Scam/Fake? Unsure if this is a real Selmer Super Action 80 Serie II

[Pete Thomas]

Selmar patent designs without licence.

Interesting point, do they have any current patents on any parts of a Serie II ? I wouldn’t know where to start looking.

 

[mizmar]

Interesting point, do they have any current patents on any parts of a Serie II ? I wouldn’t know where to start looking.

I can't see how if a patent is valid for 20 years and, apparently, the Series II came out in 1986.
In some industries people file new parents with "upgrades" to old designs but written to cover the old design as well... I doubt there's much of that as the market seems saturated with copies of well known models. So the big guys are competing on quality and reputation... So the trademark is the key element... I guess.

Ergo. Scrape off the Selmar Name, logo etc. And it's legal?

 

[Pete Thomas]

I can't see how if a patent is valid for 20 years and, apparently, the Series II came out in 1986.

Yes, but even then a patent cannot cover a whole saxophone which was basically designed back in 1836 or whenever. A current patent would have to be on some new mechanism/invention.

So there is no IP infringement in copying standard keywork and body tube etc which has no patent, copyright or trademark.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Apparently, from the above, there is a difference. It's a crime to knowingly be in position of counterfeit money - hence a bank teller (remember those!)

And in this case the band leader who sold it could not plead ignorance even if that was a valid defence, because they sold it for a mere $200. No band leader would be so ignorant of the actual value of a real one.

 

[mizmar]

A current patent would have to be on some new mechanism/invention

Sure, any new innovation in mechanism etc.
I'm sure the design engineers are all about thinking of new, very distinct & patentable, tinkerings for new models to hold back direct copies.
Hance "ah yes, only model X has that under slung, tilting whatever". Maybe better engineering but may just be patentable.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Hance "ah yes, only model X has that under slung, tilting whatever". Maybe better engineering but may just be patentable.

It's a lot of hassle just to avoid copies. They'll get copied anyway so unless it's slam dunk innovation, the manufacturer is probably better off spending the money on lawyers to stop the ™ infringements which would be easy to prove, if it wasn't for the complexity of bringing action in different jurisdictions etc. even if you can catch the thief.

I don't think you can patent a mechanism unless you can prove it is different and innovative, not just a slightly different design, it has to work in a different way. And unless it's a better different way then you could be in for trouble if your customers disagree it is better. Minefield.

 

[mizmar]

better off spending the money on lawyers to stop the ™ infringements

Sure. And I'm sure they do.
We all know Quality Control is a big cost / value... And the only thing you can see that tells you about QC is the brand (± "Made in Japan" or such).

unless you can prove it is different and innovative

Patent offices are really quite a pushover. It's called "evergreening", certainly big pharma (where I first stumbled across it) spend a lot on it. I've no idea about Yamaha, Selmar etc. but I'd bet it's part of the design departments brief.

 

[Pete Thomas]

but I'd bet it's part of the design departments brief.

My only experience has been with the copyrights and trademarks. The trademark office certainly isn't a pushover. I remember getting Cafesaxophone trademarked.

What do youwant then, Cafe Saxophone or Cafesaxophone? Oh, now you want an accent on the é do you? What exactly is it then, a website? What sort of Website? Oh you are also selling things? Is that retail? What do mean "sort of". And what do mean members? is it a gym then?

 

[thomsax]

King Super 20 had many patent and Martin as well. Thier patents were often running for 50 years. King Super 20 had patent on the low C double arm. But we could se a low C double arm on Yanigisawa 800 already in the 80's. A neck à la Martin combined neck was on Keilwerth in the 50's.

 

[Pete Thomas]

But we could se a low C double arm on Yanigisawa 800 already in the 80's

That could be because they challenged the patent. A good patent lawyer might argue anyone can add a second arm, it's not rocket science. I mean someone could patent a triple arm, it doesn't take an inventor to keep adding arms.

"What is better about your two arms on that low C?"

"Well for a start, it's one more than one."

 

[greenstripe]

That could be because they challenged the patent. A good patent lawyer might argue anyone can add a second arm, it's not rocket science. I mean someone could patent a triple arm, it doesn't take an inventor to keep adding arms.

"What is better about your two arms on that low C?"

"Well for a start, it's one more than one."

One the Antigua Pro One they have 3 arms!

Brings to mind that scene from Spinal Tap

View: https://youtu.be/4xgx4k83zzc?si=hdDakDqdQKYVwLkI

 

[thomsax]

We have different types of patents."Mönsterskydd" is a type of patent. To protect a construction or a design is not really the same.

Here is King Super 20 underslung octave design. As far as I know it was just H,N, White and King Musical Instrument that made the underslung octave key à la King super 20. Conns and Buescher underslung octave keys were different.

 

[dexdex]

Sidenote: the King design above is brilliant from a physics (inertia) point of view.

 

[DavidUK]

I applied for for a patent on my magnetic self-levelling, height adjustable, synthetic, instantly removable pads but on hindsight it's not a good idea as the cost to renew increases each year you wish to extend it in each geographical location.

As pete says, even with a patent they'll still be copied (if they're worth copying). And then you have to sue anyhow.

Better to publish the invention from outset, which I have, then whoever wants to claim the patent going forward would struggle to prove it's their idea.

 

[thomsax]

Sure it's a fake sax. Nothing that I would buy or even look at if it wasn't posted here on. CS.

 

[mizmar]

Surely it's a real sax - (maybe) a SA80 copy but has a trademark violation?

 

[greenstripe]

The standard issue rifle for British armed forces for the last 35 years is also called SA80, so one could argue they're naming a sax after that and not copying Selmer.

 

[mizmar]

Hummm...
The model seems to be "80 Balanced Action Series II"
But, anyway, mostly Trade Marks are assigned to product classes. So, it would have to be engraved SA80 and be an offensive weapon....
.... Oh 😱