A sticky question

[haimeh]

Is a patented design element off limits for a non comercial, "private use only" instrument?

[rjgoos]

It is my understanding that there is no distinction between private and commercial use with regards to patent law. If I patent a basketball widget, and you build a knock-off basketball widget in your basement, for your own non-commercial use...it is still technically patent infringement.

[haimeh]

I think this answers my question:

In the United States, under current patent law, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, depending on the filing date and the issue date (provided that the maintenance fees are paid in due time):

For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date, the longer term applying.
For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date.

[traktor]

If you are talking about touch-style instrument design, and you are discussing 20 year limits, then to the best of my knowledge you can only be discussing the Stick instrument, unless you're going to resurrect Chuck Soupios 'BiAxe.'

And, yes, it is true that the patents Emmett made around 1974 will have expired, but be aware of this ...

Mr. Chapman now claims protection of his designs under *trademark* law for patents that have expired.

Now, I am no lawyer, but my understanding of patent law is that the basic deal is: The government gives the individual the legal right of monopoly, meaning that the individual can sue anyone for trespass if he wants to. This right is for 20 years, and at the end of that period, then the individual gives the idea to the world. That's why the patents include plans, the idea being that these published plans are then available for one and all to use freely.

Now, here's the interesting question -- can an individual escape letting the public have the design as decreed under patent law, by now using trademark law?

It doesn't seem right. But many legal things aren't right. (After all, legal statutes were invented mostly by lawyers so as to extend the ability of lawyers to make money by wasting time expensively. As everyone knows, a village so small it cannot support a lawyer ... can easily support two lawyers.)

To the best of my knowledge, the things that Mr. Chapman now claims you cannot have after all are the silhouette, the beveled back edges, the large fretboard circles, the angled pickups thingie, and the rounded headstock.

Is it all hooey?

Beats me.

But, as a practical matter, why would you want to use the silhouette? If you'll put more wood around the pickups cutouts the instrument will be more rigid and you should get better tone by reducing flexing of the instrument.

And why use the headstock shape? A wider headstock would permit a straighter string path across the nut, and that would give more stable tuning.

And why use the beveled edges? Most people think a rounded shape feels better.

And why use an angled pickups thingie? If you use a larger space for pickups you will have room for tone controls.

And why use the big circles? Most people think that having a few more dots on the fretboard gives better navigation.

There's nothing wrong with these things, but they're only one particular way to go. That is to say, you really don't need to copy Emmett.

Food for your thought.

[haimeh]

i was thinking of a similar fret system utilizing cylindrical metallic material.

thanks for all of the perspective!

[traktor]

I have just been informed by Greg Howard, over on the Stickist forum, that I am all wet with this patent and trademarks business of Emmetts, and that my post is dreadful and mistaken.

Very well.

So ... as regards not building anything using his designs because he believes himself covered by trademarks ... I withdraw my speculations and cautions. Quite possibly, Emmett does not feel this way at all, if I understand Greg Howard correctly.

Therefore I simply suggest that you follow your heart, and go forth in goodness and mercy toward all.

[traktor]

It annoys me to admit this, but ... I'm wrong here.

Last night Greg was ragging on me over on the Stickist forum, as is his wont, and I went to look something up in my files. I didn't find what I sought.

However, in the middle of the night I realized that I'm full of bull in this post. In Emmett's first three patents -- design, tuning, and method -- they all used the same drawings. And in those drawings is a very simple instrument, an early prototype I guess. And this prototype in the drawings doesn't have a single one of these features.

The drawings -- ie: the plans -- do not have bevelled edges, do not have the current headstock shape, do not have big dots, and do not have the current silhouette.

Therefore, I suppose you could make an instrument from those early plans; it's a simple configuration, and to the best of my knowledge nobody makes an instrument that looks much like the one shown in those plans.

But in any case, the drawings of these three early patents do not show any of the features that I described as trademarks of Emmett's.

Mea culpa.


Also, in my files I could not find the reference where I recalled Emmett claiming bevels, big dots, headstock, and silhouette as trademarks.

I know I've seen it somewhere, but I cannot find it.

In any event, assuming that he claims these things as trademarks, it seems to me that it would be wrong to copy them. And alternatives are available for all of them, so there is no particular reason to copy them in the first place. Which is, of course, the point of my post here.

There's nothing wrong with trademarks. They keep people from mistaking one thing for some other thing.

I'd not want anyone making an instrument with a headstock in our Megatar shape, because (a) if they made it crappy then people seeing it might think *our* instrument was crappy! and because (b) if they made it with some feature that we don't have, such as diamond-encrusted string saddles for example, then people seeing it might expect me to make their instrument like that! Confusion of this kind would be a bummer.

And last, I repeat: there's nothing particularly *wrong* with any of these design features. Design features often lead directly to the distinctive sound and feel of any instrument, and for those who like Stick sound and feel, that's just swell.

I apologize for any confusion my error may have caused.

[jamsire]

wow:confused:

[haimeh]

Just for the record: I do not currently own a dedicated tap instrument. I'm building one based on the awesome knowledge and support this forum gives.

The main reason I lurk and participate in this forum is because of the positive attitudes and open minded discussions. I wasn't trying to start a whole "thing", but it's obvious that people can't deal with the fact that really negative, life changing stuff happened in the past. It sucks that people constantly choose to see things in a negative light, instead of moving forward.