Against the "cloned instrument" idea

[bort]

Dead horse?

Yes...or get your own thread!

(Really just kidding, it was an interesting aside. Ben, you said this was for an MTA ad? For TV? Where did you guys film?)

[bisontuba]

Hi-
Here's something to think about. It is not just the Chinese cloning things--let's see--how many American & German makers have 'cloned' (most not very well) the famous Conn-Helleberg mouthpiece(s) for DECADES (most of the 20th Century and this Century too). If we are going to pick on the Chinese, let's pick on ALL makers who clone everything and anything. Cloning a Helleberg mouthpiece is no different than cloning a tuba...a clone is a clone is a clone....

Regards-
mark
jonestuba@juno.com" target="_blank

PS If 'Bloke' has copied any or all of a Conn Helleberg, we the people find him guilty of mouthpiece treason and sentence him to watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones magazine...LOL....

[bort]

Aah, cool nonetheless. Let me know if you start playing in some stations down there!

[Dan Schultz]

.... I realize TubeNet is not exactly a manufacturer sponsored Yammie fan club anyway. Serves 'em right to have Weril, et al copying their copies.....

Heck... much of Yamaha's production has been done in China for years, anyway. A local middle school just bought four 'Eastman' upright tubas. They look just like the Yamaha YBB-201 tubas. And... for good reason... they are built off the same tooling as the YBB-201 tubas... in the same factory where Yamaha contracted to have their YBB-201 tubas built. Don't know if it's true or not. But I was told that Eastman bought that particular factory complete with the tooling.

It's a small World!

[Donn]

I am not buying anything but an American, French, or German instrument, particularly when it comes to other instruments and tubas.

What have us British done to upset you???

Lucky we don't seem to have many Italian members! I love my Italian tuba and would like to have many more, all of them!

Dear bloke,

You're right: the argument from economics is always much more convincing than the arguments from ethics.

Nothing about this is cause for concern?

[The Big Ben]

Some of us lived like that in college. We have more money now. Understand?

I have more money than I did in college. I still live "that way" (if not more thriftily than I did then). Understand?

Don't take it so personal. True, our Puritan forefathers felt thriftiness was a virtue that showed people were blessed by God. If a person is thrifty, that stands by itself. Ain't evidence of anything else.

[UTSAtuba]

There are many things to discuss dealing with the original topic, but I do want to touch upon what Jonathan mentioned (I think, it was you Jonathan!):

Does it really matter that there are new 'designs' of tubas? I just mentioned this to a band director friend of mine (who happens to play french horn). How many instruments can we list that have not really changed in design, but rather have improved in design?

-Flute
-Clarinet
-French Horn
-Trumpet
-Euphonium
-Trombone (!)
-etc...

Ok ok, ALL instruments are different. But doesn't anyone notice that tubas are (essentially) the only instrument that has (in my opinion) radical differences in design across the board? Of course, some of this has to do with beginner player options, but it does make you wonder why we have this-and-that [brand] [model] tubas.

Like I mentioned, the above instruments (and I'm sure a few others) have not really changed in design, just improved and modified current designs (which IS done in the tuba world, but I see more of just 'new' designs).

Yet, this is not to bash newly designed instruments. It's more of an awakening of how spoiled we are on the tuba side compared to other instruments.

Joseph "remember, it's all an opinion" Guzman

[funkhoss]

Dear bloke,

You're right: the argument from economics is always much more convincing than the arguments from ethics.

Nothing about this is cause for concern?

It's sad, but not particularly surprising. People generally want to do what benefits themselves, not what benefits others. In the end, that's what it comes down to.

Don't take it so personal. True, our Puritan forefathers felt thriftiness was a virtue that showed people were blessed by God. If a person is thrifty, that stands by itself. Ain't evidence of anything else.

You are missing my point entirely. Given the current global economy, and the way that large corporations exploit both people and the environment, "thrift" has become a "moral" issue. We must recognize that everything we do, and especially how we spend our money, ultimately affects others both now and in the future. We cannot continue to ignore this fact.

Sam

[Donn]

But doesn't anyone notice that tubas are (essentially) the only instrument that has (in my opinion) radical differences in design across the board? Of course, some of this has to do with beginner player options, but it does make you wonder why have this-and-that [brand] [model] tubas.

Like I mentioned, the above instruments (and I'm sure a few others) have not really changed in design, just improved and modified current designs (which IS done in the tuba world, but I see more of just 'new' designs).

Yet, this is not to bash newly designed instruments. It's more of an awakening of how spoiled we are on the tuba side compared to other instruments.

Could you enlarge on this with an example or two, of a new design? I'm stumped!

And, sorry to be obtuse, but I don't get the general thesis - does it make me wonder, why have this-and-that brand model tubas? (It doesn't, should it?) Why would a reader have thought you were bashing newly designed instruments? We're spoiled? (tubas are better designed than other instruments, I think not?)

[pgym]

You are missing my point entirely. Given the current global economy, and the way that large corporations exploit both people and the environment, "thrift" has become a "moral" issue.

A purportedly "moral" virtue that is only accessible to those with the wherewithal, financial and otherwise, to practice it is, by any commonly acknowledged definition of morality, not a "moral virtue."

[bort]

Yet, this is not to bash newly designed instruments. It's more of an awakening of how spoiled we are on the tuba side compared to other instruments.

I disagree. Tubas are very new, compared to those other instruments. We've not even been on the scene for 200 years. How long have flutes existed? Trumpets? How about trombones? Very old as well... although, you should notice how every few years a new type of trombone valve setup comes out (thayer, hagmann, yadayada...)

You're seeing a lot of new tuba designs, because we haven't had that benefit of hundreds of years of trial and error. We also DO have the benefit of computer technologies, and so though we might be over the "golden years" of figuring out what a tuba is and can be, there's plenty of refinement left to be done. And it's possible to make huge progress in a much shorter amount of time than a few hundred years ago. We got a late start, and it's apples to oranges to say if we're doing more or less than anyone else. They started long, long ago.

Also, tubas are expensive. Even a cheapo clone is not a small purchase for most people. Tuba manufacturers know they aren't selling in huge volumes, nor do people own more than 1 or 2 tubas. We're a picky bunch, and expect perfection. We'll test and test and test until we're sick of it, and test some more. Then finally, we might buy, to make sure it's really what we want. For big purchases, I always say "buy it nice, or buy it twice."

[UTSAtuba]

Could you enlarge on this with an example or two, of a new design? I'm stumped!

One of Jupiter's new CC tubas.

And, sorry to be obtuse, but I don't get the general thesis - does it make me wonder, why have this-and-that brand model tubas? (It doesn't, should it?) Why would a reader have thought you were bashing newly designed instruments? We're spoiled? (tubas are better designed than other instruments, I think not?)

I met, why we have this-and-that many different tubas (similar in design, different in taste). A reader (especially readers on here) might have thought I was bashing newly-designed instruments since I was focusing on improvements of old designs. I say "spoiled" since there are many, many different sorts of tubas available for us (not just key, but in design). Every time I open up a WWBW, or any other retailer catalog, I always notice most instruments 'look' essentially the same...flip over to the the tuba section, and it's a different story.

To Bort:

I agree that tubas are new compared to other instruments, and that they have had time to develop. Yet, I believe that if current and past (great) tuba players were able to kick *** on what they had, why not just mere improvements on design (?). If there are instruments (of any genre) that had major flaws in its design, then why would they still (read: are) be/being produced?

Joseph "opinions are opinions are opinions" Guzman

[DavidB]

Just as a side comment, cloning of designs happens in the piano world too. I've attached three plan views of concert grands, Steinway, Bechstein and Yamaha. Compare the general plate design, tone holes, scale design--all that substantially differs is the bracing over the tenor section.

Steinway has been using the same basic 9' plate and scale unchanged since the 1890's, they got it right 100 years ago. The Bechstein and Yamaha are both new designs introduced within the last ten years--what a coincidence they ended up so similar to the Steinway.

TTYL
David

overhead-steinway.jpg

overhead-bechstein.jpg

overhead-yamaha.jpg

[Donn]

Could you enlarge on this with an example or two, of a new design? I'm stumped!

One of Jupiter's new CC tubas.

OK, pretend I'm a saxophone player, looking at a Jupiter 584 in the WWBW catalogue. What about this tuba is new? (If it helps, I do play saxophone and I am looking at the WWBW entry.)

I say "spoiled" since there are many, many different sorts of tubas available for us (not just key, but in design).

To the extent that's true, we're not spoiled, we're screwed.

I mean, sousaphone vs. lap tuba is clearly useful, but of course other instruments don't require a special shoulder mounted variant because the ordinary configuration is perfectly suited to playing either sitting or not. Most of the other variations in tuba configurations are a clear sign that there is no ideal compromise, so the tuba player may be obliged to acquire multiple tubas to suit his or her purposes - it isn't enough to just master the tuba, you're evidently limited by the compromises of the particular design.

Of course, the same is really true of other instruments, and the person who looks at the WWBW catalogue and can see differences only between the tubas, sounds like one who plays only the tuba.

[wonderbread403]

Cloned instruments don't bother me. In a free, competitive market, copies are to be expected. I'm going to side with the idea that more competition (and more choices) is better. Miraphone and more "pro" level tuba makers will always have their niche market because of the tuba community value them highly for their dependability, consistency, and quality. Chinese tubas (like most Chinese-made products) have that stigma for "cheap and decent," (as Dan Schultz has noted on his 1291 clone, the finish on the slides and valves aren't as good as Miraphone) and that works for a lot of consumers who have tighter budgets. If you have the proper budget and need a pro-level tuba to last you for a lifetime (or for high resale value), Miraphone, Hirsbrunner, MW, etc. make better sense. Or go cheap and buy a Chinese tuba that has yet to prove it's durability. In the end, more choice is better for the consumer.

[Rick Denney]

I have no problem with generics, as long as a period of exclusivity for the patent holder is observed to recoup R&D expenses. The issues at quetion: 1. is the clone similar enough to be considered patent infringement? 2. has the period of exclusivity lapsed if a patent was filed?

Unlike with copyrights, where the protection (at least in the U.S.) is assumed and automatic, patents have to be held before they can be enforced. And to hold a patent you really do have to advance the state of the art with something new. The problem with tubas is that they are such a mature technology that there really isn't much that is new any more. Then there's the problem of exposing to your competition the nature of your innovation, which you may find more costly than dealing with clones that don't quite get it right because of that secrecy.

And once the patent is approved, the holder only has a limited time to capitalize on it--14 years. The point of patents is to give the inventor a good, healthy shot at making some money, and then making it available to everyone so that the state of the art advances.

There were many patents taken out on instruments in their early days, and enforced or not as a matter of international law. But the patentable technologies are no longer that important. Exceptions include valve designs (Thayer comes to mind) that are truly new. But Perinet valves are basically unchanged in design for their 150-year history, and rotary valves are even older than that. Every taper design imaginable has already been explored. The differences between instruments are way down in the subtle details that are, in some cases, at least, accidents of discovery more than purposed and articulable inventions.

Most of what distinguishes price in the market is construction quality and endorsement (either direclty or by example), so patentable technology is not at issue in any case. Nobody would pay a Miraphone price for a clone of a 186 because the clones are not as well made and don't have the cachet that the real thing does. But they can sell them to people unwilling to pay for construction quality and cachet. In which case, Miraphone has already made what it can from a 186 in terms of recouping their development dollars and it's time for innovation. Miraphone has been innovating like crazy, too.

So, how long should a company be able to monopolize a design? When asked that way, the perspective may shift a bit.

Rick "noting how long B&H had Blaikley compensation bottled up in patent rights, to the detriment of innovation and improvement" Denney

[Uncle Buck]

Sorry, Uncle Buck, but, in case you hadn't noticed, copyright law and patent law are BOTH subsets of Intellectual Property Law, and, as such, are therefore more akin to Winesap and Gala apples than apples and oranges.

Name me one attorney who practices, and gets paid a significant (more than 20%) portion of their time and money, in both.

[sloan]

snip
Also, to cjk and bloke, please to not attack me personally. If you disagree with me, GREAT! However, for a truly productive discussion, please confront my arguments, not my person. I will try to do the same.

Regards,

Sam F.

Yer gonna break the innernets with an attitude like that mr. /bad sarcasm.

Why is it that posts complaining of ad hominem attacks always name names?

[sloan]

I tend to think if the Chinese started producing York CC and Holton 345 BBb BAT clones at an affordable price - a lot of people would have a change of heart?

Why should a company new to the business start by copying models that have FAILED commercially?

New players have to FIRST demonstrate that they can COPY. Only after they demonstrate competence in copying can they afford to innovate.

Consider - suppose the Chinese came up with a major improvement to the 186. If they produced this marvelous, and objectively better, instrument - would it succeed in the marketplace? No - because not enough people would be brave enough to buy it. They would see that it was DIFFERENT. Combine this with the inevitable minor production flaws (esp in a new manufacturer) and most people would say: badly made - and they didn't even copy it correctly!) If you faithfully copy an existing, COMMERCIALLY VIABLE model, potential buyers see only the price difference and the quality difference - andare generally able to balance the competing concerns.

Later (much later), when the new player has captured a certain market share, it can afford to bring out novel models with innovative features.

The history of Picasso's development as an artist is the usual cheesy example cited here: to some people, it's very important to know that Picasso was a first class traditional artist (he could draw) in order to appreciate his not-so-traditional work (my 7yo niece can draw better than that!).

Every new medium goes through the same process: FIRST it must accurately reproduce the results using the older medium, AND THEN it is allowed to expand and do things that the older medium could not.
Stage to screen. Radio to TV. And so on.

[BavarianFanfare]

Neptune:

I have no problems with the British. In fact, I admire you guys for many things! I can go down the list if you wish. I should have included British products which I have owned over the years (e.g. Triumph Thunderbird Motorcycle). I stated it the way I did because a vast majority of my instruments are from the U.S., Germany, & France. At the least the expensive stuff. I should have also included Japanese products. I own a Yamaha P22 Oak Upright Piano that was made in Georgia, U.S.A. I found out recently from my piano tuner they are no longer made there, and are now made in China. It's a great piano for my needs. I do remember many years ago when Japanese products were looked upon as inferior & cheap like the Chinese products are now. I simply do not wish to purchase Chinese products, because I do consider their products cheaply made & inferior. Give them several decades of serious research & development, then it will be something possibly worth looking at.