| previous by date | index | next by date |
| previous in topic | topic list | next in topic |
I don’t understand…if he owns or licensed the Trademark then he has the right to use it any way he wants. If he wants to give his Digital keyboard
the Mellotron name then that is just good business from a marketing perspective and I can’t imagine anyone in that situation doing anything differently.
Calling it the 4000D is no different than the CX3 vs the C3 or B3. I know we’ve had this discussion before and with all due respect to Streetly and others on this
list it just sounds like “sour grapes”. Now why he couldn’t have called it the MK VID I don’t know but he is free to call it what he wants as far as the Mellotron
name goes and going after someone for a similar model number would probably be a waste of time and money. I guess from what he said in the video he was
surprised to sell over 100 of the tape based units in a year and I would assume that might be typical for Streetly as well (just a guess please correct me if I am wrong).
Si it is a very small market and the tape units go to a very narrow group…I think the digital unit will defiantly take some sales from that group but that will be the case
no matter what model they call it. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal either way. I think Steetly would use the Mellotron moniker every chance they got to help market
their products if they owned the right to do so and it would be smart marketing to do so. This is just my opinion as a business owner for most of my life. I am not trying
to offend anyone here so keep that in mind whilst throwing ye stones…… J
g
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of john barrick
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 1:33 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?
No, It was legal, though it wasn't Marcus that acquired it. As you know, Gary, legal and "right" or proper, can often be two entirely different things. With that said, I don't know that I'd go as far as to say that there was anything improper about Marcus' end of the deal as far as the Mellotron name goes - his naming convention, however, as in M4000D, is entirely out of bounds and good business practice.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Gary Brumm <gabru@comsec.net> wrote:
Maybe I am missing something….did Marcus not acquire the Mellotron trademark legally?
From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of gino wong
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 1:01 PM
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?
I said it before and I'll say it again. Whoever owns the Mellotron trademark knows how it got where it got and how painful it has been to the people who labored to create the Mellotron. A truly decent proper gentleman of a human being would present it to Leslie Bradley's family with love and appreciation. Things would be better overall for it. More commerce would occur all the way around. It's not obvious but it is a fact.
To me, there is no question. it ias like somebody dropped a dollar on the street and you saw them do it. Do you walk fast for half a block and return it or do you pocket it. ?
It is that simple and it is going to define that person historically. Nobody will remember good guy or not. If these guys have children, they will never live it down, kids will never understand, it will get worse as they get older.
I don't understand why Markus thinks doing something like this buys him any respect or trust. People who invest money are looking to avoid people who have pulled moves like this. In this day and age, with all of the financial hurt this is the equivalent of a civil rights violation. I work for and advise an artist, very well known who will not be using his instrument and I will work for others and the people I have trained will hear the story, and there is no deciding for themselves. Bad form is bad form
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:23 AM, tronbros <tronbros@aol.com> wrote:
The truth is that Markus has protected a name that he cannot protect. A colossal waste of time.
On 4 Sep 2011, at 15:07, Andy kinch <kinchmusic@aol.com> wrote:
So are you saying Markus is violating the original patents by using Mellotron on the new instrument?
AK
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 14:59
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?
That's kind of it in a nutshell, though it's not the first time a Mellotron company built a digital product.
The "Studio Symphony XT-2000" of 1985 was the first digital machine built by Mellotron USA.
It was only ever a prototype yet the name 'Mellotron' was not used anywhere on it because it was not a Mellotron.
Any digital source that plays back Mellotron samples is not (and can never be) a Mellotron or referenced as such because the mention of digital technology is not included in the original patents in 1962 / 1963, nor referenced in Harry Chamberlins earlier patents.
The Mellotron, Chamberlin, and Birotron are defined and limited only to the scope of their patents. Although there are similarites the technical mechanisms and build materials are different.
How it operates, the materials used, etc. etc, right down to 'micro-metre' mechanical movements etc. etc. must be included in patents to separate all similar items from what they are and what they are not.
This is why it takes years to file and receive them .
Once it's filed, the patent for a manufactured item legally and legitimately defines it historically for all time - (forever).
Patents cannot be amended and are non-transferable.
For example George Lucas can modify 'Star Wars' all he wants but it hasn't been the 'original ' movie since 1981 when he added 'Episode IV" to the title which was not included in the original screening..
So because of that he would have to file multiple patents and copyrights each time he changes it.
Lucas owning the name doesn't make a difference. The name becomes equal to a button or 'badge' one would wear.
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:45 AM, <lsf5275@aol.com> wrote:
My way of looking at is simple. If it has a keyboard and plays back prerecorded tape, it may not be a mellotron. If it does not play back prerecorded tape it cannot be a mellotron.
In a message dated 9/4/2011 3:50:43 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kinchmusic@aol.com writes:
I may have been asleep earlier in proceedings when this topic was raised. So forgive me asking, but what constitute the name "Mellotron"?
Is it a brand name or an electro mechanical Machine? Probably both, I know.
I mean we all have Hoovers in our homes, but I would suggest that only a few of us have Hoovers made by Hoover. I have a Dyson, but I still call it a Hoover for example.
Bear with me here, because I'm a tad confused.
It is my assumption that John and Martin build Mellotron "machines", but simply can't use the name because the brand name "Mellotron" was sold off.
But Markus can build the Digital Mellotron and call it Mellotron because he has permission to use the name, even though, some people would accept that
the 4000D is not a Mellotron.
As much as I love the instrument that Markus has produced, for the reasons I have stated elsewhere, there is no way do I think that it is a Mellotron, because to my mind,
by definition a Mellotron has to be a Mechanical Machine with motors, heads, tapes etc.
Come to think of it, I have a Hoover Washing Machine!
Beam me up Scotty!
Andy K
--
Gino Wong Birgelo
BSComm, BSEE & BS in general
--
john barrick
∗Leo got it right the first time∗
∗then he added a second pickup and got it righter∗