The Mellotron Group

The truth is that Markus has protected a name that he cannot protect.  A colossal waste of time.

M

mellotronics.co.uk



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
>  
> 
>