Court trial between Warchal and Thomastik

[fiddler59]

A friend of mine just tried to order a few Warchal Amber E strings and this is the letter he received from gostrings.com.

"The Warchal Amber E strings are not available becuse of a court trial going on between Warchal and Thomastic on this particular string. The A, D and G are available but I am not sure if you want to combine with other E strings or you want to cancel the order

Please let us know"

Does anyone know if there is any truth to this......I kind of liked my pigtail E strings. There are other E strings I like too........I am just curious more than anything else,,,,!!

Merry Christmas,

David Blackmon

[Jacob]

Two things:

 

Firstly, I believe gostrings (or rather, the owner) ran into some trouble and isn't operating anymore - perhaps I've got that all wrong.

 

Secondly, I ordered some Amber strings from Warchal a few weeks ago, and I've received them.

[fiddler59]

I received a set of Amber strings from Warchal at gostrings.com a few weeks ago and did not have any problems either plus an extra Amber E string as well as a Russian A string. My son ordered me some Amber E strings from Go strings and the order we through have not seen them yet but it would be time for them by the end of the week........we will see.

DB

[DBurns]

I went to the Warchal website and they don't say anything.

 

Courts have limited jurisdictions, and so the case may only be local.

If that is so, then going international may be the route or try another seller locally and see how it goes.

[l33tplaya]

So far, I much prefer the strings from Savarez, the new Corelli Cantiga strings.  http://www.savarez.fr/cantiga/english.html

 

I wrote a review of them at violinist.com.  Others seemed to like them as well.  I haven't tried the Warchal Amber E, though.  The price on the Cantiga is much better than the Thomastik PI strings, another favorite. 

 

From violinist.com: http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=24885

From Arnie Cohen
Posted on November 21, 2013 at 06:39 PM

currently they are not available in the US. Patent issues......

From Gene Wie
Posted on November 21, 2013 at 11:23 PM

Apparently, they can only ship outside the US or Austria until the dispute is resolved.

Hope it goes away soon, these are great E strings!

 

I would guess that it is more likely a patent dispute as indicated above; for it to have gone to trial so quickly seems unlikely, even in the EU. 

 

I would be careful about ordering from gostrings: there are a series of threads on violinist.com about not being sent orders from gostrings, but cards being charged. They apparently had several managers come and go.  Not sure if it was resolved satisfactorily or not.  Caveat emptor!  Also, the warchal site does not list gostrings as a partner.

[Omobono]

 I believe gostrings (or rather, the owner) ran into some trouble and isn't operating anymore - perhaps I've got that all wrong.

I too just received an international order from them in fairly good time and a good price too.

(But I don't use any of the products mentioned here)

[Alma]

Here is a link to a long thread on Cello Chat (Internet Cello Society) about problems at Gostrings for the last year:

 

http://cellofun.yuku.com/topic/15819/What-is-happening-with-Gostringscom?page=2

[WhiteFish]

I can personally attest to problems at GoStrings. After 6 months of an unfilled order for some violin strings and at least 10 emails, phone calls and mailed letters going unanswered, we finally got our bank to reverse charges. I would not trust anything you are told. If you do decide to brave an order, make sure you use a protected credit card.

[Michael_Molnar]

I am confused (again) by this thread's title. So there is no court action between Warchal and Thomastik? It's all about GoStrings?

[WhiteFish]

The recent history of gostrings affects the veracity of their statements. Some are indicating why the letter from them should be taken with a grain of salt. I would suggest a direct email to Warchal.

[mmmm]

Gostrings had some trouble a few months ago, but apparently they've gotten their act together...I put in an order recently, and everything was fine.  As for the Warchal E, I read something about that at violinist.com...there's some sort of lawsuit happening...but apparently it means they're not allowed to be sold in the USA for the time being.  I believe you can still get Amber E's from Europe...(I'm not 100% on that) so most likely just order them from Warchal directly?

[FenwickG]

My supplier in Canada said the Amber E's aren't available in the US and Austria pending a legal patent dispute, but are available in Canada. They were out of stock when I inquired about getting more. I do like them, but like most strings, they don't work on every instrument.

[Bohdan Warchal]

I am very sorry we are not able to satisfy our US customers with Amber E.  Our newest invention Amber E had not only attracted our customers, but also our competitors. This is why one of them decided to  harm the sale. They informed us (BTW several month after Amber introduction) that the product might allegedly violate their patent rights in USA and Austria (although I have never heard about such product made by them).

 

According to our brief evaluation, their patent has nothing in common with our unique invention. Moreover, in my opinion their patent should never been granted, since they tried to protect mostly already existing technical background only by the particular patent.

 

Anyway, our patent attorneys advised us to be cautious. This is why we decided to suspend the sale in the mentioned countries temporarily. We are waiting for expert evaluation and we are trying to find the way how to defend such attacks.

 

Once again, I would like to apology for any inconvenience to our business partners and customers. I have created the company in order to try my best in bringing new quality as well as new inventions into stringmaking. I have never expected to be forced to solve such assails. Anyway, we need to be ready to defend, there is no other choice.

 

Solving this kind of cases usually take a lot of time. This is why I would like to ask you for patience.

[BassClef]

Mr. Warchal,

Thanks for your post and for your efforts and innovations in the string world. Since law suits are public, do you mind linking to a copy of the lawsuit, or did the other company just send you a cease and desist letter? It would be interesting for me to know what features of their patents they are claiming your string violates.

Cheers.

[fiddler59]

I can most definitely tell you I will not be buying any more Thomastik strings because I feel like they are being patent trolls. Nothing like the good old US and A (a little humor from the movie Borat). They are pulling Microsoft and Apple tactics. My next computer will be linux all the way. I would be there now as I am a linux geek head at heart. I have and use it on my IMac now but it does not support ny audio interface. I will build my next computer with all linux compatible parts......it's not hard to do.....,!! And no thomastik strings on my violin. That is a cheap shot by thomastik IMHO .

David Blackmon

[Bohdan Warchal]

Thank you for moral support. We receive similar messages by e- mails daily.

There is no any lawsuit so far, the information provided by Gostrings has been not entirely correct. Our competitir just decided to mind the sale of Amber E in USA and we decided to obey and suspend the sale until the case is solved or at least until we get more information from patent experts.

In fact, the competitor was not able to say me (or they didn’t want to) what is the problem, in other words, why we violate their patent during our recent personal meeting. There is a string protected, that has at least one area with different properties, or where the mechanical properties are continually changing from one end to another one in their patent. In the description, they state repeatedly just these four mechanical properties (which should differ along the string): torsion stability, bending resistance, diameter and mass covering (weight per inch or so).

They never mentioned elasticity (which is one of the most basic quality in stringmaking) in their patent. In fact, strings having different (uneven) torsion stability, bending resistance, diameter and mass covering have been manufactured for decades, or even for centuries. You can simply make sure yourself. Try to measure any synthetic core string by precise micrometer in piece by piece, try to bend any violin synthetic A string… In fact, there is technically impossible to manufacture perfectly even string, even with nowadays machinery.

The torsion stability and elasticity use to be neither even. If you start to wind attached and tensioned multifilamet fiber bunch, it get twist. Since the core itself has very poor torsion stability, it starts to twist due to force applied by wound ribbon (that is wound on a tangent and has to be “breaked”). The twist increases during the winding process with shortened area of unwound core. The intensively twisted core becomes a bit thicker and more elastic in fact. At the same time, the twisted core gains a bit better torsion stability. On the other hand, diameter change is unwanted effect.

This applies for hand made strings mostly. Modern machines are able to rotate each side (hook) independently, so they are able to compensate the effect to a certain extent. However, it is never compensated completely. Moreover there is no reason to avoid second area (half) having a bit better elasticity and torsion stability then the first one.

This is why I believe their patent should have never been granted. The only thing they told me (where they find a collision with their patent) should allegedly be “plastical twist”. They claim area with “plastic twist” in their patent. Plastic means a deformation, that is so intensive that never returns to its original state (unlike elastic, which does return). Anyway, I am sure that the principle we use for Amber E elasticity increase is not a twist, but a spiral. There is even a product made by the particular competitor named Spirocore. It is logical, since there is a tiny spiral inside. This is why it is called Spirocore, not a Twistcore. Spiral cannot be confused with twist I am sure.

This competitor is known by spending a lot of money into patent applications, mostly without any real use. They just try to patent general principles. Just about two years ago I was warned by one of my friend they tried to patent a simple synthetic core string (that hes been manufactured for decades). I consulted it with another friend from stringmaking business, he told me “Do’t be afraid, some of stringmakers had already submitted an objection, there is no chance to be granted“. They have also patented many nonsense. For example, they were so rash, that they submitted patent for string made from aramid (Kevlar) core. If they would spend two hours by trying to develop any string from aramid fibers, they would realized it was not possible. As I know, all stringmakers tried to develop such string, including us. There is no chance, the material is much less elastic than any cheap plain steel wire.

I have to admit I was a bit naïve when I came in tot business as a musician. Now we seem to be facing quite serious lesson. On the other hand, every lesson can make us stronger. For example I was forced to learn a lot about patent law during recent weeks.

We have always preferred real research and development to such quarrels. However, now we need to find out, what to do in order not to harm our future production, quality and customer care level. We receive a lot of questions and demand from US customers. I would like to assure you we are trying our best to solve the case as soon as possible and in a way which will not harm our business partners and customers.

[David Burgess]

Thanks for that, Bohdan, including all the interesting information from the technical side of string making.

[Carl Stross]

Strange stuff. The legal aspects, I mean...

[GlennYorkPA]

I have to admit I was a bit naïve when I came in tot business as a musician. Now we seem to be facing quite serious lesson. On the other hand, every lesson can make us stronger. For example I was forced to learn a lot about patent law during recent weeks.

We have always preferred real research and development to such quarrels. However, now we need to find out, what to do in order not to harm our future production, quality and customer care level. We receive a lot of questions and demand from US customers. I would like to assure you we are trying our best to solve the case as soon as possible and in a way which will not harm our business partners and customers.

 

Bohdan,

 

I think you are very brave to be this David in a threat from Goliath.

 

Are these defensive patents published by your competitor all world patents? If so, their filing costs must be horrendous and provide a nice idea of how they use profits from us if/when we purchase their strings.

 

On the other other hand, if they are not world patents, you don't have much to worry about because in the modern age, it doesn't matter much where we buy our strings.

 

I live in America but I purchased several of your Amber Es on line (very good, by the way) but I don't recall where they came from nor did I care. I think they were shipped from the UK and the shipping cost was very modest.

 

Is distribution in the US such a big deal these days? What happened to Daniel? Can he ship from Taiwan?

 

Glenn

[jacobsaunders]

If I ever learnt anything in my side job at the court, it is not to form an opinion on anything untilI have heard both sides of any story. Here it would be interesting to hear Infelds point of view. I have lived the last 30 years or so with Infeld as a slightly batty neighbour in a run-down house on the Einsiedlerplatz just down the road, so to put them in a David/Goliath league with Apple, patenting a square box with rounded off corners, seems hideously far-fetched. For a simple minded violin maker/restorer, it seems curious to patent a length of steel wire, but I suppose, so be it, and others will know a miriad of subtelties.

Bohdan posted on Violinists.com in June:

http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=24463
From Bohdan Warchal

Posted on June 30, 2013 at 01:52 PM
So far only very few players have tested this E string due to high classification level of this project. Just now I have finished a patent application, so a few first pieces could be released soon.

I gather from his post there, that he patents his own developments, presumably to enjoy the protection provided by a patent. As such, it might not be unreasonable (I am not in a position to judge) if others are not keen on having their patents (allegedly) violated.

Thanks to Bohdan anyway for clearing up the OP question, ie. that there is NO lawsuit. Just what “Our competitir just decided to mind the sale of Amber E in USA” means, is not clear to me, perhaps he would like to explain.

[Bohdan Warchal]

You are right, protecting inventions by patents is legal, there is nothing wrong with it. However we never tried to patent general principles without real use neither even technical background. We mused if we should patent Amber invention or not. At the end I decided not to invest corporate budget funds so I submitted the patent application as a private person. The application is submitted in Slovak republic only so far. It will be published in one year time, the process is always very time demanding unfortunately. The worldwide priority is already garanted (since the day of application submitting), so I have one year time to decide which countries I will extend the application to. Even in case Iwould not be in position to pay the applications worldwide, I would be glad I managed to move the stringmaking knowledge just a tiny step ahead.

 

As I already told you, there are not just general principles in our patent. There is a concrete solution, in other words, particular string, with detailed description and many pictures. There in no one picture in the competitor patend which would have anything in common with our Amber E on the other hand.

 

Thus, so far I have invested just a few Euros into the patent protection of our invention. The application fee in our country is not expensive at all. We have invested (have been forced to invest) already much more money into solving the dispute with the competitor that arose recently.

[martin swan]

If anyone wishes to order Warchal Amber, you can get them direct from Warchal on this webpage : http://www.warchalshop.com/c/viewcat/catid-117/amber

Or you can buy them from a number of distributors outside the disputed territories of the US and Austria.

AR Distribution in the UK deals with trade customers, and would most likely ship to the US : http://ardistribution.co.uk/ardistribution/warchal.html

 

I agree that the "David & Goliath" characterisation doesn't fit with Warchal and Thomastik, but perhaps if we look at the respective legal teams we might see something more like that! And ultimately that's what counts, not the protagonists themselves.

 

I do believe Bohdan's assertion that the Thomastik patent is a diffuse anti-competitive patent covering ground that has already been commercially exploited by others for decades - conversely, the Amber E is a genuinely patentable new idea.

 

Thomastik must feel a significant threat from Warchal, since Warchal make better strings which are also less expensive (it's a complete enigma to me why Karneol haven't taken over from Dominants as the industry standard).

 

So far the market has been prejudiced by the fact that Warchal are made in "Eastern Europe", but that bogey is wearing a bit thin. Presumably Thomastik felt it was losing ground in the US (the Amber E has attracted a lot of attention and won over a lot of customers), and is trying it on with a bit of "lawyer's letter" nonsense.

[jacobsaunders]

You are right, protecting inventions by patents is legal, there is nothing wrong with it. However we never tried to patent general principles without real use neither even technical background. We mused if we should patent Amber invention or not. At the end I decided not to invest corporate budget funds so I submitted the patent application as a private person. The application is submitted in Slovak republic only so far. It will be published in one year time, the process is always very time demanding unfortunately. The worldwide priority is already garanted (since the day of application submitting), so I have one year time to decide which countries I will extend the application to. Even in case Iwould not be in position to pay the applications worldwide, I would be glad I managed to move the stringmaking knowledge just a tiny step ahead.

 

As I already told you, there are not just general principles in our patent. There is a concrete solution, in other words, particular string, with detailed description and many pictures. There in no one picture in the competitor patend which would have anything in common with our Amber E on the other hand.

 

Thus, so far I have invested just a few Euros into the patent protection of our invention. The application fee in our country is not expensive at all. We have invested (have been forced to invest) already much more money into solving the dispute with the competitor that arose recently.

If I might refer you to my previous post (#20), what does “Our competitir just decided to mind the sale of Amber E in USA” mean please? and if there is no lawsuit, what is your dispute with Infeld?

[Carl Stross]

 

 

So far the market has been prejudiced by the fact that Warchal are made in "Eastern Europe", but that bogey is wearing a bit thin. Presumably Thomastik felt it was losing ground in the US (the Amber E has attracted a lot of attention and won over a lot of customers), and is trying it on with a bit of "lawyer's letter" nonsense.

 

While I wish Bohdan all the best, one shouldn't rush to conclusions. There may be MANY collateral issues, one might not be able to solve on MN. ( doubtful. I know....   )

 

To the extend I understand how the Amber E works ( might be wrong, or stupid...) it is not a new idea by any stretch. It MIGHT be a novel application. And that's where the waters get very muddy.

Interestingly enough, Bohdan thought and wrote of the Amber E as an INVENTION though he also expressed reluctance to patent "first principles". That's confusing because what he does is "first 

principles". 

[robertdo]

I am a little bit surprised that thomastik would bother so much for a patent on a E string given that what people mostly buy from them is all the other strings of the set except for the E one.

It's also a pity that no real European patent office really exists.