Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link: http://www.banjohangout.org/archive/318770
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
tombones - Posted - 05/24/2016: 15:40:09
So Deering has just sent out an article about their new "Smile" bridge where they are doing what many makers have been doing for a while, arching the feet of the bridge (basically making the middle foot longer) to accommodate head sinkage and keep the bridge from making indentations in the head. This is cool and all, but they are trying to get a patent on the idea. Can they do this? This seems pretty ridiculous to patent something that many people have been doing for a long time.
Here's a link to the "new" bridge
deeringbanjos.com/products/dee...jo-bridge
Ken LeVan - Posted - 05/24/2016: 17:00:35
They patent everything and invent nothing. I have lost my respect for them.
Old Hickory - Posted - 05/24/2016: 17:07:49
Patents can be challenged. From the US Patent and Trademark Office:
If you have reason to believe that the patent is not valid or otherwise enforceable, there are several ways to challenge it:
- You can challenge a patent application by submitting what is termed “prior art” (e.g., references, publications, or descriptions of the disclosures described above made prior to the filing date of the application) to the USPTO. This must be done before the patent issues. You can search for prior art on your own or by “crowdsourcing”, that is using an online community to assist with the searching. You can find a patent search “crowdsourcing” websites by performing an internet search. For more information about submitting prior art relevant to a pending patent application (rather than patent), please see our webpage on pre-issuance submissions.
- Once the patent has issued, you can challenge it at the USPTO by filing a request for reexamination of the patent, or by filing an inter partes dispute such as a request for post grant review, inter partes review, or, for certain kinds of financial services patents, a covered business method patent review.
- You can challenge a patent in court, either when defending yourself in a lawsuit brought against you for patent infringement, or by filing a declaratory judgment (DJ) action requesting the court to hold the patent invalid.
ClayTech - Posted - 05/24/2016: 17:54:15
So all the custom bridge makers who have been doing this for years could theoretically be sued by Deering if they continue to make arched bridges if/when Deering gets the patent? Seems like there's a battle a'brewin'.
perltone - Posted - 05/24/2016: 19:04:27
I will defer to Ken on the patent. However I was at a jam with Greg Cahill on Fri. and he had just put one on. He said it was the best
sounding bridge he had ever had on his banjo and was going to let Greg and Janet use that quote.
ClayTech - Posted - 05/24/2016: 19:07:52
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to...to_invent
So, by switching to a first-to-file system rather than a first-to-invent system, they've given corporations the right to file patents on things they didn't invent, and that the little guy who actually invented it probably couldn't afford to patent, or didn't feel the need to patent because it was general knowledge, like the arched bridge. Not surprising, as it's just another example of the government giving power to corporations. However, if I'm reading that correctly, it would only take someone proving that they were already advertising (publishing the idea) and selling that item before Deering, to be entitled to the patent instead. Am I reading that correctly?
pollywaffle - Posted - 05/24/2016: 19:08:08
$45?! Oh dear.....
ClawJam - Posted - 05/24/2016: 19:42:12
Neil, you are pretty much correct on the new (but not improved) first to file system. However, prior publishing/selling of the product will not give claims for a patent, but may negate any patenting altogether....patent law is very byzantine and ambiguous and will most likely be decided by the higher paid law firm.
Banjophobic - Posted - 05/24/2016: 20:02:29
It's a tried an tested idea used by bridges makers for years, many of them BHO regular contributors and the bridge is severely overpriced at 45.00 dollars. So you know my opinion of the whole thing...no tarpit needed.
Edited by - Banjophobic on 05/24/2016 20:02:59
fumblinfrailer - Posted - 05/24/2016: 20:17:12
So which bridge-makers offer a similar design? I'd be interested in an 11/16".
Paulf - Posted - 05/24/2016: 20:47:09
quote:
Originally posted by fumblinfrailer
So which bridge-makers offer a similar design? I'd be interested in an 11/16".
These are two that I know of but others will mentioned names.
Tim Purcell, great bridges, great price. purcell-banjo-bridges.com/ I have his roasted red maple in the no-sag and it is very powerful.
Bart Veerman Bridges, highly respected, have not tried one yet but hopefully one day. banjobridge.com/bartbridges.htm
Edited by - Paulf on 05/24/2016 20:53:18
rbfour5 - Posted - 05/24/2016: 21:03:51
Tim Purcell bridges are incredible- that is all I use now; I have also put them on my former banjo teachers '69 RB-250, and Huber Lexington. I have never experienced such a tonal change in my life, when changing to one of Tim's Old Red Maple bridges. Period, end of story.
And I will continue to use his bridges, and tell everyone I meet about them. I have about (10) different bridges from Tim, from 5/8"; 21/32" and 11/16"; standard spacing; Crowe spacing, and a wider spacing yet for my banjos. I have no problem putting them on friends banjos so that they can experience for themselves, what a Purcell bridge can do for their banjo.
This is more than just an opinion, it is from experience.
pastorharry - Posted - 05/24/2016: 21:09:36
Reminds me of when they strong armed Wyatt Fawley for making exact copies of Pete Seeger VEGA long necks , as they had, ( after the fact), bought the rights to the VEGA logo. Seems the almighty $ is all they really care about, not mutual respect for other great luthiers.
Bart Veerman - Posted - 05/24/2016: 21:11:09
I have no idea whether I was the first one to start making bridges this way, nor do I claim to be, but I have made and publicly sold them them with the center leg being taller since about 2001. I wasn't aware of anyone else making bridges this way at the time. In fact, a few people complained about back then as they figured I screwed up while making them and I added the explanation for it in the instruction leaflet that comes with my bridges 
The illustration and description (read sales pitch...) of the "taller middle leg" has been publicly posted on my website, haruteq.com, since 2004 although I moved it to to my other website, banjobridge.com, in 2009. It seems there are a few other bridge makers who are making radiused, or "dished," footed bridges these days as well (and why not, it's a darn good idea). If I remember correctly there are some topics in the Hangout's archives where this concept was publicly discussed.
If anyone figures I should pipe up about it I'd be hugely grateful for some ideas, coaching and/or help. Just in case: I'm in Canada, not in the U.S.A.
If Deering really want to patent stuff then maybe they should patent the fact that their banjos have five strings...
Bart.
Bart Veerman - Posted - 05/24/2016: 21:34:00
oh, clicking the like button in my previous post might help the cause
mikehalloran - Posted - 05/24/2016: 21:50:07
quote:
Originally posted by pastorharry
Reminds me of when they strong armed Wyatt Fawley for making exact copies of Pete Seeger VEGA long necks , as they had, ( after the fact), bought the rights to the VEGA logo. Seems the almighty $ is all they really care about, not mutual respect for other great luthiers.
Trademarks must be protected or the money one pays for them becomes wasted. The Deerings had no choice—if they let Wyatt infringe their Vega trademark, it's the same as letting everyone do it.
Thermos and Aspirin are famous examples of former trademarks that are now generic terms in the US.
1474383838333 - Posted - 05/25/2016: 01:21:28
I skim read, sorry perhaps someone mentioned this, but wouldn't the proper curve depend on head tension?
Helix - Posted - 05/25/2016: 04:43:38
Then perhaps they can install their new bridges on those painted 16 bracket wonders, the ones with the tinker toy plates, the BIG round holes up and down the price point, the ones with the hype for MUMford and whom. The colors chosen to represent each part of the country, the non-profit programs selected to have a low feature banjo bestowed on them.
So...........Mr. Levan does this mean when people order multiple bridges from you @ "full price", they are getting the value of sour grapes?
And Mr. Veerman, I encourage you in any way, there is something special about the way you treat people. Best wishes. My wife's AC in her car gave out, otherwise, I would have a dozen of your bridges.
dculgan - Posted - 05/25/2016: 04:46:30
quote:
Originally posted by Ken LeVan
They patent everything and invent nothing. I have lost my respect for them.
Perhaps they take the man at his word who said: "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."
David Cunningham - Posted - 05/25/2016: 05:00:58
quote:
Originally posted by fumblinfrailer
So which bridge-makers offer a similar design? I'd be interested in an 11/16".
I've done it for several years now. If Deering is using as much arc as the photo on their site shows, they have gone WAY too far. I began with an arc-chord depth of .01 and found it to be too much not allowing enough pressure on the outside feet. Now I use about .005 to .007". It turns out to be about a 120" radius on a 3" wide bridge. If Deering means to patent what several of us have done for years I can only say what a bunch of crap.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 05/25/2016: 05:05:24
I don't sell bridges other than the occasional favor to a player, and I include one on every banjo I make as part of the instrument, so there is (are?) no sour grapes in terms of my business.
Checking back on my computer, I see that I have been making bridges like that since at least 2011, well documented in the archives of this forum and have sold enough of them for them to be in commerce.
I just think that searching through historical stuff and patenting everything in sight is gratuitously mercenary and surly.
DeanT - Posted - 05/25/2016: 05:11:26
It's not too tough. Buy a bridge a size bigger than you need. Take your old bridge off, it will be dished, and makes a great template. A little time and some sand paper, and make the new bridge feet match the old bridge feet. Walla. I learned that here, over 10 years ago, and have done it ever since.
Old Hickory - Posted - 05/25/2016: 05:56:14
There's an open-ended (now 82-page) thread called Deering Banjos Discussion in the Shopping Advice forum.
Someone really interested in getting Deering's attention to the bogusness of their patent claim could post a message, with appropriate links, over there.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 05/25/2016: 07:50:27
I looked back, and found one from 2009, which I posted here: This one was calledx the "Blue moon, and you can see the "camber" on the bottom, which is to say the middle foot is higher to compensate for head sag. It wasn't a new idea then, still isn't.
Then here's another one from 2010 that shows three radii:
Also, I can remember posting things on this forum several times joking about the fact that my moon bridges have a "smile".
What will somebody patent next? compensated bridges, or putting popsicle sticks under bridges?
ZEPP - Posted - 05/25/2016: 07:50:42
I'm not sure when Randy Stockwell started selling Moon brand bridges, but they've had that longer foot since at least 1996 (when I bought my first of many from Randy).
Cheers,
ZEPP
Dan Drabek - Posted - 05/25/2016: 08:04:11
Are they patenting the bridge, or just the name?
DD
Joel Hooks - Posted - 05/25/2016: 08:44:36
quote:
Originally posted by Old Hickory
There's an open-ended (now 82-page) thread called Deering Banjos Discussion in the Shopping Advice forum.
Someone really interested in getting Deering's attention to the bogusness of their patent claim could post a message, with appropriate links, over there.
At one point I pointed out how their "Bridge Plate" patent is an exact duplication of an expired patent (that they even cite in the new one). Janet claimed she did not understand the original expired patent.
This was her exact quote--
No, one cannot site old patents and claim them as their own. We sited that as a different idea not to be confused with what we patented. What came up on Google is strange in the spelling and grammar and clearly not a bridge "plate". The difference is why the patent office issued us a patent on our invention. It would have been dismissed otherwise. It works amazingly well to bring out an authentic earthy sound from the Solana 6 banjo. I look forward to your experiences when you get to play one.
That discussion can be found here...
banjohangout.org/archive/287807
I guess this is a successful method of business for them.
I have posted a set of documents that from the US trademark office that tells a different story about the purchase of the Vega trademark. According to the documented records for the trademark office, they filed for a separate and new trademark based on the abandonment of the original license by Galaxy Trading. I don't have those at hand but can post them later if need be.
Deering has also filed for a trademark on S. S. Stewart as well as Fairbanks multiple times. Attached is below is the current filing for S. S. Stewart.
It is a strange way to do business, using other peoples names. Esp. in such a small market as ours. The patent thing is just odd.
Edited by - Joel Hooks on 05/25/2016 08:47:50
ClayTech - Posted - 05/25/2016: 08:47:59
I can't imagine it would be good for business for them to start harassing small builders about this if they get the patent.
donbeh - Posted - 05/25/2016: 09:30:09
I received the email from Deering yesterday and I thought this was a really new idea. I come here and find that it has been around for a while. I just 2-weeks ago bought a Snuffy Smith bridge from JDM. Was told it would be a while before it ships 'cause they are out of them. Sure wish I had known about this radius-ed bridge design sooner or I would have bought a Tim Purcell bridge. I checked his site from one of the earlier posts and like his prices. While we are on the subject of bridges, where can I learn more about them? Which ones are the best? Or is that just a matter of opinion? I have a 2004 Deering Sierra by the way and I am trying to improve the sound.
OldPappy - Posted - 05/25/2016: 09:36:59
Gold Tone got a patent on the Zero Glide nut design, and that idea had also been around long before they made one.
Historically when a patent expired anyone could use the design, but I don't know if that meant if a patent could be gotten by the "anyones" using it.
Smith & Wesson marketed cartridge revolvers many years before Colt could do so because they had a patent on the bored through cylinder, which forced Colt to continue making cap and ball revolvers up until the S&W patent expired, right around 1872 I think, but then every pistol maker in the world started using the design.
Getting patents on things other people invented is a completely dishonest way to do business in my opinion, but seems like there was a BHO thread recently on a tone ring Deering had applied for a patent on which was also something that was certainly not a new design.
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Deering went after builders using their patented bridge design, but I think such a suit might be something that would blow up in their face, particularly since this is the design of a part, not a trademark they have bought.
Banjophobic - Posted - 05/25/2016: 09:48:22
I don't see any "sour grapes" from Ken or anyone else here. It's just stating options about this "new bridge" design which is not new at all, and very over priced, in many opinions.
Rawhide Creek - Posted - 05/25/2016: 10:08:08
quote:
Originally posted by mikehalloran
quote:
Originally posted by pastorharry
Reminds me of when they strong armed Wyatt Fawley for making exact copies of Pete Seeger VEGA long necks , as they had, ( after the fact), bought the rights to the VEGA logo. Seems the almighty $ is all they really care about, not mutual respect for other great luthiers.
Trademarks must be protected or the money one pays for them becomes wasted. The Deerings had no choice—if they let Wyatt infringe their Vega trademark, it's the same as letting everyone do it.
Thermos and Aspirin are famous examples of former trademarks that are now generic terms in the US.
Also Kleenex, Coke, and Xerox, to add to the list. I've been told the same is true of Biro in the UK.
Edited by - Rawhide Creek on 05/25/2016 10:10:46
Joel Hooks - Posted - 05/25/2016: 10:19:32
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Drabek
Are they patenting the bridge, or just the name?
DD
You can't patent a name. You can trademark a name (what Deering did with "Vega").
With patents in the US there are design patents and function patents. Design patents don't protect much more than the specific design submitted. A function patent covers the the function of the invention. I've not been able to find their application for this.
In most cases design patents are pretty worthless-- these are the ones that those scam ads for invention help on TV will get you (for a obscene amount of cash).
It is also possible that they have not actually filed an application, only the intent.
Helix - Posted - 05/25/2016: 10:44:07
thank you Mr. Hooks for the depth of response. I can't wait to see what's next.
Rawhide Creek - Posted - 05/25/2016: 10:49:40
Actually, the two types of patents are "design" and "utility".
If you think that design patents are "pretty worthless", you are perhaps unfamiliar with, among other cases, Apple v. Samsung.
Joel Hooks - Posted - 05/25/2016: 11:08:50
quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide Creek
Actually, the two types of patents are "design" and "utility".
If you think that design patents are "pretty worthless", you are perhaps unfamiliar with, among other cases, Apple v. Samsung.
Yes, utility. Most people or companies are not Apple or Samsung. As such to most people a design patent does nor protect much.
Attached is document trail for the Vega trademark. Of particular interest is pages 21-23 where the trademark is rejected, Then after a phone call from the Deering's attorney it is determined that the name Vega is available for a registration.
pastorharry - Posted - 05/25/2016: 11:45:14
quote:
Originally posted by mikehalloran
quote:
Originally posted by pastorharry
Reminds me of when they strong armed Wyatt Fawley for making exact copies of Pete Seeger VEGA long necks , as they had, ( after the fact), bought the rights to the VEGA logo. Seems the almighty $ is all they really care about, not mutual respect for other great luthiers.
Trademarks must be protected or the money one pays for them becomes wasted. The Deerings had no choice—if they let Wyatt infringe their Vega trademark, it's the same as letting everyone do it.
Thermos and Aspirin are famous examples of former trademarks that are now generic terms in the US.
True Mike, however, Wyatt was the ONLY builder at the time recreating the infamous VEGA long neck, nobody else cared . Then along comes Deering and gets the trademark and immediately goes after Wyatt, who was maybe doing 4 or 5 necks a year in that design. Not exactly the volume of Thermos or Asprin....which egs the question, what about all the makers still copying Gibson necks?
ClawJam - Posted - 05/25/2016: 12:02:20
Deering has most likely filed a provisional patent application....to use "patent pending" without doing so is a criminal offense. It takes on average 1-3 years for a non-provisional (utility) patent to issue after a provisional application has been applied for. The patent-pending notice does not confer any legal rights, but warns competitors that if a patent should issue they would be enjoined from further manufacturing.
dculgan - Posted - 05/25/2016: 12:33:50
For what its worth this patent business irked me so I went over to the Deering Banjos facebook page to see if they were presenting it there, they were. I commented (somewhat rudely in hindsight I suppose) "Patent pending? $45?, you gotta be kidding me! Plenty of folks have been making this design for years, nothing new here."
Janet Deering quickly replied "Hi David, thanks for your thoughts. We researched bridges and what ones have been made, and a fully curved bottom through all feet was not found on the market. Please send any links to ones that are to info@deeringbanjos.com, we would like to see them."
Well i don't have a dog in this fight and will radius a bridge any way I see fit, and I'm not interested in doing any research for them, oppositional or not. Feel free to bomb the facebook page with pictures. Dave
Joel Hooks - Posted - 05/25/2016: 12:55:21
Hi Dave, sounds like the same sort of reply for the "bridge plate" that I posted above. I also have no dog, I'm just fascinated by the concept.
The S. S. Stewart/Fairbanks trademarks were a little annoying. I could imagine them going after guys like Doug Unger for his Stewart looking banjos or all the folks who reneck old tenor rims-- or even Bernunzio for his efforts on the Eastman banjos.
Perhaps they should register Bacon also.
Old Hickory - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:03:21
quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide Creek
Thermos and Aspirin are famous examples of former trademarks that are now generic terms in the US.
Also Kleenex, Coke, and Xerox, to add to the list. I've been told the same is true of Biro in the UK.
No.
Kleenex, Coke and Xerox are all still active and protected trademarks. People might use them generically, despite their owners' best efforts to stop the practice, but they have not become true generics in the sense of their trademark registrations being lost or revoked.
Aspirin and thermos -- and I believe elevator -- are examples of words that were trademarks for which the registrations were actually canceled.
OldPappy - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:15:29
I guess that means Janet, who has been a BHO member a long time, didn't think the several builders who have posted such a design on BHO were worth including in her "Research".
Perhaps their posts were only relevant for whoever works on Deering design conception, and small builders just don't pose much of a challenge to such a patent.
I knew the guy who invented the quick release design used on Sears "Craftsman" ratchet wrenches for years. He claimed Sears had stolen his design. He sued them, won millions of dollars, and bought a huge apartment complex in my home town. He thought he was set for life.
Then I heard that Sears came back with a counter suit and took all the money back.
It is hard for a little guy to buck a big corporation with deep pockets, so the little guy often gets screwed without even a kiss.
Janet Deering - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:20:51
I want to thank everyone who has responded so far in this thread. It is important to Greg and I that people understand that Deering is not the behemoth company that some appear to perceive us to be. We have poured 41 years of our lives into making banjos and yes, because of strong customer support, we have made a lot of them. Our team is less than 50 American workers and continuing in the family tradition our daughter Jamie will carry this on into the future. We are certainly not a corporate giant trying to take advantage of anyone, nor are we out to penalize anyone. That is not and never has been our way of doing business. We are simply taking common sense steps to protect our company long into the future. If you'd like to see more firsthand there is a good video here of who we are and our factory: blog.deeringbanjos.com/heres-t...ituation/"> blog.deeringbanjos.com/heres-t...ituation/
Our bridges are distinctly different than any of the other bridges mentioned here. We invested a lot of time and effort in research and development determining the correct angles and relationships in all aspects of the SMILE bridge to bring out the best possible sound from any banjo.
A bridge with a longer central foot is not the same as what we are making, our bridge is based on precise geometry. The participants and instructors at Banjo Camp North experienced the difference first hand earlier this month. It blew us all away!
We truly value the comments and feedback. Our mission has always been to strive to be at the forefront of improving the banjo and introducing it to the world at large. We are proud to be as respected as we are by the tight knit banjo community. We hope that we will make all of you proud of our continuing efforts long into the future.
Thank you.
Janet Deering
Deering Banjo Company
CEO
bartmcneil - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:37:03
Most manufacturers would do the same and do it all the time.... A patent has been applied for but has not been issued and likely will not be issued. I really don't think anyone is at risk of going to jail or being hanged for designing and selling a similar looking bridge. I believe its material is not wood and perhaps the material used is being patented.... The only thing sillier than the patent application is the price. The ad is not clear on exactly what the patent would cover.
Until one of us goes to jail it is not really worth getting excited about. If one of us goes to jail or is hanged, don't worry. I will start a collection to send flowers Or maybe not.
Edited by - bartmcneil on 05/25/2016 13:40:03
Bart Veerman - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:56:13
quote:
Originally posted by Janet Deering
Our bridges are distinctly different than any of the other bridges mentioned here. We invested a lot of time and effort in research and development determining the correct angles and relationships in all aspects of the SMILE bridge to bring out the best possible sound from any banjo.
A bridge with a longer central foot is not the same as what we are making, our bridge is based on precise geometry. The participants and instructors at Banjo Camp North experienced the difference first hand earlier this month. It blew us all away!
David Cunningham and Ken Levan mentioned some pretty specific measurements. I'm pretty sure these gentlemen did their fair share of trial and error testing, or R & D if you prefer, as did I. These efforts do not deserve to be dismissed.
A taller center leg is not necessarily simply taller: terms like arched, arced, dished and radiused were used in the previous post and they all describe a curved bridge bottom. Whether this curve was arrived at by precise geometry, math, trial and error or the good ol' about-this-much method, the bridge's bottom still is curved so I respectfully disagree: a curved bottom bridge is very much a curved bottom bridge.
Yes, people do like the resulting tone and performance, don't they. I've received the same feedback for a goodly number of years
David Cunningham - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:56:48
"A bridge with a longer central foot is not the same as what we are making, our bridge is based on precise geometry."
Right! Like this:
3D wireframe modeled and then cut on a CNC router that I built. It's not simply a longer center foot either - it's a radiused base - but I'm not bothering to patent something that many others have done many times slightly differently before me. So what if the rest of my geometry is different than everyone else's... It's a banjo bridge. It's not a part on an F18 Hornet. I don't think there's any worry of anyone copying my bridge, Deering's, or someone else's and who care's if they do? It's not like they will go into production with it and steal the whole business from everybody else! Another builder copied my Z/K combo without asking but so what? It wouldn't qualify for a patent anyway and this shouldn't either. Everyone knows or should know that there is no single bridge that is best on every banjo. We've all borrowed design details that are common knowledge.
What's next? Applying for a patent on a glass of water? It's a ridiculous patent application which is why I won't be surprised it it's granted. That will be on par with the quality of work done by any other publicly-funded office these days.
Hogwash!
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
