Repost from VDrums

[TAKnipe]

Pardon Me I am reposting this from VDrums,




How far can it go ethically before Roland cracks down?

I noticed that alot of folks have been openly selling a clear Roland design and I am wondering how far before they put a stop to it or if it is even close enough to patent infringement to worry about.

I have always drawn the line at doing the shells and retrofitting baskets for myself and fulfilling a few shells for friends at cost and for hobby. I also have tried to make sure I am providing something to myself that cannot or isnt manufactured such as real wood shells and different colors. But never would cross the line into selling these things for a profit.

After seeing the goings on here and a few other places I have to say the thought of reproducing a working design for sale is very tempting. But nonetheless bad form.

I remember getting help in making sure my first kit worked great, and felt such a high playing it. I think its great to diy anf hope lots of folks go that route especially for the satisfaction and sweat equity not too mention cost benefits. But I think that when you cross the line and begin to dive into selling someone elses intelectual property then I think we have crossed a line.

Sometime ago I asked at the Yamaha Forum what Yamaha is going to do with the RHP technology, I would like to clone it and keep it available to Yamaha users and to add real Birch shells to my DTXtreme2 or the new 3 coming soon. I didnt get a clear cut answer to that question and it has me puzzled.

As a matter of fact heres an interesting question? Can you sample Roland sounds and use them in a Xtreme2s? If not why not? Can you give them away or use them privately? If the new 3 has extensive sampling capabilities couldnt you just sample away.

I hope to broach this subject with Mike Snyder at Futuredrum 2007 if he has time. I truly would like to know what Roland thinks. I think alot of these topics will be coming to a head in the near future as technologies collide and it reaches critical mass.

[OverLord]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=AN%2FRoland&d=PTXT
Here, go dig through this and see what is Drum Related. Turns out they have a lot.
I used the search AN/Roland which will show all patents that are assigned to "Roland" but there are more companies with the name Roland than just the one we know and love.

I think the driving force to any crack down will be how much you show up on the "radar" and how much money you are depriving the owner of by infringing.

Dual-ply mesh heads are a perfect example. As soon as companies started selling infringing heads, Roland put the clamps on.

But triggering drums is not a roland patent. Especially by piezo. Cone shape might be, the baskets definitely are.

As for samples - that is a clear violation of copyright AND licensing. Just try selling a Vdrums sample disk and see what happens! Heh.

These would be some great questions for Mike, Drew and Scott at the Q&A session. Scott is an old college buddy of mine, by the way.

[TAKnipe]

I thought so also, I asked about personal use sampling from one module to another because I thought it to be pertinent atleast to my situation owning both modules.

I love to diy but I try to be upfront about what I am doing and most of all share how I didt and give credit to whom I found the idea from. I hate the flea market mentality as it pertains to copying and selling someone elses property. :)

[CaTaPulT]

Hi all.
To me, patents are a huge grey area.
I can understand Roland owning the patent on dual ply heads, the basket thing, the cone, but the rest isn't rocket science, Roland didn't invent the piezzo, they didn't invent drum shells and so on. So for DIY people, I'm more in favor of the little guy making good on a previous idea and improving it. A DIY person might not cut corners like Roland since he doesn't have to make a huge profit like they do.
Patents can be counter productive and stiffel ingenuity.
If Henry Ford would have patented any form of assembly line auto making, them would GM and Chrysler ever have existed?
Another form of Patent abuse that frustrated me to no end is this small example......
Steve Jobs of Apple computer, at one time was having a hay day suing anything that came out of the market with a GUI (Graphical User Interface), he tried suing MicroSoft for early versions of windows, he tried suing Atari for using a GUI called GEM in their Atari ST line of computers. Here's the real kick in the head......
Steve Jobs didn't think of the GUI, he stole the idea, he once visited Xerox park, they had developed a GUI based office system called "The automated office" the monitors were rectangles, shaped to represent a sheet of paper, Xerox said that it cost so much to manufacture these machines, they were dropping the idea, so obviously they didn't patent the GUI idea. Steve Jobs upon returning to Apple, said, we are heading in a new direction, thus the design of the first Mac was started. The rest is history. I believe the courts ruled against Mr. Jobs in the GUI lawsuits, thank god for that!
This is one example that ideas can be stolen, but to have the balls to sue someone because yo patented the stolen idea is downright wrong. This is why to this day I have no respect for Mr. Jobs. Steve Wozniac on the other hand I admire, he was the real brains behind Apple computers! :)
Take care

Regards: >>>> Jack <<<<

[OverLord]

Yeah, Woz was an innovator. Jobs a marketer.

Just because you register a patent doesn't always mean it can be enforced. As Jobs found out. I am sure there are Roland patents that can't be enforced. I just don't have the money to test that theory in court.

Although our friend Mr. Knipe doesn't know it yet, he is about to come under the scrutiny of Steve Fischer - lawyer for Roland. I sort of forced their hand in issuing a policy statement about what non-profit DIYers can and can't do with respect to Roland patents. This is important to me since I don't want any legal surprises at FutureDrum. I get the feeling he is going to lean toward the "don't ask, don't tell, don't sell" policy. Surprisingly, the folks at Roland have been very nice about all this. No heavy-handedness at all. They have to walk the fine line between encouraging their customer base and diluting their patents. I don't envy them.

[TAKnipe]

Yeah, Woz was an innovator. Jobs a marketer.

Just because you register a patent doesn't always mean it can be enforced. As Jobs found out. I am sure there are Roland patents that can't be enforced. I just don't have the money to test that theory in court.

Although our friend Mr. Knipe doesn't know it yet, he is about to come under the scrutiny of Steve Fischer - lawyer for Roland. I sort of forced their hand in issuing a policy statement about what non-profit DIYers can and can't do with respect to Roland patents. This is important to me since I don't want any legal surprises at FutureDrum. I get the feeling he is going to lean toward the "don't ask, don't tell, don't sell" policy. Surprisingly, the folks at Roland have been very nice about all this. No heavy-handedness at all. They have to walk the fine line between encouraging their customer base and diluting their patents. I don't envy them.


Welcome Jack & Debbie, It is great to have you both here.

Michael,

My first question is how does this affect my involvement with FutureDrum 2007? I have a feeling I am not going to like the answer but will wear whatever decision is made as a badge of honor.

I dont mind any scrutiny at all, I would never infringe upon someone elses patent or intellectual property. I also dont sell electronic drums, so I dont know what scrutiny I would have to deal with. I would think that openly selling a product like GDrums using basically every design element from Roland would draw their ire before a diy'er like me would. There are a few others also that come to mind.

I am interested in their new policy though to see what can be done? Are they going to restrict the sale of their baskets and parts? Are they going to restrict their products from being used in conjunction with real wood shells?? I actually dont mind at all operating under whatever they come out with as long as it is fair. As a matter of fact I will go as far as to say I will trumpet their new policy and post it on my website so all others can abide also. See yall in the funny papers. T

[OverLord]

As we discussed on the phone, I doubt that there will be anything draconian. They just need to clarify their position. Roland seems to realize that gentle nudges get better results than heavy hammers.