Recent content by cre009

I looked a few years ago specifically for that because Richard Dunn claimed Hamish met Ivor during Uni holidays but could not find any details about when Ivor dropped out when I last looked. Often new information pops up time to time but I do not have a pressing need to look again.

My understanding is Ivor was in Israel from 71 through to late 72 and apparently went there with the intention of taking citizenship so at that time was probably not interested in the manufacture of the turntable. The initial dispute was between Jack and Hamish. I doubt that Ivor was involved...

Mainly posts by Nigel Pearson at the DIY forum where he describes conversations with Ray Collins (former Castle employee) about helping Ivor with the deck. Not as strong as I would like but I do not have any alternative story or corroboration for the family version at all. All I have is Hamish...

No axe to grind from me other than to establish what actually happened from the information available to me.. I can see that you have your preferred view that the family version is correct. I do not take that view based on my research. The Patent Officer has quite clearly stated in the...

Do not get confused between who did the turntable and who did the bearing. The invention being addressed is the point bearing.

It is an assumption on my part based on what Barry Fox wrote about the summary that Hamish conceded that the prototype was done by Ivor. Each side is expected to say what they are going to contest. If they do not contest then the default is that the other parties version holds true. The...

I agree with you about the merits of the patent but the hearing is done in a bubble so if neither party raises obviousness then no decision on that is needed. If Thorens or any other company decided to attack the patent on the grounds that it was obvious or they had used it previously then Jack...

If you look at the appeal hearing link provided by Tones earlier in the thread you will see that Hamish dropped obviousness.as one of the grounds for opposition so he could try to oppose on the grounds that the bearing was his design, I now have that full document but you can see that from the...

No I have not. Just that Barry Fox insisted his version of the summary was accurate Getting the original case files will probably solve a lot of the issues and questions when reviewed in hindsight. In theory they should be available but in practice getting to see them will probably take time...

This page - right hand column https://postlmg.cc/kBNB1JxC "The Officer saw the nub of the disputed invention as the point contact bearing formed by the conical end of the platter spindle. And it was agreed all round that this, by minimising rumble was indeed the nub of the invention. The...

The family version does bring out more detailed information about purchase order quantities and the background to the dispute. I have been compiling details of Ariston and early Linn decks that show up or people have mentioned. Early on I was only interested in serial numbers to identify ranges...

There are three versions of the Ariston/Linn back story out in the wild. Each of them is based heavily on the interpretation of information provided to different people at different times and for different purposes by Hamish Robertson. All three versions are sufficiently incompatible with each...

For your information I think you may read this thread or the Linn forum thread referenced that is no longer available. I did not save it so only have a slight recollection of what was in the Linn forum thread...

The business about the Isobarik originating from Ariston is a bit of internet nonsense started by someone who thought they saw it in an early 70s Hi-Fi Yearbook but did not check what they saw before posting. The early Ariston speaker was the SR90 with concrete lining that was said to be...

Thanks for your reply. A frequent question that I see is why was the Tiefenbrun patent granted when Thorens, Sony and other companies were already using a similar bearing? Am I correct in my understanding that the patent hearing is held in a bubble and what other companies were doing is...