Do you Patent your work?

[cminor9]

But... who did it before? If there was prior art, they wouldn't have been granted a patent. It doesn't matter how obvious it is, as long as it's original.

if it was that obvious someone would have had it to market before them.

IMO, it's at least as obvious as a pentode/triode switch. I say the pentode/triode is obvious because tube data sheets contain information on using a 6V6 (for example) as a pentode or a triode. A pentode sounds one way, a triode sounds different. If I'd like to hear either, I could a) build two amps, or b) put a switch on there. The switch just seems like the more logical conclusion. If you look as far back as fender tweed amps, the Supers and everything smaller had tube rectos and had a saggy sound. Anything larger had an SS recto and this provided a stiffer sound. I am sure there was some guy who, before Randall Smith thought of it, thought to put a switch on the back of a super to switch to a SS recto. Or maybe not. Maybe people didn't build classic tube amp clones in the 80's, I sure wasn't.

But to be totally honest, I have no way of knowing if these things would seem obvious had this feature not existed on commercial amps. Kind of back to my point about not being able to exist in a vacuum. I just have no way of knowing, so I can't dogmatically assert I would have come up with the idea had the MB Dual Recto amps not existed. So maybe there lodged in my subconscious there was the phrase "Mesa Boogie (C) Dual-Rectifier (C)" waiting for me to learn about tube amps for it to leap it out in the form of "my" idea.

For all we know, some amp homebuilder came up to Randall Smith offering to sell him an idea or trying to get a job or whatever, Smith refused, and patented the poor schlub's idea.

But you do make an interesting point, and I have an interesting quandry: I build a widget with some unique feature and try to sell it, then someone else gets the idea and patents it. He finds out about my widget, tried to sue me, and I establish proof of prior art. Does that nullify the patent? Further, I do not wish to patent it, so is my "original" idea essentially unpatentable and thereby public domain?

I wonder about these things.

[GlennW]

Yes, I call it "Splatterwound".

[dazzlindino]

IMO, it's at least as obvious as a pentode/triode switch. I say the pentode/triode is...ladidaladida..blahblah........mamma was a rollin stone....go to rehab..no,no,no..intervention thats whats needed here,patent intervention...OMFG dude,spew, spew, spew, try to get a patent on something and get back to us.

I wonder about these things.

So I guess the patent office should have closed shop in 1899 when "everything" had been invented.

[David Schwab]

Dude, IP law _is_ a de facto abuse since it allows patents for ideas,
setting them equal to implementations (AKA "preferred embodiment"),
thus making patent law a back door entry by which people may be
prosecuted for thought crime.

This should be an unsubtle distinction to a people
raised in a society with a Bill Of Rights.

Amen to that!

[cminor9]

So I guess the patent office should have closed shop in 1899 when "everything" had been invented.

Heh, even before then

No, like I said, patenting an implementation is fine. Patenting a general idea like "switching between solid state rectification and tube rectification" and preventing any commercial producer from including this feature is crazy. As David said, Fender once patented an offset guitar body. I find that ridiculous. That's like patenting a trapezoid or a rhombus and then preventing anyone from using it. Now patenting a specific circuit? Sure.

[David Schwab]

For all we know, some amp homebuilder came up to Randall Smith offering to sell him an idea or trying to get a job or whatever, Smith refused, and patented the poor schlub's idea.

Or he came up with the idea. I haven't looked at the patent, so it's also possible someone else came up with it that either works for him, or sold him the idea.

You have to be careful... there's the old story of the guy that went to Sears and showed them a new socket wrench idea (the button that pops the socket off). They said they weren't interested, and then made it anyway. He sued and won.

Right before I left American Showster guitars, I had the idea of taking the patented ideas the owner had (metal parts on the body, and a "tear drop" cross section) and make some Super Strat type guitars, since the Chevy Tail-fin was very labor intensive. I started to draw up some ideas, and he added one idea. Ultimately he decided against it. I quit a few months later for other reasons.

Imagine my surprise when I opened a Musician's Friend catalog about 8 months later to see the American Showster "Stealth" series, made by Kramer. And there was all my designs ...

Both Kramer and Showster went out of business not long after that...

Now patenting a specific circuit? Sure.

That's exactly what you should patent. A new circuit idea, or a new way to do a common circuit idea. That's business.

[SK66]

IMO patents suck. Just because something was made/done before doesn't mean a patent won't be issued for it. It just means that patent is "invalid" and could be defeated in court with a big enough wallet (or upheld with a bigger wallet).

I've used provisional patents to "record" my idea with the patent office and allow me time to produce/market said designs long enough to (hopefully) prevent anyone with a bigger wallet from patenting my idea and stealing it from me.

Other than that, it's a big wallet arena and mostly "marketing" to me.

[David Schwab]

Other than that, it's a big wallet arena and mostly "marketing" to me.

It surely is used for marketing. Look at all the patents DiMarzio lists, even though most of them are expired.

But still I have to think if I came up with something unique, I'd want to protect it.

[hasserl]

But... who did it before? If there was prior art, they wouldn't have been granted a patent. It doesn't matter how obvious it is, as long as it's original.

if it was that obvious someone would have had it to market before them.

IMO, it's at least as obvious as a pentode/triode switch. I say the pentode/triode is obvious because tube data sheets contain information on using a 6V6 (for example) as a pentode or a triode. A pentode sounds one way, a triode sounds different. If I'd like to hear either, I could a) build two amps, or b) put a switch on there. The switch just seems like the more logical conclusion. If you look as far back as fender tweed amps, the Supers and everything smaller had tube rectos and had a saggy sound. Anything larger had an SS recto and this provided a stiffer sound. I am sure there was some guy who, before Randall Smith thought of it, thought to put a switch on the back of a super to switch to a SS recto. Or maybe not. Maybe people didn't build classic tube amp clones in the 80's, I sure wasn't.

But to be totally honest, I have no way of knowing if these things would seem obvious had this feature not existed on commercial amps. Kind of back to my point about not being able to exist in a vacuum. I just have no way of knowing, so I can't dogmatically assert I would have come up with the idea had the MB Dual Recto amps not existed. So maybe there lodged in my subconscious there was the phrase "Mesa Boogie (C) Dual-Rectifier (C)" waiting for me to learn about tube amps for it to leap it out in the form of "my" idea.

For all we know, some amp homebuilder came up to Randall Smith offering to sell him an idea or trying to get a job or whatever, Smith refused, and patented the poor schlub's idea.

But you do make an interesting point, and I have an interesting quandry: I build a widget with some unique feature and try to sell it, then someone else gets the idea and patents it. He finds out about my widget, tried to sue me, and I establish proof of prior art. Does that nullify the patent? Further, I do not wish to patent it, so is my "original" idea essentially unpatentable and thereby public domain?

I wonder about these things.

This topic has been discussed several times over the years here on this bbs (or it's predecessor), lot's of guys were doing many of the same things RS was doing in those early days before MB. As far as the switchable rectifier, I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I believe Bruce Collins was doing this, a copy of his design was available on The Blue Guitar website.

Just because someone holds a patent on something doesn't mean there wasn't prior art, sometimes it just means the patent was granted without proper research. Patents like this are not enforceable, but companies with more resources can use them to threaten smaller outfits with less resources to fight legal battles. This is why some people have a lot of problems with RS and MB.

[David Schwab]

If someone did it first, and can prove it, than the patent can be nullified.

If someone did it first, and it was a patentable idea, and they didn't... well that's a shame.

Obviously some companies don't bother to patent things.. like EMG. They might have had some things they could have gotten a patent on. Duncan patented a stacked humbucker, even though the old LP Recording pickups were made pretty much the same way. (I even asked him to wind a stacked pickup for me in 1973, and it said it was a bad idea! )

Sometimes it's not the thing, but the way you do the thing. Rick Tuner (along with Geoff Gould) patented the graphite neck. It was both the idea of using a composite and the method of doing it. Later Ned Steinberger got a patent on a composite instrument, which ended up infringing on Turner's patent, so Ned licensed the patent from Rick. Later still Moses Graphite got a patent on.. a graphite neck, but this was a patent for the construction method, and not for the fact that it's a graphite neck.

I think some patents are frivolous and shouldn't have been granted. But if you have an idea that hasn't been done, even if it's simple, and its novel enough, I don't see a problem. If you don't get it patented, someone will come along and eat your lunch.

It's been done time and time again. The first spread sheet program is a good example. He didn't, and MS and others came long and made a lot of money on the idea. The original guy got zip. Happy face pin? Same thing.

I had a sustainer idea years before Sustainiac came along with much the same thing. This was their unit that stuck on the headstock. Mine didn't stick on the headstock. There's didn't go over well because of the wire hanging off the neck. Mine didn't have that. But I was working for ITT at the time, and had to sign an agreement that if I patented something I invented while working there, they got the patent. It had nothing to do with work, and I didn't want to give them the patent, so I didn't pursue it. I also made a solid body nylon string before Gibson did the Chet Atkins model. Same story.

You know how I felt when those products came out?

[cminor9]

Hey, look at that, we turned a troll into an interesting discussion!

David, I can certainly appreciate your viewpoint on this. I'd be pretty upset too if I felt like my ideas were ripped off without even any credit given.

[David Schwab]

And I also agree that some patents shouldn't be and just impede progress. A patent on email? That's absurd!

[SkinnyWire]

How about trademarks, such as the infamous trademark for humbucking pickups which are "yellow, resembling a distinctive shade of cream" or trademarking a silhouette? You might could describe these as protecting IP but they run closer to petty strong arming in my book. Patenting a design for protection is one thing but trademarking a color combination - which can technically be upheld forever - in a manner to defend all hues in a color band forces people to consider a product they may not want due to the very design itself. It's just pissing in peoples' Wheaties as a bully would.

[David Schwab]

How about trademarks, such as the infamous trademark for humbucking pickups which are "yellow, resembling a distinctive shade of cream" or trademarking a silhouette?

We've talked about this before, but really if you were around in the 70's when DiMarzio pickups came out, they were the only cream pickups you ever saw. So when you'd switch on the TV and some band was playing, if the guy had a SDHB in his Les Paul, you would spot it a mile away. Same with the Model P pickup. It was better than what makers do now, like Duncan putting their name on the bobbins.

They even had a whole line of matching cream accessories, like binding and pickguards for Les Pauls. So that cream was their trademark, like brown is UPS and blue is IBM.

So that's their mindset on the issue, even though with the introduction of the Super II, they didn't just make cream pickups anymore.

As an example, look at this photo:



What kind of pickup is that? I'll give you one guess. Starts with a D and ends with an O. And even in black and white, you can't miss it.

[SkinnyWire]

I hear what you're saying, and have heard something like that before. I'm pretty sure though that some Gibson pickups made well before DM came on the scene were "white, resembling a distinctive shade of cream" - at least by the time the white had aged, etc.

So, I suppose that may have been DMs "trademark" color, but I don't think they originated the idea they were just devious enough to consider protecting it. To me, that's not much different than cases I've heard of where people wanted to trademark certain words ... not based on a logo, but a meaning, etc. Or the onetime practice of people registering domain names so they could bilk those who might have a legitimate desire to use them.

At least with a silhouette like the Fender headstock I think it was pretty much uniquely theirs in the beginning (haven't looked into that deeply). I don't like that any better, but it's more understandable I guess.

Yeah, I guess the cream thing is a dead horse but it still chaps my shorts.