Official Luthiers Forum!

I'll tell you what's unethical. It's when some knucklehead with a marketing degree gets him some 'synergy' and spawns the idea for Gillette and Eveready to market a stupid razor with a battery in it that vibrates a little bit. No...it's not an electric shaver. It's a drag razor...with a battery in it....and it vibrates a little.

Anybody that ever turned on one of those and shaved with it knows unethical first hand.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

First, who's going to make a guitar that rivals a Lowden for pennies on the dollar? I'm talking quality, feel, look and sound. You can buy a Lowden new for about the same price as a high end Taylor. Cheaper assembly line guitars aren't likely to rival Lowden's workmanship or imitate the responsiveness of his guitars even if they follow his unique bracing patterns and overall design. Full time, small luthiers who want to stay in business aren't going to be able to charge much less.

Second, you're not George Lowden. I'm guessing you didn't build your first guitar by age 10 five or so decades ago. There's a lot of experience in those guitars. If you copied one of his guitars perfectly from the type of wood to the exact dimensions and placement of bracing, what are the odds of achieving his sound? It's easy to imitate. It's hard to replicate. When you can, you won't. I hope some day during my lifetime, someone makes an effort to copy a guitar I built. Doubt it ever happens, but by the time someone would want to, I'd not be worried about the competition.

Third, what relevance does death have to the ethical question you pose. It clearly matters to you, but why? Does the death of an artist make it more "ethical" to try and rip off his or her work? I suppose they have a more difficult time complaining about it.

This is a philosophical question. What's moral? _______ What's ethical? ______ What can you live with? _______ Fill in the blank, and you're right.

_________________
Aaron Craig

I'm just being very picky about the words chosen to describe this stuff. I am not a lawyer but, in discussing this topic I think it's very important to delineate between design and utility. I agree with you that from a utility side, there's very little in the guitar world that is worthy of receiving a utility patent. Not that patents don't get granted - Fanned frets as well as "zero pressure bridges" were granted utility patents (pretty sure they're utility patents) which I believe they didn't deserve. There's way too much prior art.

That said, the zero pressure bridge did have some novel aspects that might fit into a design patent. I actually read that patent through as I use a low pressure design on my instruments (by pressure, he's talking about downforce and torque) and the claims section "patents" many variations that have been around for a long time.

As you said previously though, policing this could get very expensive very quickly.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

Agreed. I don't think we are likely to provide much clarity to the exceedingly complex IP world through posts on a luthiery forum. It's often difficult to draw the line between a design patent and a utility patent. Plant patents, the third type, are less often confused with the other two. Anytime I sit down with guys from my firm's IP group, I'm generally lost till they see the dumbfounded expression on my face and start explaining things in terms a caveman could understand.

For whatever clarity and accuracy it may provide, I've paisted some general info regarding design patents copied from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/patents/resources/types/designapp.jsp#differ:

Definition of a Design

A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

Types of Designs and Modified Forms

An ornamental design may be embodied in an entire article or only a portion of an article, or may be ornamentation applied to an article. If a design is directed to just surface ornamentation, it must be shown applied to an article in the drawings, and the article must be shown in broken lines, as it forms no part of the claimed design.

A design patent application may only have a single claim (37 CFR § 1.153). Designs that are independent and distinct must be filed in separate applications since they cannot be supported by a single claim. Designs are independent if there is no apparent relationship between two or more articles. For example, a pair of eyeglasses and a door handle are independent articles and must be claimed in separate applications. Designs are considered distinct if they have different shapes and appearances even though they are related articles. For example, two vases having different surface ornamentation creating distinct appearances must be claimed in separate applications. However, modified forms, or embodiments of a single design concept may be filed in one application. For example, vases with only minimal configuration differences may be considered a single design concept and both embodiments may be included in a single application.

The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents

In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a "design patent" protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.

Improper Subject Matter for Design Patents

A design for an article of manufacture that is dictated primarily by the function of the article lacks ornamentality and is not proper statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. Specifically, if at the time the design was created, there was no unique or distinctive shape or appearance to the article not dictated by the function that it performs, the design lacks ornamentality and is not proper subject matter. In addition, 35 U.S.C. 171 requires that a design to be patentable must be “original.” Clearly a design that simulates a well-known or naturally occurring object or person is not original as required by the statute. Furthermore, subject matter that could be considered offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality is not proper subject matter for a design patent application (35 U.S.C. 171 and 37 CFR § 1.3).


This whole discussion isn't what the OP was looking for. But since subjective issues of morality and ethics cannot be fixed by any bounds, the more objective notion of what's "legal" is relevant (though probably no less amorphous or subject to interpretation).

_________________
Aaron Craig

This illustrates my point in all this. Copying previous ideas in luthrie is an ethical gray area...and yet statements conveying theft and other hyperbole often get throw into these discussions. I think the proper attitude about this is what you said just previous to that. One should be flattered that other luthiers would want to copy his work, but if he's going to call the other luthier unethical for doing it then he's denying the way the world actually works.

Of course, there are truly original ideas but the vast majority of current technology is built on past ideas and wouldn't otherwise exist.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

i wonder if they are putting LED lights in them yet, so you can light up your face....for a cleaner, more accurate shave TM.

They use 2 lights now. The first light gently illuminates the tips of the hairs and the second light is focused right on the roots. I hear they're working on 3 lights.

If you had any brains you'd be trying to patent that instead of giving it away.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

I love the shave a straight razor provides, but thought a while back it would be nice to automate the process. So far, all prototypes have proven unsuccessful, and I'm running out of trial participants. One of these days though . . .

_________________
Aaron Craig

Med, I'm not 100% sure if I'm coming to the show. I'm about 70% yes right now.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Given that I left engineering to be a luthier, it should be pretty obvious that I have no brains.

Yuk yuk!

Rod, I'll bring it just in case...

I have a different take on copying someone's design. Not only is it not unethical but it is essential. It is the only way that we can make progress and improve the state of the art. If I copy someone's bracing pattern, for example, I will learn how that pattern works and, from there, I can make modifications and/or improvements. Any guitar that I sell would reflect the changes that I have made to the original design so I wouldn't be selling and exact copy. I would, however, be selling something based on the original idea.

How can you improve something without incorporating that thing? You can't. Unless we all start completely from scratch. If there is a patent involved, you have to work within the letter and spirit of the law. Consider a couple of examples.

In the 50's and 60's Gibson made some guitars with a double X bracing pattern. They completely messed it up and the rest of the builders assumed that "The double X doesn't work". The double X wasn't used for 30 years. In the early 2000's some builders decided to revisit the design and fixed the mistakes that Gibson made. They produced wonderful sounding guitars. I know at least half a dozen builders who are now using the double X and are very happy with the results. Did they invent the double X? No. They copied a Gibson design. Was it plagiarism? I don't think so. It's progress.

Another example is something that I saw first hand and, once again, shows that innovations are built upon innovations. My friend Burton LeGeyt came up with a new way of making a cutaway that was really cool. It had some advantages such that it could be applied to an existing guitar and it looked great. You can see them on his web site: http://legeytguitars.com/models/and http://legeytguitars.com/media/2010/04/ed-cutaway-bevel-from-side-.jpg.

Alan Carruth saw Burton's design and moved it further by making it take the form of a Florentine cutaway instead on a Venetian. It is unlikely that Al would have come up with his design without seeing Burton's first. Here's a picture of Al's cutaway. http://kenbonfield.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kcut1-300x216.jpg

If we don't work from other people's ideas, we won't get anywhere. The ethical thing to do is to give credit where it is due. Al acknowledges that he got this idea from Burton.

Lest we give folks the wrong impression: Burton did not invent the bevel cutaway. I saw a tread on another list a while back about this, where somebody was claiming priority. Two or three other listers came up with examples of prior art. At this point, it's impossible to say who invented it first, although it does seem to be recent.

On the other hand, I had a recent exchange of e-mails with Linda Manzer on the subject of the 'wedge'. I had cited Smith's patent from 1969 on the same feature, and she asked for clarification. It was pretty plain from her account that she had never seen or heard of Smith's work, and was only trying to defend herself against a charge of plagiarism by another builder, who, it turns out, had learned about the idea from her, and forgot. I made it plain to her that I was not questioning the independence or originality of her invention, but simply pointing out that there was prior art that she didn't know about. In a sense she deserves the same sort of credit that Columbus does: after them, it stayed discovered.

I'm not saying that there's nothing new to be invented. It does seem, though, as if anything really 'new' will probably involve either new materials, such as CF, or new ways of understanding the guitar that may will depend on technologies that have only become widespread recently, such as FFT. It's pretty likely that most of the changes have already been rung on the traditional materials and designs, and if some feature is not common it either had an effect that was not valued at the time, or simply was not done well.

I don't know if Burton saw any of that prior art. I also don't know if he is claiming to have invented it. As for the idea being recent, that would not surprise me. Currently, we probably have several times as many builders actively working as we have ever had in history. Many are trying out new things and some ideas like the bevel cutaway are obvious in an "after the fact" sort of way. With so many builders working and innovating, it is not surprising that more than one will come up with the same idea independently.

I get annoyed when people assume that there is no such thing as independent innovation and that if you are doing something that someone else has already done, than you must have seen it and copied it.

Actually, Mike, I asked Burton if he'd mind my copying and altering his design, and he said he didn't care, since it was not his invention. We didn't get much further into it than that, but clearly he had seen prior examples.

Mike Maher wrote:
"I get annoyed when people assume that there is no such thing as independent innovation and that if you are doing something that someone else has already done, than you must have seen it and copied it."

Right: my import exactly when I cited the Smith patent. Some things are just 'in the air', as the art reaches a point where there are problems that a number of folks are trying to solve, and they all converge on similar solutions. Nobody can know about all of the prior art, so you can't blame them when they reinvent some wheel, especially when it's for a slightly different reason. Ralph Novack is an electric guitar maker, not an expert in obscure Renaissance instruments, so you can't fault him for not knowing about Orpharions. The 'Smith' wedge didn't catch on, so of course Linda Manzer never saw one when she faced a similar problem. In both cases, the fact that there was prior art takes nothing away from the originality of the more recent makers, who, after all, did work the thing out on their own. Personally, I'd be pretty surprised if I was told that I had come up with something that was really original, given the sort of stuff that regularly surfaces from obscure corners. Being the first person to hire a lawyer to take out a patent on something is not the same thing as really inventing it.

You know, it doesn't bother me that Ralph and Linda didn't know about the prior art. What bothers me is that they claim ownership over the designs and ask for a pound of flesh if you use it. For example, Linda "licenses" her design and expects you to put a little sticker somewhere or an icon on your website. Ralph was charging a fee for a while (though I think he's now stopped, to his credit). I don't built any "wedge" guitars, but if I did there is no way I would put a Manzer sticker on my guitar or advertise for Manzer on my own website with little Manzer Wedge icons and links back to her site. As a courtesy, I would mention that the design was popularized by Linda, but that's about it and I think it's unreasonable to expect more.

One reason that patents expire is to avoid stifling competition or further development forever.
The Novac patent is expired, though I understand that they hold the name Fan-fret as a trademark.

Alan, sorry, but you really need to clarify what you are saying here.

On the one hand, you are saying that Linda Manzer was in fact the originator of the wedge design, and in the next breath you say that there was prior art, by another builder " who, it turns out, had learned about the idea from her, and forgot".

It's all circuitous, the way you detail it, but ,cutting to the chase, there are only two possibilities .

Either A: the Smith patent, although granted, is invalid and could easily be challenged on the grounds that Linda Manzer had previously "invented " the wedge" (which would constitute "prior art" )

or B: Linda Manzer was not the original inventor of the wedge, and the credit for the invention should in fact go to Smith.

So, cutting to the chase once again, which is it ?

C: Some "other builder" was accusing Linda of plagiarizing his wedge and neither he nor Linda knew about Smith's patent. This "other builder" then realized he got the wedge idea from Linda but forgot about it.

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

I don't think your view is contrarian at all. It's perhaps unpopular with the cognoscenti, but there is very little that hasn't been tried by SOMEONE out there, and it's really up to the claimant to prove that it's novel rather up to anyone else to prove that it's not.

In my opinion, of course.

Just read through some of this quickly-

I did not "invent" my bevel cutaway, Al is correct. I also do it differently than any other I have seen. I do not know who did it "first" and have not really looked too hard to find out. In my opinion all of the bevel/wedges etc.. are just a straight copy of electric guitars. An SG has an arm bevel and a bevel cutaway. It boggles my mind that simply switching it over to acoustics makes it somehow new and "owned" but who knows.

Hope that is not too off topic or a highjack-

_________________
Burton
http://www.legeytinstruments.com
Brookline, MA.

Not off topic...spot on.

Fifty years since the beveled fact.

A preoccupation with the ethics of using an idea seems to be more a judgement against something rather than a courtesy given to a creative luthier. I'm not putting my finger directly on it but to be adamant about ethics in luthrie definitely puts one beyond the practical art of building guitars and spoons abstraction and mysticism into the mix.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Years ago I had a customer who wanted me to build a replica of a Warwick Dolphin bass and I told him I couldn't do it. It's a unique design, a sculpture if you will and it is to their credit. I found out what he liked about it and then modified the design to include those points. So it kinda-sorta has that look but with slight mods so as not to blatantly rip it off. I would never even consider copying the head stock design.

The acoustic guitar however, at this point, has been designed and redesigned so many times I don't really see how anyone can actually take ownership of it unless there is some structural revolutionary design like say a Nomex double top or something. Other then that what can you do? Patent the mathematics that make up the curves of the upper and lower bouts? Headstock and bridge design? Inlay? End graft? And so on...