Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Scale Design

I have a few ethical and business-related questions regarding scale design:

1. Is it okay to copy someone else's scale design if it is not patented?

The reason I am asking is because I have seen many praises of Brodmann PE-187, and everybody seems to recognize that Brodmann PE-187 is a shameless copy of Steinway A. What surprises me is that nobody has accused Brodmann for stealing Steinway's scale design. Instead, everybody seems to praise how well the scale design works for Brodmann. As someone who works in academia, plagiarism is considered a cardinal sin. But is it an acceptable practice in piano manufacture to copy someone else's scale design if it is not protected by a patent?

2. If copying someone else's scale design is an acceptable practice, why aren't more manufacturers doing it?

How come Brodmann is the only piano brand that is doing it? I can ask this question in a different way, if Steinway A's scale design works so well for Brodmann, what stops them from copying other Steinway's scale designs? Why is there not a copy of Steinway S, L, M, O, B, D?

3. I am even more puzzled by why some companies abandon highly-acclaimed scale designs. I have two examples. First is Baldwin. I have seen many many praises of American-made Baldwin Artist grands such as L and R. If Baldwin's Artist Series was so successful, why did they abandon its scale design and created new scale designs for its current grand piano lineup? Why not just use those successful Artist series scale designs with minor tweaks here and there? Isn't that what Steinway has been doing for more than 100 years?

Another example is Pramberger. There were many praises for Pramberger pianos manufactured by Young Chang and designed by Joseph Pramberger. I understand that Young Chang sold the brand name to Samick after Joseph Pramberger passed away but Young Chang kept the scale design. So why didn't Young Chang continue to produce pianos using Joseph Pramberger's scale designs? If the scale design was good, why did Young Chang abandon it?

Thoughts?

What Brodmann copied is the string layout. They haven't copied everything in the Steinway, they've copied enough for it to look like a Steinway to the naked eye, and it sounds a little bit like a Steinway, but it isn't a Steinway. There are many things about the Brodmann which are not Steinway (not least the actual build quality - that's OK, it's a fifth of the price of a Steinway). The action is nothing like a Steinway action, although it does have a very good keyboard (even if the bushing cloth is a bit weak).

Brodmann isn't the only manufacturer doing it. In fact it's not "Brodmann" doing it, since Brodmann is in some ways a stencil - well, it's not a stencil in that there is a Brodmann company, but the pianos themselves are Parsons music pianos, and the same strung backs are found now in several other makes. Yamaha's scale design has been pretty close to Steinway in the past. The CFIIIS was very close to a D, the S6 was very close to a B, and the C3 owes a lot to the model A, as does the S4, but they're not all exact copies, not as blatant as the Brodmann.

I guess when Baldwin closed their American factory and moved production to the far east, they decided to use scale designs which lend themselves better to mass production? Sometimes makers abandon scale designs because they feel that the new designs are more in line with current fashions, or offer an improvement in some ways. It doesn't always work out like that though - for instance, I think the 6'3 Blüthner of 1890-1930 is more beautiful than the current models, although there are things about the current models that are much better, but over all they don't sound as beautiful (although they are still excellent).

I don't know all the answers. It's a big topic. Scale design is a big topic, and while to the naked eye it looks like it's about layout of the strings, it's about so much more than that.

First of all, patents don't last forever. To my recollection the Steinway scale design patents were issued in ~1937. Those patents have likely expired.

Second, as Joe points out the scale design is more than the string layout. It includes the soundboard design (diaphragmatic in the A), the bridging (tunneled in the A) and termination point treatment (Capo, Agraphs, etc.)

The original Pramberger copied a lot of these feature and, with the aid of CNC machines "improved" the soundboard design by shaping the soundboard so that the thickest part of the board was directly under the treble bridge, the inventing the "asymmetrical taper) as opposed to Steinway's more symmetrical design.

When the line was introduced in the late 1990s I was contracted to travel with Joe to 6 cities to present the new line at regional dealer seminars.

Getting to know Joe and talk with him for hours on end was a distinct privilege. He was one of the great, true gentlemen in the piano industry.

You are in the business, and you do not know how to use pattern library and have pattern consultant?

Well, the Japanese made Tokai G180 I had was an exact copy of the Steinway O, even down to the least little minute detail. But I don't think it sounded like a real Steinway O.

So, piano manufacturers can (and do) copy other models scale designs and other traits and details, but that doesn't mean you get the exact same result as the original.

I suppose there really is some "secret recipe" to acoustic piano making.

In fact, I was trying to dig up a picture of my Tokai G180 so you could compare it to a Steinway O, but found this thread instead. It talks about all the other piano manufacturers (especially in other countries) who have attempted to copy Steinway designs in the past...

Piano manufacturers who copied (or at least tried to) Steinway

Rick

Where do you get the idea the OP is 'in the business'? Maybe you should have looked at previous posts to see that indeed, he is not, before posting such a negative comment.

In some respects, the way the piano is built is more significant than the actual precise string layout seen when comparing one pianos design to another. By this I mean the way the soundboard structure is made and even the timing and order of events during construction.

Also the hardness of the metal in the casting has a profound influence on tone quality.

And the fixtures used to form the components always have an element of elasticity in them that reacts with the elasticity of the parts to impart some characteristics that the building of a copy of an existing piano will miss. If you don't have access to the jigs, you are missing some "information".

To the OP's question is is "ethical" to copy others piano designs,,,,,well everybody does it and always have.

"...You are in the business, and you do not know how to use pattern library and have pattern consultant?..."

Are you suggesting that Pneuma is in the piano business? Or is it, that everyone who is in the business knows how to use a pattern library, and understands to what end they might consult a pattern consultant? It strikes me as a lot to assume.

As for Pneuma's questions about the copying of once-patented features. Steve is correct: patents expire. Besides, in a general way, you could say that when some truly useful innovation is invented, it is copied. Be it cast iron plate, double-escapement action, cross-stringing, laminate construction, or sostenuto pedal everyone who wants wants these features eventually has them, whether by [1] licensing the patented design, [2] waiting until the patent runs its life, or [3] theft, by many dodges.

Truly creative design is rather a rarity, especially where scale design is concerned. Put it this way, there are more folk who know how to take a competitor's piano apart and copy what is there, than there are who understand the mathematical and experimental sciences of scale design and can actually use them. In fact, the makers who are the greatest parasites of all are those who copy their own company's scale design, whether it suits the piano they're sticking it in, or not.

There is the dark art, practiced by those who calculate just how much they can steal before a court case costs them some cash. And, the art which brings light, practiced in the past by creative craftsmen such as Joseph Pramberger, and in the present day by Del Fandrich [a poster here on PW].

As for why companies abandon excellent work in favor of poor. They have their reasons. Cost, fashion of the times [you may remember the "spinet," so called, which has furnished marinas with so many boat anchors], don't know any better and don't care to find it out [quite a few in that category]. It's a short list, but maybe enough to give you an idea.

We might add "can't get the materials we used to be able to use," and that is true enough; elephants, for example. Tropical hardwoods. Old-growth, north-slope tonewoods from Central Europe. It takes creative thinking and some hard science, and some money to move past that point. I am prejudiced in favor of my own piano, whose beautiful, warm voice I grow to love more every day, but I can offer it as my opinion that the player can feel the value of the research-and-development Kawai has put into the instrument, by as simple a thing as the touch.

And so saying, the wind-up toy slows to a stop, complaining that it wants a second cup of coffee before it will write any more. Pneuma has not said why he or she has wanted this information, so we don't need to address it this morning.

I don't think anyone has ever tried a copyright lawsuit based on scale design, but if you were to successfully argue that the scale design were the creative expression of an idea, then you could win and prevent other people from using it (or collect royalties).

A more promising approach might be to trademark the scale design; if you were able to characterize and describe in words (or otherwise) the typical sound resulting from your design, and show it is somewhat distinct, then you could likely get a sound trademark for it. This would also be a stretch and would require a very good trademark lawyer (maybe you could poach them from Apple).

Plagiarism by itself is not a legal issue, it's a matter of honor.

Thank you all for your inputs to fill my curiosity. I am not in piano or any music-related business. I am just someone who has lots of curiosity :-)

According to the US Patent office, a patent lasts 20 years. It is complicated by international trade rules and other things, but Steinway generally has no claim on their patents. Has Steinway even submitted a single patent in the last 20 years? It's really sad because Steinway used to be the most innovative. Now, they are just stuck in the past.

Steinway has become Rolex. Same story. Rolex used to be one of the most innovative companies in time keeping. They were the first self-winding watch, first watch-proof watch, first this and that, now it's just the same 50-year-old design rehashed with different dial faces. Rolex is an expensive "working" jewelry now. Is Steinway an expensive "working" status symbol? It is in China I bet, same as Rolex.

What's a 'watch-proof' watch? I don't wear a watch so I am not up on the latest technology.

edit:grammar

Typo - should be water-proof

I know. I own watches, but I don't wear one either.

Yeah, I know, but I thought I would have a little fun. A watch-proof watch sounds more interesting than a water-proof watch.

I like Casio wrist watches (and Casio digital pianos )... they are well built, long lasting, very accurate, and come in a variety of styles and colors.

I have a black one and a red one. I wear the black one most of the time, and the red one when I want to look younger and more stylish. Plus, I get more smiles from women when I wear the red watch. (Just kidding... no I'm not ).

What does this have to do with Scale Design? The same thing Rolex and Steinway have in common. Wear only an authentic Rolex wrist watch when you play a Steinway piano. You can wear a Casio when playing any other brand. Or something like that....

Rick

I have seen five or six makes of piano with similar string layouts to various Steinway A designs, and even more for other models of Steinway grands.

Copying has been going on in the industry for ages as has in virtually every other.

The first cast iron plate introduced originally by the French in late 1800 were quickly 'copied' later by all others: everybody was/is forever watching others doing stuff.

New ideas such as "Duplex Scale", "high" versus "low tension" designs etc were closely monitored and predictably "copied" by others. As well as tons of other stuff. This besides what was being "imported" by workers changing companies from one to another, sometimes from one country to another and between continents..

Today, the most important question IMHO is not who is "rightfully building this or that" but who is building a product that has an identifiable edge over others.

When I grew up in Germany as young boy,people were endlessly complaining about "stolen technology" by others. But while those who may have taken something "not belonging to them" eventually became very successful,the Germans were pressed on and on to raise the ante once again trying to stay a step ahead.
They knew there was no other way: all the complaining didnt help..

In today's market [as has always been the case..] the only question of interest for consumers appears what quality they can get for certain price. Much less appear to be interested in questions related to patent law and jurisprudence.

"Registering a patent" may also not be a reliable indicator of things.
Someone before the time of registration might actually have had "the idea" inventing the thing. But then never got around to secure his rights.The history of modern invention is full with stories like that.

While it may make for interesting discussion, none of this arms or assists current buyers securing best quality product at best price for themselves.

It's a merciless world out there.
And yes, it may not always feel "right".

P.S. "Never has"

Norbert

1. Is it okay to copy someone else's scale design if it is not patented?

First you have to define “scale design.” Does this mean the just string scale (the lengths, diameters, etc.)? If so, there is very little, if anything, that is patentable. Occasionally someone comes along with a new idea—Harold Conklin and “SynchroTone” scaling—but it is rare and is usually of little real consequence. Other than this nothing about the string scale—the speaking lengths, the diameters, etc.—are patentable. So, in this context, it is quiet legitimate to “copy” any scale design.

Most of us who are actually involved in the practice of designing scales consider the scale design to be somewhat more involved than this. And here things start to get a little fuzzy. Yes, the Brodmann 187 was derived from a Steinway Model A. That is, a Steinway A was shipped to China and reverse engineered to come up with the Brodmann. But, since the engineers who made the copy did not really understand what went into making a Model A a real musical instrument they missed it on several levels. The Brodmann 187 may well be a “shameless” copy of the Steinway Model A but it is neither an exact nor a musical copy of the Model A.

A piano scale is a synthesis of many different, and sometimes, disparate scaling ideas, components, materials and construction details. Most of which Brodmann missed.


2. If copying someone else's scale design is an acceptable practice, why aren't more manufacturers doing it?

It is done. A lot. It is just not always as blatantly obvious as it is in the case of the Brodmann 187. The more one delves into the mysteries of piano design the more one realizes that there has long been a synthesis of design taking place. While the exact details of design may not be copied the basic concepts have all become quite similar.

It is frustrating—at least to me—to walk down the aisles of a NAMM Show, or the Shanghai Music Show, or a Musikmesse and observe display after display of basically identical pianos. To be sure there are some relatively minor detail differences but the basic format is depressingly similar.

For an analogy picture an auto show where each car was based on, say, a Toyota Camry. Each brand varying only in size and, often, insignificant detail.


3. I am even more puzzled by why some companies abandon highly-acclaimed scale designs.

Designs are abandoned for a variety of reasons. In the case of Baldwin the company closed its U.S. manufacturing facilities and contracted for basically stencil pianos to be made in China. There are some “design” details that have been incorporated in the Chinese-built pianos but they are, by no stretch, authentic Baldwin designs. There are several reasons for this (none of which I am going to go into publically).


4. So why didn't Young Chang continue to produce pianos using Joseph Pramberger's scale designs?

Young Chang lost the rights to the Pramberger brand name but, as you say, still had the “Pramberer scale designs.” But these designs were based on earlier Young Chang designs which were based on earlier Yamaha designs which were based on earlier Steinway designs. The man Hyundai put in charge of the transition was Mr B.J. Park ("Chairman" Park). He saw little future in continuing to produce what had become dated design and design that would be forever linked to Samick and he wanted Young Chang to develop its own unique and identifiable “voice.” Hence the program of redesign that started in 2008. It will probably be going on for some time.

Thank you Del for your thorough answer.

IIRC, all of these are patents that would have expired by the end of the 19th century. Are there any significant piano patents still in effect?