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/318770/2
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
Janet Deering - Posted - 05/25/2016: 13:57:58
banjohangout.org/global/ckedit.../icon.png) center no-repeat #ff0000;cursor:pointer;top:-1px;-webkit-border-radius:0px 0px 2px 2px;border-radius:0px 0px 2px 2px" title="Insert paragraph here">↵
quote
:The link I included above does not seem to be working. This one should: blog.deeringbanjos.com/heres-t...ituation/
Originally posted by Janet Deering
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
DeanT - Posted - 05/25/2016: 14:03:24
Precision geometry is why I like using an old bridge that is well worn in, and has been on a banjo for a long time... for a template. The old bridge represents the exact forces that the head has put on it. Dish the bottom of a new, high quality bridge, the same, and you will have a great sounding banjo and the bridge will never sag.
Rawhide Creek - Posted - 05/25/2016: 14:33:12
quote:
Originally posted by Old Hickory
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.
Ken, your cut of the post misrepresents who posted what. The first two lines are from Mike Halloran's post.
It is nevertheless fact that all of the words cited indeed were and are used in a generic manner, in conversation and in literature, and without capitalization, regardless of whether protected and/or active, or not. I remember Kleenex being used that way when I was a kid nearly 60 years ago ("Hand me a kleenex, please."), and I remember xerox being used as a verb when I was in college ("Can you xerox this for me?"). Likewise with the others.
It has been argued that for your trademark to become a generic term for a product or process is a high compliment.
It also happened with Otis's "Escalator" (you may have been thinking of that) and Adobe's "Photoshop" (as in, "that picture has been photoshopped").
Edited by - Rawhide Creek on 05/25/2016 14:40:24
Paulf - Posted - 05/25/2016: 15:30:04
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!
Janet, I really don't see how your new design differs from ones that have been around for years, in fact yours looks a lot like a Purcell. There might be a slightly different angle on the outside feet but that's all. What will your pending actually protect once granted?
Banjophobic - Posted - 05/25/2016: 19:32:51
Yes, it would be enlightening to hear about this specific "geometry" that makes these bridges so unlike the many mentioned here Janet.
David Cunningham - Posted - 05/25/2016: 20:10:19
This calls for a banjo bridge showdown! I say the radiused foot bridges made by several of us here already will whip your fraudulent patent pending johnny-come-lately "curved bottom" bridge! I'm calling it yeller! 
Just joking - calm down everyone...
What should really be patented is the marketing used to convince any fool to pay $45 plus shipping for it. Just goes to show there's one born every minute.
Laurence Diehl - Posted - 05/25/2016: 21:08:25
On the other hand $45 is about what I paid for my Blue Chip thumb pick, and everyone knows you can get a Dunlop for 2 bucks. If there was a money back guarantee I might just fall for that marketing ploy, just to see if it would blow my mind 
Weitzel - Posted - 05/25/2016: 22:29:49
I'll add my name to the list of those using the curved bottom design. Thanks to the OPENNESS of those on the BHO, i've been able to take that idea and incorporate it into my own designs (mine is more subtle than some but can be seen with a slight gap on the side). I'm sure I could easily patent my six footed design if they can patent something many others have already done. But I really don't care to (even if I had the time or money to). If anyone would like to find out the merits of 6 feet (two direct vibrational paths to the head for each string), they are welcome to build one on their own if they don't care to order one from me.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 05/26/2016: 05:08:38
In my opinion banjo bridges are "public domain" from a functional point of view, and subtle differences in "exact dimensions" can be patented, but all one needs to do is to make some different "exact dimensions". I know from experience that each one of my bridges are slightly different in order to tweak the weight and action of the banjo.
"Three monkeys hitting keys at random on typewriters for an infinite amount of time will almost surely produce Hamlet ". Then someone could copyright it and call it their own, preventing anyone from copying it, but you can always go back and copy Shakespeare.
Helix - Posted - 05/26/2016: 06:27:54
Let's have a little more fun, Where IS that husband of yours.??
Bart Veerman - Posted - 05/26/2016: 06:32:58
quote:
Originally posted by lazlototh
Here is a Deering Bridge Patent Pending.
google.com/patents/US20120291608
That is not about the Smiley bridge. It refers to something along the lines of the second picture (image date 03/01/2009) on this page, they call it a bridge plate.
Seems like people really study my website...
Bart Veerman,
banjobridge.com
Edited by - Bart Veerman on 05/26/2016 06:43:44
Dave1climber - Posted - 05/26/2016: 06:35:36
I just read the patent application, and it would seem that what they are patenting is any sort of base plate under the bridge that is comprised of any material. A rather broad field to claim.
A live link
google.com/patents/US20120291608
Helix - Posted - 05/26/2016: 06:47:32
Preserving the thin skirt idea and concept was just the same, thin skirt was used as a common term.
I am sorry to hear about pushing Mr. Fawley around, Especially since one is the new owner of the Trademark, that, I am afraid, goes a long way in producing a bully image, hard to shed.
Then the bronze flat bar tone ring Patent, oh golly, what a massacree.
I had one last conversation with Tony Pass, and he was disgusted by others patenting off the shelf items, what a nuisance.
Maybe the little guy has more brains than credit given, the little guy makes all the innovations based on performance and what works, we all want what works, hype is like two teaspoons of wishful thnking.
steveh_2o - Posted - 05/26/2016: 06:49:13
Just did a patent search for banjo bridges. Didn't see anything on this one, but there were some interesting search results.
Rawhide Creek - Posted - 05/26/2016: 10:12:30
"Heroin", long a generic term, was once a trademark held by Bayer.
Laurence Diehl - Posted - 05/26/2016: 10:52:38
A bottle of that and a Coke and I'm good...
and don't forget to Hoover the carpet.
Ken LeVan - Posted - 05/26/2016: 11:03:17
For what it's worth, here are some dates of other banjo patents:
1845-1847 William Boucher invented “screw-head fastening”
1862 George Teed Closed back banjo (resonator)
1866 George Mein ditto
1867 Henry Dobson ditto
1865 Levi Brown - “banjo guitar” wooden head,
no hooks and nuts to catch on ladies’ dresses.
late 1850s James Ashborn - wooden bracket band.
1880s. AC Fairbanks laminated rim
1881 Henry Dobson “tone ring”
1878 Henry Dobson arched tone ring
1887- A.C. Fairbanks patents “hollow tone ring” with holes to "allow ingress and egress of air". (silly) Never used at the time, but led to Farirbanks famous “tubaphone” in 1909.
1890 David Day scalloped “Electric” tone ring - used on Whyte Laydie.
1895 Henry Dobson tone ring supported by ball bearings.
1909 AC Fairbanks Tubaphone
1925(?) Gibson ball-bearing tone ring
1926 - cast bronze Gibson flathead (high profile)
1926 - cast bronze Gibson archtop
1929 - Gibson flathead as we know it
1901 David Day metal bracket band
Goldstarman - Posted - 05/26/2016: 21:34:58
Kinda like their Smokey Ebony fingerboard right?
deeringbanjos.com/products/dee...ted-banjo
When I buy ebony the "smoky ebony" is the C grade stuff that no one wants but Deering like to buy it then call it master grade smoky ebony and that is pretty darned smart, but for my way of doing business it seems a little shady. There is no such things as Smokey ebony, the AAA is jet black.......its comical
Owen - Posted - 05/27/2016: 05:50:25
...as a by-stander I see elements of the "American dream" at work. However, it could easily, maybe even appropriately, be handled by applying the KISS principle... in this case a.k.a. spend the money elsewhere...
steve davis - Posted - 05/27/2016: 05:54:24
As long as nobody tells me I can't make my bridge,I don't worry about patents.
Helix - Posted - 05/27/2016: 06:27:45
I understand Mrs. Deering's apologia, the Deering family has worked very hard. So has mine.
Please note a patent that covers several possible ways of "joining" brass flatbar, solder, silver solder, brazing and the always popular butt joining,
BUT the patent is about making jewel-like tone rings, cast ones that are not unlike regular flatbar tone rings, off the shelf, but the patent goes ahead and claims control over joining these jewels which are cast.
So that's my problem, and the coy responses are not helping at all.
I expect a class act, class can't be bought or written into existence.....if we all knew what went on behind the scenes.
Some people buy bling and need that form in their personal expression. All form makes dull music: this here's a real banjo is what I usually hear, then they hear what i play.
Some people are after a certain sound: content, all content makes a formless warrior, and it's scary, ain't it? Jamming is the "tell." The proof is at the jam.
So what I read and what I hear are two different things, I challenge those writing hype to move more toward the path to the heart of the music, get going, it's a little late.
Helix - Posted - 05/27/2016: 06:29:34
Steve Davis, just for the fun of it, contact your state Sect. of State and obtain a trademark for your fine work.
Here's a picture of Steve's fine work.
Old Hickory - Posted - 05/27/2016: 08:53:39
quote:
Originally posted by Janet Deering
Our bridges are distinctly different than any of the other bridges mentioned here.
But they're not, Janet.
This discussion clearly includes photos originally posted and discussed on the Hangout as far back as 2009 showing banjo bridges made with radiused bottoms for the specific purpose of conforming to the depression of the head under string tension. And there's a photo plus text from a current bridge maker's website showing that for some time now all his bridges have had radiused bottoms.
So the evidence is clear that someone beat you to it. Multiple someones. A radius bottom banjo bridge is prior art. Multiple people have been doing it for years. They didn't patent it and neither can you.
Of course, it's up to them or some interested party to challenge your application.
Old Hickory - Posted - 05/27/2016: 09:20:59
quote:
Originally posted by Rawhide Creek
Ken, your cut of the post misrepresents who posted what. The first two lines are from Mike Halloran's post.
It is nevertheless fact that all of the words cited indeed were and are used in a generic manner, in conversation and in literature, and without capitalization, regardless of whether protected and/or active, or not. I remember Kleenex being used that way when I was a kid nearly 60 years ago ("Hand me a kleenex, please."), and I remember xerox being used as a verb when I was in college ("Can you xerox this for me?"). Likewise with the others.
It has been argued that for your trademark to become a generic term for a product or process is a high compliment.
It also happened with Otis's "Escalator" (you may have been thinking of that) and Adobe's "Photoshop" (as in, "that picture has been photoshopped").
Russ,
Yes, I included more in the quote than what you actually said, but my comment was about
I'm not arguing that people don't say they xerox a document, photoshop an image, drink a coke that could be any brand of cola, or wipe their nose with a kleenx that came out of a box labelled Scotties. What I am saying is that just because people use those still trademarked and owned names that way doesn't mean that the words have been become generic in the same way as aspirin, thermos, escalator and zipper -- all of which were once owned and no longer are. That's the difference between those former trademarks and the ones you cited. What I said is completely accurate: Xerox, Kleenex and Coke are still trademarks, registered to their respective owners. Some of those companies pay lots of money trying to educate the public on correct use of their trademarks. That people use the trademarks generically doesn't make them right. It just means the owners have more work to do. But it's a losing battle.
As to it being argued that it's a high compliment for a trademark to fall into generic use, I've spent most of my career in advertising and marketing and I've never heard anyone who actually owns and depends on the value of a trademark make such an argument. A trademark does one thing above all else: It denotes source. Only Xerox makes Xerox copiers. Only Coca-Cola Company makes Coke. Only Kimberly-Clark makes Kleenex. It is no compliment to Kimberly-Clark to tell them that any tissue is a Kleenex. It's no compliment to tell Coca-Cola that any generic cola drink is the real thing.
GSCarson - Posted - 05/27/2016: 09:44:50
This whole bridge discussion is really "interesting" and enlightening. I enjoyed reading about the work of Bart Veerman and other respected bridge makers who share here (often in a very open fashion) I have seen other bridges with the lengthened center foot contoured for the head, as some have already noted it often occurs from the head sag anyway, and and have included it on some of my own banjo bridges, especially with skin heads, it makes sense. I took my son Russ to Banjo Camp North in 2005 and found myself sitting in on a sparsely attended but very interesting banjo set up workshop jointly presented by Ray Alden and Will Fielding which focused on bridge design, particularly Ray's ideas in that area. Both became good friends as a result of that week, and Will and I started working on banjo collaborations shortly thereafter and I also got to work with Ray a few times. Sadly both of these friends have now passed on and I really miss each of them. At that workshop and in conversations that followed that week, Ray Alden discussed his numerous innovative ideas for bridge design with Will and I.
Ray brought some of the most unusual bridges I have ever seen at the time, including a number with a "tented" double foot design (as pictured from the side view of the bridge), designs with four or five holes (as per the Fielding bridge so common now...), and bridges with "plates" as per the Deering "Patent" application. He was intensely interested in sound, and acoustics, and he also designed speaker systems and cabinets and wrote a book on the subject. I've searched for some photos I hoped I still had of those, and I'm sure some of his close friends may have evidence of those. Ray worked on his bridges and experimented with them for many years. He did share some photos of some of them on his Chubby Dragon website but that is also offline at this point.
Glenn C
Rawhide Creek - Posted - 05/27/2016: 13:05:13
Thanks for the clarification, Ken. I mentioned the topic to my daughter (an attorney and former editor of the Law Review at the William S. Boyd School of Law), who immediately referred me to these articles:
ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/view...ntext=flr
wings.buffalo.edu/law/biplj/biplj223.pdf
I found both of them informative and worthwhile.
My daughter said the notion that genericization is a form of flattery was set forth by a judge in a written opinion, but did not offhand remember the case citation. She promised to find it; I'll get it to you.
Edited by - Rawhide Creek on 05/27/2016 13:09:32
John Gribble - Posted - 05/27/2016: 17:33:13
quote:
Originally posted by Janet Deering (edited)
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!
Since Janet states their new bridge is different (in some as-of-yet unspecified way) from all the other bridges made by the other bridge makers among us, Deering would have no objection (or grounds) to object to those folks continuing on making bridges in their own ways.
Dan Drabek - Posted - 05/27/2016: 18:35:27
quote:
Originally posted by Janet Deering (edited)
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!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I've lost track of the number of times new developments in banjo design have "blown us away" with their improved sound over the past 50 years that I've been playing. But surprisingly, a good banjo still sounds about the same as when I bought my first one.
In fact, most makers are still trying to capture the sound Earl Scruggs recorded with Bill Monroe back in the 40's. The banjo is a traditional instrument. Improving on a tradition would seem to be an oxymoron.
I don't mean to belittle Deering banjos. I think they have a track record of producing excellent products for players at any level. But it seems clear that a bottom radiused bridge is nothing new.
DD
Will1717 - Posted - 05/28/2016: 04:39:17
Welcome to the world of patents and patent lawyers! I've held patents on numerous inventions that we came up with related to packaging and industrial automation devises over the years. It's now my opinion that if you have enough money to waste you can basically patent anything including the air and how we use it to breath! Basically a patent isn't worth the paper it's written on until its been tested in the courts. To do this you definitely need real deep pockets to say the least! The only winners are the lawyers in the end! You could easily write a book on the topic and still not come up with a black and white answer! Same goes for wills. They all keep the lawyers in good scotch and tons of money! Best deal is probably to claim a patent pending status, as this seems to keep everyone in the dark for a year or two at minimal cost. Why Deering would try to patent a banjo bridge is totally beyond me as what can they gain financially if someone in the world builds a similar bridge. What's the financial loss?? How much would it cost them to defend this patent in the courts?? Totally ridiculous when you give it a 3 second thought! This has to be a sales gimmick as I'm certain no honest patent lawyer would suggest patenting a simple bridge used on a banjo. As they say someone is yanking our chain on this one!
Bill Rickard 
Helix - Posted - 05/28/2016: 06:33:57
Thank you Mr. Rickard, for once, I agree with your considered and experienced opinion. I also see not one note of sarcasm nor judgment here, just the facts.
People, learn to trademark if you have something to protect.
mikehalloran - Posted - 05/28/2016: 07:37:37
quote:
Originally posted by Helix
. . .
People, learn to trademark if you have something to protect.
Which may be what's really going on. Don't call your radiused bottom bridge a Smile Bridge.
As to the cost, it's a non-issue. If Deering can charge and get $45, why not? If that's too high, the market—or lack thereof—will let them know. None of our business, really.
As for me, I've been doing a variation on this for decades. I buy bridges that are too tall for my banjos, install and let them set a few months till they sag. Then I file the top so it is straight and slot for the spacing I like (a bit wider than any pre-slotted bridge on the market).
Ken LeVan - Posted - 05/28/2016: 15:04:32
I have to agree with Bill Rickard. It's all about lawyers and being able to afford the expense of going to court about something vs those who can't.
I have 7 patents on stuff I designed from when I worked at Corning. Of course, those products sold millions of dollars worth, and the tooling cost many hundreds of thousands, a little different than banjo bridges, so the company wanted to protect their investment and themselves from getting "knocked off".
The point of the patents was to be able to say "patent pending" on the package when the product was launched, and have a little free time in the marketplace before copies appeared.
We got knocked off all the time and the sport was to see how close the copy could be before it violated the patent. At this time, I'm sure virtually everything I designed at Corning is in the public domain.
I also worked for Disney, and they are the Ayatollahs of protecting their intellectual property. No expense is too much either to protect via copyrights, patents, etc or prosecute people who "cross the line". You have to basically sign away all your rigthts to anything you see hear or create when doing something for them. To Bill Rickard's point, Disney has a huge legal staff.
Having said all this, at the present time, the pendulum has been swinging towards the intellectual property rights of the "little guy" vs the big company more and more, and a lot of courts would side with Peggy Lee over Disney today.
If you are paying a legal department, they need to be kept busy. To Quote Bob Dylan "But they got a lot of forks and knives and they gotta cut something.
Dan Drabek - Posted - 05/28/2016: 16:36:25
quote:
Originally posted by Ken LeVan
I also worked for Disney, and they are the Ayatollahs of protecting their intellectual property. No expense is too much either to protect via copyrights, patents, etc or prosecute people who "cross the line". You have to basically sign away all your rigthts to anything you see hear or create when doing something for them. To Bill Rickard's point, Disney has a huge legal staff.
I was a free-lance designer/art director for a large advertising agency and worked with them for nearly 30 years. Then, one day out of the blue, I got a non-disclosure form from them to sign, that essentially indicated that if any work I did for them happened to leak out, they had the right to sue me, and collect for non-disclosed damages, as well as all applicable legal fees. That was the day I decided it was time to retire and build a few banjos.
DD
banjoy - Posted - 05/29/2016: 04:01:46
Actually, I've considered patenting a Can of Worms. My version would have the easy-open lid.
But I might just save time, and buy someone else' patent and become a patent troll... yeah, that's the ticket 
(warning, some strong language mixed in with heaping amounts of reality ... not necessarily on topic, but not too far off either :)
youtu.be/3bxcc3SM_KA
darlo - Posted - 05/29/2016: 07:36:37
ladies & gents ,i would like to thank you all for furthering my education,me being me , saw the smile bridge gotta have one of them not seen them before wonder what its like, but believe me not now ,because lo and behold its already out there,do i feel foolish in a word yes simply for not checking with wiser and more knowledgeable people than i about matters banjo,so sincerely my pocket says thank you, and when i do (and i will lol)decide to get a bridge along this design i now know whom via this thread to contact,please keep up the good work
Old Hickory - Posted - 05/29/2016: 13:44:30
quote:
Originally posted by Dan Drabek
I was a free-lance designer/art director for a large advertising agency and worked with them for nearly 30 years. Then, one day out of the blue, I got a non-disclosure form from them to sign, that essentially indicated that if any work I did for them happened to leak out, they had the right to sue me, and collect for non-disclosed damages, as well as all applicable legal fees. That was the day I decided it was time to retire and build a few banjos.
I'm a freelance copywriter, former ad agency guy, nearing reitrement. Most onerous contract a client ever presented me had a section in which I guaranteed that my work is original and doesn't violate anyone else's copyright and that I pay their legal costs to defend any claims arising from my work. I added to that a section saying they guaranteed that none of the material or instructions they gave me violated anyone else's copyright and they pay all my legal costs for defending claims arising from their errors. We struck both versions from the actual contract.
Joe Larson - Posted - 05/30/2016: 16:43:33
My gut feeling is
1.) there probably isn't a whole lot of money to be made in selling banjo bridges and even less money to made, after paying a lawyer, to justify a lawsuit.
2.) The banjo community is a relatively small, fairly close-knit group and the negative PR that would result from a company like Deering suing a small independent maker of bridges would be devastating to the company. So I don't really see Greg and Janet Deering taking anyone to court.
But again that's just a gut feeling.
j
Edited by - Joe Larson on 05/30/2016 16:44:45
1474383838333 - Posted - 05/30/2016: 17:09:28
Il told Arthur Hatfield he should have patented his bridge, ya never know
Jose2 - Posted - 05/30/2016: 18:23:32
I have had bridges get to where the outside feet were very easy to wiggle back and forth,i didn't like it and had to put a piece of veneer under it.
steve davis - Posted - 05/31/2016: 05:37:39
I think I'll do that trademark thing with the Sec. of State.
lazyarcher - Posted - 05/31/2016: 06:15:44
When I was making the Beaver Bridge, I would radius the feet if asked....and I was charging $10 for the Basic Bare Bones Beaver....radius's were free.
As far as being sued due to a patent infraction...they would reap 10's of dollars from suing me.....but they'd have to catch me first.
Edited by - lazyarcher on 05/31/2016 06:17:41
Banjophobic - Posted - 05/31/2016: 08:03:29
ive yet to hear what is different about this bridge, but I'm guessing it's a "proprietary" secret that must be guarded by the patent. The banjo market place is a hard one to deal with since its base is very knowledgeable and transparent. We communicate freely and share ideas.
liuto - Posted - 05/31/2016: 14:35:35
I've been doing this on factory bridges as well as ones I've made for years. I was a bit taken aback by Deering's chutzpah in patenting something that is common knowledge among repairman and players alike. Charging $45.00 for it blew me away!
Stringbean45 - Posted - 05/31/2016: 15:46:59
Hi All,
I received the Deering Newsletter last week that had the "New" Smile Banjo Bridge in it, and 3 things hit me about it.
1. Patent Pending
2. $45
3. Coming out with a "new" bridge design.
I must say, it made me smile.
As most of you probably know, I have been making the Spillway Dam Banjo Bridge for several years now, and don't radius the bottom of my bridges. The design that Roll Player, and xnavyguy came up with that they so graciously allowed me to make the Spillway Dam Bridge design that has a leg going down to the head for each string, therefore preventing any "sagging".
I have had customers ask me about putting a radius on the bottom of my bridges, but so far I haven't seen any need for it, but will experiment with the idea to see if it improves the performance of the bridge.
If it does improve the performance of the Spillway Dam Bridge as much as it apparently did the "Smile" bridge, it may make a "Smile" Spillway bridge dangerous to put on a banjo. The vibratings from the bridge might shake your banjo apart.
Just my opinion, and hope no one sue's me for stating my opinions.
David Cunningham - Posted - 05/31/2016: 16:51:07
L. Ron Hubbard just called from the grave to say we need to stop attacking Deering for outright theft of other makers' designs and trying to patent it as their own. Don't you see, the order for Deering to do this came directly from Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.
What a bunch of whackjobs.
Joel Hooks - Posted - 05/31/2016: 17:14:37
quote:
Originally posted by David Cunningham
L. Ron Hubbard just called from the grave to say we need to stop attacking Deering for outright theft of other makers' designs and trying to patent it as their own. Don't you see, the order for Deering to do this came directly from Xenu, the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy.
What a bunch of whackjobs.
If you get this discussion shutdown because of a cheap shot then you are actually doing them a favor. Why not play nice and see of the Deerings will post when makes "their design" substantially different from the other?
David Cunningham - Posted - 05/31/2016: 17:31:05
They would already have posted it if there was anything to post. I doubt any of it matters much anyway.
Edited by - David Cunningham on 05/31/2016 17:37:39
Bart Veerman - Posted - 05/31/2016: 18:14:32
Chill David, play nice...
David Cunningham - Posted - 05/31/2016: 18:20:09
quote:
Originally posted by Bart Veerman
Chill David, play nice...
OK Will do.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
