Yes, but, I would be willing to install the Wapin in all the pianos I >> rebuild, but not at $325 per installation.  IMHO I would think it would be >> advantageous to the Wapin folks if their technology became the standard for >> all pianos instead of rarely used.  Look no further than the PC and the MAC. >> It is simple economics instead of receiving a couple thousand from my shop >> each year for two dozen installations they will receive $0. >> >> But that is their concern, not mine. >> >> Andrew Remillard > >-- >Richard Brekne >Associate PTG, N.P.T.F. >Bergen, Norway >Jon Page,   piano technicianHarwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass.<a href="mailto:jonpage@mediaone.net" EUDORA="AUTOURL">mailto:jonpage@mediaone.net</a>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</blockquote> -- Richard Brekne Associate PTG, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway  </html>