advertisement


Ariston/Linn: contested History

Jim Audiomisc

Jim Audiomisc

pfm Member
Just got this and thought people may find it interesting:
From: Jane Pennington (by email to me) Apologies if it is 'bad form' to mention/link to another forum. But seems worth a read.

Hi Jim,

You may remember me contacting you quite a number of years ago now
regarding articles relating to my father Hamish Robertson (Ariston RD11) in
your collection of Hi Fi magazines that you kindly had copied and sent to
me, although a long time now has passed my sister thought it was time to
tell our side of the story with it recently being 'Linn sondeck's 50th
Anniversary' I thought you maybe interested in reading what was posted on
the forum Audio Karma on Wednesday.

Kind regards
Jane Pennington

Link to Audio Karma.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<moderating>

Link fixed, comments about broken links removed etc! I’ve made the title a little clearer too.

PS This post has been mentioned on a Linn LP12 thread recently, but it is a significant new perspective IMHO so worthy of a fresh thread. Jane would be very welcome here should she wish to add to it.
 
Nice to get the story from a source so close to the events, and pretty much the way I've always understood how things played out.
 
Whilst we are on this one I’ve never understood how Linn were able to get a patent on the single-point bearing. To my understanding this was long-existing technology, there was no uniqueness that I can see. Sure, most turntables had a captive ball, but some, e.g. the Sony TTS-3000 (1966) have a machined contact point, and I think the TD-125 had similar prior to the release of the LP12. Pushing it back further in time the step-pulley on the TD-124 (later MkI and all MkII, so certainly well-prior to 1965) had a single-point bearing raduised very similarly to the RD11/LP12 main bearing shaft. I’m sure this technology existed in many, many other places outside of audio too, so why was it granted a patent?

Given what happened it makes the question even more significant.
 
Jesus, what a truly tragic story ! This deserves to be published far and wide throughout the various Hifi forums available.
I wonder what happened to the polaroids mentioned ? Or were they stolen along with the briefcase ?

Thanks for bringing this to attention here. I think many knew the story that the Lp12 was a rip off of the Ariston deck, but how many knew the rest??
 
Tony L said:
Whilst we are on this one I’ve never understood how Linn were able to get a patent on the single-point bearing. To my understanding this was long-existing technology, there was no uniqueness that I can see. Sure, most turntables had a captive ball, but some, e.g. the Sony TTS-3000 (1966) have a machined contact point, and I think the TD-125 had similar prior to the release of the LP12. Pushing it back further in time the step-pulley on the TD-124 (later MkI and all MkII, so certainly well-prior to 1965) had a single-point bearing raduised very similarly to the RD11/LP12 main bearing shaft. I’m sure this technology existed in many, many other places outside of audio too, so why was it granted a patent?

Given what happened it makes the question even more significant.
Click to expand...

Patents have always been rather subjective, so I'm not surprised at all. It's much worse now, software patents show how stupid it's all become
 
Just out of curiosity has anyone got a link to the Linn bearing patent? I’m interested to see exactly what was patented.
 
Tony L said:
Just out of curiosity has anyone got a link to the Linn bearing patent? I’m interested to see exactly what was patented.
Click to expand...
I put that in my posts on this thread

pinkfishmedia.net

Sondek LP12 arm options

Linn's marketing savvy was unsurpassed. How they got certain sections of the press rabidly behind them and their dealers to freeze out the opposition is still a bit of a mystery!? Hardly. They did it with money. Lots of advertising in the press means favourable reviews, and One thing. Don't...
pinkfishmedia.net pinkfishmedia.net
 
  • Like
Reactions: irb
Tony L said:
Whilst we are on this one I’ve never understood how Linn were able to get a patent on the single-point bearing. ...
Given what happened it makes the question even more significant.
Click to expand...

Patent applications will go to a patent examiner at the patent office. The one chosen is on the basis of who is 'free' and seems to have the most relevant experience. A provisional version may be published so anyone else - in principle - can read it an object. But if they don't and the examiner things it is OK...

When in doubt there may be a tendency to accept, and then see if someone takes action later to challenge it. Which may mean someone going though a long, stressful, and costly process. Which IIRC happened in this case.

FWIW I've also emailed Barry Fox about this as he investigated and wrote about it in HFN some years ago. Be interesting to see what he thinks about it. I only know what I've read in various places.
 
Tw99 said:
Patents have always been rather subjective, so I'm not surprised at all. It's much worse now, software patents show how stupid it's all become
Click to expand...

Not stupid if people can (and sadly do) patent ideas that let them extract wealth for little or no benefit to consumers. IPR is a boom MO for the wealth extractors.
 
Just downloaded the patent (here). Fascinating as the drawings bear no resemblance whatsoever to any bearing ever fitted to any LP12! In fact it bears no resemblance to any turntable bearing I’ve ever seen in my life.

I’d go as far as saying it couldn’t possibly work due to the tapered nature of the housing which would either have unacceptable slack/rock or ride on the housing as soon as any wear occurred. Whatever, it certainly wasn’t used in the RD11 or LP12!

I’m even more confused now!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top