does anyone have this new prototype?

[tombilly]

As far as I know, for a design or work to be capable of protection by copyright or patent - a key test is that it has to be original. I'd be with the people who argue above that it's highly unlikely that Norman's or Wakker's designs are original. As pointed out, it has always been common practice in the music instrument business for craftsmen to take what is considered a good instrument and then seek to reproduce the best elements of that. Presumably, that's how Norman and Wakker started out in the first place.

[Stephen Chambers]

I'd be with the people who argue above that it's highly unlikely that Norman's ... designs are original.

You, and they, would be wrong - Andrew's design is quite unique, and very original.

[Jeff H]

Stephen,

 

That being the case, did he do anything to protect his design?

[david_boveri]

Stephen,

 

That being the case, did he do anything to protect his design?

 

this is the major consideration, which i brought up earlier in the thread.

 

to azalin: no you could not patent a fiddle design unless it was radically different enough, just like you cannot patent an engine design unless it is radically different enough, etc. using a different reed chamber size is not different enough, but putting the reed chambers in totally different places is different enough, i.e. jeffries vs wheatstone.

 

as far as i understand, all hybrid makers have to make their own internal layouts to compensate for the fact that accordion reeds need more space. open up a stagi, and you'll see how different it is from an edgley, different from a wheatstone/jeffries etc.

 

norman COULD have protected his particular arrangement, and his particular design of action, if he had demonstrated that they are different enough to be significant, and that they are original, etc.

 

the biggest problem is that once you release something into the world, it is no longer patentable. you must start the patent process BEFORE you have any public disclosures, including selling the model, or disclosing the design at a conference. once you have done that, the design is fair game. that is why it is a good idea to have any disclosures done under non-disclosure agreements, and this is also why industry espionage is such a problem.

 

The ‘Chinese’ seem to get blamed for a lot in this forum. Since no one seems to be willing/able to put these remarks in perspective, allow me to ventilate my experience and opinion about the Chinese free reed industry based on my own knowledge (9+ years of college education in this field) and 20+ years of professional experience.

The quality of the instruments made in China and sold in the west is determined by the people that order them, not the Chinese. If you order instruments from a Chinese manufacturer, and have no real technical knowledge about the instrument or fail to provide any specialized instructions or quality standards other than “the cheapest instrument possible”, than that’s exactly what you get. Many ‘higher’ quality instruments are also produced in China for western manufacturers which sell them under their own name.

In my experience the Chinese are very flexible as far as production processes are concerned, and eager to ‘please’ the customer, even with these small quantities. Concertinas are not mass produced. Even our Jackie/Rochelle etc. models are hand made. Our total entry level model production is only a fraction of what Wheatstone or Lachenal produced.

Chinese free reed engineers are just as knowledgeable as their European colleagues.

 

i think you make a valid point. think of it this way: the best manufacturing in the whole world is done in china. your computer? largely made in china. the hottest gadgets, tv's, etc? made in china. a lot of this stuff is manufactured in highly controlled environments... think "intel guy" full-body suits. but you have to pay for it... no one is making concertinas at a high enough volume to afford that kind of perfectionism.

 

just think about it: they have machines in china right now that can produce microchips which work at a sub-microscopic level. they could make machines to make concertinas to that high of precision--but they would cost millions and millions upon millions of dollars. that is why no one has made these machines. this is why the best instruments are still made in a workshop setting (with high-tech machinery) rather than in a factory: no one who makes instruments could afford a factory as high tech as what is used to make computers, never mind front the cost of developing the machines to be used in these factories.

 

on the other hand... contrary to what you infer, the chinese are notorious for intellectual property infringement. to suggest otherwise is just blatantly false. yes... you can protect your rights in china, and that is why a lot of big companies do a lot of work there. but there are fake iphones made in china, just as there are real ones--no one can stop the fake ones. the country does not even protect the rights of its workers... the chinese government and legal system does not protect the rights of people or corporations the way we do in the west. based on where you are born--city or countryside--determines your rights for education and fair wages. if you are born in the country, forget about it. it is so routine to work and not get paid in china that when new employees show up for their first paycheck, they arent surprised if there is no money, and they just walk away. no one does anything. here... you'd get sued, shut down, sent to jail, etc. this leads into my next comment:

 

I never understand why amateur (unschooled) free reed makers think that their knowledge of free reeds is superior to someone who has completed 4-6 years of college education in this field just because they live in a different part of the world…

this is because the different part of the world we are talking about turns out shoddy products left and right. sure, they manufacture OUR products well, but it is all to common for people in china to design and sell sh*tty reproductions and originals of their own. expectations are not very high in china... buy a shirt made in china FOR chinese people, and it falls apart much quicker (this is said from experience), but buy a shirt in the states made in china and it lasts for years. many chinese people remember a day when they weren't legally allowed to have property, and as it is still a developing country, they are often very happy with what they have, and do not demand perfection like we do. crappy chinese made concertinas sell... so they keep selling them. why would we expect anything different?

 

no, it is not fair... as my above response shows, i believe that the best manufacturing in the world is done in china (and japan....), but it seems unreasonable to WONDER why people would have such an opinion.

 

also, it does not seem the least bit relevant as to mention our education level. even chinese people have trouble accepting chinese-brand products as being the best of the best. i cannot find the link, but i was reading about a chinese guitarist who made high-quality, hand-made guitars, and how he struggles to convince chinese people that they are as good as any boutique guitars that come from the west. whether or not we have degrees has nothing to do with that it is an unfair situation, though it may be legally permissible.

[tombilly]

You, and they, would be wrong - Andrew's design is quite unique, and very original.

 

Let's look at this broadly - you have a machine where you press a button which operates a lever which opens a valve and lets air from a bellows pass through a reed producing a note. That's surely the original bit - an original concept when it was thought up.

So, as a maker you look at this machine and fabricate a new one but just vary the spacing of the parts, redesign the levers etc. etc., perhaps to improve it or perhaps to make it easier to fabricate. Now, the question is - is that original? Or just tinkering with a basic design?

Fortunately for mankind, the concept of intellectual property is a relatively recent one - the very nature of the human is to imitate and copy, improve and move on. If intellectual property rights were around in the middle ages, that's exactly where we'd still be, which come to think of it, might be no great harm!

Edited August 31, 2009 by tombilly

[Stephen Chambers]

Stephen,

 

That being the case, did he do anything to protect his design?

Jeff,

 

I've no idea if he did but, for example, a patent would have been expensive for a relatively small producer (even if he is making one a week!) and have expired long ago, whilst it would only have prevented copying by someone in Britain - not Ireland, or China...

[Frank Edgley]

Stephen: "I've no idea if he did but, for example, a patent would have been expensive for a relatively small producer (even if he is making one a week!) and have expired long ago, whilst it would only have prevented copying by someone in Britain - not Ireland, or China... "

 

Exactly. And even if it were to be protected, the market is so small would patents be enforceable from a practical point of view? The only protection is not to be so short-sighted as to purchase one of these rip-offs.

 

On another point made by David B: The Chinese are capable of making very good merchandise, but my personal experiences have shown the crap they are also capable of. We came very close to tragedy when a Chinese-made chop saw (which had only been used once) we were using at the cottage went suddenly bad. The bolt holding on the blade broke, and thank goodness, the blade did not come spinning out at one of us at 5000 RPM. From the brief description above this "rip-off" is not good quality---plastic button etc. What will it be like in a year? What other problems will occur, if it is already not as airtight as a Norman? The bellows is not as good as a Norman now. Does it use good quality goatskin? I suspect that anyone wishing to upgrade will have to upgrade again in a short time when their "bargain" disappoints. Then how much will you really be saving?

[wim wakker]

There are several ways to protect ones instruments. It seems that most of you are referring to a utility patent. These are not possible if you use the standard mechanics of a free reed instrument. Changing layout etc. is only an improvement or variation of the standard principle. All hybrid concertinas (except our Jackie, Rochelle and Elise) use the standard amplifonic reed position (reeds laying flat on the reed pan), which has been used in accordions for 80+ years. It is impossible to get a utility patent for that.

 

However, a design patent can secure a fretwork design. Just like a design patent can protect a new chair design. You cannot patent a chair, but you can get a patent for an original design. A second possibility is a trademark, using the fretwork, name, etc. as the subject. I am sure there are members in this forum that know a lot more about it than I do.

 

Concertinas are not made by machines, but by people using machines. The machines used in China are the same as the ones used in the West. Chinese instrument are just as ‘hand made’ as instruments made by any other maker. Anyone with a technical background can tell you that a machine (CNC or manual) is only a tool. There is no magic button that makes them produce a concertina automatically…The skill/knowledge of the workmen determines the quality of the product, no matter where the instrument is made. To my knowledge, the average IQ in western countries is not any higher than in china.

 

I agree that most musical instruments we see coming from China are of poor quality. The point I wanted to make is that the reason for this is that dealers from Europe and USA specifically order the cheapest product possible. Quantity for them is more important that quality. There are enough producers of high quality instruments in this part of the world, they need low cost instruments in large quantities. That’s why they go to China, Pakistan, India, Korea, eastern Europe, etc..

 

That does not mean that Chinese free reed engineers cannot produce anything better. Their knowledge level is comparable to their colleagues in the west. The assumption that Chinese free reed instruments are bad because of a lack of knowledge is incorrect. They are asked to produce a cheap, low quality instrument.

Wim Wakker

Concertina Connection Inc.

Wakker Concertinas

[david_boveri]

There are several ways to protect ones instruments.

Concertinas are not made by machines, but by people using machines. The machines used in China are the same as the ones used in the West. Chinese instrument are just as ‘hand made’ as instruments made by any other maker. Anyone with a technical background can tell you that a machine (CNC or manual) is only a tool. There is no magic button that makes them produce a concertina automatically…The skill/knowledge of the workmen determines the quality of the product, no matter where the instrument is made. To my knowledge, the average IQ in western countries is not any higher than in china.

 

I agree that most musical instruments we see coming from China are of poor quality. The point I wanted to make is that the reason for this is that dealers from Europe and USA specifically order the cheapest product possible. Quantity for them is more important that quality. There are enough producers of high quality instruments in this part of the world, they need low cost instruments in large quantities. That’s why they go to China, Pakistan, India, Korea, eastern Europe, etc..

 

That does not mean that Chinese free reed engineers cannot produce anything better. Their knowledge level is comparable to their colleagues in the west. The assumption that Chinese free reed instruments are bad because of a lack of knowledge is incorrect. They are asked to produce a cheap, low quality instrument.

Wim Wakker

Concertina Connection Inc.

Wakker Concertinas

 

 

no one is saying they are incapable of making good instruments.... we are just saying that they are making an instrument based on a design of someone that we respect, and that we wish it wasn't happening. addressing the design capabilities of the chinese manufacturers and again referring to our alleged disdain of their intelligence is a little confusing... i addressed these in my above post.

 

the chinese are a major economic force in the modern world. they have one of the largest and longest gross domestic product growths in history (if not the largest... my knowledge of economics is very rudimentary). it is hard to imagine our modern world without their highly proficient and high quality capabilities for manufacturing (as well as their ability to make cheap products, as well). they have undergone 3 major tumultuous revolutions (republic of china, communist prc, and the cultural revolution) and a brutal occupation (by the japanese), and a silent revolution (the deng xiaoping era re-establishment of personal property, private enterprise, and re-enstatement of higher education), and have emerged strong, vibrant, and immensely adaptable. this is not because of lower than average intelligence... but the chinese people and government have surmounted incredulous odds to emerge a dynamic and vibrant economic power due to their determination, creativity, intelligence, and self-sacrifice.

 

that being said... china has huge problems, which are beyond the scope of this forum. i have huge respect for china, but i have huge respect for china AS IT IS, with its strengths as well as its dehumanizing travesties, for its cultural elegance as well as its political flaws.

 

so.... i am not quite sure why you think we disdain upon china, but frank, i, and others have presented a more fair and balanced (and i think accurate) portrayal of china, which agrees with the contention you previously presented: low-quality concertinas in china are due to EXTERNAL economic conditions, and not the inherent nature of chinese manufacturing or design capabilities. our only addendum is that although we agree with you that china can make some amazing products (and they DO... most of my electronics and clothes are made there), is that the reason people think they make poor products is because of all the bad products being made in china, due to their laissez-faire attitudes to industry standards and regulation.

 

maybe you're just addressing the very pervasive, prejudiced attitude you have encountered before, and in that case i agree with you that it needs to be clarified, but it still seems like you are addressing an illusory argument rather than our explicit discussion.

Edited September 1, 2009 by david_boveri

[david_boveri]

There are several ways to protect ones instruments. It seems that most of you are referring to a utility patent. These are not possible if you use the standard mechanics of a free reed instrument. Changing layout etc. is only an improvement or variation of the standard principle. All hybrid concertinas (except our Jackie, Rochelle and Elise) use the standard amplifonic reed position (reeds laying flat on the reed pan), which has been used in accordions for 80+ years. It is impossible to get a utility patent for that.

 

However, a design patent can secure a fretwork design. Just like a design patent can protect a new chair design. You cannot patent a chair, but you can get a patent for an original design. A second possibility is a trademark, using the fretwork, name, etc. as the subject. I am sure there are members in this forum that know a lot more about it than I do.

 

well, i think we were talking about patents in general--at least i was.

 

here is what i said:

 

to azalin: no you could not patent a fiddle design unless it was radically different enough, just like you cannot patent an engine design unless it is radically different enough, etc. using a different reed chamber size is not different enough, but putting the reed chambers in totally different places is different enough, i.e. jeffries vs wheatstone.

 

as far as i understand, all hybrid makers have to make their own internal layouts to compensate for the fact that accordion reeds need more space. open up a stagi, and you'll see how different it is from an edgley, different from a wheatstone/jeffries etc.

 

norman COULD have protected his particular arrangement, and his particular design of action, if he had demonstrated that they are different enough to be significant, and that they are original, etc.

 

the biggest problem is that once you release something into the world, it is no longer patentable. you must start the patent process BEFORE you have any public disclosures, including selling the model, or disclosing the design at a conference. once you have done that, the design is fair game. that is why it is a good idea to have any disclosures done under non-disclosure agreements, and this is also why industry espionage is such a problem.

 

i specifically used the word design, and talked about the general principles in the united states. if you could arrange a set of reeds in a different manner, and demonstrate that it was original (i.e. never been done and no public disclosures), and that it was an improvement upon pre-existing designs, then it would be patentable. it is not necessary to deviate from the "standard amplifonic reed position (reeds laying flat on the reed pan)" in order to patent your design. cf. this patent of a teabag issued in 1988: http://www.google.com/patents?id=tUQsAAAAE...;q=&f=false . if you look, it is nothing more than a stable, string, porous fabric, and cardstock. it references 18 us patents and 2 foreign patents to demonstrate how it is similar and how it is different, i.e. that is different enough to be significant and original.

 

you are right that this would be a design patent, rather than a utility patent... but this is what we are in general referring to, and this discussion is inconsequential, because it does not matter if it is a process/material or design, the same stipulations hold true.

 

i am not sure whether or not norman's design would have been significantly different enough to qualify for a patent (of any type), but it might have been (it has been publicly disclosed, and now is unprotectable). as i demonstrated above, something as simple as cardstock stapled to a teabag is patentable in the united states as long as you can demonstrate its usefulness, improvement, and how it differs from previous extant designs or patents. surely hybrid makers have worked very hard on their designs, and they have all come to different conclusions, and it is highly likely that at least SOME have come up with original designs and layouts of reeds. in analogy, think of jones patented his keyboard layouts, and hayden patented his keyboard layout in 1986 as well. these were not any systematic restructuring of the button or button positions (though the original inventor of the anglo could have patented it as different from the english layout of buttons), but rather what notes the buttons played--any reposition of the button placement is subtle and incidental, just as different hybrid makers take the same basic elements (accordion reeds and reed plates, chambers, etc) and arrange them in different layouts, all to compensate for different problems with different solutions.

[michael sam wild]

When I was a lad in the 1950s we sneered at the idea of Japanese motorbikes, let alone cars! I'm sure that if other countries produced excellent but cheaper instruments a lot of people would put aside their qualms! Delivery times might be quicker too, an important consideration in my case! I can't wait 4 years+ for a Suttner etc. as the sands of time are running out!

[tombilly]

Thanks Wim, that's a very informative post above - you've obviously looked hard at the whole tricky area.

[Azalin]

Yeah thanks Wim, very interesting info on patenting designs etc.

 

I know this is out of scope, but about China and "cheap" products... the same can be applied to outsourcing software development in China, India, Vietnam, etc. My friend, vietnamese but having lived in Canada all of his life, lived in Vietnam for 6 months and was leading an outsourcing company with a vietnamese team of programmers. It was very, very hard to produce quality software, not because the vietnamese are not smart, but because of their current environment, they don't feel any loyalty to the company and change jobs often, often without notice. So the development team is left with a constantly changing team. The other problem is communication. My friend spoke a level of 10 years old vietnamese, and french (some english). The bosses were french. Trying to communicate your exact needs in a different language is very challenging and can lead to major flaws.

 

So, as others were saying, we often think we'll save money by 'outsourcing' to developing countries, but we often don't, I guess it depends on what field and how it is executed. Dell is having a hard time with customer support in India, there's a big backslash from customers because some of the techs can barely speak english. They are very smart and knowledgeable, but there's a language barrier.