Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: The Mellotron Group

--- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Gary Brumm <gabru@...> wrote:
>
> M4000D is a model number so I don’t think it applies. There are many similar model numbers in the world.
> I don’t think it will affect a single sale of anything one way or the other. It’s probably not worth pursuing
> legally in any case……..
>
> From: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andy kinch
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 12:56 AM
> To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name? [1 Attachment]
>
>
> [Attachment(s) from Andy kinch included below]
> So, whats to stop Markus from putting the illuminated Mellotron logo on the front of his digital unit? Surely by doing so, even if it is not a Mellotron in the way the patent describes it, he can do it by virtue of the fact that he is using the name of the legally aquired company! In the same way my Washing Machine carries the "Hoover" name.
> As far as I can see, the only thing he has done wrong, (and it is a massive "wrong" IMO) whilst accepting that he probaly saw "a business opportunity" is the use of the M4000D name. Unwise to do that in every other respect, and will doubtless cost him "some" though I would suggest, not many sales. Though judging by the ever growing waiting list, he may not be too concerned with that at the moment.
> Anyway on a lighter subject, I thought you might want to take a look inside. And whatever you think of Markus and/ or his creation, the build and attention to detail is extraordinary!
> [cid:image001.jpg@...]
>
>
> The other thing I'm finding is that because you can create playlists of the sounds you can combine sounds from any machine very quickly, and because everything has been timed, the potential for unusual sound combinations is huge.
>
> Andy K
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@...<mailto:unobtainiumkeys@...>>;
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 7:55
> Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?
>
> No - nothing of the sort. He's not violating them.
>
> He has the exclusive license to use the names "Mellotron" and "Chamberlin" in the promotion of new products produced by "Mellotron USA".
>
> They can be digital or tape based products but the digital ones can never be legally referred to as Mellotrons or Chamberlins.
>
> To actually legally apply the name "Mellotron" to a product - to be able to call it that - it must strictly be tape based and use the mechanical operations documented in the original 1963 patent. They cannot be veered away from regardless of who owns the name or who manufactures them.
>
> Patents transcend copyright and trademarks. Patents are independent of the trends of business interests.
>
> What you're calling a digital Mellotron is a computer - no different than a Kurzweil K2000. The word "Mellotron" applied to any digital or otherwise analog reproduction is a joke. It becomes a nickname with no legal or historical significance.
>
> For example, even the Chamberlin and Birotron are not Mellotrons. Although they may make the same or similar sounds. You can have Chamberlin sounds in a Mellotron - but that does not make it a Chamberlin.
>
>
> For it any of this name stuff to be taken seriously, there has to be an identical mechanical resemblance.
>
> This is how Harry found out about his invention being stolen. A lawyer for patent law contacted him about a "British company" trying to get an overseas patent what he already invented in the USA in 1948.
>
> Today, that original patent covers the MK VI and Streetly's M4000 even if Streetly doesn't own the name..
>
> Hypothetically, even if Streetly claimed their M4000 wasn't a Mellotron, they would be wrong according to patent law.
>
> When Harry Chamberlin created the M series using a new tape transport system, he had to file new patents for that.
>
> When Wakeman's Birotronics Ltd devised the pre-production Birotron, they had to file new patents alongside Dave Biro's patent to cover the different tape arrangement from the original prototype.
>
> The technology of using recording tape in a musical instrument to playback sound is what connects them all together. Because the technology was the same, the patents could be filed, and reference each other.
>
> But digital and analog are two different technologies. You cannot classify completely different technologies within the same name. Patents are the backbone of law that prevent people labelling and calling things whatever they want without regard to history.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Andy kinch <kinchmusic@...<mailto:kinchmusic@...>>; 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@...<mailto:unobtainiumkeys@...>>;
> To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com<mailto: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@...<mailto:lsf5275@...>>; 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@...<mailto:kinchmusic@...>; 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
>