Acoustic bass Wedged shape Cocobolo/Englemann

[Joseph Price]

well i was planing and sanding by feel and trying to get it to sit right.

In the end it was only an extra 15-18mm on the treble side. The depth on th lower bout bass side was just under 90mm.
I would feel more confident taking it deeper next time.

[Mark Swanson]

The timing of this discussion is bad...I spent the better part of a week with her and other luthiers just two weeks ago. I could have tactfully asked her.

[Joseph Price]

I have had a quick....repeat quick... look at the patent. i dont agree it is the same "thing"as Lindas
design. But at the end of the day - if she feels this way I have no problem with being respectful and paying homage.
it is a small ask! We owe a bid debt to the luthiers which paved the way for today and have so freely shared knowledge.

This was not the case in Europe 20 years ago - I worked like a dog in berlin for below minimum wage just to acquire some skills.
Americans and Canadians have been - imho - very generous.

[Todd Stock]

Having been through the patent wringer successfully, ignore the pretty pictures and read the claims. The claims are the beating heart of a patent; they are the legal limits to what the patent holder can ask the courts to enforce. If it's not in the claims, it is not an enforceable element of the patent. Reading and understanding the claims section of a patent is the key to understanding whether or not any element of Manzer's configuration is her intellectual property.

Smith's claims:

1. In a guitar, the combination of: a body having a front surface and a rear surface, a neck extending from one end of said body, said body being approximately wedge-shaped in cross-section transverse to the length of said neck, to form a thin side and a thick side, strings tensioned over the body and the neck inclined in a common plane, so that the thin side of said body may fit under the arm of a standing musician, with the plane of the strings inclined downward and away from the musician.

2. The structure of claim 1 in which the body comprises a hollow acoustic shell.

3. The structure of claim 1 in which the plane of the strings lies at an angle to said rear surface.

4. The structure of claim 1 in which the plane of the strings is parallel to said front surface.

http://www.google.com.pg/patents/US3426638

The question is NOT whether the patent drawing looks like Manzer's 'invention', but instead whether Smith's claims perfectly describe the elements of a 'Manzer Wedge'. Are there any claims which do not apply? Any missing? No - the claims perfectly describe the configuration. And if the claims describe the configuration of Smith's invention, it is most certainly NOT someone else's invention.

If Linda could propose another set of claims which described the wedge body but did not overlap, there might be a case for some degree of unique IP, but I don't see anything not fully covered by Smith's claims.

Mark - I'd be very surprised if this has not been discussed, but given the patent expired a year after Manzer started offering the feature, any enforcement action by Smith is outside the statute of limitations. Beyond that, it's an ethical issue, with most people being unconcerned or disinterested in the specific and the more general topic. Finally, there are few things more difficult that intellectual honesty when it concerns people we either care for and like or those that have earned our disfavor.

[Clay Schaeffer]

The "wedge" was probably first "invented" by some luthier hack who didn't pay attention and built a lop sided body (DAMHIKT). That Smith patented it and Manzer popularized it just gives it an excuse to be. Manzer has a more unusual name, has done other creative (and somewhat bizarre) constructions and did a better job of "selling" the wedge shaped body than Smith did.
Similarly Novak patented and popularized the fan fret design which was similarly patented in 1900 by E.A. Edgren, although the design had been in use at least since the 1600's. If you mentioned "Edgren's fretting" to most people I think you will get a blank stare.
The beauty of patents is they run out. We don't have to worry about giving credit, deserved or not, to any particular individual. But like Xerox and Kleenex, some things will be better understood by referring to a known source - such as Novak and Manzer.

[Todd Stock]

I agree, Clay, although it seems to me that claiming credit for invention and insisting on that acknowledgement is a step or two over the line that both of us would prefer to observe. Seems to me a little like Martin claiming the square/taper headstock as their mark, or Gibson attempting to own the single cut electric. Most idea should fall under the 'everyone's already using it/craft and trade knowledge' exclusions from patentability, but there is only so much time in a day and so many patent examiners available.

[Clay Schaeffer]

"it seems to me that claiming credit for invention and insisting on that acknowledgement is a step or two over the line "

I agree - but Linda may be somewhat clueless and think she actually did invent it.

[Matthew Lau]

Really nicely done.

I particularly like your headstock veneer detail.

[Joseph Price]

Thanks Matthew. I cant find the matching heel cap and end graft pics but its the same theme throughout.

It should be coming for a service soon so I can remember to grab some better pics then.
All the best, Joseph