Harry Connick Jr. Gets Patent For Computerized Sheet Music
from the solve-a-problem... dept
Harry Connick Jr. apparently got annoyed when his musicians sheet music was blowing all over the place during an outdoor show a few years back. So, he bought a bunch of Apple Mac G3's and set them up to display the music to his band. Now he's patented the concept. It's not totally clear what he "patented" here, and how it's really that original. It's just displaying sheet music on a computer screen. I would imagine there's plenty of prior art for that. It also isn't clear if he's now going to be somehow "selling" this solution to other musicians.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
being lazy
good job, mr. editor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: being lazy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
do you read these articles at all?
recently received U.S. patent No. 6,348,648 for a "system and method for coordinating music display among players in an orchestra.
no, it'st not just "displaying" the sheet music, it's "coordinating" it with all the players. obviously, you have never played in an orchestra.
besides explicitly stating what made it patentable, it gave you the patent #. what, you wanted a link to the us patent office?
lazy ass editor.
seriously, and you wonder why your site has all of 8 posts a day? look in a mirror, mike. it's you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: do you read these articles at all?
Look, if you don't like what I write, go somewhere else.
My points were about the article I linked to which did not answer the questions.
And, as I said elsewhere, I spent all day yesterday on airplanes. I then stayed up late posting articles to this site rather than go to sleep. So, if you think that's lazy, then fine. I'm lazy. Go edit your own site. I don't do this to make you happy.
And since when was "playing in an orchestra" a prereq for writing about technology?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what site do you edit for?
since when is doing a little review on your own to figure out what was unique about the patentable idea wrong? you're the editor. figure it out.
as for your lame excuse about being up late, don't do something half-assed. either sleep and do it in the morning correctly, or don't do it at all.
and last time i checked, my IP isn't banned from this site. i will read, post, and comment as i please. what, you afraid someone with some intellect will point out the foibles and follies in your methods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what site do you edit for?
I have no problem with intelligent discussion (and as I've pointed out before, if someone makes a *good* point where I was wrong then I admit it and thank them). You don't do that. You insult me. That's one way to have a discussion, but I don't find it a particularly useful one.
My point was that if you think I'm so stupid, then go away. If you think you have valuable things to add to the conversation then by all means stick around - but valuable things to add to the conversation would be more than calling me lazy or incompetent.
Anyway, my point about how long I was up, had nothing to do with me doing anything "half-assed". I still think there was nothing wrong with my story. My explanation was in your response to me being "lazy" for "only" posting 8 stories (which, apparently you have no idea how much work it takes to do, which is why I asked which site you edited). Anyway, the day when not that many stories were posted was Wednesday, and that wasn't because I was travelling (that was Thursday), but because I didn't find enough stories that I felt were worth posting.
If you had simply said, "Hey Mike, this story probably would have been better if you had looked up the patent yourself" that would have been a good point, which I would have agreed with. Instead, you come along and tell me I'm a moron. It's an interesting debating style and it doesn't make me likely to put any weight behind any of y our comments.
If you continue to make your points in a confrontational style then I won't bother paying any attention to them at all. If you want to convince me argue on the points. I'm always more than willing to admit my mistakes and faults when they're pointed out in a normal, conversational way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
actually, no
i called it half assed b/c you acted like what Harry did was not that original and maybe shouldn't be patented. it's half assed to belittle someone's work when you won't/don't/can't get all the facts straight. i could care less if you posted 8 stories or 800, as long as the editorial comments are straight shooting. i am beginning to rank you with Timothy and Michael on /. when at one time i ranked your with John on GMSV. i assume you know the differences between them, b/c one of the 3 is a good guy and whip smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: actually, no
Yes it is.
So, yes, I should have done more research on the story. You're right on that point.
However, you have done the exact same thing back to me, and done it in an insulting way.
Also, I don't think I "belittled" his patent. I simply *wondered* what was original about it. I never said it was stupid, just that it "wasn't clear" from the article what was original - which is true. The *article* was not clear. I was open to the belief that there must have been something original, otherwise why would I have brought it up? And, someone in the Techdirt community *kindly* answered the question for me. Note that the kind answer didn't come from you.
You, instead, "belittled" my work without "getting all the facts straight".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]