The Mellotron Group

Sorry...Franson.,and it seems it was Harry that may have contacted the  
Bradleys. Regardless, They never "stole" anything.
 
 
In a message dated 9/4/2011 7:57:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
lsf5275@aol.com writes:

 
 
 
Wouldn't the person who stole Harry's invention be Bill Fransen? As I  
recall, when the Bradleys found out that Fransen wasn't the inventor they  
contacted Harry and paid him a licensing fee. Seems to me that the Bradleys  were 
very honorable.
 
 
In a message dated 9/4/2011 6:57:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
djacques@csulb.edu writes:

 
Oh please... Get off of it. There is no human crime here. 

If you  care so much about it, go after the people who stole Harry 
Chamberlin's  invention in the first place. 

This is "business". Someone saw an  opportunity and jumped on it. And its 
not like they are just sitting on a  name, they continue doing business with 
tape based products. Real and  digital. 

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile  
____________________________________
  
From: gino wong <wonggster@gmail.com> 
Sender: <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com> 
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 16:00:36 -0400
To: <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
ReplyTo: <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_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto: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_ 
(mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) >
To: newmellotrongroup  <_newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto: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, < (mailto:lsf5275@aol.com) 
_lsf5275@aol.com_ (mailto: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,   
(mailto:kinchmusic@aol.com) _kinchmusic@aol.com_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:Ginowong@gmail.com)