Overbroad Patent Application?

Please have a look at this patent application. It strikes me, after a brief reading, as incorporating significant software elements, most of it free, which I and many others around here use. The application does not report on this prior art, but it appears plausible that granting this patent could affect use of such tools. If I read it correctly, it would seem, for example, to be patenting the entire pitchbend via midi relaying process that many of us use.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=aaron&s2=hunt&OS=aaron+AND+hunt&RS=aaron+AND+hunt

I honestly don't know much about the patenting process, but if there is some stage in the process in which outsiders are allowed to comment, and my suspicions above are correct, we sure ought to comment.

Daniel Wolf

That's Aaron Hunt's patent... I assume for the tuning box. I think
that this patent may not succeed just because by the definition of
that patent, Scala and Fractal Tune Smithy would be infringing, and
Scala's/FTS's retuning of MIDI predates the tuning box by quite a bit,
no? But if he changes the language slightly to make it so that the
device which alters the tuning in real-time is a standalone device
that has nothing to do with a computer, then I don't think anyone will
have a problem, and it shouldn't interfere with anything that we're
doing.

I would tell Manuel about it, as it directly affects his program.
Assuming good intentions on the part of Aaron Hunt, you can also send
him an email - his website is at h-pi.com, I believe.

-Mike

On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
> Please have a look at this patent application. It strikes me, after a
> brief reading, as incorporating significant software elements, most of it
> free, which I and many others around here use. The application does not
> report on this prior art, but it appears plausible that granting this
> patent could affect use of such tools. If I read it correctly, it would
> seem, for example, to be patenting the entire pitchbend via midi relaying
> process that many of us use.
>
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=aaron&s2=hunt&OS=aaron+AND+hunt&RS=aaron+AND+hunt
>
>
> I honestly don't know much about the patenting process, but if there is
> some stage in the process in which outsiders are allowed to comment, and
> my suspicions above are correct, we sure ought to comment.
>
> Daniel Wolf
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Daniel Wolf wrote:
> Please have a look at this patent application. It strikes me, after a > brief reading, as incorporating significant software elements, most of it > free, which I and many others around here use. The application does not > report on this prior art, but it appears plausible that granting this > patent could affect use of such tools. If I read it correctly, it would > seem, for example, to be patenting the entire pitchbend via midi relaying > process that many of us use.
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=aaron&s2=hunt&OS=aaron+AND+hunt&RS=aaron+AND+hunt
> > > I honestly don't know much about the patenting process, but if there is > some stage in the process in which outsiders are allowed to comment, and > my suspicions above are correct, we sure ought to comment.

I don't know either, but I suspect that by the time the application is public, it's too late. The whole point of patents is to protect innovation by granting a temporary monopoly. Unfortunately, the system has gone out of whack, and too many trivial ideas are getting through.

I haven't looked at this patent -- patents tend to be incomprehensible and require a fluency in legalese to understand -- but Scott R. Wilkinson, in _Tuning In: Microtonality In Electronic Music_, mentions an article by Carter Scholz in _Keyboard_ magazine, Feburary 1986: "Any MIDI Keyboard Can Play in Just Intonation with Computerized Pitch Bending". So these sorts of ideas have been around since the early days of MIDI. They're almost trivially obvious to anyone with any computer experience -- the sort of thing that no one would consider patenting. If anyone happens to have this magazine it would be interesting to get a summary of the method described in the article, as anything published in 1986 ought to be usable without any concerns about patents.

Hi Daniel, Mike and Herman.

Please allow me to set the record straight.

Mike, thanks for assuming my motives are good. Let me
assure everyone that they are.

The patent is specifically for *hardware* implementation of
the dynamic pitch bend retuning method, which has not
been patented, or commercially implemented before, and the
broadness of definition ensures that the protection is not
limited to MIDI, but instead protects its implementation in
any digital interface used for music.

I have no intention whatsoever to sue others using dynamic
pitch bend retuning in their *software*. That would be
ludicrous anyway, since the method is public domain and
people have been using it for nearly 30 years.

The patent is there to keep companies like Yamaha from
using the method to try and crush my business, however
laughably unlikely that may be.

I hope that clears things up. That said, I'm not really interested
in saying anything more about it. As usual, I would prefer not
to discuss business things here. I'm happy to correspond by
email directly or through my business website.

Yours,
Aaron
=====
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments
Forum: <http://www.h-pi.com/phpBB2/>
Blog: <http://www.h-pi.com/wordpress/>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> Daniel Wolf wrote:
> > Please have a look at this patent application. It strikes me, after a
> > brief reading, as incorporating significant software elements, most of it
> > free, which I and many others around here use. The application does not
> > report on this prior art, but it appears plausible that granting this
> > patent could affect use of such tools. If I read it correctly, it would
> > seem, for example, to be patenting the entire pitchbend via midi relaying
> > process that many of us use.
> >
> > http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=aaron&s2=hunt&OS=aaron+AND+hu
nt&RS=aaron+AND+hunt
> >
> >
> > I honestly don't know much about the patenting process, but if there is
> > some stage in the process in which outsiders are allowed to comment, and
> > my suspicions above are correct, we sure ought to comment.
>
> I don't know either, but I suspect that by the time the application is
> public, it's too late. The whole point of patents is to protect
> innovation by granting a temporary monopoly. Unfortunately, the system
> has gone out of whack, and too many trivial ideas are getting through.
>
> I haven't looked at this patent -- patents tend to be incomprehensible
> and require a fluency in legalese to understand -- but Scott R.
> Wilkinson, in _Tuning In: Microtonality In Electronic Music_, mentions
> an article by Carter Scholz in _Keyboard_ magazine, Feburary 1986: "Any
> MIDI Keyboard Can Play in Just Intonation with Computerized Pitch
> Bending". So these sorts of ideas have been around since the early days
> of MIDI. They're almost trivially obvious to anyone with any computer
> experience -- the sort of thing that no one would consider patenting. If
> anyone happens to have this magazine it would be interesting to get a
> summary of the method described in the article, as anything published in
> 1986 ought to be usable without any concerns about patents.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@...>
wrote:
>

> Mike, thanks for assuming my motives are good. Let me
> assure everyone that they are.
>
(cut)
>
> I have no intention whatsoever to sue others using dynamic
> pitch bend retuning in their *software*. That would be
> ludicrous anyway, since the method is public domain and
> people have been using it for nearly 30 years.
>
> The patent is there to keep companies like Yamaha from
> using the method to try and crush my business, however
> laughably unlikely that may be.
>

While I have no doubt about your intentions, a patent creates a
particular set of facts, and absent a more thorough description of
prior art — and especially here for work that has never been patented
in the first place — a danger, however much you reassure us
otherwise, remains that your patent could be sold or transfered to
others whose intentions are less generous. As I read the patent, it
is clearly deficient in acknowledging these 30 years of work and I am
far from optimistic than anyone in the patent office will be familiar
enough to recognize this.

Daniel Wolf

Again I am reminded of why I decided not be involved in
anything other than making announcements on the tuning
list...

Funny thing, I even found recently that my announcements
get pounced on!

</makemicromusic/topicId_19624.html#19625>

I do understand this whole thing about patents making
people a little uncomfortable, but I really don't know what
else I can say to put your fears at ease.

Let me try anyway.

Software using the method is not cited, because it was deemed
irrelevant. That was a huge chunk of text removed from the
draft. Its removal surprised me, but then I am not a patent lawyer.

Once again, the patent is about *hardware*, not software.
I wrote the text, not the claims. What you see there is a patent
application, not the final patent, and the examiner will make
the proper determinations concerning the claims.

I will be the owner of the patent when it issues, and I'm not going
to sell it.

It's expensive to get a patent, and I'm not rich, nor am I getting
rich on this.

OK?

Now please allow me to enjoy the rest of the weekend, and I hope
you will do the same.

Yours,
Aaron
====
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments

Please note that I choose not to be involved in discussions of things H-Pi related outside
of the H-Pi forums, and I cordially invite everyone who is interested to please join and
participate.
Forum: <http://www.h-pi.com/phpBB2/>
Blog: <http://www.h-pi.com/wordpress/>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "djwolf_frankfurt" <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@>
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Mike, thanks for assuming my motives are good. Let me
> > assure everyone that they are.
> >
> (cut)
> >
> > I have no intention whatsoever to sue others using dynamic
> > pitch bend retuning in their *software*. That would be
> > ludicrous anyway, since the method is public domain and
> > people have been using it for nearly 30 years.
> >
> > The patent is there to keep companies like Yamaha from
> > using the method to try and crush my business, however
> > laughably unlikely that may be.
> >
>
> While I have no doubt about your intentions, a patent creates a
> particular set of facts, and absent a more thorough description of
> prior art — and especially here for work that has never been patented
> in the first place — a danger, however much you reassure us
> otherwise, remains that your patent could be sold or transfered to
> others whose intentions are less generous. As I read the patent, it
> is clearly deficient in acknowledging these 30 years of work and I am
> far from optimistic than anyone in the patent office will be familiar
> enough to recognize this.
>
> Daniel Wolf
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@...> wrote:
> Funny thing, I even found recently that my announcements
> get pounced on!
>
> </makemicromusic/topicId_19624.html#19625>

Oh, Aaron, come on! That is really a bit disingenuous of you. We had
settled all that, and realized it was part lack of information, and
part post-moderation behavior. I thought we were ok after our public
and private discussions.

I really can't speak for others, but I will say this: I admire all the
work you've done, but the manner that you choose to selectively post,
but not want any dialogue, could certainly lead a person to some kind
of suspicion. I've never joined your forums, because I don't currently
own your products, but if you can assure me that it is an open and
free discussion, I'll happily go there and respond to things you post
*here*.

Best regards,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@...>
wrote:
>
> Again I am reminded of why I decided not be involved in
> anything other than making announcements on the tuning
> list...
>

You're certainly free to read and post whatever and wherever you
like, but I'd advise paying some attention to this list, if only
because it represents the largest potential customer base for your
product, but moreover, because there are a large number of people who
have thought deeply about alternative tunings in both theory and
practice, and in some cases, for twenty, thirty or even forty years.
Not taking that experience seriously is a needless risk, as far as
I'm concerned.

I can understand the interest in wishing to control and focus
discussion avout your products, but this is a forum where your
products will get discussed, and with some depth and insight, whether
you participate or not. Again, there is a business risk to not
paying attention. I have the concrete example of the notation
programs Finale and Sibelius. Each have active company-sponsored as
well as independent forums for their programs. The independent
formums tend to be populated by professional users with high demands
for engraving. In recent years a large number of Finale users have
migrated to Sibelius specifically because Sibelius has had an
official presence in the independent lists, and that presence has
been helpful and open and concretely demonstrated that issues raised
on the list have been resolved in updates or are at least actively
being pursued. Finale, on the other hand, resolutely kept their
employees from establishing an official presence on the independent
list, a mistake which has now been corrected and I believe that
results are already apparent in an improved path to customer
influence over product development.

The membership on this list can well be hard on a product, but they
can also been tremendously helpful in making a product better. In
the end, there may be aspects of your products that are deal breakers
for many of us, but perhaps listening a bit more closely before
jumping, tortoise-like, into a defensive mode might alleviate these
concerns. Personally, I'd love a keyboard in a Bosanquet/Wilson
layout, with 19 or (better) 22 tones/octave, and keys, not buttons,
reasonably close in size to full-size organ or piano keys, but I am
willing to be convinced by an alternative product if the case in made
in a fair and open way.

Daniel Wolf

Patents cost big bucks don't they
--

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Big bucks!

Yes, especially for international; to say nothing of the cost of enforcement.

The only purpose for taking a patent would be to entice investors, so it looks as though he is throwing his money away, unless he can con some suckers into believing that his "new" patents are of any worth.

The patent attorneys must be lining up ready to catch;-)

Just about everything in his patent is already covered in my UK 1985/6 patents applied for and hence can be quoted as prior art, which any potential infringer could use as a viable defense and prevent Aaaron from enforcing any patent rights that he may think that he has bought.

I learned my lesson about patents; yet I suppose he has to tread the same murky path;-)

On 1 Sep 2008, at 11:32, Kraig Grady wrote:

> Patents cost big bucks don't they
> -->
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://> anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
Charles Lucy
lucy@...

- Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -

for information on LucyTuning go to:
http://www.lucytune.com

For LucyTuned Lullabies go to:
http://www.lullabies.co.uk

Hi Jon.

I pointed out your message because it seemed funny in context.
I didn't mean anything personal! We did clear it all up, and I have
no problem with it. I agree that a long list of update details,
while appropriate for users of the software, isn't exactly
appropriate for the list, and in the future I will make list
announcements include information pertinent to non-users.

About joining H-Pi forums, the posting guidelines for each
forum are available as links at the top of each forum. The topics
are quite focused and the forums are not in any way intended
to duplicate what goes on here.

I suppose my lack of commentary on TL besides making
announcements could make someone wonder what's going
on. Perhaps in every message I write, I should include a
link to the explanation I posted when I made that decision?
Here it is:

</tuning/topicId_unknown.html#74905>

Yours,
Aaron
====
Aaron Hunt
H-Pi Instruments
Forum: <http://www.h-pi.com/phpBB2/>
Blog: <http://www.h-pi.com/wordpress/>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@> wrote:
> > Funny thing, I even found recently that my announcements
> > get pounced on!
> >
> > </makemicromusic/topicId_19624.html#19625>
>
> Oh, Aaron, come on! That is really a bit disingenuous of you. We had
> settled all that, and realized it was part lack of information, and
> part post-moderation behavior. I thought we were ok after our public
> and private discussions.
>
> I really can't speak for others, but I will say this: I admire all the
> work you've done, but the manner that you choose to selectively post,
> but not want any dialogue, could certainly lead a person to some kind
> of suspicion. I've never joined your forums, because I don't currently
> own your products, but if you can assure me that it is an open and
> free discussion, I'll happily go there and respond to things you post
> *here*.
>
> Best regards,
> Jon
>

Hi Daniel.

I appreciate these thoughtful remarks, and I do invite
everyone's input, whether a person has 40 years
experience with tuning or 40 minutes. I have actually
spoken with employees about becoming representatives
in public capacity for lists and the like, but they are only
part time workers who are not able to take on such
responsibilities, nor could I afford to pay them for it.
I do see the value of it, but I have only so much to work
with. I am a sole proprietor doing basically everything
myself, which is quite difficult and I am making many
sacrifices to be able to do this.

Yours,
Aaron
====
Forum: <http://www.h-pi.com/phpBB2/>
Blog: <http://www.h-pi.com/wordpress/>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "djwolf_frankfurt" <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Again I am reminded of why I decided not be involved in
> > anything other than making announcements on the tuning
> > list...
> >
>
> You're certainly free to read and post whatever and wherever you
> like, but I'd advise paying some attention to this list, if only
> because it represents the largest potential customer base for your
> product, but moreover, because there are a large number of people who
> have thought deeply about alternative tunings in both theory and
> practice, and in some cases, for twenty, thirty or even forty years.
> Not taking that experience seriously is a needless risk, as far as
> I'm concerned.
>
> I can understand the interest in wishing to control and focus
> discussion avout your products, but this is a forum where your
> products will get discussed, and with some depth and insight, whether
> you participate or not. Again, there is a business risk to not
> paying attention. I have the concrete example of the notation
> programs Finale and Sibelius. Each have active company-sponsored as
> well as independent forums for their programs. The independent
> formums tend to be populated by professional users with high demands
> for engraving. In recent years a large number of Finale users have
> migrated to Sibelius specifically because Sibelius has had an
> official presence in the independent lists, and that presence has
> been helpful and open and concretely demonstrated that issues raised
> on the list have been resolved in updates or are at least actively
> being pursued. Finale, on the other hand, resolutely kept their
> employees from establishing an official presence on the independent
> list, a mistake which has now been corrected and I believe that
> results are already apparent in an improved path to customer
> influence over product development.
>
> The membership on this list can well be hard on a product, but they
> can also been tremendously helpful in making a product better. In
> the end, there may be aspects of your products that are deal breakers
> for many of us, but perhaps listening a bit more closely before
> jumping, tortoise-like, into a defensive mode might alleviate these
> concerns. Personally, I'd love a keyboard in a Bosanquet/Wilson
> layout, with 19 or (better) 22 tones/octave, and keys, not buttons,
> reasonably close in size to full-size organ or piano keys, but I am
> willing to be convinced by an alternative product if the case in made
> in a fair and open way.
>
> Daniel Wolf
>

In fact, I reread my own pledge there, and I see I broke
my own rule by trying to "set the record straight" with this
patent business. Sorry! I will from now on post a link to
this pledge in my messages, and will stick to it without
fail. See revised message footer below.

Yours,
Aaron
====
Please note that I choose not to be involved in discussions
of things H-Pi related outside of the H-Pi forums,
</tuning/topicId_unknown.html#74905>
and I cordially invite everyone who is interested to please
join and participate.
Forum: <http://www.h-pi.com/phpBB2/>
Blog: <http://www.h-pi.com/wordpress/>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jon.
>
> I pointed out your message because it seemed funny in context.
> I didn't mean anything personal! We did clear it all up, and I have
> no problem with it. I agree that a long list of update details,
> while appropriate for users of the software, isn't exactly
> appropriate for the list, and in the future I will make list
> announcements include information pertinent to non-users.
>
> About joining H-Pi forums, the posting guidelines for each
> forum are available as links at the top of each forum. The topics
> are quite focused and the forums are not in any way intended
> to duplicate what goes on here.
>
> I suppose my lack of commentary on TL besides making
> announcements could make someone wonder what's going
> on. Perhaps in every message I write, I should include a
> link to the explanation I posted when I made that decision?
> Here it is:
>
> </tuning/topicId_unknown.html#74905>
>
> Yours,
> Aaron
> ====
> Aaron Hunt
> H-Pi Instruments
> Forum: <http://www.h-pi.com/phpBB2/>
> Blog: <http://www.h-pi.com/wordpress/>
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@> wrote:
> > > Funny thing, I even found recently that my announcements
> > > get pounced on!
> > >
> > > </makemicromusic/topicId_19624.html#19625>
> >
> > Oh, Aaron, come on! That is really a bit disingenuous of you. We had
> > settled all that, and realized it was part lack of information, and
> > part post-moderation behavior. I thought we were ok after our public
> > and private discussions.
> >
> > I really can't speak for others, but I will say this: I admire all the
> > work you've done, but the manner that you choose to selectively post,
> > but not want any dialogue, could certainly lead a person to some kind
> > of suspicion. I've never joined your forums, because I don't currently
> > own your products, but if you can assure me that it is an open and
> > free discussion, I'll happily go there and respond to things you post
> > *here*.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Jon
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Andrew Hunt" <aaronhunt@...> wrote:
> I pointed out your message because it seemed funny in context.
> I didn't mean anything personal!

... and the rest. Sorry! I've heard that as you age, your skin gets
thinner. It seems to be happening early in me, if I get so antsy with
posts like this.

Carry on! :)

Cheers,
Jon

Hi Aaron,

Just to say, I don't think you could claim originality for the idea of using pitch bend retuning in combination with hardware. For some years now FTS has been bundled with the Lambdoma keyboard for hardware retuning. The program runs on the user's computer, but the hardware is unusable without it.

I've not done any research on prior art but would be very surprised if this was the first use of software using the method bundled with hardware.

I don't see that it makes any difference how exactly the software is implemented in the hardware, whether as a stand alone program, or a purpose built chip or whatever, I believe chips would normally be programmed using software anyway rather than designed as hardware.

Sure it would be fine to patent unique aspects of your software. One aspect that springs to mind is the special staff you use for microtonal notation. Perhaps keyboard layouts too if geninely new and your invention. But I'd have thought also that you would be too late for that too, as you are supposed take out a patent first - at least make a provisional application - before you make it publically available should you not?

Robert

I think you have one year after you "disclose" the invention. Keep good
documentation.

But I'd have thought also that you would be too late for that too, as
you are supposed take out a patent first - at least make a provisional
application - before you make it publically available should you not?

Robert

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for discussing it off-list.

Robert

Cornell,

I believe here in the UK you have to apply for a provisional patent before you disclose it to anyone. .

At least it was like that when I applied for a provisional patent for a board game about fifteen years ago, things may have changed. I wasn't supposed to discuss it publically with anyone, until I got the provisional patent, and until then if you told anyone about it you were supposed to ask them to agree to a non disclosure agreement. However the provisional patent was very easy to obtain, you just needed to describe the invention in ordinary language, it didn't need to be a legal document. So anyway I imagine we just have a different system.

Anyway it seems one has to be a bit careful discussing it, the laws are rather different in the UK and in the US also about what counts as patentable and what doesn't. What I said in my post here was influenced by the UK patent system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness

It would astonish me if the patent was granted and was at all enforceable. But especially as it is the US patent system, which is very unfamiliar to me, I've said too much already probably :-).

Though I am not in the business of designing and selling hardware myself, I have already been involved as a partner with Barbara Hero's keyboards, and who knows, maybe it might lead to other partnerships involving hardware manufacturers in the future, either for future developments of her keyboard design, or other keyboards.

There have been so many hardware keyboards recently - like the continuum keyboard - and that adaptive retuning keyboard patent that was discussed here at one point (anyone remember?). Has there really never been a hardware based retuning keyboard using midi pitch bends before?

Robert

> I think you have one year after you "disclose" the invention. Keep good documentation.

Hi Everyone,

I think it is appropriate for me to summarise what Aaron said to me via e-mail
- this isn't intended as a reply to him, and raises no new points,
just a summary of what was said in our exchange of e-mails
so that the rest of you know what happened.

He thinks that the main innovation is to put the midi retuning
software onto firmware, and feels that is a patentable step.

With the Lambdoma keyboard, he considers that it is a significant difference that
the software is run on the user's computer rather than on firmware within the keyboard.

To me it seems an obvious thing to do if you want to build a retuning keyboard
to use existing or new pitch bend retuning software in the firmware of the keyboard
and pitch bend retuning software he acknowledges is prior art -
so it doesn't seem an "inventive step" in the UK sense but maybe it looks
different in some ways to those familiar with the US patent system.

Robert

Robert!
is the lambdoma keyboard related to Barbara Hero's, and how does that one fit in?
--

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Kraig!

It's the same keyboard. She bundles FTS with the keyboard for the retuning,
also to show the Lissajous patterns for the chords as notes are played.

Her keyboard sends note numbers to the computer via the com ports or a midi cable.

FTS converts the note numbers to rows / columns of the Lambdoma and then
plays the notes tuned appropriately, and can also show the Lissajous pattern for the
chord. FTS uses midi pitch bend retuning, its own inbuilt wave shape player,
CSound (rendered to a score or played in real time using CSoundAV),
or MTS sysexes to play the notes.

The user can choose to play any 8 by 8 region of the infinite Lambdoma
from the keyboard (or any 16 by 16 region in case of her larger keyboard).
As well as of course other microtonal tunings as well. The Lambdoma's the preset
for the music therapy task.

Robert
==============

Robert!
is the lambdoma keyboard related to Barbara Hero's, and how does that
one fit in?