Buzz Feiten tuning system

All-
I have checked out Buzz Feiten's patents and I now understand
how his system works. To read them yourself, go to

http://www.patents.ibm.com/fcgi-bin/patquery

the IBM patent server (a wonderful web site at which you can access all
patents after 1971 and many before, with powerful search engines.)

The essence of Buzz's patents are these points:
1. Acoustic guitars do not have adjustable bridges, so,

add an adjustable bridge to an acoustic guitar to compensate for the
stretching of strings due to fretting

2. The nut of acoustic guitars is traditionally cut so that fretting in
the first position produces greater tension than fretting in higher
positions, so,

shorten the fingerboard at the nut end to compensate for this effect.

I must say, I am not impressed. Buzz may be well meaning and his method
may compensate for a too-high nut, but why not just cut the nut properly
in the first place? I realize that arguments can be made that some
repetoir may require allowance for greater string excursion for vigorous
strumming in the open position, but in general the nut should be cut so
that the distance from the first fret to the string is the same as that
from the second fret to the string when the first is fretted. If someone
can give me a valid reason why the nut should not be treated as the 0th
fret, I will eat a bug (I get to choose the bug and the method of
preparation).
I have nothing against Buzz or innovation in tuning systems, and
no axe to grind, but unless he has made new discoveries not listed in his
latest patent (issued March 17, 1998) the hype and talk of meantone and
other temperaments in the ads and media is nonsense. Buzz's patents speak
only to an improvement in intonation of 12TET (although the rule of 18 is
specifically referred to in the patents, rather than 12th root of 2) as
realized on an acoustic guitar with a too-high nut and uncompensated bridge.

Your loveable old crank,

John Starrett
http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~jstarret