I just read something very interesting. I thought that a new thread in the Luthiers' forum might be in order.

Paul Everard Booker of the UK was, on October 18, 2005, granted US Patent # 6,956,158. This patent covers methods of determining the fret positions on a f*nned-fret fretboard. As well as a few related areas.

It references the Novak patent, and it is demonstrated within this patent that the Novak patent results in an improper fret positions, except in the case where the strings are parallel. (This is a point that myself and many others, including some luthiers here, have previously discovered independently.)

It describes two basic methods, with variations, to lay out f*nned frets. Each uses two reference scales to lay out the frets. The first of these methods results in fret positions with an acknowledged maximum of a one-cent intonation error; the second, while not stated as such, results in perfect positioning.

The first method is somewhat strange, and is impressive if you're one to be impressed by geometry. The guy definitely has some intuition, and some analytical sense.

The second method is, in my interpretation, an extension of the parenthetical mention in the Novak patent of a method of laying out two scales for the outer strings, and drawing lines between them. This part of the Novak patent however is not part of the "what is claimed" part of that patent.



My interpretation of all this (IMO!) is that this patent reinforces the following points:
- the Novak patent only covered the "converging to a point" method of creating a fan;
- the Novak "converging to a point" fan produces bad intonation, and should not be used (except if the strings are parallel);
- both of these patents cover specific methods to lay out the frets, cover a fingerboard produced by using the method, and the instrument containing the fingerboard. But
- the basic idea of a multiscale instrument, with nonparallel frets, is not specifically patented by anyone, which makes sense since the concept has been in use for centuries.


The Booker patent also covers jigs, and a nut-end string anchor.

The Booker patent is here:
http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,956,158.PN.&OS=PN/6,956,158&RS=PN/6,956,158
I found Paul Booker's website. He seems to have produced 1 1/2 basses so far, and gives lessons.
http://www.btinternet.com/~paul.everard/equa/Splaybass.htm
He also has some trussrod ideas, and has made a spreadsheet to calculate neck deflections based on profile and reinforcements.



So what do you guys think?

nothing to add...just wanted to say that this is quite interesting.

for those wanting to have 'vaneaxial' frets, or build instruments utilizing them, this is potentially a huge step forward. it'll be interesting to see if anyone currently paying mob money to Novak challenges the previously paid extortion monies and legally demands a refund.

all the best,

R

So call me thick, but i cant get my head around this. can anyone tell me in plain terms (with diagrams if possible) what the solution is? i was just about to build my first Fanned neck too:crying:

So call me thick, but i cant get my head around this. can anyone tell me in plain terms (with diagrams if possible) what the solution is? i was just about to build my first Fanned neck too:crying:
The Novak patent claims a fretboard with the frets converging to a point. You can utilize the method of the Novak patent by:
- marking points down the centerline of the fretboard, using a properly designed fret scale,
- make your fret lines by drawing lines that project from these points to a common point.

The problem is that
- if your strings are not parallel, as is the case with most instruments, then
- only a string along the neck centerline will be intonated properly. The frets for the other strings will be in the wrong place, at the wrong angle.

One solution, that produces an instrument with properly angled frets, is to use two properly designed fret scales aligned along the inner and outer strings, and connect the pairs of points to make the fretlines. This is mentioned in the Novak patent as an alternate way of producing frets converging to a point, but it is not one of the claims. And if the strings are not parallel it does not produce frets converging to a point, rather, it produces a proper fretboard.

Another solution is to use one of the methods in the Booker patent.

I think I'm missing something, now two people have a patent on process that been around for hundreds of years? I thought the whole argument against Novak was that he was allowed to patent old news.

But the Novak patent is in the US right? This could lead to trouble.

If so many people here already knew that, someone should've patented it....

So am I correct in thinking that the "dual-scale then connect the dots" method is not (strictly) covered by ANY patents??


Intonation off by one cent? Meh...I am going to patent the method of intonation correction via finger pressure, including any and all string-bending methods. Prepare to open your wallets every time you strap it on!

Prepare to open your wallets every time you strap it on!

There's a phrase worth repeating.

I think I'm missing something, now two people have a patent on process that been around for hundreds of years? I thought the whole argument against Novak was that he was allowed to patent old news.
IMO this new patent demonstrates that the Novak patent covers the method of producing the fan by having the fret lines converge to a point.

On a fretboard where the nut spacing and the bridge spacing are not equal, that is to say where the strings are not parallel, if it is set up properly, the fret lines do not converge to a point. Therefore, IMO, Novak has no patent protection.

Booker describes two ways to lay out a multiscale fretboard properly, even with non-parallel strings. But IMO his patent does not cover a properly-done multiscaled fretboard; only one produced by his patent-protected method.

But the Novak patent is in the US right? The Booker patent is also a US patent. He has also filed for one in Great Britain.This could lead to trouble.

If so many people here already knew that, someone should've patented it....This is my interpretation: the patents only cover methods of producing a multiscale board, and the boards thus produced-- but the idea of a multiscale fretboard is not patented by anyone, and is not patentable.

So am I correct in thinking that the "dual-scale then connect the dots" method is not (strictly) covered by ANY patents??
It is mentioned, but not claimed, in Novak's patent. It is mentioned, as a trivial case in the Booker patent, but not specifically claimed. (Booker uses two scales, neither of which is the scale of, or in the position of, an actual string, and then connects the dots. He mentions that if x = 1 in his equations, these two "figuring" scales will coincide with the outer two strings.)

I think that the reason that no one has specified "dual-scale then connect the dots" as a patent claim is that it is not claimable. Surely IMO if Booker could have, he would have.

Is being one cent out on intonation a big problem? i mean i was about to start work on a fanned six string using the FRETFIND 2D program ... www.fretfind.ekips.org/2d/index.php
, are you saying this is a bad idea? Do i just work out two sets of fret layouts and find the average distance?

Is being one cent out on intonation a big problem? i mean i was about to start work on a fanned six string using the FRETFIND 2D program ... www.fretfind.ekips.org/2d/index.php
, are you saying this is a bad idea? Do i just work out two sets of fret layouts and find the average distance?
From what I've understood, fretfind uses Booker's method, cuz it asks for 2 different scales, and your string spacing. Hence, it's the connect the dots style system. Which I think is Booker's method.

Can someone confirm this? (either fretfind using the connect the dots method, and/or the connect the dots method being Booker's method)

Regarding the Novax system, the one cent variation can probably be fixed by moving the bridge saddles a bit, so I figure it's not that big of an issue.

Is being one cent out on intonation a big problem? ...Regarding the Novax system, the one cent variation can probably be fixed by moving the bridge saddles a bit, so I figure it's not that big of an issue.
Let me correct a misperception, quickly here:

Booker shows two methods (with variations). One method is perfect (no error), the other results in a maximum one cent error (which I personally could easily live with if there were other benefits).

Novak's method results in HUGE errors (like half a semitone!!) if used on a normal, non-parallel-string instrument.

The plain, two scales coincident with the outer strings method, which is used by Fretfind, and which is mentioned but not claimed in both patents, is perfect (no error).

Now that I think of it, if the two-scales-on-outer-strings-then-connect-the-dots method had been covered by the Novak patent (that is, had been a patent-protected claimed invention rather than just something mentioned in the patent), Novak might have gone after the Fretfind author years ago. I hadn't thought of that before.

I originally though that the Novak method was the 2 outside string scales. I suppose he went for geometry instead of accuracy. This is a fantastic breakthrough. I really only thought the only method was calculating the proper fret positions by the scale length. But, little do I know, eh? This is pretty cool. I would love to see mutli scale instruments in more mainstream manufacturers lineups. Maybe get them in the reach of my wallet.

I originally though that the Novak method was the 2 outside string scales. I suppose he went for geometry instead of accuracy. The possibility exists--this is speculation--that he laid out the two different scales on the outer strings of a parallel-string instrument, discovered that the frets all converged to a point, and then just plain missed the fact that that they don't converge to a point if the strings aren't parallel.

But as far as I can tell his patent claim is for the frets, bridge, and nut converging to a point. (The 1904 Edgren patent #652,353 has the nut and frets converging to a point, but forgot the bridge!)This is a fantastic breakthrough. I really only thought the only method was calculating the proper fret positions by the scale length. But, little do I know, eh? This is pretty cool. I would love to see mutli scale instruments in more mainstream manufacturers lineups. Maybe get them in the reach of my wallet.I think the reason you don't see lots of multiscale instruments is not just their unusual appearance and the lack of knowledge of their benefits, but also, perhaps primarily, because you can't cut all the slots simultaneously on a gangsaw in 20 seconds, as you can with "normal" fretboards.

Does anybody know how big the error is with "normal" straight frets? I realize it depends on where you fret but maybe an average or a max/min.

Not in a mathematical sense but think about this:

The strings get higher from the frets as you go further up the neck. The higher is goes, the sharper the note will be in relation to the scale. Unless you take this into consideration when you mark your scale... it will always be off depending on the action.

The strings get higher from the frets as you go further up the neck.
That's basically the Jeopardy answer to 'Why are guitars compensated?"

The higher the action the further back the you push the saddles and all that.

Does anybody know how big the error is with "normal" straight frets? I realize it depends on where you fret but maybe an average or a max/min.
There may be some confusion developing due to the multiple uses of the word "intonation." Normal frets are perfectly positioned. Yes, there are intonation adjustments to be made, due to the fact that a real string gets stretched out of a straight line as you press it to the board to fret it. But the frets are in the "ideal" positions.

A multiscale instrument also requires intonation adjustments, due to the same reason of string-stretching.

But on a Novak-patent-designed instrument, if it is a common instrument with the bridge spacing wider than the nut spacing, the frets are not properly placed to begin with!

but also, perhaps primarily, because you can't cut all the slots simultaneously on a gangsaw in 20 seconds, as you can with "normal" fretboards.

That would be my guess.

Regarding the normal intonation compensation, there's a new, enormous and far-reaching patent that Gibson has just been granted. Very technical. Material for a separate thread, if anyone's interested.

Regarding the normal intonation compensation, there's a new, enormous and far-reaching patent that Gibson has just been granted. Very technical. Material for a separate thread, if anyone's interested.


Certainly....

Interesting...

Regarding the normal intonation compensation, there's a new, enormous and far-reaching patent that Gibson has just been granted. Very technical. Material for a separate thread, if anyone's interested.
Please start a thread and tell us more!! :)

Interesting...I was wondering if you'd show up!

I wonder if Geoff has anything to say...

I was wondering if you'd show up!

I wonder if Geoff has anything to say...

Hey.

I was wondering if you'd show up!

The obvious question is, "Does he charge a license fee?"

I think the more obvious question is, "how can this be patented?"

I can't stand reading the lingo of a patent.

From Booker's website:
"Actually the patent is for a novel step in the development of splayed fretting; the first examples were seen over 500 years ago, in instruments such as the orpharion."

I'd like to understand how this is a novel step in the development of "splayed" fretting. I would say that there is no development and that this whole concept is prior art and that nobody should be granting patents on it.

I guess the guy saw the problem with the Novax patent and capitalized on correcting it (at least that's how it looks, especially with the part about "non-parallel strings" in the patent).

My confusion on this is as follows. How can this patent be enforced? If I have a bass with two different scale lengths on two different strings, then is this in bass in violation of this patent? My Dingwall basses have exactly that. While they are licensed by Novax, they don't exactly follow his method of determining the fret locations.

Can I patent a compound angled headstock in order to have straight string pull right off the nut on a fanned fret instrument? I'll ever write up an equation to calculate it based on the angle of the nut ;).

Prepare to open your wallets every time you strap it on!

Sounds like Las Vegas..

I think the more obvious question is, "how can this be patented?"

I can't stand reading the lingo of a patent.

From Booker's website:
"Actually the patent is for a novel step in the development of splayed fretting; the first examples were seen over 500 years ago, in instruments such as the orpharion."

I'd like to understand how this is a novel step in the development of "splayed" fretting. I would say that there is no development and that this whole concept is prior art and that nobody should be granting patents on it.

I guess the guy saw the problem with the Novax patent and capitalized on correcting it (at least that's how it looks, especially with the part about "non-parallel strings" in the patent).

My confusion on this is as follows. How can this patent be enforced? If I have a bass with two different scale lengths on two different strings, then is this in bass in violation of this patent? My Dingwall basses have exactly that. While they are licensed by Novax, they don't exactly follow his method of determining the fret locations.

Can I patent a compound angled headstock in order to have straight string pull right off the nut on a fanned fret instrument? I'll ever write up an equation to calculate it based on the angle of the nut ;).
Geoff

Thought you might be thinking some thoughts about this.

I'll tell you how I would answer your questions-- and remember kiddies, this is my opinion, I'm not a lawyer, etc.

Patents can protect an invention that is an end product. Patents can also protect a process that produces an end result. In this case, the process must be original and unique. The end result may be ordinary, but it's the process which is the protected invention.

Knowing about orpharions, and about the Edgren patent, and seeing Novak's patent, I have always suspected that Novak's patent protected the process or method of laying out the frets by using a single conventional fret scale on the midline, and an exterior point, and drawing the lines between them. In my opinion, this <coincides with> / <is mutually reinforced by the idea that> Booker's patent protects his method of laying out the frets by using a two conventional fret scales, (either one on the midline and one perpendicular, or two on the outsides beyond the fretboard) and drawing the lines between them. I believe that multiscale or f*nned or splayed fretboards are not protected by either patent, unless you use one of the protected methods to produce them.

The "claims" portions of both patents specifically make claim to a method or methods, to a fingerboard produced by these method(s), and to an instrument incorporating such fingerboard.



As far as your last paragraph, my understanding is that equations are not patentable. However, use of equations in a unique process is. This would apply to Booker's patent, and to the Gibson patent that I'll probably start a thread on this weekend. You should get a kick out of that one.

I'm thinking I should patent the process of printing out a fretboard using fretfind, gluing it to a fretboard, and cutting through it!

:eek:

;)










:ninja:

I'm thinking I should patent the process of printing out a fretboard using fretfind, gluing it to a fretboard, and cutting through it!

:eek:

;)










:ninja:

See, that's the thing. I can't see how this is a patentable process. In what other way can you layout a fanned fretboard correctly? Can I patent the process of laying out three scales, or laying out the scale for each string independently? I guess the question is if there is any way to have a properly fretted fanned fretboard without infringing on this patent? I can't see how. The fretboard I have slotted for a fanned frets is done in this manner. I can't see any other way to do it.

FYI, I forwarded the link and this thread to Sheldon Dingwall to see what he thinks.

Booker's patent protects his method of laying out the frets by using a two conventional fret scales, (either one on the midline and one perpendicular, or two on the outsides beyond the fretboard) and drawing the lines between them.

Yes, but patents must be non-obvious to those skilled in the art. I'm not skilled in the art, and it's obvious to me, so how in the world did he get that patent granted?

Geoff

Maybe you're right-- maybe since both the Novak and Booker methods are simple consequences of geometry, they might not be defensible as patents. I don't know. But at least I'm now pretty sure that fanned fretboards themselves aren't protected, at least not unless produced by those specific methods.

There's a patent requirement that a claimed invention be "non-obvious," or something close to that. To me, at least one of Booker's methods easily pass the non-obvious test. I think that the fretfind thing I jokingly suggested above, or the simple two-outer-scales method, do not pass this test.

Plus, the two-outer-scales method might be considered prior art, based on the orpharion.

Yes, but patents must be non-obvious to those skilled in the art. I'm not skilled in the art, and it's obvious to me, so how in the world did he get that patent granted?
Have you seen Booker's patent? I think coming up with the two-perpendicular-scales method is pretty outrageous, and far from obvious. The two-outside-the-fretboard-scales method is more debatable as to its obviousness.

I have pretty strong opinions on this thread. However Patent law has it's own specific logic developed to deal with the thousands patent claims made each year. Since I'm not qualified to comment on the validity of Booker's or Novak's patents, I won't.

I'm pretty bummed about the potential fallout this will cause. I think Novak already gets a lot of undeserved bashing.

Another consern is that I've already seen one post on another forum where someone has jumped to the conclusion that since we use the Novax system (or at least our interpretation of it), Dingwall basses have flaw in their fret placement. This is simply not the case. I spent a great deal of time working out our fret placement. They are very accurately placed although at this point I cannot disclose the method I used.

And that is why I ordered a Dingwall & not a builder who does fanned frets every once in a while.

In light of Sheldon's post (and I completely respect Sheldon and his position, stated or unstated), let me say a few things:

1. I started this thread to discuss the new patent. I think that this is a valid and significant discussion. It was not intended as a "bash."
2. I have made some statements as to what I believe each of the patents covers, and does not cover. These are my interpretations, which are opinions.
2a. I invite anyone interested in the subject matter to look up the patents themselves (that's why I have provided links), do some geometry, look up patent law (it's available on uspto.gov), etc.
3. I have stated that the Novak patent, if followed per the patent, results in wrong fret placement. This is provable, is in fact proven in the Booker patent, and I stand by the statement.
3a. It is very unfortunate that Sheldon is getting misapplied backlash as a result. My belief is that in essence, he does not follow the patent (and therefore comes up with a proper fretboard). I would buy a Dingwall today if I had the money. My opinion is that any backlash should rightfully go somewhere else.
4. I have no enmity for Mr. Novak. There are some things I respect him for, and some I am not sure of. Unfortunately, he declined to answer my email when I discovered the patent problem, so I have had no conversation with him. (Before I knew that anyone else knew about the patent problem, and before I ever mentioned it online, I emailed him first with my findings and with questions. Cordially, respectfully, professionally, non-accusatorily, etc.)

Just want to chime in and say I tested my Dingwall Afterburner 5, Zon Sonus, Fender V. Bailey and Rob Allen Fretless extensively with a strobe tuner.......it confirmed what my ears already told me, that my Afterburner is more in tune than any of my other basses. I'm neither mathematician nor luthier, and I don't know (or care) how Sheldon does it; I'm just glad he does!

I've owned a strobe tuner for about 25 years, and have done my own setup for longer than that. The strobe tuner is very accurate, of course, but even when you have it set to the best visual tuning you can get, it still moves some, minute amounts, but it is never perfectly stable, and that's because of the many physical variables involved- the flexibility of the wood, temperature, how firmly you fret the string, etc. These variables apply to all non-electronic instruments- horns, strings, percussion. It's natural and a key part of the overall sound and timbre of "natural" instruments. That's why sequenced parts sound so sterile and lifeless- they lack that variability and the notes are played the same way every time. :hmm:

Then there's the perceptual limits of the brain/human hearing to consider. They are sensitive, but only to a point. I'll write a check to the first person that proves to me they can detect a 1cent difference in pitch. You're talking about a tiny point on the string coming in contact with a tiny point on the fret, all at a certain point to produce a pitch. How much more can the basic concept be improved upon, at least where we can perceive it with our limited receptors?


This guy is blowing smoke. I personally think the patent on multi-scale is bogus anyway (no offense, Ralph, Sheldon ), since the concept is hundreds of years old.

My Dingwalls rule, that's all I need to know;)


Mark

Novak's method results in HUGE errors (like half a semitone!!) if used on a normal, non-parallel-string instrument.

Half a semitone!? That would sound like a cheap copy of a Hofner Beatle Bass with a really bad set up. Somebody reading this thread may be misled into believing that any bass with the Novak method must be this awfull.

I own a Dingwall bass and Dingwall basses use a version of the Novak method. But anybody who has ever played a Dingwall knows why they are famous for the accuracy of their intonation, among many other great qualities. They're far more accurate than any conventional bass.

If the Novak method is really that bad and it's patent is not valid, and being that Dingwall basses really are that good, I think Dingwall should should divorce itself of any relationship with the Novak name.

I realize there a probably legal complications for doing this but I just want every one reading this to know that Novak and Dingwall are not the same thing.

Anybody listening to Charlie Hunter would realize there is no tuning problem with a Novak-built instrument, and that says that the Novax concept is working on guitars as well as basses. I doubt Sheldon would imply that any distance should be gained with such nonsense. In fact he gives credit where credit is due. Time to put the brand-name zealotry aside.

I suffered through the "patentenese" for awhile before deciding to ask why nobody has noticed this about non-fanned necks: they usually don't have parallel strings either - and that long-accepted approach introduces minute variations in scale length (outer strings longer than one[s] in center) ... and yet standard straight-across straight-frets placement doesn't seem to be considered a string-to-string issue there.

Hmmm.

I suffered through the "patentenese" for awhile before deciding to ask why nobody has noticed this about non-fanned necks: they usually don't have parallel strings either - and that long-accepted approach introduces minute variations in scale length (outer strings longer than one[s] in center) ... and yet standard straight-across straight-frets placement doesn't seem to be considered a string-to-string issue there.

Hmmm.
Wrong. If you keep the frets parallel, you can fan the strings as much as you want, due to the principle of similar triangles. If you keep the the strings parallel, you can fan the frets as much as you want, converging to a point, due to the principle of similar triangles. If you simply fan both (frets still converging to a point), similar triangles no longer apply, and the frets are in the wrong place / at the wrong angle. You can, of course, have both spreading frets and strings--by using two scales for the outer strings-- but this is not Novak's patent claim, as I read it. Sheldon Dingwall does it all day long. It is also what was done on the ancient multiscale instruments.

Yeah, I didn't think that bit through well, did I? ; }

Half a semitone!? That would sound like a cheap copy of a Hofner Beatle Bass with a really bad set up. Somebody reading this thread may be misled into believing that any bass with the Novak method must be this awfull.I hope not. The point is that people aren't following the Novak patent claims, they are doing what works.

When you license the patent from Novak, he gives you vague instructions on making a fretboard with two scales at the outer strings. He does not give you instructions that follow the language of patent that you are licensing. Which is good, since it doesn't work.
I own a Dingwall bass and Dingwall basses use a version of the Novak method. Not really, as stated above. I'd prefer to call it a version of the orpharion/cittern method.But anybody who has ever played a Dingwall knows why they are famous for the accuracy of their intonation,Agreed. among many other great qualities. They're far more accurate than any conventional bass.

If the Novak method is really that bad and it's patent is not valid, and being that Dingwall basses really are that good, I think Dingwall should should divorce itself of any relationship with the Novak name. That's the kind of statement that I'm not willing to make, one way or the other.

Each luthier makes his own choices. I do know for a fact that there's at least one luthier out there who knows that the patent is flawed, who has doubts as the Novak's right to license it, and yet who pays the fee to avoid legal trouble that he cannot afford. If I were producing basses, I might be doing the same.
I realize there a probably legal complications for doing this but I just want every one reading this to know that Novak and Dingwall are not the same thing.Two years until the Novak patent expires, and this becomes a moot point.

Yeah, I didn't think that bit through well, did I? ; }
That's OK. Not many people remember 10th year geometry and the properties of two parallel lines transected by a third line.

Well, I just overlooked something I am still somewhat cognizant of (and was even dealing with just weeks ago on a speaker cab design). As we've seen on forums this can lead to all kinds of craziness unless people are willing to admit to either their mistakes or their ignorance.

I hope I didn't come across as pointing fingers at anyone in my last post. Just expressing opinions and doing a little bit of damage control.

Peter, I've always appreciated your well thought out and no BS input.

Not to get silly, but I've always appreciated Sheldon's well thought out and no BS basses.


I'm glad, and appreciative, of the fact we've been able to have some intelligent discussion here on TB, without over-reaction in either the name-calling/adversarial/juvenile direction, or in the fear-driven/censorship direction.


So, what I'm thinking now is, let's say a person is one of those who think the patent is bad, the licensing should not be necessary, but who also would rather play it safe and pay the $75 in case they're wrong, not to mention that it gets them the right to put a sticker on it that says "US PAT# 4,852,450" which might have some minor sales value. What happens in two years? Maybe people are better informed, and don't even approach Booker?

Hi all, Mike Doolin here, posting for the first time. I've done 4 or 5 fanned-fret guitars to date, using the "connect the points" method via a mechanical strategy I came up with. You can see how I do it at http://www.doolinguitars.com/articles/novax/. They always strobe out as well as my straight fret guitars, so I've been blithely going about my occasional fanned-fret business and not thinking too hard about all this. But the claim above that the Novax method could produce frets half a semitone off made me reach for my pocket calculator.

It happens I'm about to make another one, this time a 6-string guitar with 25" and 27" scales and the 7th fret perpendicular. So, I calculated the angle of the nut and 24th fret, their distance from the 7th fret, and the point of convergence of the three. I based the calculations on the width of the 7th fret, 2", with a nut width of 1.75" and 24th fret width of 2.5". I got a nut angle of 18.4 degrees and 24th fret angle of 22.7 degrees. The 7th fret is 8.980" from the nut and 11.270" from the 24th fret on the 27" scale side. Run the trig on those, and the nut line hits the 7th fret line 26.967" out, while the 24th fret line hits the 7th fret line 26.962" out. That's a discrepancy of .005", well within the tolerance of tangents to 3 decimals, so I conclude from that that two different scales, parallel to one another, do indeed converge on one point.

OK, but what does happen when you taper the fretboard? The strings are 1/4" inset at the nut and 1/16" outside at the 24th fret, relative to the 2" width of the 7th fret from which I calculated all this. Running the trig on those distances, the low E is .083" shorter at the nut and .026" longer at the 24th fret; conversely, the high E is .083" longer at the nut and .026" shorter at the 24th fret. Converting those distances to cents, the nut is 5.75 cents off and the 24th fret is 6.81 cents off. Those amounts are cumulative since the stretch is going opposite direction on each string, so the total error from nut to 24th fret is 12.56 cents.

Now, 12 and a half cents is significant to be sure, most people will hear that. But that is the worst case scenario, the outside strings at the ends of their ranges, so the error will be distributed across all the strings, getting smaller and smaller as you get closer to the 7th fret on the middle strings. More importantly, it ain't no half a semitone!

All of this is assuming you laid out your fretboard with two scales on either side of a rectangular blank, cut the slots, and then tapered the board. If you taper first, then lay out the slots, everything should be fine. I've always done the latter, probably just intuiting that it was the way to do it. But I was about to cut my current fretboard the first way, because of a convenience of fret scales I have in stock. I'm glad I read this thread and ran the numbers, because now I'll stick to the "taper first" method.

Hi all, Mike Doolin here, posting for the first time. Hi Mike! Welcome to TB.I've done 4 or 5 fanned-fret guitars to date, using the "connect the points" method via a mechanical strategy I came up with. You can see how I do it at http://www.doolinguitars.com/articles/novax/. I've been on your page before, since it's linked to by the Novax site. Funny how he recommends following your instructions, even though they don't follow the patent claims! Of course, he does this because it results in a good fretboard.They always strobe out as well as my straight fret guitars, so I've been blithely going about my occasional fanned-fret business and not thinking too hard about all this. But the claim above that the Novax method could produce frets half a semitone off made me reach for my pocket calculator.

It happens I'm about to make another one, this time a 6-string guitar with 25" and 27" scales and the 7th fret perpendicular. So, I calculated the angle of the nut and 24th fret, their distance from the 7th fret, and the point of convergence of the three. I based the calculations on the width of the 7th fret, 2", with a nut width of 1.75" and 24th fret width of 2.5". I got a nut angle of 18.4 degrees and 24th fret angle of 22.7 degrees. The 7th fret is 8.980" from the nut and 11.270" from the 24th fret on the 27" scale side. Run the trig on those, and the nut line hits the 7th fret line 26.967" out, while the 24th fret line hits the 7th fret line 26.962" out. That's a discrepancy of .005", well within the tolerance of tangents to 3 decimals, so I conclude from that that two different scales, parallel to one another, do indeed converge on one point.

OK, but what does happen when you taper the fretboard? The strings are 1/4" inset at the nut and 1/16" outside at the 24th fret, relative to the 2" width of the 7th fret from which I calculated all this. Running the trig on those distances, the low E is .083" shorter at the nut and .026" longer at the 24th fret; conversely, the high E is .083" longer at the nut and .026" shorter at the 24th fret. Converting those distances to cents, the nut is 5.75 cents off and the 24th fret is 6.81 cents off. Those amounts are cumulative since the stretch is going opposite direction on each string, so the total error from nut to 24th fret is 12.56 cents.

Now, 12 and a half cents is significant to be sure, most people will hear that. But that is the worst case scenario, the outside strings at the ends of their ranges, so the error will be distributed across all the strings, getting smaller and smaller as you get closer to the 7th fret on the middle strings. More importantly, it ain't no half a semitone!

All of this is assuming you laid out your fretboard with two scales on either side of a rectangular blank, cut the slots, and then tapered the board. If you taper first, then lay out the slots, everything should be fine. I've always done the latter, probably just intuiting that it was the way to do it. But I was about to cut my current fretboard the first way, because of a convenience of fret scales I have in stock. I'm glad I read this thread and ran the numbers, because now I'll stick to the "taper first" method.And the thing is, the greater the difference in scales is, and the greater the difference in nut and bridge width is, the worse the error will be. On a 5-string bass with 3" difference in scales, and 1.5" string-centers width at the nut and 3.0" at the bridge, the error is twice what it is on the guitar you just mentioned.



There's another technicality of fanning that I've never mentioned here, but which I've discussed with a few luthiers. It concerns string spacing.

Laying out the frets by putting the two scales along the tapered outer strings does result in perfect fret placement. But this is contingent on a further condition: that the ends of the strings are proportionally spaced, with respect to the inner and outer strings (and scales), at the nut and bridge (and consequently along their lengths).
So, to achieve this, if the string centers are evenly spaced at the bridge, to be perfect, they must be evenly spaced at the nut also.
When the strings are even at the bridge, but are uneven (such as equal gaps) at the nut, the inner strings land on a "slanted" path. In a normal fan configuration, this puts the nut end of the strings too close to the treble side. And so the frets "come up short" at the head end of the string.
(Note: this problem does not exist with parallel frets.)

Now, this effect is small. It increases as you go from equal-centers to equal-gaps; and it increases as the variation in string diameters increases. (Both of these factors increase how "angled" the inner strings are.) So, one luthier building a multistring guitar calculated a maximum few cents induced error, and decided to go with keeping the equal-gaps at nut for comfort's sake; it's a great guitar. Another making a fairly small bass, and doing only partial re-spacing at the nut (still close to equal-centers) also had no problem. But another, doing a very large multistring bass, recognised that with the combination of many strings, and a very large variance in string diameters, the inner strings would end up very slanted. I laid it out in CAD and I forget exactly, but I think the induced error was going to be 12 cents. So, he went with equal-centers at the nut, to have no problems.

Hi all, Mike Doolin here, posting for the first time. I've done 4 or 5 fanned-fret guitars to date, using the "connect the points" method via a mechanical strategy I came up with. You can see how I do it at http://www.doolinguitars.com/articles/novax/. They always strobe out as well as my straight fret guitars, so I've been blithely going about my occasional fanned-fret business and not thinking too hard about all this. But the claim above that the Novax method could produce frets half a semitone off made me reach for my pocket calculator.

It happens I'm about to make another one, this time a 6-string guitar with 25" and 27" scales and the 7th fret perpendicular. So, I calculated the angle of the nut and 24th fret, their distance from the 7th fret, and the point of convergence of the three. I based the calculations on the width of the 7th fret, 2", with a nut width of 1.75" and 24th fret width of 2.5". I got a nut angle of 18.4 degrees and 24th fret angle of 22.7 degrees. The 7th fret is 8.980" from the nut and 11.270" from the 24th fret on the 27" scale side. Run the trig on those, and the nut line hits the 7th fret line 26.967" out, while the 24th fret line hits the 7th fret line 26.962" out. That's a discrepancy of .005", well within the tolerance of tangents to 3 decimals, so I conclude from that that two different scales, parallel to one another, do indeed converge on one point.

OK, but what does happen when you taper the fretboard? The strings are 1/4" inset at the nut and 1/16" outside at the 24th fret, relative to the 2" width of the 7th fret from which I calculated all this. Running the trig on those distances, the low E is .083" shorter at the nut and .026" longer at the 24th fret; conversely, the high E is .083" longer at the nut and .026" shorter at the 24th fret. Converting those distances to cents, the nut is 5.75 cents off and the 24th fret is 6.81 cents off. Those amounts are cumulative since the stretch is going opposite direction on each string, so the total error from nut to 24th fret is 12.56 cents.

Now, 12 and a half cents is significant to be sure, most people will hear that. But that is the worst case scenario, the outside strings at the ends of their ranges, so the error will be distributed across all the strings, getting smaller and smaller as you get closer to the 7th fret on the middle strings. More importantly, it ain't no half a semitone!

All of this is assuming you laid out your fretboard with two scales on either side of a rectangular blank, cut the slots, and then tapered the board. If you taper first, then lay out the slots, everything should be fine. I've always done the latter, probably just intuiting that it was the way to do it. But I was about to cut my current fretboard the first way, because of a convenience of fret scales I have in stock. I'm glad I read this thread and ran the numbers, because now I'll stick to the "taper first" method.


Hi Mike,
Welcome to Talkbass. I just wanted to say that I love your work. I love the look and the double cutaway is such a great idea!

Cheers,
Geoff

Peter, I meant to appologise for not "talking bass" here and referencing a guitar fretboard instead. I have not built a fanned-fret bass yet, so guitar scales are all I've done. But your point is well taken: more difference between scales, more taper and bigger strings will all increase the errors.

The string spacing issue is also a good one, which I had not thought of. I've been visualizing the strings fanning out across the fretboard, such that the edges of the fretboard and all the strings would converge at a point way out past the headstock, distributing the angles equally. Does that result in correct scales for each string? I'll have to think about that one. But again, the error due to string spacing for guitar string gauges would be much less than for bass string gauges.

Peter, I meant to appologise for not "talking bass" here and referencing a guitar fretboard instead. I have not built a fanned-fret bass yet, so guitar scales are all I've done. But your point is well taken: more difference between scales, more taper and bigger strings will all increase the errors.

The string spacing issue is also a good one, which I had not thought of.Not many, if any, people do. But that's not surprising. Consider that Edgren in the 1904 patent forgot to tilt the bridge (!!!), and Novak seems to never have considered the effects of string taper. I've been visualizing the strings fanning out across the fretboard, such that the edges of the fretboard and all the strings would converge at a point way out past the headstock, distributing the angles equally. Does that result in correct scales for each string? I'll have to think about that one. But again, the error due to string spacing for guitar string gauges would be much less than for bass string gauges.Good questions- I'll have to try some layouts...

Like you, I had been thinking that the strings converge to a point, but a quick sketch seems to lay that to rest as not true. At least not as I drew it- but I think there is a method that does work that way. That would be, if the strings had equal spacing along two lines perpendicular to the midline near the nut & bridge, rather thanat the nut or bridge.

Like you, I had been thinking that the strings converge to a point, but a quick sketch seems to lay that to rest as not true. At least not as I drew it- but I think there is a method that does work that way. That would be, if the strings had equal spacing along two lines perpendicular to the midline near the nut & bridge, rather thanat the nut or bridge.

From what I can see (in my head at least), if your strings converge to a single point (past the headstock), the string spacing between the end points of the string (nut and bridge saddles), measured perpendicularly from the fretboard centerline should not be constant.
At the bridge, the shorter strings will be closer together, and at the nut, the longer strings will be closer together. This is supposing all lines are the same thickness, and the measures are taken relative to their centerlines.

I usually keep the string spacing constant all around. I do it center to center at the bridge, but edge to center at the nut. So the way I'd make my nut would create some kind of distortion. Not that it would probably be noticeable...

I dunno if this helps. I hope.

From what I can see (in my head at least), if your strings converge to a single point (past the headstock), the string spacing between the end points of the string (nut and bridge saddles), measured perpendicularly from the fretboard centerline should not be constant.
At the bridge, the shorter strings will be closer together, and at the nut, the longer strings will be closer together. This is supposing all lines are the same thickness, and the measures are taken relative to their centerlines.I think we are agreeing, without knowing it, sort of.

If the strings converge to a point, and have equal angles between the string lines, they will also have equal spacing along any arbitrary line which is drawn perpendicular to the fretboard centerline (like a standard parallel fret) (my statement). They will also have unequal spacing at the nut or bridge (as you described, but I only alluded to).
I usually keep the string spacing constant all around. I do it center to center at the bridge, but edge to center at the nut. So the way I'd make my nut would create some kind of distortion. Not that it would probably be noticeable...The good thing is, you can do some geometry or CAD to predict just how off you will be, and then decide whether it is significant or not.

Ding! Just posting to keep an eye on this thread.
To be honest I've had a couple of beers and may have already forgotten that some of the following has already been stated. I'll try to make it easy to follow, no B.S. Certainly Peter has a better handle on this stuff than myself and most others.
The inaccuracies of multiscale fretting are caused when a string runs sideways across the board. On most instruments the bridge spacing is equal between centres. At the nut end the spacing is often (usually?, and usually roughly) equal between diameters, ie. equal from the outside of one string to the the outside of the next. This makes things comfortable at the narrower nut area. In this scenario the middle strings actually follow a path slightly sideways across the neck. Not a problem on a parallel fretted 'board.
On a multiscale board, even using the join the dots method, if the string travels across the board the intonation can get quite inaccurate. 4 strings may not produce an inaccuracy worth thinking about. Put 12 strings on a bass, with the huge gauge jump from treble to bass sides, and it becomes very evident.
To solve this one can either space the strings equal between centres at both the nut and bridge; or space them equal between diameters at both the nut and bridge. To some degree this could be compromised and still be acceptable given intonation adjustments, technique etc.
As for the fee, it's $75. Big deal. Work it into the price of the instrument. I doubt anyone would be making multiscale basses and guitars right now if it weren't for a certain someone. If we lived in an ideal world patents wouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in that world.

EDIT. Woops, looks like what's above has just been stated. Oh well, time for another beer :eyebrow:

To solve this one can ... space them equal between diameters at both the nut and bridge. Dan

Not true. Equal centers at the bridge won't do it- you'd have to have the same proportions at nut and bridge-- which, if it were equal gaps at the nut, would be very strange at the bridge.

lemme think

Man, I'd have to draw it up to clarify what's in my head.
By 'equal between diameters' I meant the same thing as 'equal gaps'. Though thinking about it now (at 12am with beer content) I'm wondering if theoretically the string gauge would have to increase along the length of the string to keep things in proportion.
I don't have a problem with equal gaps at both ends. Stops things getting cramped on the bass side.

The problem is that
- if your strings are not parallel, as is the case with most instruments, then
- only a string along the neck centerline will be intonated properly. The frets for the other strings will be in the wrong place, at the wrong angle.

I don't built fanned fret basses, and I'm not an expert on the Novax system...

However, this logic seems flawed. As long as each fret is in the proper position under a particular string, and the bridge saddle is where it belongs, then it doesn't matter if the strings are parallel or not. After all, on a "standard" parallel fret instrument, the frets are parallel, but the strings are not.

Now if you bend a string across the angled fret, you may incur errors... but since you are bending a string out of tune anyway, who would notice?

Now what I can't answer is if the Novax system places the frets in the correct position relative to each other, across the neck, and per each scale length, but that's because I'm really not familiar with the system.

Sheldon says he has a method, and I'd bet he does some compensation compared to the Novax patent... and that's his trade secret and we don't need to know that! I'm willing to believe him though. He makes fine instruments.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we use an equal tempered 12 tone scale, and without changing the tempering (i.e., retuning each fret) it's just not possible to get all the notes in tune, because the equal tempered scale is not in tune, except at 5ths and octaves. They fudge this with pianos by using "stretch tuning," but since they have a separately tunable string for each note, that is possible.

People like Buzz Feiten have come up with elaborate systems to compensate with the "flaw" of the Rule of 18 system, but I really feel it's just part of having an equally tempered note system.

But the point is... imagine having a separate fingerboard for each string, and each one has a separate scale length. As long as each of those fingerboards has the frets in the right place, it makes no difference if the strings are parallel or not. I also doubt that angling fret under the string will cause a problem, since they are angled slightly with standard frets anyway. :)

Not true. Equal centers at the bridge won't do it- you'd have to have the same proportions at nut and bridge-- which, if it were equal gaps at the nut, would be very strange at the bridge.

Actually, unless I'm misreading something, it's fairly common practice to make a nut that has equal spacing between strings, and is not just the centers of the strings evenly spaced. This is really the preferred way to cut a nut.

I don't see what this has to do with tuning at all though. After all strings on instruments are generally not parallel... the nut is usually narrower than the bridge. This means that on a standard parallel fret instrument, the strings are on an angle compared to the frets. And that doesn't give us intonation problems. :)

DavidRavenMoon

I'll just make this condensed reply to the various possibilities you have brought up:

Try it on paper to scale, or on CAD. You will find that the assertions I have made are true. They are provable facts of geometry. I have spoken with several luthiers, who have done this, and found the same results. In fact, the Booker patent even points out that the Novak patent is in error unless the strings are parallel (this has already been pointed out in this thread).

Sheldon and other luthiers simply do not follow the Novax patent. They make a proper fretboard instead.

Again, I urge you to try out the method of the Novak patent on a layout with normally spread strings. It will prevent you from making unsubstantiated, or rather unsubstantiatable, statements.

Also, scale temperament is a topic that is only tangentially related. As is BFTS. Even if you bemoan the "errors" (actually compromises) of 12-TET temperament, or the inability for dead-perfect intonation on an instrument with its strings stretched toward the fretboard (both are real issues), the method of the Novak patent would simply add other large errors to these "errors."

Sheldon and other luthiers simply do not follow the Novax patent. They make a proper fretboard instead.

That's what I said. And so did Sheldon. And if the fretboard is proper, it doesn't matter if the strings are not parallel.

Again, I urge you to try out the method of the Novak patent on a layout with normally spread strings. It will prevent you from making unsubstantiated, or rather unsubstantiatable, statements.

I didn't make any statements other than if the frets are in proper location (Pythagorean scale) the notes will play in tune. I can see that depending on how you angle your frets that some might be off a bit, which is what I was stating. I also said I don't know how Novax says to do it, since it's not something I've ever read up on or tried. I'm happy with straight frets, so I'll continue with those. :) I haven't played a fanned fret bass, but I'm not a big fan of longer than 34" basses anyway.


Also, scale temperament is a topic that is only tangentially related.

Even on a perfectly fretted guitar, notes are out of tune with each other. That was my point. Listen to a major third!

As is BFTS.

He's mostly concerned with compensating for having a nut that's cut too high, which increases the pitch distortion caused by string stretch.

Even if you bemoan the "errors" (actually compromises) of 12-TET temperament, or the inability for dead-perfect intonation on an instrument with its strings stretched toward the fretboard (both are real issues), the method of the Novak patent would simply add other large errors to these "errors."

The string stretching issue (and also string stiffness at the free vibrating ends of the strings) is what bridge compensation is all about. A compensated nut helps also, but I use a zero fret instead.

I don't see what this has to do with tuning at all though. After all strings on instruments are generally not parallel... the nut is usually narrower than the bridge. This means that on a standard parallel fret instrument, the strings are on an angle compared to the frets. And that doesn't give us intonation problems. :)

The reason that this works on a parallel fret instrument is because of similar triangles. Each individual string makes the same angle with respect to each fret and therefore the distance between each fret increases in proportion to secant(theta) where theta is the angle between a string that is perpendicular to each fret and the non-perpendicular string. Since secant(theta) is a constant the string still sees the frets in the correct location. When the frets are no longer parallel this no longer applies and large errors can occur, greater for more extreme fanning. You can do some simple geometry to convince yourself of this.

David, most of your statements in your last post were correct (Pythagorean temperament is not perfect- witness the Pythagorean Comma). But you did start off in your first post by stating that my logic was flawed, which it isn't. Your misconception is driven by the fact that my conclusions are in reference to the Novak patent, with which you are not conversant. You are thus critiquing something without knowing its basis, and are in error.

Another way of restating Geoff's explanation is: Parallel strings and frets: great. One of those two non-parallel: fine, because since the other is still parallel, proportions along a line remain constant. Both of these non-parallel and frets arbitrarily constrained to converge to a point per the Novak patent: no good.

Enough of
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~hobd8260/BeatDeadHorse.gif !!

Enough of
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~hobd8260/BeatDeadHorse.gif !!

But isn't this the way to make it more tender?

:hiding:

But isn't this the way to make it more tender?

:hiding:

Yeah... if you're planning on eating it! :ninja:

But isn't this the way to make it more tender?

:hiding:

Nice to have you back, Hammy!

all the best,

R

The Booker patent is also a US patent. He has also filed for one in Great Britain.This is my interpretation: the patents only cover methods of producing a multiscale board, and the boards thus produced-- but the idea of a multiscale fretboard is not patented by anyone, and is not patentable.

This differs from U.S and Europe a whole lot. In the US a method patent is allowed, say Buzz Feiten Intonation System. But in Europe, method patents are generally not allowed. Large lobbying are currently taking place within the E.U to pull though such a law within all European countries.

Mehod patent : If you come up with an idea just of HOW to do with physical objects that are already invented, then it's patentable within the US not in Europe.

Europe: You must invent a unique physical device that is necessary for your method as well. Doubt it if the fanned frets already found several centuries ago will be enough.

Well, this is by and large. But no one has patented the usual common intonation system that is present on every bass or guitar, in the U.S anyway. Because it's not enough "height" of thinking or uniqeness, i e that not anyone else could've come up with the same idea independently of each other.

/Mats

Look...

I asked once Ralph Novak or one of his associates that JG guitars of Sweden/Malmoe, should produce a fanned fret bass. He replied very fast, and are very generous in handing out plans and patents, giving away thoughts and ideas. To anyone outside of U.S. He would charge basically nothing except for postage handling.

Because it isn't there in the US that JG or me, would sell the bass, anyway. So he's not that greedy, like say Buzz Feiten.

I say again: Process methods are not patentable within Europe as of yet. Not even UK. But it sure will be in the near future. As for now: not.

Has anyone yet dared to COMBINE the Splayed/Fanned Fret AND a Buzz Feiten Tuning System yet? To see what's happened?
That wouldn't be that impossible would it? Would it help?

/Mats

PS. To tell you truth I've still not exactly got the difference between splayed fret and fanned fret. It's sort of too a*al for me.

Mats

Re EU patents: Very interesting. Are you sure about not patenting processes in Europe? Because it seems odd to me that if I were say, German and I developed a new, unique method to, say, refine steel at half the energy cost and pollution generation, that I would have no rights to it.

Re splayed frets: :confused: Don't know what that means. Unless it's simply another word for the same thing.

Re BFTS: IMO: To the best of my understanding, BFTS is simply a combination of a compensated nut, and stretch tuning. The compensated nut is unnecessary it you have a zero fret (or have a conventional nut slotted low enough-- that is, to the height of a fret), and anyone can do stretch tuning if they so choose.

Has anyone yet dared to COMBINE the Splayed/Fanned Fret AND a Buzz Feiten Tuning System yet? To see what's happened?
That wouldn't be that impossible would it? Would it help?



Dingwall Guitars is listed as a Buzz Feiten retrofitter on the BFTS website. I don't know if he's done one of his basses with the BFTS or not.

Mats

Re EU patents: Very interesting. Are you sure about not patenting processes in Europe? Because it seems odd to me that if I were say, German and I developed a new, unique method to, say, refine steel at half the energy cost and pollution generation, that I would have no rights to it.

Re splayed frets: :confused: Don't know what that means. Unless it's simply another word for the same thing.

Re BFTS: IMO: To the best of my understanding, BFTS is simply a combination of a compensated nut, and stretch tuning. The compensated nut is unnecessary it you have a zero fret (or have a conventional nut slotted low enough-- that is, to the height of a fret), and anyone can do stretch tuning if they so choose.

I am very sure about this. Processes/mehods without physical devices. Especially since the BFTS holds no patents in Europe, AS OF YET. But you have to sign a disclosure deal and you can't sell your system under the name of BFTS. The method of learning how to ride a bicycle, thus, is not patentable. Or the method of playing guitar. Or bass.
Processes MUST be coupled to an invention, or unique physical device that may go along with it. I think you can't intonate fanned/splayed frets in the ordinary way either, but I am not sure. People's intonation at the bridges varies and should be kept individual, if one's a stickler for intonation.

Or to intonate any guitar the usual ordinary way. That can't be patented as well. But THE BRIDGE who makes this possible (Gibsons tune-o-matic as an example) can very well be patented.

Say, if I found an alternate tuning (standard) on bass or guitar which I should consider be superior to any tuning today, and I want it patented, so you should pay me each time you detuned to that. Well, good luck to me for seeking that patent!:)

I have only seen this on the Swedish patent agency homepage, were it's in the FAQ. Not much worth, giving you the link since it's in Swedish only :) But it is to be changed in a year or two, if it's not already happened this 1th of July, the usual "large-change-in-laws" time.

I have zero frets as well, let's not go into BFTS, it will just rile me up, big time...:ninja:

Yes, in my thesaurus splayed and fanned are used interchangeably.

Oh one thing more, if you are ever hearing a company or inventor claiming that he holds a "world patent" on anything, they're lying. There are no such thing, and has never been. One has to gain patent individually for each country. There are organistations, that helps with this though, that you can apply for several countries at once. All countries have NOT applied to EPC or PCT or whatever the international agreements are. So if splayed/fanned frets are really an invention as such, is actually very debatable. Let's not go into this here if fanned/splayed are patentable or not.

I am a fan fret, zero fret fan, fan of headless, and some graphite necks.

Maybe Ralph Novak may succeed applying for patent for Fan Frets in Antarctica, then maybe? :)

let's not go into BFTS, it will just rile me up, big time...:ninja: Oh, yeah. He has several dozen US patents. They are all... oops, I was starting to get into it...I am a fan fret, zero fret fan, fan of headless, and some graphite necks.:cool:

Oh, yeah. He has several dozen US patents. They are all... oops, I was starting to get into it...:cool:
:D :D :D

Just a note to all interested.

A luthier has just informed me that he just tried to license the patent from Novak, and was told that it was expired and no license was necessary. Evidently the patent term ran 17 years from the patent grant date, rather than 20 years from the patent filing date.

Novax still holds the trademark rights to the term, "Fanned-Fret(tm)".

So now you can all make your f*nned-fret basses without fear of a lawsuit. Just like they've been doing since the sixteenth century.

:)

Wow now I can breathe a sigh of relief. :)
Thanks for the info Pete!

Dirk