Chinese Copy Edwards Claim?

[DougHulme]

The Chinese get ever closer to the boutique market. The claims in this ebay advert clearly tell us this manufacturer means to crash the Edwards/Shires modular horn market. Maybe not yet but its coming....

https://www.ebay.com/itm/124890876279?_ ... %3A2047675

[pompatus]

As per the usual, the included white gloves are the real “pièce de résistance”. This, truly, is a classy instrument.

[Kbiggs]

Cheap horns often mean expensive repairs, if not a new horn.

[DougHulme]

I wonder if the spacing and the size of threads on the bell would allow the owner of such a horn to swop another manufacturer like Shires or Edwards parts? Would that be a patent issue if they did. The day is coming, the Chinese can make quality if they choose and we could be persuaded to pay the price?

[spencercarran]

I wonder if the spacing and the size of threads on the bell would allow the owner of such a horn to swop another manufacturer like Shires or Edwards parts? Would that be a patent issue if they did.

I wouldn't bet on plug and play compatibility, just because of likely haphazard manufacturing tolerances. No idea if there are any (enforceable) patent barriers or not.

The day is coming, the Chinese can make quality if they choose and we could be persuaded to pay the price?

Yes, and one day they may even learn that trombone is a right-handed instrument.

[tbonesullivan]

Wow, those are some pretty brazen claims they make. PERFECT INTONATION? Someone finally found out a way to make a brass instrument that has perfect intonation? Or are they just referring to playing a giant tuning slide meaning that perfect intonation can be attained? They even claim to have improved the Axial Flow valve!

[Crazy4Tbone86]

The biggest problem that I have seen in the Chinese stencil trombones has always been the hand slides. The clearances are bad and the alloys have been a mess. I have owned/sold/traded about 11 or 12 Chinese stencil trombones over the years. Only one of them had a decent, functional slide. On all of the other horns, I had to replace the inners, outers, or both in order to make the slide function at a high level.

Show me a consistent set of Chinese stencil trombones with great slides and I will sing their praise. Until then, I always figure that I will need to spend a few hundred $$ on slide parts in order to make the slide functional. I really have not seen any commitment from the stencil manufacturers to fix this problem over the last 15 years. I would expect that this horn has the same hand slide issues.

[JohnL]

The biggest problem that I have seen in the Chinese stencil trombones...

The operative word here is not "Chinese" but "stencil".

As long as the market is built around intermediaries, there's not a lot of impetus to produce instruments of the highest quality. There's a few notable exceptions, like Wessex and John Packer, that have attained a level of respect by putting some emphasis in quality control/assurance, but there are so many others that take the "quick and dirty" approach; make something that LOOKS like an expensive instrument, but keep the costs as low as possible and quality be d*mned. When word gets out that their stuff is junk, they disappear, only to resurface under another name.

Decades ago, the same sort of thing was going on with instruments from central Europe.

[harrisonreed]

I wonder if the spacing and the size of threads on the bell would allow the owner of such a horn to swop another manufacturer like Shires or Edwards parts? Would that be a patent issue if they did. The day is coming, the Chinese can make quality if they choose and we could be persuaded to pay the price?

No, for one major reason. Patents last 20 years, at least in the US. So if the concept of screwing a bell into a trombone was patentable to begin with (debatable, that's what the patent office is for), well that 20 years is more than up.

That said, the concept probably would be rejected at the patent office, to begin with: "Oh, wow, how fascinating -- a modular bell system. How does that work? Oh, a threaded brace with a joining nut.... Next please!"

This isn't a jab at Doug Hulme at all, but a cautionary comment about the trombone community here in general. We throw around the terms patent and copyright a lot here. It came up in the mouthpiece crowd fund thread too.

I am all about understanding intellectual property, and I'm all about protecting American industry from unfair competition (like trying to compete with overseas companies that use free or nearly free labor). However, there are patent laws and copyright laws in place and those laws have periods where they end. No one called "patent" when the carbon fiber bell maker created a modular bell for different manufacturers. We all saw that as a win. The issue here with this ebay horn comes down to price, quality, and manufacturing advantages. The boutique and classic horn builders should not stop innovating or improving their build quality -- they still have to be competitive. Where they can do that is on the execution of the design. The ebay TSO probably is a dog.

[Dennis]

I wonder if the spacing and the size of threads on the bell would allow the owner of such a horn to swop another manufacturer like Shires or Edwards parts? Would that be a patent issue if they did. The day is coming, the Chinese can make quality if they choose and we could be persuaded to pay the price?

No, for one major reason. Patents last 20 years, at least in the US. So if the concept of screwing a bell into a trombone was patentable to begin with (debatable, that's what the patent office is for), well that 20 years is more than up.

That said, the concept probably would be rejected at the patent office, to begin with: "Oh, wow, how fascinating -- a modular bell system. How does that work? Oh, a threaded brace with a joining nut.... Next please!"

You'd be surprised what can get through the patent office. Getting a patent depends on the patent inspector(s) and their knowledge base. I don't know if Edwards, Shires, or Rath (or Conn, with the 89H prior to that) tried to patent the modular trombone idea or not. If no-one has tried to patent the idea it's possible that an inspector would grant the patent. (Remember, the original Thayer design used a single nut with the threaded stud on the gooseneck--not interchangeable at all.)

Gary Greenhoe got a patent on a rotary valve that integrates full-bore sized tubing and venting. King made tuba rotary valves that incorporated brass tubing in the 1920s. Zig Kanstul CR valve incorporates instrument tubing in skeleton shell, and it was inspired by (and a practical version of) the Holton Monster valve. Paxman had vented rotary valves since at least the 1950s. Both features were prior art, neither was patented, and therefore were in the public domain. (The patents would have long since expired in the US in any case.) Gary designed a lovely valve, but it shouldn't have been patentable. It was patented because the inspector at the patent office was not familiar with the prior state of the art. My guess is that his patent attorney wasn't familiar with the prior art, either.

Someone who did patent the idea would find themselves instantly sued by Getzen and Eastman music if they tried to collect royalties. To do otherwise would put a huge dent in their business model, and (at least in Edwards'/Getzen's case) they've been manufacturing trombones on those principles for 25+ years.

I want to be clear about something: I'm not criticizing Greenhoe for patenting his valve. Protecting your intellectual property is sensible. I am criticizing the patent office for granting a patent without adequate knowledge of prior art.

[harrisonreed]

Speaking of which, the CL2000 design patent is expired now. That was a unique and patentable design. Now you can make your own.

[Posaunus]

The Christian Lindberg valve (CL2000) can be wonderful if properly adjusted and with the right bumpers.
But others have (apparently successfully) gone In different directions. Lots of good valves now available, I've heard.

[DougHulme]

Boosey &Hawkes/Besson held a patent on the compensating piston valve and no one could copy it until the patent finally ran out (and I think the UK patent lasted longer than in the US).

[harrisonreed]

Similarly with the Thayer valves, but now everyone builds them. Was your original post referring to something in the ad that said they were gunning for Edwards? Talking trash about another company in an ad (I don't even know if verbiage like that was in there) is something that Edwards could take action against potentially. Modular horns though, that concept is way too old to not be legal to copy at this point. Rath, Shires, Minnick, and Edwards were doing it for longer than the patent coverage period.

[DougHulme]

Yes I was just thnking out loud and only musing a question and you are of course right. They didnt trash Edwards or Shires so they are safe on that but if you were to paraphrase the ad they said "these horns are just as good as Edwards and Shires and they are going to be just as expensive but for the moment, just to get our great horns out there, we are going to sell them cheap, so buy it now before we charge you the same as Edwards" They mention Shires but if you look at the wrap and dimensions in the ad they have clearly copied an Edwards. I'm not thinking they will be as good just yet but was interested in the marketing and the concept, they have clearly understood what we think of Chinese horns and understand they are making horns for, at best, the intermediate market and want to break out into the professional class. Even if these horns dont do it (and they probably wont) now - this is a direction they are travelling in. The fact That Steve Shires and Mick Rath can go to China and teach them how to make much better quality horns means they are capabale of doing it and we all know that well lnown makers are getting some of their parts made in China now and assembling them back home. It wont be long!

[LeTromboniste]

Modular horns though, that concept is way too old to not be legal to copy at this point. Rath, Shires, Minnick, and Edwards were doing it for longer than the patent coverage period.

Let alone misters Schnitzer, Hainlein et al. in the 16th and 17th century!

[BGuttman]

Boosey &Hawkes/Besson held a patent on the compensating piston valve and no one could copy it until the patent finally ran out (and I think the UK patent lasted longer than in the US).

The term of a US patent is 17 years. The term of a UK patent is 20 years. You couldn't sell a Compensating valved instrument in the US or the UK for those respective periods. I believe there is an international agreement on mutual patent respect between US and UK, but I know companies tend to take out patents in other countries for protection there. When I was doing patent searches for one employer I found that there were some individuals who would copy US patents, translate them, and then apply for the coverage in another country. I don't know if they were trying to steal business advantage, steal the technology (they couldn't sell the US patented product in the US legally), or what. It sure was nasty looking.

Knock offs are common in other products. Often the knockoffs are produced in the same factory by the same people as the original product. That's a consequence of our global economy that seeks to minimize costs. Generally the main difference between the "primo" product and the knockoff is the quality -- knockoffs may be as good as the originals, but may also be the originals that failed inspection in some way. I wouldn't be surprised if these were made by Eastman under another name, without the Shires quality specifications.

[harrisonreed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of ... lications).

It's 20 years now

[JohnL]

When I was doing patent searches for one employer I found that there were some individuals who would copy US patents, translate them, and then apply for the coverage in another country. I don't know if they were trying to steal business advantage, steal the technology (they couldn't sell the US patented product in the US legally), or what. It sure was nasty looking.

Not sure what the situation is like these days, but I seem to recall something about the patent laws in some countries having been such that you could not enforce a patent unless you were actually manufacturing the product in that country. If a company were planning to take advantage of that law, it would make sense for them to take out a patent so they could prevent another company in that country using that idea.

[blast]

My Kanstul CR valve is stamped 'patent pending'. Zig was never a fan of patents but someone in the business was.

[elmsandr]

My Kanstul CR valve is stamped 'patent pending'. Zig was never a fan of patents but someone in the business was.

I never met Zig; but I understand this belief... Sure patent a valve that we put on a Copy of a 62H... doesn't make a lot of sense.

That said, I could also see them being savy enough to apply for a patent, just to have the disclosure on record and not have to fight somebody trying to patent it out from under them. It costs a lot of money to patent and defend yourself from patent suits OR to try to enforce them. There's simply not that much profit in trombones to make it really worth it.

For a fun* exercise we could try to figure out if there has been more monetary "value" generated by Thayer valves or spent on lawyer fees during the Thayer/Nydigger split. I would not bet against the lawyer fees.

Cheers,
Andy

*no, this would not be fun. It is sad and miserable, but it is an expression.

[JohnL]

Reg Olds had took out patents on the fluted slide, the duo-octagonal slide, and a similar system for piston valves. Earl Williams had a patents on the curved handbrace, his unique water key, and on a TIS mechanism with the screw in the center (rather than on one or the other slide tube). Didn't seem to do either of them a whole lot of good.