Ernie Ball Injunction against Earvana nuts.

[Cagey]

You're right, of course. There are costs involved with licensing, design, materials, tooling, production, packaging, marketing, logistics, distribution and probably several other things I'm not thinking of at the moment.

But, that's true of any nut, and most of them cost between $2 and $7. So, what makes the "Earvana design" expensive? Just what I said: a poorly-considered government-sanctioned monopoly on common knowledge. That is, they had an undeserved patent and they used it to take advantage of people. That just pisses me off, both because they would be so slimy, and because the USPTO would be so obtuse as to award it in the first place.

 

[Jusatele]

Cagey

Capitalism is the why they can get what they want

in order to get the Patent office to revoke the patent you have to sue and prove it was common knowledge others were already using, that is why Eavarna will not give a stop order to Buzz Fenton

however they were able to pull the wool over the Patent office eyes. I however do not see how they could seeing as there have been adjustable bridges out for years and they are also ways to set intonation, so that if they are common then how does a nut that simply moves the fixed point do anything they do not

 

[elfro89]

The individual note compensation is outside the range of human hearing

Not true. If you play a G major chord in the 3rd position, the Major 3rd between the G and B notes on the 5th and 4th frets of the D and G string, you will hear an awful dissonance that does not exist with an Earvana.

 

[Patrick from Davis]

But, that's true of any nut, and most of them cost between $2 and $7.

Not so, Earvana only makes this product.  I won't get into a patent argument, but this is the bread and butter of the Earvana company.  You cannot have employees that serve multiple products, like Allparts fro instance, in a company like Earvana.  The costs for them are going to be much higher per unit than Allparts.  I am not arguing that $40 is high, I think it is.  But the nuts and bolts of the company, and the number of units they sell, seem to justify that they can do that.  And more importantly, succeed.
Patrick

 

[Cagey]

in order to get the Patent office to revoke the patent you have to sue and prove it was common knowledge others were already using, that is why Eavarna will not give a stop order to Buzz Fenton

however they were able to pull the wool over the Patent office eyes. I however do not see how they could seeing as there have been adjustable bridges out for years and they are also ways to set intonation, so that if they are common then how does a nut that simply moves the fixed point do anything they do not

The proof is easy enough to get; it's all over the internet from publications dated substantially prior to the internet and equally prior to the patents Buzz Feiten, Earvana, and Ernie Ball were awarded. That's why nobody's fought it. They've all been skating on very thin ice. Nobody dared blink.

The problem is it takes metric tons of money to attack/defend patents. Here in the US, patent law has an analogue to "innocent until proven guilty" in that an awarded patent is presumed to be valid. You don't have to prove it is, somebody has to prove it isn't, and that can be outrageously expensive if the patent holder wants to retain his monopoly. You are, in effect, not just suing the patent holder, but the US government in the guise of the USPTO for malfeasance, which the gummint is loathe to admit to. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, the gummint has an inexhaustible supply of money, lawyers, and time.

In the Earvana vs. Ernie Ball suit, the award was roughly $300K if I remember correctly. That was for roughly 10 years of supposed infringement. So, really, when you think about it, this wasn't about money at all. $300K in a patent fight is front pocket money. Most patent fights cost millions, which is why they're rarely fought unless there are many, many more millions involved if you win. Ernie Ball just wanted to use that design without exposing themselves to an infringement suit from Earvana. Ernie Ball has deep pockets. Earvana does not. Hell, they only made ~$300K on the design over 10 years. So, it was just a defensive move on Ernie Ball's part. No trolling, no profiteering, no money grab, nothing like that. Just making sure they couldn't get hurt in the future.

 

[Cagey]

The individual note compensation is outside the range of human hearing

Not true. If you play a G major chord in the 3rd position, the Major 3rd between the G and B notes on the 5th and 4th frets of the D and G string, you will hear an awful dissonance that does not exist with an Earvana.

If you know that much, you should know that there is a difference between individual notes, which is what I was said, and chords. I also said you could hear the dissonance in chords. So, what's your point?

 

[swarfrat]

If you play mildly distorted root position chords it can really stand out. I have one and I I like it. I want a compensated nut for my 12 string too - someday I'll get someone to carve me one.

 

[Cagey]

If you play mildly distorted root position chords it can really stand out. I have one and I I like it. I want a compensated nut for my 12 string too - someday I'll get someone to carve me one.

That's where I hear the difference. For instance, if you like to play AC/DC tunes, it's highly recommended. But, it's not a panacea. One of the things they don't talk about much is fret size and playing style. I happen to have monster frets (6100s - the only way to fly!) on the neck I have an Earvana installed on. If you manhandle those things, I don't care what kind of nut you have installed you're going to have trouble. One of my buddies who treats every neck as if it's a bare-handed death match against a monster with high-tensile steel strings as weapons always leaves me with everything I have out on stands out of tune, and he can't see why I spent the money on the Earvana.

But, he's an outlier. I haven't broken a string in probably 15 years, but he comes over and snaps one off that's probably only 3 hours old. "You need to see if there's some burrs on this bridge!" he says. I simply said "You need to find the right goddamn fret instead of trying to stretch the poor string 3 whole steps!" <grin>

 

[Jusatele]

My personal opinion, notice I said opinion, is that our ear is how we came to Just tuning, true tempered tuning is chasing the Holy Grail, I do not think we will ever achieve it.
I think that there very few songs without accidentals,and those that do not are boring, we seek dissonance to create interest as perfect harmony is kind of limp and boring.
I do not see the guys playing the guitars with the funny frets so they are in perfect true temperament tuning appealing to the masses, but see people flock to see a guy play a 3 saddle uncompensated bridge and nut telecaster player and rave about his music.

 

[Cagey]

I think that there very few songs without accidentals,and those that do not are boring, we seek dissonance to create interest as perfect harmony is kind of limp and boring.

I wonder if that's one of the reasons I can't stand bands like U2 or Coldplay. 285 layers of perfect synths that end up sounding more like white noise than music. "I paid for polyphony and by god I'm gonna use it!" <grin>

 

[bagman67]

Reversed on appeal.



http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/12-1276/12-1276-2013-01-24.pdf

Thanks for the tip, Red Rocks!


Bagman