New Schiller

[pierso20]

This again makes me reiterate, I will never own a Chinese made tuba. Not for me, no thanks.

Somehow I don't believe that this sort of attitude will hold forever. As a point I made in my poston this topic, look at Japanese technology products over the last 30 years. WHO in their right mind would have owned a Japanese product in the 60's or 70's?? Who owns one now? What about Sony...hmmm

My point is, time change, competition change, quality changes. There may be a day (not right now, but someday) when these Chinese Instruments are as good or better quality than their western counterparts. I wouldn't be so quick to say "I will never own a Chinese Tuba"....becauase there are MANY who would have "never owned a Japanese "VCR"" or whatever.....yet...look now.

[pierso20]

I wonder about the legality of the Schiller copies. Miraphone must have a patent for this horn design correct? Is there no value in pursuing litigation, or is there some loop hole that make this horn "different" from the 1291? I feel terribly sympathetic to those manufacturers that research and develop a good product, only to have Knockoff Johnny set up a factory and undercut them.

I do agree with this. I wonder what type of "patent" tuba design are assured. In addition, it makes you wonder too...since it's "international" and countries may or may not feel that it applies to them. I don't think the countries of the world will file a trade embargo against china over some tubas....though countries could refuse to sell these Schiller horns.

The valve caps look differet though. ha!

[toobaa]

I've compared my schillaphone to a real 186 and it's not an exact copy, the inner wraps are slightly different, not really much, but perhaps just enough to claim being a different design, maybe.

[UTSAtuba]

You know, I would be (one of) the first to admit that after playing the Chinese 186 (note: it wasn't the 'Schiller' copy), I enjoyed the sound more than the original 186. Hey, call it blasphemy, but I report it how I hear it. Yet, just like many others have mentioned, how is the long-term quality of these instruments? I think that is everyone's big concern.

I myself have been wondering what to do about getting another horn. Right now, I don't see myself doing much playing after I graduate in a year, but I still want something that plays good (don't we all!).

At this point, the Schiller 'knock-offs' seem like a good deal if the horns last relatively longer than anticipated. In fact, they seem like a pretty damn good deal. We all worry about quality, but now that I think about it, haven't we seen a specific factory pump out horns with way less than stellar build construction?

Anyways, I'm done ranting. Here are more pictures just put up of the new Schiller copy:





And here is their description:

The Schiller American Heritage Tuba model is quietly referred to by our staff at Schiller as the Little Giant. New 4/4 Size with 4 Front Fast Action Piston Valves (Multi Tapered Piston Bores) and A Rotary Valve. Lower and Upper Registers are hearty and full with nickel plated leadpipe for high presence Rounded tone and Yellow Brass 18.5” Bell w/Clear Lacquered Finish. Schiller AH 4 Valve Piston Tuba Comes complete with Genuine Schiller Mouthpiece and Hard Case with Wheels.

[iiipopes]

I wonder about the legality of the Schiller copies. Miraphone must have a patent for this horn design correct? Is there no value in pursuing litigation, or is there some loop hole that make this horn "different" from the 1291? I feel terribly sympathetic to those manufacturers that research and develop a good product, only to have Knockoff Johnny set up a factory and undercut them.

I do agree with this. I wonder what type of "patent" tuba design are assured. In addition, it makes you wonder too...since it's "international" and countries may or may not feel that it applies to them. I don't think the countries of the world will file a trade embargo against china over some tubas....though countries could refuse to sell these Schiller horns.

The valve caps look differet though. ha!

Not necessarily. The trademarking of design elements and overall form of an instrument are not prevalent, and even where they are, unless positive steps are taken in an ongoing manner to enforce the rights and preserve the trademark, they can be lost and pass into the public domain. For example, the word "refrigerator" was coined so that the brand name "Frigidare" would not pass into common usage; we all remember the "Coke v Pepsi" battles; and most recently, Fender lost the battle to keep the body shapes of the Telecaster, Stratocaster and Precision Bass as trademark-able proprietary designs, because they didn't go after the copies to enforce their legal rights soon enough or strongly enough, so they lost them. Rickenbacker, OTOH, has probably the most stringent control of their designs, including an international legal team that constantly monitors and takes legal action against all copies, even those that are only suggestive and not an outright copy. And Fender did from the start register, and does still own, the trademark on the "offset waist" body shape of the Jazzmaster and Jazz Bass, and it is enforceable.

So the real answer to the Chinese tuba copies is, as with most other things, "It depends...."

[pierso20]

I wonder about the legality of the Schiller copies. Miraphone must have a patent for this horn design correct? Is there no value in pursuing litigation, or is there some loop hole that make this horn "different" from the 1291? I feel terribly sympathetic to those manufacturers that research and develop a good product, only to have Knockoff Johnny set up a factory and undercut them.

I do agree with this. I wonder what type of "patent" tuba design are assured. In addition, it makes you wonder too...since it's "international" and countries may or may not feel that it applies to them. I don't think the countries of the world will file a trade embargo against china over some tubas....though countries could refuse to sell these Schiller horns.

The valve caps look differet though. ha!

Not necessarily. The trademarking of design elements and overall form of an instrument are not prevalent, and even where they are, unless positive steps are taken in an ongoing manner to enforce the rights and preserve the trademark, they can be lost and pass into the public domain. For example, the word "refrigerator" was coined so that the brand name "Frigidare" would not pass into common usage; we all remember the "Coke v Pepsi" battles; and most recently, Fender lost the battle to keep the body shapes of the Telecaster, Stratocaster and Precision Bass as trademark-able proprietary designs, because they didn't go after the copies to enforce their legal rights soon enough or strongly enough, so they lost them. Rickenbacker, OTOH, has probably the most stringent control of their designs, including an international legal team that constantly monitors and takes legal action against all copies, even those that are only suggestive and not an outright copy. And Fender did from the start register, and does still own, the trademark on the "offset waist" body shape of the Jazzmaster and Jazz Bass, and it is enforceable.

So the real answer to the Chinese tuba copies is, as with most other things, "It depends...."

You make an excellent point. I am not an economist nor do I really understand this sort of subject. It just really interests me....because as a consumder, I like to get the most bang for my buck.

[Dan Schultz]

I wonder about the legality of the Schiller copies. ......

..... The valve caps look differet though. ha!

Therein lies much of the problem with patent law. Much of what you see that is patented is covered by what is called a design patent that has nothing to do with function or any special feature. All that's required to skirt the issue is a small deviation in the design.

The way patent law works really sucks. In the 80's, I was manufacturing and marketing some aftermarket Corvette accessories. Yes... I had several patents pending.... which actually affords better protection than actually being issued a patent. While pending... the information is concealed. Once issued... the patent is published and it's fair game for the whole World to see why your product is patented. That just makes it easier to snitch the idea and modify it.

The tragic thing here is that the government takes a very limited stance on patents and most of the battles are left up to the attorneys.... costing EVERYONE big bucks. There are two things in favor or a 'patent buster'... relative obscurity or lots of money.

The very idea of advertising Schiller horns as being connected in any way with Frankfurt, Germany should be treated as criminal... in my opinion. Folks who market their products in this manner will NEVER be trusted by this guy! I would think the Germans would be horrified to see their good names besmirched in this manner.

[Wyvern]

I wonder how long before the quality of these products begins to have an impact on the Western tuba production market. Eventually someone will have to give...either the chinese prices will increase, western prices will fall, or maybe they'll meet in the middle.

I cannot see how European manufacturers can compete with the Chinese for price, because labor costs in China are so cheap. I know through my time over there that $300 a month is a good wage in China, while I expect German workers earn at least 10-times that amount. So German instruments manufacturers in the long term can only compete by being of much higher quality to keep the 'professional' market.

For breach of patent - I guess the cost of International Legal action would just be too much for an instrument manufacturer the size of Miraphone? Now if the Chinese start copying Yamaha products, then I guess that is a big enough company to afford the legal action?

[pgym]

I wonder about the legality of the Schiller copies. Miraphone must have a patent for this horn design correct?

Must they?

In order for an item to be patent-able, it must, in general:

a) be of practical use;

b) show an element of novelty, that is, some new characteristic which is not known in the body of existing knowledge in its technical field;

c) show an inventive step which could not be deduced by a person with average knowledge of the technical field;

d) be accepted as "patentable" under law.

So, for example, new type of valve is patentable; repositioning a leadpipe or changing the shape of a brace or bow guard is not. Likewise, a new mfg process for producing tubas or tuba parts is patentable; the tubas and the parts themselves are not, unless they meet the fourfold test above.

Assuming for the sake of argument that tubas are, in fact, patentable, what new characteristics and inventive steps that cannot be deduced from prior art does the 1291 contain that would qualify it for patent protection?

[sloan]

So, for example, new type of valve is patentable; repositioning a leadpipe or changing the shape of a brace or bow guard is not.

While I tend to agree, I think I can imagine a situation where these seemingly minor changes *might* be patentable. It would require significant explanation - but it seems to me it might revolve around *why* the leadpipe is repositioned or *what the desired effect* of changing the shape of a brace or bow guard might be.

Assuming for the sake of argument that tubas are, in fact, patentable, what new characteristics and inventive steps that cannot be deduced from prior art does the 1291 contain that would qualify it for patent protection?

Well...I would expect these to be outlined (in excruciating and redundant detail) in the patent application. If Miraphone hasn't filed a patent application, then the question is moot. Perhaps Miraphone intends to rely on trade secrets rather than patents. Certainly, there have been patents over the years for various aspects of "how to build a better tuba".

Up until now, most protection against COPYING has been in the nature of producing tubas - almost by definition, anyone *competent* to build a tuba has generally had strong ideas on how to build a *better* one. Another protection is in quality - often the copies have been inferior in some measurable way (i.e., the copier was not, in fact, competent to produce an exact copy). This may (or may not) be still true.

[pgym]

So, for example, new type of valve is patentable; repositioning a leadpipe or changing the shape of a brace or bow guard is not.

While I tend to agree, I think I can imagine a situation where these seemingly minor changes *might* be patentable. It would require significant explanation - but it seems to me it might revolve around *why* the leadpipe is repositioned or *what the desired effect* of changing the shape of a brace or bow guard might be.

One can easily imagine all kinds of hypothetical scenarios in which such a change "might" be deemed patentable. It is debatable, however, whether a seemingly minor change, i.e., one that does not involve a radical departure from prior art, *would* yield a patent.

Assuming for the sake of argument that tubas are, in fact, patentable, what new characteristics and inventive steps that cannot be deduced from prior art does the 1291 contain that would qualify it for patent protection?

Well...I would expect these to be outlined (in excruciating and redundant detail) in the patent application. If Miraphone hasn't filed a patent application, then the question is moot.

Given the assumption that:

Miraphone must have a patent for this horn design correct?

it is reasonable to inquire what the basis for that assumption is, quite apart from the issue of whether or not the 1291 is, in fact, patented.

Certainly, there have been patents over the years for various aspects of "how to build a better tuba".

Emphasis on "build." New manufacturing processes have been deemed patentable virtually from the origin of the concept of patents, by virtue of their utility, novelty and non-obviousness, as are the individual parts, e.g., the Saturn waterkey. But those are different issues than the patentability of a tuba qua tuba.

[LCH3]

So, how many in this forum are participating using an IBM manufactured PC or is some copy/clone of the IBM - like a Dell PC - being used? There was a time when an IBM PC cost was around $3,500 and a good (maybe better) IBM clone was $1,500 or less. Now a good Dell is less than $500.

Maybe not exactly "apples to apples" but perhaps a part of the PC manufacturing history is being repeated in the music instrument world.

[tubaguy9]

And is the sound in the wrap of the instrument or in the tapers used of the horn?

[sloan]

And is the sound in the wrap of the instrument or in the tapers used of the horn?

Yes.

Here's an interesting point: the wrap may either be aesthetic or functional. If aesthetic, then it *might* be protected by trademark. If functional, it *might* be protected by patent. It's just barely conceivable that it might be protected by copyright. These are all different, and have different standards and registration and protection requirements.

Taper, on the other hand, would appear to be limited to patent protection (and that might be a tough sell).

[Art Hovey]

This is not the first example of cloned tuba models. For example, the YBB321 is a copy of some old British design, and Weril has freely copied the Yamaha, although I still can't understand why. "Barringtons" are apparently clones of the Mirafone 1271, and I would love to have a chance to play both versions side-by-side. Cloned rotary tubas are even more plentiful, and lots of cloning goes on in the world of stringed instruments. Has anyone ever heard of a legal action brought against the copier of any musical instrument?

[sugawi]

After looking at the picture of this Schiller tuba it reminded me of a Jinbao I saw recently. Seems like Jinbao is the manufacturer for Schiller.
Here is JBBB 540
http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/23409 ... image.html
JBBB 550
http://jinbaomusic.en.alibaba.com/produ ... _TUBA.html
I also think that M&M are made by Jinbao since M&M has the same numbering on the horns. Can I conclude that Jinbao=Schiller=M&M?
Seems like Jinbao is the one who's copying bunch of horns.
http://spanish.alibaba.com/product-free ... 48009.html

[Bob Kolada]

****!

http://jinbaomusic.en.alibaba.com/produ ... _TUBA.html

Minimum order quantity: 2 pieces
Price: FOB xingang tiajin China USD 1258-1320

edited for stupid fingers also this is NOT the 1291 clone, but the 2341-ish clone

[sugawi]

Make sure when you'll order to ask them to engrave your name on the bell and we will start cult following of the limited edition

[Bob Kolada]

If you think that is something, check this out!
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37962

[Wyvern]

****