Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Just not to come back to old discussions - has anyone in here ever heard about the Wilkinson Vs100 Convertible guitar bridge? Wilkinson created it, it could not be a technological masterpiece, but it was useful - a vibrato bridge that you could turn into a fixed bridge just by not using the vibrato arm - I'm still looking around for one of these beasts, as GIBSON decided to sue Wilkinson for copyright infringement, as they claimed that Gibson patented a very similar unit, and asked Wilkinson so much money for the licensig fee that the unit had to be discontinued. And I never found a convertible bridge on a Gibson guitar or on anything they had produced in the last 50 years. ----- Original Message ----- From: <stanitarium@earthlink.net> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:55 AM Subject: Re: What the heck is Behringer doing? > sorry to be so cliche ridden,but -knowledge is power-ignorance is bliss-U > get what U pay 4 > > goinloopy > stanner > ---------- > >From: Richard Zvonar <zvonar@zvonar.com> > >To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com > >Subject: Re: What the heck is Behringer doing? > >Date: Sun, Jun 10, 2001, 2:04 PM > > > > >At 10:23 PM +0200 6/10/01, Martin Tauchen wrote: > > > >>If we trace it really strict and puristic,the whole digital Music products > >>were ripped off from Standford University.FM Synthesis was developed > >>there in the seventies,a first commercial product-the DX7 was > >>released in 1983. > >>The same for phyical Modelling.Developed in the early eighties and > >>manifested as consumertool in 1993 -again Yamaha with VL1. > > > >Not ripped off in these cases. Yamaha has a long-standing set of > >licensing agreements with Stanford, dating to John Chowning's 1975 > >linear FM patent. Physical modeling was similarly licensed from > >Stanford. > > > >I'm not aware of any claims against Yamaha of infringement. In fact, > >my impression of the company is generally positive. They have a good > >reputation for supporting research and education, and I've personally > >found them (and by this I mean the individuals I've dealt with) to be > >cordial and even generous. > > > >In contrast, I have no such warm and fuzzy feelings for the rippers > >of the world, such as Behringer and Fernandes. > > > >That isn't to say there aren't problems. When Yamaha secured patents > >on linear FM applications to musical instrument design, this meant > >that other manufacturers were obliged to either pay them licensing > >fees or cease to use the technique in their own instruments. Some > >smaller manufacturers, such as Buchla, had already been using FM, but > >didn't think to apply for a patent. > > > >Another case that I have problems with is Coda's patents on > >interactive computer music and score following. They struck a deal > >with Roger Dannenberg, who had the foresight to secure a patent in > >1985, and Coda insisted that their patents applied to all score > >following algorithms. Other researchers who had independently arrived > >at score following were in theory obliged to pay Coda for a license. > >-- > > > >______________________________________________________________ > >Richard Zvonar, PhD > >(818) 788-2202 > >http://www.zvonar.com > >http://RZCybernetics.com > >http://www.cybmotion.com/aliaszone > >http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=rz > > >