Patent For Rohan

RKrishnamurthy · Post by **RKrishnamurthy** » 21 Mar 2012, 22:03

Glad to share the news that Rohan's work on the mridangam has received a US patent. Indeed the patent is NOT for the mridangam which is an ancient instrument and cannot be patented. The patent is for the "fastening mechanism". The idea of patent was initiated by a patent lawyer in Syracuse who is also an alumna of the Eastman School of Music. Since the fastening mechanism can be adopted by different drums around the world and major manufacturers might show interest, he suggested applying for a patent and after two years of paper work the patent office has issued the required acceptance. We are working on making the new design available, especially for artists out side of India.
Shall update on developments.
Rama Krishnamurthy

Lakshman · Post by **Lakshman** » 21 Mar 2012, 22:15

Congratulations! Hope the fastening device is adapted worldwide.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 21 Mar 2012, 23:14

Congratulations!
Can you post a picture of the "fastening mechanism" so we can get an idea...
Thanks

RKrishnamurthy · Post by **RKrishnamurthy** » 22 Mar 2012, 00:22

Thanks. I shall ask him to do so. Since he is in Rochester and busy finishing up his semester, it may take a while.
Rama Krishnamurthy

rshankar · Post by **rshankar** » 22 Mar 2012, 03:38

Congratulations to Rohan!

Rsachi · Post by **Rsachi** » 22 Mar 2012, 11:59

Is this about the same design covered in the Hindu linked below?
http://www.hindu.com/fr/2004/12/24/stor ... 400800.htm
Congrats to the inventor!

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 22 Mar 2012, 19:30

Very interesting! Mridangists should comment on its applications and encourage Rohan...

RKrishnamurthy · Post by **RKrishnamurthy** » 23 Mar 2012, 01:55

Rsachi wrote:Is this about the same design covered in the Hindu linked below?
http://www.hindu.com/fr/2004/12/24/stor ... 400800.htm
Congrats to the inventor!

Fundamentally yes. But in the patented version there are no rings. The collar is built in from the main shell. We also made it fiber glass. Both the wood and fiber glass work equally well, the latter is lighter and virtually unaffected by weather.
Rama Krishnamurthy

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 28 Mar 2012, 19:21

Congratulations to Rohan. What I like most about this is that it decouples the tension on the left and right side of a mridangam. I think that should open exciting new posibilities for the tonal spectrum of the mridangam. For the open-minded, of course.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 28 Mar 2012, 21:13

Interesting!
We can hope to hear ambidexterous mridangists in future?
Perhaps even new techniques...?

RKrishnamurthy · Post by **RKrishnamurthy** » 28 Mar 2012, 22:03

uday_shankar wrote:Congratulations to Rohan. What I like most about this is that it decouples the tension on the left and right side of a mridangam. I think that should open exciting new posibilities for the tonal spectrum of the mridangam. For the open-minded, of course.

Indeed, decoupling of the heads is an important feature. Also changing the heads is so easy even I can do it! Of course a mridangist has to fine tune it for sruti and nadham. Since the thopi doesn't go bad for years, it is only necessary to carry a couple of valamthalais when one is on a long tour. And remember, a typical instrument can easily be changed to at least 2 kattais on either side.
On another note, Rohan as part of his undergraduate science project had carried out laser acoustic spectroscopy based research on the traditional and this design and at least from the point of acoustics, there were no differences. The fiber glass shell yielded the same results. He has been using this design for years now with all the leading musicians in India as well as in the USA.
Rama Krishnamurthy

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 06 Jun 2012, 01:58

The patent (US patent #8153876 granted April 10th 2012), is available here:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=AyQMAg ... CDYQ6AEwAA

However, as somebody intimately involved in the patenting process, it behooves me to point out that the first claim, which stands independent of all other claims and is usually deemed the most important, practically patents the mridangam, tabla and any traditional drum that uses any means for "stretching and tuning" !

It reads:

"
1. A drum comprising:

a drum shell substantially concentrically arranged about a central axis and possessing a substantially hollow cavity extending along the central axis thereof, said shell having at least one substantially open end defined by an associated, substantially circular lip;

a membrane extending over said at least one open end and said lip; and

means for stretching and tuning said membrane.
"

Clearly this particular claim has nothing to do with the fastening mechanism invented by Rohan. All mridangams, tablas, dholaks, khols, etc ever made in the history of the world have had all of the above parts; pay particular attention to the said "membrane" and the said "means for stretching and tuning the said membrane". Therefore, anybody trying to make mridangams, tablas, dholaks, khols, etc in the US the traditional way they are made in India would be in violation of this patent.

I think there are definitely some khol makers (among the Hare Krishna folks), perhaps some tabla makers too, in the US. I wonder if US law deems that they would be retroactively in violation of this claim. More interestingly, I wonder if Rohan plans to sue them ?!

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 06 Jun 2012, 03:13

Uday: Why are you so surprised? This is yet another example of the horrendously broken US patent system. Most patent lawyers I have dealt with have one main goal - to make the claims in the patent as broad as possible so that it gives them the most scope for either defending against an enforcement or in enforcing it themselves. Basically, either get the widest cover possible for your behind or get maximum ammunition.

Seems like common sense, but unfortunately, as a result, the claims that get made often sound pretty ridiculous (and, sometimes, will even make the actual inventors cringe).

It has happened with my own patents. Often, when I have received the first draft of my patent applications from my patent lawyers, my initial reaction has been "WHAT??!!" By now, I have been concerted into a full-blown cynic of the patent system. If you follow the patent wars between the mobile phone companies, that will show you how messed up the situation really is.

Having said that, let me also say the following: I have absolutely no doubt that neither Rohan nor Dr. Krishnamurthy ever intended to patent the mridangam (as he very clearly states in his initial post in this thread). This is just a patent lawyer working his magic. So, let us leave it at that. As for enforcing claim 1 of this patent against artisans in the US, I don't think it will hold muster (evidence of prior art will likely invalidate the claim), but I am also sure that it will never reach that stage.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 06 Jun 2012, 03:20

VijayR wrote:As for enforcing claim 1 of this patent against artisans in the US, I don't think it will hold muster (evidence of prior art will likely invalidate the claim)

Of course ! I was just being facetious

.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 06 Jun 2012, 03:28

uday_shankar wrote: Of course ! I was just being facetious .

My bad... there was supposed to be a smiley at the end of my post.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 06 Jun 2012, 21:57

Vijay
Things get even more interesting. While claim #1 effectively patents all mridangams, tablas, khols, dholaks, etc, ever made, it can be argued that it cannot be enforced easily. However, claim #2 is also interesting...
Claim #2 says:
"
2. The drum according to claim 1 wherein said drum shell possesses an outer periphery and wherein said stretching and tuning means includes a plurality of bolts circumferentially disposed in a substantially equi-angular array about the outer periphery of said shell and connected to said shell.
"
This effectively patents all mridangams, tablas, khols, dholaks, etc that are tuned by bolts. However, quite a while back I've seen Zakir Hussain use tablas that are tuned by bolts, similar to the following product which has been sold in the US for many years:

http://artdrum.com/TABLA_DRUM_SET_BOLT_TUNED.HTM

This product is in clear and direct violation of claim #2 above. Somebody better let this shop know that their honeymoon may be over!

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 06 Jun 2012, 22:06

On a related note ...

Don't most (if not all) bolt-tuned mridangams already use decoupled left and right side tuning? See for e.g. http://saraswatimata.com/percussion-ins ... idang.html

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 06 Jun 2012, 22:31

Uday: Yes, claim 2 does seem to cover all drums with "nut-bolt" mechanisms for tuning. Reading through the claims, there are a couple of other odd ones down the list too (claim 20 for example).

Presumably, what the inventors wanted to patent was the specific "membrane-based" fastening mechanism. I vaguely recall reading an article by Rohan articulating why such a membrane-based fastening mechanism is better than other existing fastening mechanisms used by nut-bolt drums. Instead of claiming just that, looks like what has eventually been claimed is a whole lot more!

Mahavishnu: As far as I can tell, you are absolutely right.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 06 Jun 2012, 23:55

Mahavishnu, quite true. Again, on a related note, the Pakhawaj is another class of instruments that would violate this patent.
Here's one of many outlets selling bolt-tuned pakhawaj's:
http://www.ethnicmusicalinstruments.com ... angam.html

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 07 Jun 2012, 01:46

Seems to me that he would have done well to patent the word "substantially"

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 07 Jun 2012, 03:08

mahavishnu wrote:Don't most (if not all) bolt-tuned mridangams already use decoupled left and right side tuning? See for e.g. http://saraswatimata.com/percussion-ins ... idang.html

Yes and this would violate, apart from claim #2, claim #10 also. Claim #10 states:

"
10. A drum according to claim 1 wherein said shell has two substantially open, opposing longitudinal ends, each end defined by an associated, substantially circular lip, wherein said membrane extends over a first one of said open longitudinal ends and said lip associated with said first one of said open longitudinal ends, said drum further comprising:

a drumhead extending over a second one of said open longitudinal ends and said lip associated with said second one of said open longitudinal ends; and

means for stretching and tuning said drumhead acting independently of said means for stretching and tuning said membrane.
"

The bold part above refers to the independent tunability of left and right. This too seems to have been prior art overlooked by the USPTO.

All of this reflects on the pathetic limitations of patent-centric search engines used by the USPTO. It's not the first time they have erred when it comes to areas where traditional practices overlap with modern innovations. Recall the Texas RiceTec basmati rice patent which was successfully contested by the Indian government. And at the European office, the Neem patent applied by an American company which was also successfully fought off by the Indian government.

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 10 Jun 2012, 22:37

I am no expert in mridangam, much less patent laws! But I have gone through the sites provided by the forumites as well as Rohan's patent website. I can see clear differences in the existing "bolt and nut" design and his fastening mechanism. I suspect he or his advisers had big time companies like Remu and Yamaha rather than the motley CM vidwans in mind. I may be wrong. I am told, at least in the US, until an idea is patented, anyone is free to copy it. In fact in the medical field Indian companies violate the patent laws bluntly and copy drug formula and market the product.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 11 Jun 2012, 05:09

jeevanraju wrote:I may be wrong. I am told, at least in the US, until an idea is patented, anyone is free to copy it.

This is a mischaracterization of the process. An idea that is already known in public through patent, prevailing practice, literature or any other means is NOT patentable as it is prior art. Thus any product being sold, displayed, written, talked about anywhere in the world is prior art and therefore not patentable, even by the original inventor. Anything that is part of the "claims" section of a patent disclosure must be the first ever public disclosure of the idea. Clearly this does not seem to be the case with some of the claims of present invention, as discussed earlier.

harimau · Post by **harimau** » 11 Jun 2012, 07:17

jeevanraju wrote:
I am told, at least in the US, until an idea is patented, anyone is free to copy it.

If you have an idea for a better product, you apply for a patent. Before that, you protect it by not divulging it. If you go about blabbing about your brilliant idea to hundreds of people, you deserve to have that idea stolen and copied. In fact, somebody else can apply for a patent, because in the US it is a first-to-file system, not a first-to-invent.

jeevanraju wrote:
In fact in the medical field Indian companies violate the patent laws bluntly and copy drug formula and market the product.

That is because patent laws differ from India to the US. The US protects the chemical formula of the drug whereas India protects only the process by which the drug is produced. Thus, Orchid could reverse-engineer Viagra and should Pfizer sue Orchid in India, Pfizer would lose. Pfizer of course could get Viagra made by Orchid banned in the US but Orchid has a field day selling it in Thailand, Taiwan, India, etc.

jeevanraju wrote:
I suspect he or his advisers had big time companies like Remu and Yamaha rather than the motley CM vidwans in mind.

Patent battles cost big money, of the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions.

Companies such as Yamaha have expensive law firms on retainer. Any idiot -- or paralegal -- could do a Google search and these discussions here would show up. They can then research the prior art and move the court to invalidate any patents on the "fastening mechanism" as being overly broad. The court could choose to invalidate the entire patent or reduce its scope.

Just about 10 days back, the courts decided in Oracle v. Google that Google did not infringe on Oracle's patents on Java APIs. Oracle had only asked for $6 billion in damages.

So, Rohan has a a patent. He can put that on his resume.

PS. You may want to Google and find out how rich Philo Farnsworth became from his patents on electronic television or Lee de Forest from his invention of the triode.

cacm · Post by **cacm** » 11 Jun 2012, 08:58

MOST PATENTS ARE USELESS and the motivation can be quite complicated. I was forced to get a patent on the "GIGABIT CHIP" by the "authorities" & after I got it the interest in this area waned & when the Dutch, Japanese etc violated it even I REFUSED to join in a law suit I was asked to join! as it was a waste of time....
It is not too dissimilar to trying to collect money from "DEAD BEAT DADS"!....The ONE successful patent I know of is that of the POLAROID patent of Edwin Land who said that more than his invention itself his army of LAWYERS were more important!....vkv

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 12 Jun 2012, 01:20

Found this discussion of "prior art" in this very forum...
http://rasikas.org/forum_flux/post57965.html#p57965

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 15 Jun 2012, 07:53

I don't know who this Rohan is and what he is doing. I suggest that let us leave him alone to do what he wants do with his patent. Let not some H visa guys who pretend to know more about US patent laws tell others what they should do. If Mr Rohan markets his design and some one copies it, let him deal with it legally. It is none of our business. For the moment let us give him the credit for pursuing carnatic music seriously in the US when most Indian kids are happy to get a "kucchi award" ( as described by Sri Flute Ramani to me) in Cleveland and use it to get admission in a good colege and forget about CM altogether. Let us give credit where it is due and get over the narrow CM mentality.

Pratyaksham Bala · Post by **Pratyaksham Bala** » 15 Jun 2012, 08:43

This may be interest.
Traditional Thavil instrument:-
http://www.lakshmansruthi.com/profilesm ... thavil.jpg
Thavil with the innovative Fastening mechanism:-
http://www.tarang-classical-indian-musi ... thavil.htm

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 15 Jun 2012, 10:35

jeevanraju, as long as the technical issues related to the patent are discussed in a respectful fashion, this is indeed a topic for this forum. I do not know why you need to cast aspersions on the knowledge of the posters here, H visa holders or otherwise.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 15 Jun 2012, 18:06

jeevanraju wrote:It is none of our business.

That's not for you to decide. More importantly, it's not nice to deliberately muddy the waters, dumb things down or get personal when every attempt is being made to keep the discussions bland and objective. We're not talking in broad plattitudes here.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

1) This discussion has nothing to do with Rohan Krishnamurthy or his prodigious talents (BTW, I love his mridangam playing style) or his commitment to music. As has been pointed out, patent litigations are usually prosecuted by big corporations who might buy the rights from an individual inventor for a pittance.

2) Therefore, a patent like this should be a serious concern for those in the business of playing or making Indian percussion instruments. For example, if some of the Ricetec basmati rice patent claims had not been successfully repealed by the efforts of the Indian government, tens of thousands of small Indian and Pakistani rice growers will not have been able to sell in the US market. There will have been ONE BRAND of basmati rice in the US, period. Again, nobody knows or cares about the names of the individual inventors of that patent, whether the corporation Ricetec bought it from them, etc, etc..

3) I quote below from Mr. Krishnamurthy, Mr. Rohan's father about their stated intentions:

http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 28#p222428

RKrishnamurthy wrote:Take another example, Rohan has a patent for his drum fastening mechanism. Until he got his patent, any one was free to copy his design. Now that he has got the patent, if anyone tries to copy his design, that person can be charged with violation of patent rights and prosecuted in a court of law. One may say that people in India can copy his design and US laws won't apply. It is partly true. But if some one in the US is found using his design or using a mridangam with his design bought from a third party, then action can be taken against that person. This is what his lawyer told him.

mahavishnu · Post by **mahavishnu** » 15 Jun 2012, 22:49

I don't know who this Rohan is and what he is doing

Oh I think you do. I am referring to your earlier post here where you mention and endorse his name explicitly.
http://www.rasikas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15554
So much for your street cred.

And secondly, the person whose authority you seem to question is an accomplished inventor of musical instruments. Not only does this particular poster have a sound knowledge of musical instruments, but he is also someone who has just been through the patent process himself recently.

Having a healthy discussion about the issues and technicalities surrounding a patent (or anything else for that matter) is NOT a bad thing. I think it is of great benefit to the CM community. If anything, your dismissal of this fairly civil discussion is the kind of attitude that CM can do without.

I, for one, found all the points raised (by Uday and VijayR) quite valid and I do not see these issues going away without sufficient clarification. A healthy discussion surrounding this topic would be immense help to anyone that might go through the patent process and/or even potential users of this "invention".

Believe me, this forum is a much nicer environment to have this discussion than a courtroom.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 16 Jun 2012, 00:05

Please let us not get personal and muddy this thread!
The generic information is useful for all and the individuals know to take care of themselves...
Again it is useful to hear from folks who have direct personal experience which will benefit future applicants...

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 16 Jun 2012, 01:00

Folks, wagging tongues will wag... Just let it go; don't waste your time and energy on those comments.

Uday: I saw that post by Prof. Krishnamurthy soon after it was posted and it did ring some alarm bells when I read it, but I didn't want to bring it up. I am intrigued by the silence from Prof. Krishnamurthy in this thread. Even a brief clarification from him would go a long way in addressing some of the issues raised here. I hope we hear from him.

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 16 Jun 2012, 04:33

I quite concur. I also request RKrishnamurthy or Rohan to give us a run down on how it all started and finally ended up in a patent. By the way I am not making any personal attacks. If that is implied, my apologies.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 16 Jun 2012, 04:50

jeevanraju wrote:Let not some H visa guys who pretend to know more about US patent laws

jeevanraju wrote:By the way I am not making any personal attacks

Brilliant!

jeevanraju wrote:give us a run down on how it all started and finally ended up in a patent

This will only serve to muddy the waters. The complete story of the genesis of the idea of the "fastening mechanism" could probably wait! On the other hand, it would be really instructive to know how we must interepret the primary claim, hereby quoted again:

"

1. A drum comprising:

a drum shell substantially concentrically arranged about a central axis and possessing a substantially hollow cavity extending along the central axis thereof, said shell having at least one substantially open end defined by an associated, substantially circular lip;

a membrane extending over said at least one open end and said lip; and

means for stretching and tuning said membrane.

"

This is the only thing the public needs to be concerned about. Closely following that, it would be a bonus to know how we must interpret some of the other claims cited earlier. If all of this pertains only to a "fastening mechanism", we can move on.

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 17 Jun 2012, 20:43

I feel U Shankar is getting some what paranoid. All that language is legal jumbo mumbo and nothing to do with the final implications. I am reminded of the classic car wiper case. All the cars used to have a constant speed wiper. Then one engineer from Illinois made a small change. He made the motor a variable one so that suddenly we had the intermittent wiper! All the autos immediately introduced it without respecting the patent. Of course , like the mridangam, it was subtle change, but very valid and not ignorable. Finally the Supreme court ordered the auto companies to pay heavy damage fees to the inventor.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 17 Jun 2012, 21:00

jeevanraju wrote:I feel U Shankar is getting some what paranoid. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ... .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. ..... ... .. .... .... ... .... ... ...... .. Finally the Supreme court ordered the auto companies to pay heavy damage fees to the inventor.

Quite.

]

]

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 17 Jun 2012, 21:39

Under the circumstances it will be enlightening if Uday_shankar clarifies the implcations of his statement. The visiting artistes from India should not unwittingly be trapped in 'legal wrangles' due to loose terminology!

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 18 Jun 2012, 04:13

jeevanraju wrote:I am reminded of the classic car wiper case. All the cars used to have a constant speed wiper. Then one engineer from Illinois made a small change. He made the motor a variable one so that suddenly we had the intermittent wiper!

Good example. The inventor Robert Kearns died in 2005 after decades of litiguous living! It can be referenced here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars ... PN/3902106
As stated, it is for the intermittent control of windshield wipers, something we take for granted nowadays. And now here's the statement of the primary claim of that patent (I have underlined some words):

1. In a windshield wiper cleaning system, a wiper motor unit for driving said system through repeating wiping cycles, and control means for activating said wiper motor unit intermittently with a dwell period at the end of each wiping cycle which dwell period varies in accordance with the load on said wiper motor unit, said control means comprising means for deenergizing said wiper motor unit at the end of each wiping cycle, and timing means for energizing said wiper motor unit after said dwell period to start another wiping cycle, said timing means including means for measuring the integral of the load on said wiper motor unit over at least a portion of a wiping cycle and setting the dwell period in accordance with the integral measured during the wiping cycle.

Notice how clear the boundaries of the claim is ?! That's a good primary claim and that's why it won a lawsuit.

Now compare this wording with the primary claim of "a mridangam fastening mechanism":

1. A drum comprising:

a drum shell substantially concentrically arranged about a central axis and possessing a substantially hollow cavity extending along the central axis thereof, said shell having at least one substantially open end defined by an associated, substantially circular lip;

a membrane extending over said at least one open end and said lip; and

means for stretching and tuning said membrane.

Notice how this covers nothing with regards the mridangam fasteners and everything with respect to all drums in general! Such claims ultimately don't have any value and will be buried either by reexamination or lapse or whatever but in the short term they could have great nuisance value. Now I don't claim to understand legal strategy but my instinct tells me that, at least in the US, where the law works, it is better to dwell close to the truth at all times. Obfuscation, subterfuge, vagueness, etc.. have a way of catching up.

harimau · Post by **harimau** » 18 Jun 2012, 06:29

This matter is getting serious!

So Rohan has a patent on the mridangam.

And if his interview published in The Hindu (and referenced earlier) is any indication, he is smugly sitting on a goldmine willing to do battle with all those who do not respect his patents, ingenuity or vidwat.

The mind boggles at the possibilities!

Will he inform the FBI/US Customs of patent infringement by visiting Indian thavil, mridangam and kanjira artists and have the US Customs arrest those who bring in such instruments? Since the US Customs doesn't have any exceptions list, would this mean that Rohan's guru (vayur Dorai -- see how cleverly I saved a few letters of typing? I think I will get a patent on that!

) would be dragged off in handcuffs when he lands in the US with a couple of mridangams?

Would Jeevanraju act as Rohan's adviser in this matter and ensure that the Cleveland Thyagaraja Aradhana -- which, according to Jeevanraju's earlier rant about the CTA turning into a reality show, has not seen fit to recognize Rohan's extraordinary merit by always pairing him with superstars of the Carnatic world such a Ravikiran and Sudha Raghunathan -- is now prevented from having any mridangam artists visit from India so that Rohan can play in all CTA concerts, 12 hours a day, 10-14 days continuously, thus earning him a place in the Guinness Book of World Records?

Go for it! I expect to read all about it in the "News of the World". Oops, that rag is dead. Well, in the next best thing: rasikas.org.

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 18 Jun 2012, 08:50

Harimu and Nick H
Are you trying to be sarcastic or contribute something useful to this topic! I am confused sir. I do not want to have anything do with Rohan or his associates as far his patent is concerned. With 15 years of green card ownership, I am finding it hard enough passing through immigration, each time having my eyes photographed and declaring that I am not carrying any "curry leaves". Rohan and his activities are my least worries. In any case I implore him or Mr RKrishnamurthy to tell us something about the whole saga and educate us a bit more so that we have some sore of first hand information. Until then God bless you.

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 18 Jun 2012, 09:22

Uday Shankar
I applaud your efforts to get into the "wiper" history. But I am sorry it does not prove that the jumbo mumbo in Rohan's patent application is not in par with what the wiper claim does. At least it is not for us to decide. It can only be interpreted by lawyers, which I presume, you are not one. Also, we are all assuming that Rohan is waiting with a lawyer to sue every one coming from India, mridangists that is. Why do we assume that? May be his idea was only to add another bullet point in his CV.

Nick H · Post by **Nick H** » 18 Jun 2012, 12:24

jeevanraju wrote:Harimu and Nick H
Are you trying to be sarcastic or contribute something useful to this topic!

Yes.

Simply, by cutting out the stuff in the middle, I was pointing out the absurd contradiction in your post.

Rohan and his father may be entirely benevolent. The application for the patent may have been just an enthusiastic experience for a youngster --- or they may be the "Steve Jobs" of the Indian musical instrument cottage industry. I don't know them: I have no idea. Equally, they may feel that, should one of the international manufacturers of percussion instruments suddenly discover a mass market in mridangams, that they deserve a cut should their device be used.

One of Apple's recent patent claims has concerned the action of unlocking a phone (or was it answering a call, I forget) by a swipe of the finger. It seems that they might attempt to extend this to any any touch screen interface, on the basis that a touch is a zero length swipe. If successful in this, we can see that, clearly, Apple own a patent which clearly covers mridangams, as the action of playing depends on zero-length swipes. Sorry, Rohan, Apple was there before you! When the entire mridangam user interface has been covered, a patent on how the thing is held together may be valid, but doesn't seem to be of much consequence.

I think it is great that Rohan's work has contributed to the evolution of the mridangam. The whole patent thing, though, I cannot understand. Anyway, given the nature of the industry in India it is a big piece of so-what non news.

vasanthakokilam · Post by **vasanthakokilam** » 18 Jun 2012, 23:37

Jeevanraju: The point Uday is making in post number 39 is this. The first claim in the wiper patent is very specific to the intermittent timing mechanism which was the invention. In the Mridangam patent, the first claim is very general and not about the specific fastening mechanism which is the invention.

If someone can clarify that somehow the claims from the mridangam patent talked about in this thread only apply to the specific fastening mechanism and not in general to any mridangam, then we can all rest easy.

jeevanraju · Post by **jeevanraju** » 19 Jun 2012, 06:31

vasanthakokilam wrote:Jeevanraju: The point Uday is making in post number 39 is this. The first claim in the wiper patent is very specific to the intermittent timing mechanism which was the invention. In the Mridangam patent, the first claim is very general and not about the specific fastening mechanism which is the invention.

If someone can clarify that somehow the claims from the mridangam patent talked about in this thread only apply to the specific fastening mechanism and not in general to any mridangam, then we can all rest easy.

I think Dr Krishnamurthy made it clear that the patent was not for the mridangam but for the "fastening mechanism" that can be used in several drums, East and West. As an aside, I was talking to one of my colleagues in our purchasing department who is in charge of ordering chassis for cars. He said these days they order them from a company that has "patented" a new technique. I was curious and asked for details. He said so far all the chassis makers used to prepare the chassis in a press and heat them for extra strength. This patented technique, done by a German company, first heats the metal and then presses it! The point is it is an unnoticeable change from the outside, but because of the patent no one can copy their procedure for the duration of the validity of the patent. Apparently their technique produces better chassis so that we are all safe in our next cars that we buy! If Rohan's fastening mechanism does the same job, may be all the mridangists, at least out side Chennai will order the instrument through him or his agents.

VijayR · Post by **VijayR** » 19 Jun 2012, 07:06

jeevanraju wrote: I think Dr Krishnamurthy made it clear that the patent was not for the mridangam but for the "fastening mechanism" that can be used in several drums, East and West. As an aside, I was talking to one of my colleagues in our purchasing department who is in charge of ordering chassis for cars. He said these days they order them from a company that has "patented" a new technique. I was curious and asked for details. He said so far all the chassis makers used to prepare the chassis in a press and heat them for extra strength. This patented technique, done by a German company, first heats the metal and then presses it! The point is it is an unnoticeable change from the outside, but because of the patent no one can copy their procedure for the duration of the validity of the patent. Apparently their technique produces better chassis so that we are all safe in our next cars that we buy! If Rohan's fastening mechanism does the same job, may be all the mridangists, at least out side Chennai will order the instrument through him or his agents.

What kind of random analogy is that? It has little to do with the issue being discussed here. Uday was right; you are repeatedly trying to muddy the waters.

Regardless of what Dr. Krishnamurthy said/did not say and regardless of what they intended to patent, the wording in the actual patent document seems to indicate that what is being claimed is much broader than the fastening mechanism. That is the only issue being discussed here.

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 19 Jun 2012, 15:05

Mr. Jeevanraju
Whether you are one person or multiple people (that would explain the numerous ridiculous contradictions, variations in writing style, etc..), you've obviously been tasked with the very specific agenda of creating a cloud of confusion. However, that seriously insults the intelligence and decency of the folks here (even if some may or may not be mere "H visa holders"). Still, your frantic flailing about makes such pathetic reading, individually and in sequence, that I am almost reduced to tears! No human being, or mutliple beings, should have to cut such a sorry figure! And unlike the Harimaus of the world I actually feel sorry for you

. So let me try to bat for you a bit !

First, you must distinguish between Rohan's invention and the claims on the patent. From what I've seen, I think Rohan's idea is neat and elegant and he certainly deserves a cut of the revenue should it become widely adopted and hence it is right that "it has been patented". Obviously Rohan himself is living proof that his invention works very well, judging from the superb naadam and gumki he produces with it. I will be the first one to applaud the universal adoption of it and in fact have often recommended it to mridangam vidvans, only to be greeted by unfounded skepticism. As for me, the sight of the leather straps, and mridangists struggling to tune down a stubborn mridangam which won't yield a hair inside some AC auditorium always makes me wonder why we Indians are so stuck with the wrong technology under the misguided notion that that's "tradition" !

HOWEVER, ALL THIS IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS DISCUSSION. I wish it were so. I would have been so had claims be written like the wiper patent. A patent is all about its claims. I read patents routinely, trying to design medical devices around them. Sometimes, I read claims written by lawyers on stuff I designed myself. When reading third party patents by one "skilled in the art", it is routine to skim through the body of the patent and drill down to the claims. Claims, claims, claims. They are the only thing that matter. Based on this experience I can say that the claims of the Rohan patent are very broad. If the goal is to commericalize via "a major manufacturer", I am sure that the first thing they would do is ask for a reexamination. That costs probably a couple thousand dollars and anybody can initiate it. For a company it is nothing and they routinely do so. However, it is possible that companies may also try to enforce it although I don't see how. In the case of most of these crazily broad patents like Ricetec basmati or the turmeric patent, preemptive action was taken by the government of India to fight it. So there was no test of its enforeceability. However, for a few years when the litigation was going on, it would have created much confusion and stagnation. And most certainly they did not bring any royalties to the inventors and/or asignees. Certainly I am no legal expert and I grant that there may be a strategy behind the broadness of the claims. That strategy, however reasonable, can only create anxiety in the public's mind, especially for those who have been making drums for years using different technologies not invented by Rohan but covered by the broadness of the claims on the patent.

cmlover · Post by **cmlover** » 19 Jun 2012, 19:54

Why don't we hear a clarification from the inventor (Rohan) himself? The interpretations of "jeevanraju" have only straw value. Rohan can set to ease all the concerns expressed here as well as clarify the application of his invention for the benefit of the mridangam practitioners! Obviously he has no ulterior motives as his goal is to promote excellence in CM technology.

ShrutiLaya · Post by **ShrutiLaya** » 20 Jun 2012, 01:13

Probably because his lawyer told him not to .. as these discussions can easily be found and used as evidence in any future lawsuit !

I'm curious about one legal question .. can part of a patent be disallowed and the rest continue to apply? If it is all or nothing, then there would be a strong incentive to make the narrowest possible claim. If it is a lottery, where you don't lose anything by claiming as much as possible, but might potentially win big bucks if the claims are upheld .. why, then, Rohan's approach makes perfect sense

- Sreenadh

uday_shankar · Post by **uday_shankar** » 20 Jun 2012, 02:19

ShrutiLaya wrote:can part of a patent be disallowed and the rest continue to apply?

Yes. Some claims can be potentially eliminated after reexamination or dispute or whatever. The rest of the claims will stand.