John, most do but some wont tell you a thing and want to keep you down. I found out real quick after getting into this business who would give advice and help you and who wouldnt, and there are some that would die first
Proprietary secrets and patents are mutually exclusive. If you patent something you have to divulge the information necessary for someone else to be able to duplicate your patent and achieve your results. In other words, a patent has to teach how to do something novel and useful. Your reward for making this knowledge known to humankind is the exclusive use of the design or method for about 20 years. When Deering's patent application publishes, the claims section will describe the exact design elements and the specifications section will describe how to achieve the design. The specifications will also point out how their design is distinct from what it "known in the art", i.e., from all you other bridge-builders out there. There also may or may not be actual practical examples (i.e., step by step fabrication instructions) of achieving the design.
I have about 60 patents, mainly in the chemical industry. The burden of proof of "novelty" in one's design or method or use can often be very slight, although the patent office swings back and forth on this; they are rather conservative right now.
As far as the value of a patent, its true commercial value consists of precluding competition. With the other designs already out there, Deering's claims will have to be pretty narrow or they will challengeable. However the value of bragging rights for ad copy of "patent pending" should not be underestimated. Remember Gibson's classic PAF pickups on the Les Paul and other guitars? PAF = patent applied for.
The way I see it, Deering just did everyone a favor. If this bridge design actually works, every banjo maker will eventually use it. The 'big middle foot' bridge market would shrink because every new banjo would ship with one. With Deering holding the patent, no other banjo maker (e.g. Stelling, Gibson, ...) will be able to use it. As someone else pointed out, Deering will not bother bridge makers because there is no money in it. So what they've really done is ensure the big foot bridge market will live on while ensuring they can use this design on all their banjos going forward. It's a win win for everyone except the other banjo makers who simply got out played.
There is a reason Deering is the most successful banjo company on the planet.
Nice video. Interesting that a comparison was not demonstrated. To me, bridge construction of today does not seem to require a curve. Most heads that I have changed usually fail around the outside edges with a permanent dimple in the material.
I do have an example from a ODE banjo I assisted with for a fellow BHO player. The bridge from it is curved. But, the latest versions and designs seem to not have that problem. All bridges age and decay. Wood has that problem. But torrified, plastisized, and fiber orientation are methods designed to reduce sagging and lengthen aging. Let us know how you like your Smile?
I've been using Randy Stockwell's Moon bridges since way before Al Gore invented the Internet. The main reason for going to them was to compensate for the radiused fret board on the Monstertone neck. At the time, these were the only bridges I knew of with a radiused top. The fact they also had radiused feet escaped me, as did the reasoning behind all of that. Add to that, I could get them unslotted, at the height I wanted, & cut the slot spacing to my specs. Not only was email nonexistent then, but a phone call from Ca to Randy in Ohio was long distance!
Interesting how long it takes to build good will with a small niche community like banjo pickers, yet in one email blast, people start losing respect for the company, and the owners.
I don't understand why a lot of people here view the Deering company as a giant "evil" company. They have done so much for the world of the banjo and continue to experiment with new ideas or take old ideas and try to make them better. From the times I've talked to the Deerings (Greg, Janet and Jamie) they've been nothing but perfectly kind and always willing to hear what I have had to say and help in any way that they can. From what I understand, they did put time and effort into this bridge and so I can understand why they would want to patent it. They gave me one to try somewhat recently and it's a great bridge. Is it because of the smile concept? It's possible. all I know is that it made the banjo more even in tone and responsive. Are they worth $45? To those who decide to buy them, yes. I just don't understand why there is so much disrespect for the Deering company here when they've done so much to help make the banjo part of mainstream culture again.
Or take other people's old ideas and PATENT them... There's nothing patent-worthy in that bridge BESIDES the arched base from what I see. As mentioned previously, it looks about like a 90% copy of Purcell's. If they weren't a famous company, they would be called thieves by any other measure on this item.
I just don't understand why there is so much disrespect for the Deering company here when they've done so much to help make the banjo part of mainstream culture again.
Most banjo players I know would prefer NOT to be part of "mainstream culture".
well i have decided not to purchase a smile bridge,for a very simple reason , is it the cost no not really ,it would be the loss of my education re matters banjo,and sound, i love tinkering swapping and changing bridges and listening and trying to discern what the differences are ,where as would i have the ultimate and scientifically proven,and good for all banjos bridge,life would probably get a tad boring,so on that note i have purchased a bridge from mr veerman for my tranjo to go with a skin head i purchased elsewhere,i also intend buying bridges from other esteemed bridge makers on this thread,isn't education a wonderful thing,well i have a couple of deering banjos that may require new bridges good possibility me thinks lol
I don't understand why a lot of people here view the Deering company as a giant "evil" company. They have done so much for the world of the banjo and continue to experiment with new ideas or take old ideas and try to make them better. From the times I've talked to the Deerings (Greg, Janet and Jamie) they've been nothing but perfectly kind and always willing to hear what I have had to say and help in any way that they can. From what I understand, they did put time and effort into this bridge and so I can understand why they would want to patent it. They gave me one to try somewhat recently and it's a great bridge. Is it because of the smile concept? It's possible. all I know is that it made the banjo more even in tone and responsive. Are they worth $45? To those who decide to buy them, yes. I just don't understand why there is so much disrespect for the Deering company here when they've done so much to help make the banjo part of mainstream culture again.
I agree, Gabe. Those of you getting your feathers ruffled because you see Deering as some giant conglomerate out to crush the little guy need to take a breath and look at my last blog entry. Here's the short version: Last year I noticed the neck on my Maple Blossom was bowed and tried to adjust the truss rod. It turned out to be broken. I sent it back to Deering and they offered to sell me a new neck, which would have cost me nearly twice as much as my banjo retailed for new. Since i was not the original owner I didn't deserve any warranty consideration but Caroline Bridges told me that truss rods were not supposed to break and so they fitted a new neck for free saving me over $2,000.
Patents are necessary things, don't go into production without one.
In the world that we live in today, "Scientific Research" is just another way of saying "Google Search".
I'm sure there are some banjo players who do not keep up with the bridge industry like others do, so they may not be aware of designs and other aspects of the art of bridge making... I get that.....however....unless you've been living under a rock for the past decade, how could one not be aware of the flood of information that gushes out of the internet as well as by "word of mouth" if one is a banjo enthusiast?
I certainly didn't have a light bulb moment when I decided to radius the feet of my bridges. I actually had a customer...I wish I could remember his name...that wanted me to put a 36" radius on the feet of his bridge. I did that and then afterwards began experimenting with different radius and decided that my customer's 36" radius worked out very well as far as preventing the sagging issue. I also thought the tone was better too...but that's just my opinion. I also knew Bart put a radius on the feet of his bridges as well. I also knew Ken did as well, though he doesn't sell them commercially. If I'm not mistaken, Zimmerman puts a very slight radius on the tops of his bridges. It may have been only on the birch bridges...I'm not sure...maybe Scott can chime in here.
The point being that this radius on the feet is nothing new. I'm not going to do any name calling towards Deering. I personally think they make some of the best playing necks out there. I have, however lost respect for them over this issue with the "Smile" bridge. I don't even care that it looks almost identical to mine. I do have an issue with them not making mention to the fact that this design is already being used by other bridge makers. They're making it sound like they just invented toilet paper!
I'll just say this and then I'm done. Years down the road, recorded history will always bring out the truth no matter what. People can judge for themselves. Corporate America loves to have their hand on the power switch. Of course, it's just a banjo bridge.....there are far worse things going on in this world to spend our time worrying about.
I disagree that folks here are out to get Deering, or that there is a general perception of Deering being a large company. I simply disagree that that is represented in this thread, but I do see where folks pile on unrelated things. Human nature, I suppose?
Deering has gained an outstanding reputation for Customer Service as far as I am aware. There are many stories of Deering taking care of customer issues without delay, and sometimes, not even to the original owner. I don't think there's any real question about Deering's commitment to customer satisfaction. That has never been as issue and is not now an issue IMHO.
When I received Deering's bulk email about this bridge a week or two ago I immediately unsubscribed from their mailings, because I thought the thing was silly to even claim this as their own. I did that even before this thread started, I didn't know that others would think the same thing, but apparently, yes, they do.
I still hold Deering in high regard for their banjo products after I gained a newfound appreciation for their banjos a few years back when I helped a student find a used Deering, a 2012 model Maple Blossom, and that made me fall in love with Deerings. Until then, I had only seen and tried early Deerings. They do make an outstanding banjo.
But on this specific topic, the Smile Bridge, I have serious questions about their claims, from the very first moment I read their promotional email.
This thread is about their Smile Bridge, nothing more, nothing less, even with occasional thread drift. This thread did answer for me, why Jens Kruger's name is showing up as co-inventor of this bridge (he's listed on Deering's patent application as co-creator or co-inventor). I mean, this isn't in the same league as the tone ring or wood rim that Jens helped develop, which I believe were real inventions, real innovations, and added something new to banjo world. On the Smile Bridge, I'm just wondering if Jens, aong with Deering, was simply unaware that this design was already out there in the wild...?
David Cunningham also shapes the bottom of the bridge the same way, i.e middle leg taller bottom radius. They are great bridges and very reasonably priced.
Hogwash. Your new neck has nothing to do with them patenting something they didn't invent. The two things have nothing to do with each other.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with them patenting something they didn't invent, that wasn't the point of my post. Re-read it. On the point of patenting something they didn't invent, they also didn't invent the Mastertone style 5-string banjo but I guarantee you they have a string of patents on their design , just as other banjo makers do. If you come up with a design and don't patent it who should get the blame if someone else does?
I read it the first time. This thread is about patenting a known bridge design - not the quality of their customer service.
Again, my post was about the quality of the company not being a predatory conglomerate.
If one of us bridge makers tried to patent this known design before Deering, it would have been considered to have been in the worst form possible and really an insult to the others already doing it. The cries of heresy would have been much louder I assure you.
They may not be a predatory conglomerate but they aren't very classy on this latest move at all.
David Cunningham also shapes the bottom of the bridge the same way, i.e middle leg taller bottom radius. They are great bridges and very reasonably priced.
I think if they were just making and marketing the Smile bridge without the pursuit of the patent, there wouldn't be any problems. Yes, there would be some eye rolls at their marketing, but by pursuing a patent they have pretty much spit in the face of all the small builders who have been using that design for years. Although Deering is not a big evil corporate conglomerate, and in fact has been a hub of the banjo community, their action with this bridge is exactly what would be expected of a big evil corporate conglomerate, and that is what is most disappointing.They have made a power grab instead of acknowledging and honoring the work of all the small builders in their community.
The US Patent and TradeMark office is for those two things -- patents, and trademarks. Patents for inventions, registered trademarks ® for federal trademarks.
State trademarks are designated with ™ whereas federal trademarks are denoted with ®. There is a big difference between federal and state registration.
In any event, I simply view these as two different things that are often combined together.
Every corporation on the planet is entitled to snafus or unintended consequences every now and then...
I have no advise to offer Deering, except maybe to re-examine their approach to how this has been handled and rolled out. I too believe Deering is a solid plillar of banjo world, and I would like to continue to believe that reputation remains an honest earned one.
Alright, I'll admit I thought Deering was reaching a bit to patent a banjo bridge that's like the kind many of us have always made,and I had a knee-jerk reaction. Ditto patenting a rolled brass tone ring you have always been able to buy from Stewart MacDonald, and many of ushave made those as well.
On the other hand, Deering has generally taken the high road and deserves a lot of credit; They bought the Vega name instead of just ripping off the stuff Vega did, so who can blame them if they try to protect it?
They are out there trying to be innovative and as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) they don't make a fake Gibson Mastertone - they use their own designs, their own flange styles, their own peghead designs.
I spent a lifetime as a professional product designer getting paid to design stuff for companies where plagarism was out of the question even if old patents had expired. I used to wake up at night worrying that something I had just done would turn out to have been done before and I didn't know about it.
Meanwhile, there are actual banjo companies out there who manufacture nothing that's their own design, but instead just endlessly copy the designs Gibson created in the 1920s,the justification being that Gibson's patents ran out. They will shave a few thousandths off a flathead tone and tout it as something new and exciting. Some of these banjos are indistinguishable from Gibson products, yet are advertised as being proprietary designs because of some miniscule "improvement".
One person I am aware of actually patented the Gibson flathead pot construction by making minor modifications to the inside of the rim.
Bottom line, I think it's disingenuous to beat up on Deering, or Stelling, or any maker who is out there producing their own designs and innovating. If Deering wants to market a certain type of bridge and having a logo and design patent helps them, c'est la vie.
Alright, I'll admit I thought Deering was reaching a bit to patent a banjo bridge that's like the kind many of us have always made,and I had a knee-jerk reaction. Ditto patenting a rolled brass tone ring you have always been able to buy from Stewart MacDonald, and many of ushave made those as well.
On the other hand, Deering has generally taken the high road and deserves a lot of credit; They bought the Vega name instead of just ripping off the stuff Vega did, so who can blame them if they try to protect it?
They are out there trying to be innovative and as far as I know (correct me if I am wrong) they don't make a fake Gibson Mastertone - they use their own designs, their own flange styles, their own peghead designs.
I spent a lifetime as a professional product designer getting paid to design stuff for companies where plagarism was out of the question even if old patents had expired. I used to wake up at night worrying that something I had just done would turn out to have been done before and I didn't know about it.
Meanwhile, there are actual banjo companies out there who manufacture nothing that's their own design, but instead just endlessly copy the designs Gibson created in the 1920s,the justification being that Gibson's patents ran out. They will shave a few thousandths off a flathead tone and tout it as something new and exciting. Some of these banjos are indistinguishable from Gibson products, yet are advertised as being proprietary designs because of some miniscule "improvement".
One person I am aware of actually patented the Gibson flathead pot construction by making minor modifications to the inside of the rim.
Bottom line, I think it's disingenuous to beat up on Deering, or Stelling, or any maker who is out there producing their own designs and innovating. If Deering wants to market a certain type of bridge and having a logo and design patent helps them, c'est la vie.
AFA "Vega(tm)", the paper work trail shows that they filed an application to register the name independent of the original trademark registration.
"Vega" reg. # 836,737 follows the original Vega Instrument Company transferring to Martin then Galaxy Trading.
Deering filed for a new trademark. Initially rejected as it would cause confusion with Vega banjos being sold by another firm-- a phone call from the Deering's lawyer to the trademark office cleared that up and deemed the original "dead" and available for a new registration. Read the actual documents for yourself Ken. I am attaching them (again) for convenience. The pages to read are 21- 23 but the entire document trail is interesting.
This is all a matter of public record and available to anyone with a computer and internet connection. I doubt that when this was done anyone would have thought that this sort of thing would be available like it is today.
I will not presume to know the story about the "Vega" name-- I can only believe that they "bought" it and the intellectual property with it (banjo designs, copyrights, you know-- things that come with a company when you "buy" it) like they have claimed in their advertising and marketing. I do find it a little curious that with the transaction of "buying Vega" they did not get the original trademark reg. as part of the deal (like Martin and Galaxy did).
Honestly, we were completely unaware of any others making bridges along the lines of what we put in a patent application on. The promotion of this idea by other builders was not adequate as far as reaching out and making the idea broadly known in the wider banjo world. This patent application was not a "power grab". We honestly did not know anyone had anything like it on the market. We will contact the various bridge makers privately and work out something with them so there is not any conflict after things come to fruition. We are more concerned with other large companies copying us and that is the purpose of the patent. It also helps draw attention to real advancements in the banjo and this is a great one. Sorry if we offended anyone.
Honestly, we were completely unaware of any others making bridges along the lines of what we put in a patent application on. The promotion of this idea by other builders was not adequate as far as reaching out and making the idea broadly known in the wider banjo world. This patent application was not a "power grab". We honestly did not know anyone had anything like it on the market. We will contact the various bridge makers privately and work out something with them so there is not any conflict after things come to fruition. We are more concerned with other large companies copying us and that is the purpose of the patent. It also helps draw attention to real advancements in the banjo and this is a great one. Sorry if we offended anyone.
So just for fun I "googled" the words "Banjo bridge." The top result was for Elderly who is selling curved bottom bridges.
The 2nd result was for Banjobridge.com, a site for a maker and seller of banjo bridges that include this feature. Almost immediately after clicking on this link I read a clear description of this exact feature in the "Myths" article.
Skipping past a few results for Stu Mac, Deering and Amazon finds a site for Purcell banjo bridges. Many of these bridges feature this curved bottom including the phrase "no sag" to describe it. All clear and easy to understand.
Since I do not own or play banjos with steel strings (nylon strung banjos use a different pattern bridge), and I knew all about this curved/radius bottom feature on a product that I don't even use, then I would say that the bridge makers are doing a very good job promoting this idea.
"Bottom line, I think it's disingenuous to beat up on Deering, or Stelling, or any maker who is out there producing their own designs and innovating."
I don't see anyone beating up on Deering for that reason. The flap is about Deering taking something in common use and calling it their own invention. Further, making the excuse that they didn't know others were already making these bridges. Right....
All the talk on this forum isn't going to amount to much. If someone doesn't challenge Deering's application, they'll get their patent.
I'd think one of the bridge makers/sellers who stand to be infringing the future patent would be interested in challenging Deering's application by demonstrating their product as prior art. I believe that challenges -- or submissions of prior art -- before a patent is issued are relatively easy and inexpensive, maybe even free. Once the patent is issued. challenges cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Good advice. Has the application been published? Has a formal application been submitted? The only banjo bridge associated patent I have seen from Deering is not for this design.
As a banjo enthusiast I find this all very interesting. As stated before, I don't use steel strings so this is not something that effects me and the bridges I make directly. That said, this is an open discussion and anyone can participate provided they follow the "rules."
There is no denying that Deering makes quality products that they stand behind. I also feel that the Goodtime line are good banjos.
As far as knowledge and research, my google search got results so fast that it is difficult for me to believe that someone in the industry did not do the same-- not impossible, just improbable.
From the US Patent office website.
How can I challenge a patent or patent application?
If you have reason to believe that the patent is not valid or otherwise enforceable, there are several ways to challenge it:
An attorney can help advise you about the various options available to challenge patents and patent applications. Please see the section “Do I need an attorney?” for further information.
You can challenge it at the USPTO by filing a request for reexamination of the patent, or by filing an interpartes 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.
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.
I wonder if this is a "due diligence" matter for Deering and its IP/patent attorney. Deering's apparent complete lack of awareness of specific prior art invites the question.
Probably the only reason that Deering is bothering with a patent is to make sure that no one is suing them. Storm in a teacup as far as I can see, but it sure does make for some good forum fodder!
Probably the only reason that Deering is bothering with a patent is to make sure that no one is suing them. Storm in a teacup as far as I can see, but it sure does make for some good forum fodder!
That's not what Janet stated in her post above. She wrote:
"We are more concerned with other large companies copying us and that is the purpose of the patent. It also helps draw attention to real advancements in the banjo and this is a great one."
Seems highly unlikely (regarding them being sued). Has Deering ever been sued for anything, ever? I don't know, perhaps they have.
I would hate to think that this is all about a defensive position for a patent. It would be better if this were a simple oversight, naivete, or not doing due dilligence .... or to protect a marketing plan for the related products. These are all understandable, to me anyway. They are more plausible reasons, I hope, anyway.
They make a great banjo. Not sure about all this other stuff.
Probably the only reason that Deering is bothering with a patent is to make sure that no one is suing them. Storm in a teacup as far as I can see, but it sure does make for some good forum fodder!
That's not what Janet stated in her post above. She wrote:
"We are more concerned with other large companies copying us and that is the purpose of the patent. It also helps draw attention to real advancements in the banjo and this is a great one."
Right. Other companies copy them, patent the idea, then turn around and sue. I'm just a poor banjo player but I have heard that it can be a mean world out there in manufacturing, and Deering is surely a bigger target than you or I or any boutique bridge maker.
No company in their right mind is going to go into production of anything without a patent. And like I said before, if it was your idea, you should have applied for the patent. If you were copying the idea yourself, you have no reason to b**** that someone else did.
I was at Banjo Camp North a few weeks ago and purchased a smile bridge from Janet Deering. That bridge made a terrific improvement in the tone. I am super pleased with the sound of my old BB rim Gibson.
I don't fault any previous bridge makers for perhaps not even considering that curving the bottom of the bridge was patentable. Deering makes the same point as others who make these bridges: Given enough time, a bridge is going to sag and develop that curved bottom. Why not curve it at the outset and see what that does to the sound.
I can easily see where someone might think that since the bridge is going to develop a curve on its own it might not be patentable to just build the sag into it.
Now, any third party is invited to cite prior art reference to an Examiner in their competitor’s cases. This is a major change in patent strategy (both for those filing their own patents, and for those trying to stop others from getting their patents). The Patent Office’s objective is to have the best art in front of the Examiner during prosecution, rather than having civil court actions filed after issuance arguing that: “if only the Examiner saw this reference, (s)he would never have allowed this patent”.
These new third party submissions can be made by any interested party, and they can be made for any pending patent application, regardless of when the patent application was filed. Importantly as well, these submissions can be made anonymously. . . .
The actual filing is made through a new web interface, and the Patent Office has forms printed online as to how it wants to receive these new submissions. . . .
The timing for these submissions is very important. They must be filed by the earlier of: (a) the Notice of Allowance; or (b) the later of: (i) six months after publication, or (ii) date of the first rejection. Basically, what this means is that the Patent Office wants to see the submission before the examiner has written the First Office Action or sent out a Notice of Allowance. . . .
It’s free for a 3rd party to submit the first three prior art references they find. After that, it costs $180 to submit up to 10 documents.
Which makes me wonder, Just curious: Has a radiused bridge top ever been patented? It's also a very common design, based on many different approaches (how it's done, the radius itself, etc.). Are there any patents out there for this? If not, why not? Does Deering (or anyone) have a patent on radiused (top) bridges?
My guess is, no. Either because no one claimed it, or because it's just too common a thing. But I could be way off on that I haven't done my homework. If someone had patented a radiused top bridge, I guess my next question would be: why?
I guess I'm still trying to understand appropriate boundaries in the context of marketing and protecting company interests vs something being around already and lots of folks have done it before so it's really not all that new. Patents ain't cheap to file, so what broke down, what am I missing? What did Deering miss? Something in all this seems just silly to me and I can't quite pinpoint what it is. Not that it's really that important. Maybe it's just me, the observer but something somewhere got missed. Evidently.
If I had been building bridges I have a good sense of how what I would do or say about this. But I don't, I'm just a consumer of them. Laurence does have a point. It does make for armchair spectating, a bone to chew on for a while.
My sense is Deering was caught off guard by all this (ya think?) and I hope that this all works itself out to the benefit of all concerned. I think Janet's post seems to indicate a desire to reach out privately to peers and I hope that it just all works out to the benefit of all. That seems reasonable.
Sorry if I've been redundant. It's an interesting topic for me for some reason, probably the technical aspect of it. Anyway, enough blah blah blah from me on this one.
Is there really enough money in banjo bridges to make so much effort about trying to secure the rights to a design? Especially at the quoted price of the Deering bridge. I don't have a dog in this fight as I don't own any deering products and, except for the John Hartford signature (because of John Hartford himself rather than the makers) I don't have any lust for Deering banjo's. As for bridges, being a true Scotsman I am too mean with my money to part with the kind of money for one of these fancy bridges. Currently I am perfectly happy with staggered design bridges that I bought for the equivalent of about $6 each. There will always be a lust for the technical 'edge' but I am a long long way from needing any edge yet and I suspect that many, apart from those who have plenty of spare loot are in the same boat.
Is there really enough money in banjo bridges to make so much effort about trying to secure the rights to a design? Especially at the quoted price of the Deering bridge. . . .
I wonder if the "Smile [TM]" bridge is going to become the standard bridge for some or all Deering banjos.
If it does I reckon it will be the first thing to go on a new banjo as people love tinkering and the 'original equipment' bridge always seems to be about the first thing to go. Strikes me that we are all seeking for that special something that sets our personal instrument apart from the rest and a 'standardised' bridge is one of the easiest targets for replacement. Then of course the traditionalists won't touch it as 'Earl never needed one' and the custom 'one off hand made' banjo people won't buy into something mass produced.
It strikes me that Deering have their own 'niche' market just like any instrument manufacturer and there is little need to worry about the 'giant' stomping on the little guy. OK they patent the 'smile' bridge well it only drives people on to develop something else better but all the time keep sight of the fact that the Banjo is a traditional instrument which means that there are a lot of people who play banjo who don't want or need any innovations.
The main reason for going to them was to compensate for the radiused fret board on the Monstertone neck. At the time, these were the only bridges I knew of with a radiused top. The fact they also had radiused feet escaped me, as did the reasoning behind all of that. Add to that, I could get them unslotted, at the height I wanted, & cut the slot spacing to my specs. Not only was email nonexistent then, but a phone call from Ca to Randy in Ohio was long distance!
but something somewhere got missed. Evidently.
