The Mellotron Group

What is it that you would like to know?
 
 
 
In a message dated 9/4/2011 6:21:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
gerribiton@yahoo.com writes:

 
 
 
you all seem to know alot about mellotrons....but do any  of you know 
anything about my father bill fransen? I am just trying to  get some personal 
questions answered. i am just so desperate for any  information anyone 
has....thank you....leureen fransen

--- On  Sun, 9/4/11, john barrick <barrickjohn262@gmail.com>  wrote:


From:  john barrick <barrickjohn262@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?
To:  newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2011,  1:32 PM


 
No, It was legal, though it wasn't Marcus that acquired it.  As you know, 
Gary, legal and "right" or proper, can often be two  entirely different 
things.  With that said, I don't know that I'd  go as far as to say that there 
was anything improper about Marcus' end  of the deal as far as the Mellotron 
name goes - his naming convention,  however, as in M4000D, is entirely out of 
bounds and good business  practice.

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:05 PM,  Gary Brumm <_gabru@comsec.net_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=gabru@comsec.net) >  wrote:


 
 
 

 
Maybe I am missing  something….did Marcus not acquire the Mellotron 
trademark  legally?  

 
 
From: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   
[mailto:_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) ]  On Behalf Of gino wong
Sent: Sunday, September 04,  2011 1:01 PM
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
 


Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup] What's in a name?




 

 


 
 
 
 
I said it before and I'll say it  again.  Whoever owns the Mellotron 
trademark knows how it got  where it got and how painful it has been to the people 
who labored  to create  the Mellotron.  A truly decent proper gentleman  of 
a human being would present it to Leslie Bradley's family with  love and 
appreciation. Things would be better overall for it. More  commerce would 
occur all the way around.  It's not obvious but  it is a fact. 

 


 
To me, there is no question.  it ias like somebody dropped a dollar on the 
street and you  saw them do it.  Do you walk fast for half a block and 
return  it or do you pocket it. ?

 


 
It is that simple and it is going to  define that person historically. 
Nobody will remember good guy or  not. If these guys have children, they will 
never live it down,  kids will never understand, it will get worse as they get 
 older.

 



 
I don't understand why Markus thinks  doing something like this buys him 
any respect or trust.  People  who invest money are looking to avoid people 
who have pulled moves  like this. In this day and age, with all of the 
financial hurt this is  the equivalent of a civil rights violation.  I work for and 
 advise an artist, very well known who will not be using his instrument  
and I will work for others and the people I have trained will hear the  story, 
and there is no deciding for themselves.  Bad form is bad  form

 


 


 

 

 
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:23 AM,  tronbros <_tronbros@aol.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=tronbros@aol.com) >  wrote:
 

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

 


 
M

_mellotronics.co.uk_ (http://mellotronics.co.uk/) 
 

 


 
 
 

On 4 Sep  2011, at 15:07, Andy kinch <_kinchmusic@aol.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) >
To:  newmellotrongroup <_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=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
 






--  
 

 
Gino Wong Birgelo  
 
BSComm, BSEE & BS in  general
 
Audio Production, Logistics,  Synthesizers and sound design
 

 
_Ginowong@gmail.com_ 
(http://us.mc1205.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Ginowong@gmail.com) 
 

 







-- 
john barrick


*Leo got it right the first time*
*then he added a second pickup and got it  righter*