My view on the consequences of patents, specifically in the tapping industry.


Just to share my view on this subject as a consumer. These ramblings are not
targeted at any company or person in specific, just at this 'industry' as a
whole.

I noticed that various manufacturers of tapping instruments seem to have
patented specific inventions they made which they apply to their tappers. These
patents are described on their websites and in the product documentation, as if
these would benefit me as a consumer and as a potential buyer of these
instruments, and as if I would choose for a specific instrument because of the
patent. Note the different, I might like the *feature*, but what good is the
*patent* to me ?

Buy I don't see why these patents would benefit me, or for the community of
people playing these instruments.

For example: Manufacturer A has had this idea for enhancing a certain feature
on their instrument, and files patent X. Manufacturer B has a differnt idea,
and secures this with patent Y.

Here am I, stuck in the middle. I like both features, they might both be
wonderful ideas, and what I would like, is an instrument which has *both* of
these features. But I will never be possible to buy this perfect but imaginary
instrument, because nobody is allowed to manufacture it.

I am very much willing to choose for a specific brand based on service, build
quality, features, etc. These patens might seem to benefit the individual
manufacturers, but since I am not offered the instrument I want, I might buy
neither, and no sales are made at all.

Any other opinions on this matter ?

Hi Nate,

Buy the instrument that speaks to you. And don't forget, just because something is patented doesn't mean it's good

Some people are put off by the protection intellectual property receives. Most of the people I've met who have intellectual property to protect are in favor of the protection, and most of the people who criticize the concept of copyrights, trademarks, patents, don't have intellectual property to protect. I suppose your viewpoint depends on which side of the fence you're on.

I've had people ask me to autograph photocopies of my book (great!), and I've seen bootlegs of my CDs in record stores. So how do I feel about it? I guess it depends on the item in question.

Unlike medicines, no one ever died from not being able to have a two-way adjustable truss (though they might have wasted a lot of time trying to set up their instrument )

As far as the Stick is concerned, the patents SE has are to protect years of innovation. There's a statement on the SE website that says quite clearly, "Licensing inquiries are welcome." So maybe that's the answer to your question.

Nate - I'm not really sure I understand your point. Everything that is made & marketed is owned by somebody (well - almost everything) - and you can want a car with Ford styling and a Volkswagon engine - but that's just not going to happen.

Why would it be any different for a tapper?

Not trying to sound snarky - I guess I can understand what you WANT, but what you can GET are often two different things.

Also - I think you might be reading too much into "features" on an instrument: the playability of an instrument - -meaning the action and ergonomics, will define your experience far more than whether an instrument has a certain kind of pick up, bridge, tone pot configurations, etc.

Randy

There is another angle to look at also. I've always been kind of down on the idea of software patents. But as I work for a company who frequently has a target on their back, the powers that be at said company explained to me one day that patents not only serve to protect the intellectual property of the company but they also serve to keep other companies from claiming that you have stolen their intellectual property.

I understand your utopian view of the way things should be and agree that it would be ideal in a perfect world. Unfortunately I've learned that if there is any room at all for abuse, it is human nature that the abuse will be taken ... usually in a matter of seconds.

Interesting Thread. You have me curious what stringed instrument manufacturer has the most patents?

I would bet Gibson, because of their age and diversity of products. They hold patents extending outside the realm of instruments. You may remember that Gibson took Activision to court (Via ZDNet) over creating a VR performance. I don't think that patents have limited my choices for a guitar.

I do think that patents have historically fueled innovators to rethink a design solution or improve a current patent as much as current Creative Commons trends. Competition yields progress as much as collaboration, but there needs to be a large enough market to compete for to invest time to innovate beyond any existing patents. The tapping market is small. If it wasn't, major companies such as Fender, Gibson, or Korg would have entered the tapping market. Even then the consumer would need to decide what manufacturers features are the most important and which product best fits their needs.

Just because a consumer likes the design of the iphone, but despises dropped calls and the OS, doesn't mean they will get an open source android iphone. You can't have everything, but you have choices that ultimately steer industry.

Just a question for the poster.
Do you own Tapping instruments?One or more?
I own several.
My Stick has excellent patented features designed to aid the player in having a well adjusted instrument.
My Tapping instruments that are built along the lines of a guitar have no patented features.They do have guitar Truss Rods and Bridges that are adjustable.But the bridges and Truss rod designs are all patented under guitar Technology so the designers of those particular items make money above and beyond what the maker of that Tapping instrument recieves.
What it boils down to is this.
YOU GOTTA PAY THE PIPER.....or your stuck with RATS.

Moose Orgsky

You also gotta keep in mind, just because a company HAS a patent doesn't mean they won't license it out. IE, Floyd Rose. Yeah, he invented the floating bridge as is standard today for electric guitar. However, he's licensed it out to dozens of companies who make varying quality copies. You can get excellent Floyd copies from companies like Schaller, and crappy Takeuchi ones.

What about Ralph Novak's fanned frets? a bunch of companies use them (Even our Friend Topaz), but they all pay a licensing fee to Mr Novak.

Having the patent doesn't necessarily stop the technology from being used by competitors.

I don't think the purpose of patents is to benefit the consumer, it might be displayed as some "selling point" of a unique idea but really it allows the inventor claim the idea. If you were developing an instrument with a concept that you were patenting, the ability stake your claim on the idea could mean millions, you might be a little more interested than that of a consumer

well, if the consumers wants people to keep making cool things that they like, the inventors are going be less likely to do so if they can't own their ideas. So I do think patents benefit consumers, just indirectly.

I have to claim that I benefit from a collaboration of a few patents - My NS Stick. Emmett's tapping designs, Ned's headless and bridge(?) design all rolled up into one instrument. Anything patentwise in those EMG's?