Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Z Bass II - Preliminary Designs Underway
- Thread starter tZer
- Start date
I like to keep open the slightest possibility that there is a way to get it done - but based on what I do know, what I don't know and the fact that I'm not ready to gamble the initial ante to find out pretty much seals it.
But it is very eye-opening to see what the patent process involves and how you need to think in order to have a patentable idea. Very enlightening and useful stuff.
But it is very eye-opening to see what the patent process involves and how you need to think in order to have a patentable idea. Very enlightening and useful stuff.
Sort of 'tobacco-ish'
I'm in the process of applying lacquer over the tobacco sunburst done by wiping on dye in denatured alcohol.
It's coming along nicely and looks much better than when it was covered in inky black lacquer paint.
About 6 more coats to go - then lots of rubbing and polishing and this build will be very close to done.
I'm in the process of applying lacquer over the tobacco sunburst done by wiping on dye in denatured alcohol.
It's coming along nicely and looks much better than when it was covered in inky black lacquer paint.
About 6 more coats to go - then lots of rubbing and polishing and this build will be very close to done.
Rickett Customs
Commercial User
Thanks, Jason.
It's coming along and like everything else, has been a learning experience.
It was encased in 4 or 5 coats of black lacquer paint - but that was not going well. So I stripped it all clean - sanded it back and went with dye. I started by spraying, but abandoned that for wiping it on. It turns out it's pretty easy to get a nice, feathered burst with wiping - a lot easier than I thought.
It's coming along and like everything else, has been a learning experience.
It was encased in 4 or 5 coats of black lacquer paint - but that was not going well. So I stripped it all clean - sanded it back and went with dye. I started by spraying, but abandoned that for wiping it on. It turns out it's pretty easy to get a nice, feathered burst with wiping - a lot easier than I thought.
Rickett Customs
Commercial User
- Jul 27, 2008
- 176
- 121
- Disclosures
- Builder DPinton Guitars and Basses
That's a interesting idea...
Regarding patents, my understanding is that once you disclose your idea publicly it's become public domain if you didn't patent it beforehand....
So as soon as you posted this thread, patents became useless.
Regarding patents, my understanding is that once you disclose your idea publicly it's become public domain if you didn't patent it beforehand....
So as soon as you posted this thread, patents became useless.
That's interesting. I don't have first-hand knowledge of that aspect - but it's (fortunately) moot with regard to this idea.
Good to know, though. I'm not necessarily on a quest to patent something, but should the idea come up again, I'll play it close to the vest.
Thanks for the insight.
I'm not sure whether that's true, about public disclosure nullifying patentability. I wouldn't assume it to be true, or false, without research.
In my research of the subject I didn't run across anything that stated as such. The things that seemed to prevent you from being able to get a patent centered around whether or not the idea is already patented or adequately described by 'logical extensions of' the claims in an existing patent.
What I am curious about is this; Does the fact that a guy pretty much cornered the market for replaceable anything guitars with his catch-all patent, am I prevented from being able to legally or ethically build an instrument like the one shown in this thread for someone other than myself?
What I am curious about is this; Does the fact that a guy pretty much cornered the market for replaceable anything guitars with his catch-all patent, am I prevented from being able to legally or ethically build an instrument like the one shown in this thread for someone other than myself?
It also depends on how old the patent is. After a certain time they expire-thats why we're stuck with inferior R-134 freon in our cars instead of the superior R-12.
His patent is not a catch-all for interchangeable-parts guitars. It makes no claim to them at all, as such.
What I was trying to point out in my earlier post, but will hopefully do a better job now:
The fact that he shows and mentions interchangeable parts guitars in the patent does not give him protection (rights) over interchangeable parts guitars. He has protected rights only to particular properties pointed out in the "claims." And, each one of his claims requires the instrument to have at least on of his "invented features" -- sliding headstock pins, retractable frets, humidity tuners, specific types of quick-disconnect bridge, odd headstock protector.
An instrument having interchangeable parts, but not any of these claimed unique features, does not violate any of the claims, and so does not violate his patent rights. Just as an instrument having strings and a neck (which he also shows), but not any of the claimed features, does not violate the patent.
E.g., claim 1 mentions all those interchangeable parts, and the the sliding pins in the headstock. One must have all of those features in order to step on the patent claim. Without his sliding headstock pins, which are the actual invention here, you haven't violated the claim. The interchangeable parts thing does not stand alone in any of the claims, and so is not claimed in and of itself. Which is proper, since there are previous examples of interchangeable parts guitars.
The claims section of a patent is what is actually protected. The abstract, illustrations and description are there to explain, but have no weight, they are not what is tested legally.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is what I have been taught by patent attorneys I've worked with.
- Jul 27, 2008
- 176
- 121
- Disclosures
- Builder DPinton Guitars and Basses
Well, that's what the patent bureau said to me ... in France. Might be different in the US (where you can patent DNA and things that existed before patents were even ever issued (think Novax patent on 17th century born fanned frets........)).
Anyway, any time you come up with a revolutionnary idea, it's always better to keep it somewhat secret until you actually patent it. That's because if the idea is really good someone will patent it for you! And you'll have to pay a license fee to use your own idea.
But if it's already in the public domain, as you say discussing it here makes it, wouldn't that prevent anyone else from claiming it too? If I can effectively prevent myself from being able to patent my idea by disclosing it here it seems to follow that someone else would also be prevented.
@pilotJones - I see. While the abstract seems to cover the overall concept of a stringed instrument with interchangeable parts in general, it's the claims section where he must specify exactly what he's claiming as his intellectual property. The claims are where one goes into minute detail about the idea they are protecting and thus must be very specific and unambiguous.
The part that I get hung up over is 'non-obvious' - which I understood to be like saying if he claimed a replaceable top that screws on to the core neck/body with wood screws that I couldn't simply replace wood screws with hex bolts and have a new idea.
As I read through his patent, I found very specific statements that described sandwiching the core with the body that appears to me to effectively describe "my" method short of mentioning hex bolts. This lead me to believe that if I were to submit a claim that it would be found to be not 'non-obvious' and denied.
So I am not confident - either by virtue of that or the fact that I've already blown it by disclosing it here - that I could acquire a patent for my process. I may be wrong, but I don't have the cahones or dough to find out. But I will definitely take the lessons from this build and our discussion to heart if I happen to run across what I think is an idea worth protecting in the future.
What are you thoughts about being able to build instruments like this as a private contractor for private customers? IF Mr. Childress' patent does indeed cover my version, would I be violating his patent by building such an instrument for someone other than myself or is that where the fact that he doesn't specifically describe "my" method provide me cover?
Unless you use his unique, claimed elements, you are not infringing his patent. An interchangeable part guitar sans his invented elements, is not claimed. Such a guitar is not part of his intelllectual property.
If you invented a unique, original attachment method for the interchangeable parts, that might be protectable. As you said, swapping one conventional fastener for another would be obvious.
There are many things I want to keep working on, but it's essentially done.
One problem I seem to have is the A string sound weak.
I don't think it's the string - I've had a few sets on and the A always sounds anemic.
I'm using passive J-style Barts and I am wondering if there's something wrong with them.
Has anyone every had a single string sound about 3/4 as loud as the rest?
I used Bartolini 59J's (L1, S1) on my build and my D string is non existent. I was going to contact them and see if I did something wrong with string spacing or something, but on their site they specify at least a 63mm string spacing and mine measures out to 63.21 c-c. So I dont know what the problem is.....
There are many things I want to keep working on, but it's essentially done.
One problem I seem to have is the A string sound weak.
I don't think it's the string - I've had a few sets on and the A always sounds anemic.
I'm using passive J-style Barts and I am wondering if there's something wrong with them.
Has anyone every had a single string sound about 3/4 as loud as the rest?
I did, the A string on my Jazz was weak, and I thought it was the bridge or the string itself, tried a few sets and 2 diffferent bridges from hipshot. Turned out to be the pickups: they were split J humbuckers and somehow they were cancelling some of the sound of the A string.... fixed it by going with dual blade J humbuckers from SGD.
