There is little to no negativity in these posts. Not only are they informative, warranted and helpful but also in good taste. No need to get involved when there is a courteous conversation going on. Keep up the dialogue!!

This Camelot Notation IP thing has come up on so many forums that I finally decided to register to see whats what.

In short, I would be eager to hear what is MIK's stance on their alleged ownership of the camelot numbering system. From reading MIK's comments I see that you claim three different types of rights relating to the Camelot System: 1) Trademark 2) Copyright 3) Patent

I. Trademark

In light of the consumer, we are not interested in buying a product that is called Camelot. We dont buy the brand we buy the numbering system which protrays tracks keys as 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b etc, which are not subject to any trademark rights.

II. Copyright

The camelot wheel is portrayed as a picture, which is subject to copyright. However, ideas and information are never subject to copyright. Only the way of presenting them can surpass the threshold of originality required from a copyrighted work. In the camelot wheel, we are interested in information (key of the music), not the picture (green while with different colors and sections).

Also note that in the US you will need to register your copyright to be valid. I will check to see whether MIK has registered copyrights with the US IPO database.

III. Patent

Judging from MIK's responses here MIK has allegedly applied for a patent or patents in one or several jurisdictions and I assume the patents pertain to the detection algorhythms used in the software.

In this regard in the current market climate there are dozens of third party algorithms for detection we as the consumer are not interested in any IP related to that.

Bear in mind also that patent law in Europe/US quite widely requires that if a product is advertised to be patented, one is under the obligation to furnish the numbers of the registrations and certificates upon request. Also, MIK may be granted a patent in one country but you fail in the rest of the world which means its free for anyone to use in the rejected jurisdictions (no confidentiality obligations either because a patent docket is a public document).

NOW IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE

Does MIK or does it not claim to have the right to prohibit others, if needed, to map the results of third party track analyses using a numbering system found in the camelot wheel (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and so forth)?

All we would want to hear is a clarification whether you perceive the system of mapping musical keys to tracks using numbers 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B etc as your sole property?

Thank you!

OK I found it in the US IPO database:

Type of Work: Visual Material
Registration Number / Date: VA0001755928 / 2010-04-20
Application Title: Camelot Easy Mix System.
Title: Camelot Sound Easymix System.
Description: 2-D art, 1p.
Copyright Claimant: Mixed In Key LLC, Transfer:
Date of Creation: 1991
Date of Publication: 1991-02-10
Nation of First Publication: United States
Authorship on Application: Mark Davis, 1950- ; Citizenship: United States. Authorship: text/poetry, 2-dimensional artwork.
Copyright Note: Regarding limitation of claim: Text is names, titles, short phrases only; names, titles, short phrases not copyrightable. 37 CFR 202.1

(edited)

Subject of the copyright here is a 1 page 2D Art. Use of the information / idea of the numbering system, ableit included as data in that art, is free.

MIK - feel free to clarify your position whether you consider differently.

In the meanwhile, regarding copyrights, let me give others an example. I take a picture and I am naturally the sole owner of the copyright to that picture but what I do not own is the theme or the information or the idea that is depicted in the picture. Based on the picture alone, I could not claim rights to anything portrayed in that picture. I only own the picture and the right to control its use.

Does MIK or does it not claim to have the right to prohibit others, if needed, to map the results of third party track analyses using a numbering system found in the camelot wheel (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and so forth)?

http://harmonic-mixing.com/CommercialLicensing.aspx

"Would you like to license the Camelot notation and Camelot wheel for your product or service? All products, including freeware are required to obtain a license, but we make it easy.

There are six types of licenses:
1. Inclusion in DJ mixing software
2. Inclusion in DJ hardware
3. Display of key results in a digital music store
4. Educational licensing for schools
5. Use in music analysis software and services
6. Radio station use

To obtain your license from Mixed In Key LLC, please e-mail yakov@mixedinkey.com"

Thanks Chad but I will have to keep on bugging you for a while in order to get to the bottom line.

What does "Camelot notation" mean? Ie. what is it that you are actually offering for licensing?

I'm trying to look at this objectively and I'm really trying to see things your way but based on the US IPO's archive extract posted above, the only copyright you could ever claim relates to a 2D picture. And as stated earlier, a copyright in a picture does not convey rights in the information pertained in that picture. Nor does such a numbering system pass any of the tests of patentability (novelty, inventiveness), and it is most certainly not in the scope of any trademark rights either.

Despite the above and in lack of a better response I take your answer as a yes, you actually prefer to think that the use of numbers as replacement of musical keys as a feature of a DJ software actually belongs in the sole ownership of MIK. Which is ludicrous by the way.

What you've managed to do however, and to your own benefit of course, is take advantage of the market misinformation and misinterpretation regarding the scope of your IP in general. Lets face it, we're not all IP practitioners and your licensing page is vague about what it is that you actually think you own. Again, trying to look at this your way I see no reason to be vague about your position other than trying to a) lure companies in to licenses they do not need and/or b) scare away competition by trying to hold a basic functionality implementation hostage based on copyright over a 2d picture(!).

Why do customers even care you may ask? Well, for one - a Pioneer rep even stated your IP position as barrier to implementing a quick numbering system on Rekordbox which led me into thinking someone should really set the record straight and find out whats what.

You can contact Yakov for this type of question, his email is on the Harmonic-Mixing.com website under the Licensing tab I posted a link for in my previous reply.

Brasco, I can respect your views and intellegence in many reguards on Pattents, etc. While you claim to be looking at this as objective, you still attack MIK very cosistently. Which is NOT objective and very rude to do publically of thier forms. This is not how a respectful adult conducts themself when "just trying to get to the bottom of things". I as a user am actually sick of seeing this subject at the top all the time. I know I don't have to read, but crap man!! This topic is always comming back to the top, when you have been told multiple times who would be best to address your concerns with. Get a lawyer if you think they owe you a response!

Talk to the main people that Chad mentioned in private and show a little respect. This is inexpensive software that helps me get organized and not as big of a deal as you are making it into.

You have the right to question, feel free! Just don't be a jerk anymore, ask intelegent questions and don't back talk responses. Don't be disrespectful and pounce claiming that they are ludicris for thier view on what they think they have a right to pattent, just because you can get past YOUR view of their answer. I can't believe that with some of the intellegence that you do show, that you can't see you are NOT OBJECTIVE WHEN YOU CAN'T GET PAST YOUR OPINIONS! Your opinion being that they are "Ludacris". If you have a case, then fight it with facts. Stop wasting all our time! I personally think that if you had case, you would just persue it.

If you have a problem with the pattent office agreeing with MIK and approving their pattent, then take it up with the office and challenge it. Stop wasting Chad/support's and everyone elses time!

You are EXTREMELY annoying because you are arrogant and disrespectful. I hope some day you can be as objective as you claim to be to understand my point of view on YOU!

DHoude pretty much hit it on the head.
This is a very old thread that had died for a pretty obvious reason and should be left there.

DHoude I see you have three to four main points in your post and I'll comment on them briefly and spontaneously

(for the sake of clarity when I talk about 'Camelot Notation' I mean the mere technical/automated act of affixing a numbering code with a musical key in a dj software e.g. 5a = Cminor. Lets exclude "Camelot" as a trademark and key detection algorithms from the convo - I think they are irrelevant)

I) I am attacking MIK which you consider unfair

• MIK is running a licensing business for camelot notation which I legitimately think is not backed with an exclusive IP right. It's an issue with the stance they have themselves taken, and its causing some undue confusion among other companies / the public. That is an opinion and the factual basis of which I have clearly laid out in this thread. I cant see where the unfairness comes from unless its the fact the we have differing opinions.

II) I am extremely annoying and in your opinion this is the wrong place to voice an opinion that you consider insulting (and/or differs from yours)

• Here's another opinion: I think you are very easily annoyed. IF the issue at hand is clear as a day, then why cant someone just spill the beans and tell me what is it exactly that is being offered for licensing. Better yet why would anyone need a license to use camelot in light of whats been presented here? What do I get in return for my money if I license the 'camelot notation' for my next level dj software? I'm expecting more than thin air.

Extremely insulting you say? Well, I say its extremely insulting/annoying to offer something for sale and then not back it up on a forum which revolves around that exact product.

III) I am wasting everyone's time

• well you didnt have to answer did you. and mind you the topic of this very forum is "Mixed In Key - Harmonic Mixing Software". I would be inclined to say this is exactly the kind of place where one would come to 'waste time' talking about the different aspects of MIK software.

IV) "If you have a problem with the pattent office agreeing with MIK and approving their pattent, then take it up with the office and challenge it"

• The problem is that as far as MIK keeps on the wall of silence there IS NO PATENT for the camelot system (as described in recitals of this post) for anyone to challenge. There may be a patent or software copyrights involved in the key detection algorhythm solution or a trademark registered for the word CAMELOT somewhere in the world but that has nothing to do with affixing 5A to Cminor on a graphical tab inside a software. That requires no use of the allegedly patented detection solution or the trademark (or the 2D picture registered with US IPO).

I can see many reasons why MIK would think they have exclusive rights though. a) its a handy system and many companies would use it unless someone said 'its theirs' b) they've bought the rights to the 2d picture (ie "the camelot wheel") as described in the extract from US IPO's copyright registry and may genuinely think that the money paid there grants exclusivity. My opinion is that neither of those is a valid basis for an exclusive right in the sense of traditional IP.

Honestly, I just think MIK is getting the benefit from the market dynamics where it is situated. There are many companies offering DJ software but they arent THAT many or THAT big to make the competition as tough as in other consumer products where most IP claims get tested via litigation or otherwise outside the court room. Also in a market filled with small companies, IP claims are good deterrents because they are open invitations/threats to litigation.

I've nothing against MIK - obviously I'm a client too and I use MIK every time a promoter is kind enough to pay me to play.

I would love to be proved wrong and see an innovative company rise and shine by way of registering/protecting their own/acquired inventions but I fail to see it here given the minimal line of public communication from MIK.

Lastly, had you let this thread die gracefully I wouldve left it be but now as you see, here we go again. If you dont want a discussion then dont say anything.

MIK - if you dont want anymore conversation about this here I suggest you close this thread.

Your public stance is already clear and I see no way of luring you into any further public statements about the matter.

If you have nothing against MiK and as you say are a client then what is your reason for ranting?
What could be your possible goal?

It actually seems like you are some small company that wants to make or already have made a Key Program that no one is using and think this will somehow make things better for you.
Other than that no real purpose to your agenda.
This was originally started a couple of years ago and MiK is still where they were doing what they do.
If it's so wrong report it to the correct entity who has jurisdiction otherwise you are just wasting bandwidth.

Dear Key of Life, you raise a valid question ("What is your reason for ranting?"). However, it is also one that has been answered already. Please refer to

(quoting myself:) "Why do customers even care you may ask? Well, for one - a Pioneer rep even stated your IP position as barrier to implementing a quick numbering system on Rekordbox which led me into thinking someone should really set the record straight and find out whats what."

I seem like a small company? Totally fine with hearing your assumptions. However, your assumptions about me personally bear only tangential relevance to this thread so to quote your own words I might say "you are wasting bandwidth".

As to me wasting time, I am totally fine with that too - doesnt cost me anything. The only thing I can see "wrong" here is to claim ownership over something there is no exclusive right to obtain. Unless someone comes up with something to back that up.

MIK still doing fine after few years since the start of this thread? I'm sure they are and I hope they will keep doing so. However, I only see the licensing scheme as a scare tactics game that isnt paying real dividends to anyone. Only causing more confusion.

Then why aren't the people who the so called scare tactics hindering complaining?
So people pay or license aspects from Pioneer but because they don't want to do the same makes it a problem?

You can't be serious.

"Then why aren't the people who the so called scare tactics hindering complaining?"

• Can be a combination of many things. For example:

a. They know of nothing better. Small to medium businesses usually have limited staff/capacity and their business focus is on developing their product rather than shooting air balloons of poor and/or secretive licensing schemes.

b. The companies may have genuine respect for the competitor who came first and cordially let them do as they've done before. MIK, as far as I know was one of the first in this line of business and that may play role in a market like this. But that has nothing to do with IP.

c. The value of the feature is poor. (I doubt it but I may be wrong)

Your question seems to imply that 'its ok so long as no one gets hurt' which would in essence mean that you agree on the account of the license's unnecessity. Maybe I caught you off guard. I hope not.

"So people pay or license aspects from Pioneer but because they don't want to do the same makes it a problem?"

• the issue isnt MiK, the issue is the substance of the license, or better yet the seeming non-existence of it with regard to Camelot Notation (again within the meaning of the recitals of my earlier post). If Pioneer would publicly require a license for a feature I consider as inherently outside the scope of statutory IP, I would probably bring it up with them too. Again, I am blind to the party offering the license but I am challenging the very license's validity/necessity. If you've a Pioneer example already in mind (as you specifically mentioned Pioneer) please let me know, I'd be very keen to hear that.

• I am not aware of a single Pioneer led feature license which would have caused as much stir as the licensing scheme offered by MiK for Camelot Notation. But again, feel free to point me to better sources of knowledge.

• Maybe the features/aspects offered for licensing by Pioneer are actually backed up by something more tangible? Other than cordiality and respect.

"You can't be serious."

• Sometimes I am other times I am not.

Brasco, you're a douce and I am not the only one who is sick of you. I am not reading you posts, just GO AWAY!

Ok guys, I think everyone's had their chance to way in on this topic. The Mixed In Key forums are some of the most professional, respectful, on topic forums I've ever seen. Let's try to keep it that way, ok?

I wasn't going to carry on, many appologies if I ofended anyone else (Chad included)