Ariston/Linn: contested History

[tones]

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 irrelevant unless one or other of the parties involved introduces it?

The Hearing Officer has limited capacity or expertise to research the topic and will focus on the technical merit of the patent submission and whether anything similar is already in place.

Jack Tiefenbrun would not attack his own patent application by bringing up those companies. Also no reason to believe he would have known about them when he originally submitted his application.

It was probably not in Hamish's interest to bring them up because he was trying to claim the bearing was his own design as his main way to seek financial compensation for the threats by Jack to use the patent against him.

The Ariston literature also claimed a "Unique Point Bearing - At the heart of the RD11 is an almost rumble free bearing developed over a years intensive research". This was mentioned in the Hearing Officer summary of the Ariston/Linn background. This would have allowed Jack to argue the bearing was a special point bearing if Hamish brought up the other companies to attack the patent. In the coverage the Patent Officer was clearly not satisfied why the bearing was special but did not use that as grounds to reject the patent.


https://postimg.cc/image/rhott93yt/

https://postimg.cc/image/7abe0ye79/

https://postimg.cc/image/4g88nirgl/

https://postimg.cc/image/e0rvae92t/

(a) You said "similar" - but not identical? To be novelty-destroying, the products of other companies would have to have been identical. There is then the question of obviousness/or lack of inventiveness, which is a ground of opposition/revocation. This is more a matter of opinion - would any change have been obvious to the skilled person in the light of the common general knowledge of the art?

(b) The hearing is dependent on the opponent providing adequate grounds for opposition/revocation. The Patent Office/court makes no search of its own, it's up to the opponent/appellant to provide the goods. The hearing officer/judge (British specialist judges are very competent) can assess technical subject-matter, but they are reliant on the evidence supplied to them. Unlike some continental courts, e.g., France, there is no investigative judgement into the merits of the case prior to the actual trial.

I shall read your pages with interest.

P.S. At an admittedly very quick read through, I can see the problem - conflicting evidence. There are two standards for assessment, "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities". When it comes to evidence, if the opponent doesn't prove his or her case beyond reasonable doubt, the balance of probabilities approach is taken. And if there is doubt, the benefit is usually given to the patentee. Unfortunately, that's how it works - ultimately, this is a judgement and judges can get it wrong. But the opponent should perhaps have done a better job at presenting the case.

P.P.S. It went further, to the Court of Appeal on appeal from Whitford. This is the only reference I have - unfortunately, I can't access the complete record:

The Patents Act 1949 and an Application by Jack Yan Tiefenbrun for Letters Patent No. 1394611

0: [object Object]. 1: [object Object]. 2: [object Object]. 3: [object Object]. 4: [object Object]. 5: [object Object]. 6: [object Object]. 7: [object Obje..

vlex.co.uk

Hugh Laddie was a seriously big gun in the IP barrister world.

 

[lencotweaker]

I see that cre009 has written extensively on this topic on PFM in the past. Its the best summary you will read anywhere.

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

post #96 onwards

 

[lencotweaker]

(a) You said "similar" - but not identical? To be novelty-destroying, the products of other companies would have to have been identical. There is then the question of obviousness/or lack of inventiveness, which is a ground of opposition/revocation. This is more a matter of opinion - would any change have been obvious to the skilled person in the light of the common general knowledge of the art?

(b) The hearing is dependent on the opponent providing adequate grounds for opposition/revocation. The Patent Office/court makes no search of its own, it's up to the opponent/appellant to provide the goods. The hearing officer/judge (British specialist judges are very competent) can assess technical subject-matter, but they are reliant on the evidence supplied to them. Unlike some continental courts, e.g., France, there is no investigative judgement into the merits of the case prior to the actual trial.

I shall read your pages with interest.

P.S. At an admittedly very quick read through, I can see the problem - conflicting evidence. There are two standards for assessment, "beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities". When it comes to evidence, if the opponent doesn't prove his or her case beyond reasonable doubt, the balance of probabilities approach is taken. And if there is doubt, the benefit is usually given to the patentee. Unfortunately, that's how it works - ultimately, this is a judgement and judges can get it wrong. But the opponent should perhaps have done a better job at presenting the case.

P.P.S. It went further, to the Court of Appeal on appeal from Whitford. This is the only reference I have - unfortunately, I can't access the complete record:

The Patents Act 1949 and an Application by Jack Yan Tiefenbrun for Letters Patent No. 1394611

0: [object Object]. 1: [object Object]. 2: [object Object]. 3: [object Object]. 4: [object Object]. 5: [object Object]. 6: [object Object]. 7: [object Obje..

vlex.co.uk

Hugh Laddie was a seriously big gun in the IP barrister world.

I registered but still can't access that particular document. In any case, the summary cre009 made in the link above says the Tiefenbrun's ultimately were successful after the High Court hearing in October 1978.

 

[guydarryl]

I find this confusing - when i worked for ICI (back in 70’s/80’s) there were a few things that we did in the manufacture of PVC that we didn’t patent as to do so would give the “oppostion” a clue about which direction our research was taking (at the time Japanese companies were patenting anything and everything !).
i was told that should any other companies find, and patent, a similar process we could just claim ”prior knowledge” - we had enough documentation to support this.

 

[tones]

I find this confusing - when i worked for ICI (back in 70’s/80’s) there were a few things that we did in the manufacture of PVC that we didn’t patent as to do so would give the “oppostion” a clue about which direction our research was taking (at the time Japanese companies were patenting anything and everything !).
i was told that should any other companies find, and patent, a similar process we could just claim ”prior knowledge” - we had enough documentation to support this.

We were contemporaries - I worked for Dulux Australia (then part of ICI Australia) from 1970-1990. Secret use (the "Coca-Cola approach") is always an option, and, if nobody finds it out, you have a perpetual monopoly. I believe the formula of WD-40 has never been published. However, if someone else independently discovers your trick, you can't prevent them from using it. But, back then, you could prevent them from patenting, as, under the 1949 Act, prior secret use in the UK was considered novelty-destroying. This has changed with the 1977 Act - novelty-destroying prior use has to be somehow in the public domain (e.g. given to one person without requiring that it be kept confidential), so purely internal documentation no longer counts as proof.

I'd add in that, in the USA in days gone by, when the US didn't publish patents until grant and the 17-year patent term started on the date of grant, there was the "submarine patent". The applicant would withdraw from grant and refile a so-called continuation application (keeping the same priority date), and wait until competitors came up with the same idea - and then allow the application to go to grant and demand money from the competitors. The most notorious case was that of Jerome Lemelson and his "machine vision" application, which made a lot of money out of the inventors of bar coding. With the revised US patent law following other people's laws (20-year term from application, publication pre-examination at 18 months), the scope for submarining has been greatly reduced.

 

[stuwils]

I have read in the past that ariston came up with the Isobarik in its original form ie 2 kefkits but can find nothing to verify that it was ever built.

Rgds
Stuart

 

[irb]

I have read in the past that ariston came up with the Isobarik in its original form ie 2 kefkits but can find nothing to verify that it was ever built.

Rgds
Stuart

Not sure - the only speaker I know of that Hamish Robertson marketed back then was the Ariston SR90 - a huge beast, concrete lined, with EMI drivers and a Kelly ribbon tweeter. It didn't use isobaric loading, as far as I know.

 

[cre009]

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 Isothermal (not Isobaric) and that is the Ariston speaker that appears in the 73 and 74 yearbooks.

Ariston Audio Speakers (Concrete lined)

I believe these are from late 70's / early 80,s. Made in Scotland. I think Linn grew out of the ashes of Ariston. They are concrete lined on the inside of the cab's (2" thick?), have 12" Bass (including rubber mount), 6" ish mids and 3" Decca ribbon tweeters. They stand 93cm high, 41cm wide and...

audiokarma.org

 

[wd40addict]

Isobaric loading was one of the many inventions of Harry Olsen at RCA. Linn used the idea and added a K!

 

[cre009]

I have read in the past that ariston came up with the Isobarik in its original form ie 2 kefkits but can find nothing to verify that it was ever built.

Rgds
Stuart

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.

Linn Sara to EPOS ES14s - An insight

Griffin got their Isobarik patent about the same time as Linn. Still some of those big Griffin around. Someone recently sent me some images of a speaker that was made by Ariston which used Isobaric loading. Is this another example of an Ariston idea being 'borrowed' by Linn? What history is...

pinkfishmedia.net

It was eventually established that these speakers were actually very early Linn Isobarik speakers.

 

[Rockmeister]

Very true, but...

one of them is lies
and now we know whih one

 

[irb]

I've just put some pictures of a very early Ariston RD11 and a very early Linn LP12 here: https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/the-91st-linn-lp12.291247/post-5268130

Quite interesting for this thread, I think.

 

[sktn77a]

I don't think we'll ever know the real story about the RD11/LP12 as only one of the principals is still alive. Knowing the Linn culture and personalities and having discussed and bought my first real HiFi component from Hamish (Thermac) in early 1970, I'm inclined to believe the Ariston side of things!

 

[irb]

Wow, yes. Was that when he was based in Langside Avenue, by Queen's Park? (You're a long way from Glasgow now, Keith!)

I find it interesting that those photos seem to provide independent confirmation of some of the details in the account provided by Hamish's daughter, Susan, in that AudioKarma thread, particularly where she mentioned Linn snipping Ariston labels.

 

[sq225917]

Short of the diffetrnt subplatter materials I'm convinced early lp12s were just rebadged aristons

 

[cre009]

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 other such that it is only possible for one of them to be true. This means that two of them or possibly all three contain information that is false. Each have been interwoven with things that are known to have actually happened which make them appear real meaning there will be common ground but also plenty of differences. I have been trying to corroborate which information to believe by obtaining additional information as corroboration and to try to understand where there is common ground and what are the differences that cannot be explained.

The family have recently provided their version of the back story which lead to this thread being initiated. I do not believe the family were actively shadowing Hamish when he was going about his business so their version must actually be a compilation from various sources such as people they have been in contact with or paperwork in their possession in addition to their own knowledge. However they do not really provide much detail about their sources or any corroboration for many of their sources so I have concerns about how accurate it is.

There is information contained in the family version which appears to be wrong. For example they describe "In August 1977, the first hearing of the Court Case against Linn commenced. It was to recommence in February 1978, giving Hamish time to gather more evidence against the Tiefenbrun's. It had been so unfortunate that Hamish had been the victim of two separate robberies which had taken place, three weeks apart, whilst he was living at the Giffnock house, prior to the hearing". If you read the Barry Fox (aka Adrian Hope) Hi-Fi News articles then he describes the initial preliminary hearing as being in London in December 76 followed by a further hearing in Glasgow on 18th July 77 to hear testimony from Jack Tiefenbrun who had been unable to attend the initial hearing. The way that patent hearings work is that discovery concerning the facts is via written submissionss prior to the hearings and new material would only be entered with the permission of the patent officer and if allowed should be provided to the other parties so that they know about it and can react. There was no further preliminary hearing in February 1978 and it is highly unlikely that Hamish would have been allowed to submit further evidence if there was. The findings (decisions) for this particular case were decided and presented in January 1978.

Despite such concerns with the family version there is plenty of detail provided that is helpful. Up until they published it there were only vague references to their version of the backstory with no details which made it difficult to pin down. Their version made it into the Linn Products Wiki entry but only in very vague terms. In addition the family version is helpful in that I had not been able to establish a more precise date for when Hamish passed other than 1977 but needed it for context about other events that happened in 1977. It also usefully gives information about batches of decks and additional details concerning the dispute between Hamish and Jack Tiefenbrun which I had not seen before. It is useful to know that Peter Dunlop visited Castle after taking over the Ariston business and if he was seeing Linn armboards at the factory then it would probably have been after February 1973 when Linn started.

The familys posting of their version has also shaken loose further information such as the details from the Court of Appeal judgement helpfully provided by Tones in this thread. It is long on tedious legal arguments but still provides some additional useful snippets of information as well as explaining how they reached their judgement. This is the first of the patent hearing material to become available though I would like to see the original Patent Hearing material and the Justice Whitford appeal decision both of which should have huge amounts of detail.

The other two versions of the back story are

1. The Patent Officer summary provided in the Hi-Fi News articles by Adrian Hope.

https://postimg.cc/image/rhott93yt/

"In 1970 Jack Tiefenbrun's son Ivor Tiefenbrun bought some Hi-Fi equipment and became friendly with Hamish Robertson. Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971. While Ivor was away, Jack Tiefenbrun and Hamish Robertson changed the ball bearing to a point bearing. Robertsons's company Thermac then ordered some 40 such units from Castle. Now as Ariston, Robertson then planned a display of the units for Harrogate in September 1971. C. W. and J Walker were appointed selling agents for the turntable- by now christened the RD11. The turntable was indeed shown at Harrogate that year and the RD11 sales literature boasted "a unique single point bearing" and "almost rumble free sound". The next year (1972) Jack Tiefenbrun filed the two provisional patent specifications on which the disputed patent (BP 1 394 611) was finally to issue. By the end of that year (1972) there had been a deteriation, and finally a breakdown, of relationships between Robertson and Ariston on one hand and the Tiefenbrun's on the other. This culminated with a threat to Robertson that a copyright action would be brought against him if he had the RD11 turntable made elsewhere than at Castle by Tiefenbrun".

2. A version provided by the late Richard Dunn (RIP). In the early 70's Richard was a rep for Acoustic Research and got to know Hamish when visiting him at Thermac. Richard made various posts based largely on conversations he had with Hamish and which provided Richards understanding of what he was told. Given the issues Tony has had with Richard in the past I will not link to them here but there was some useful information provided amongst the vitriol. I will not go into all the details but his version can best be summarised from one post where when someone provided an outline of the familys version he countered with

"Corrections. Hamish's original bearing was a ball bearing. Castle designed the hardened point and thrust plate bearing "for him" to an order. Castle then decided to apply for a patent on the bearing cutting Hamish out. Hamish and Ivor met when he came to work for his dad in uni holidays, they weren't friends before that. They became friends for as long as Ivor could use him to help set up Linn by copying the Ariston".

One of the key things for me is that Richard was led to believe that Castle (Jack Tiefenbrun) did the design work on the bearing which is out of line with both the family version and Hamish going into the hearing claiming the bearing was his own design.

My view is that the Patent Officer version is closest to the correct version. The process for patent hearings is rigorous and detailed and I have found some independent corroboration for much of that version of the back story. It will have been taken from the written submissions provided by the two parties in advance of the hearings. One of those parties would have been Hamish and the other Jack Tiefenbrun. Each party is expected to identify what they agree with and what they will be contesting with the court room hearing then going through the contested material in detail (with witnesses called) and legal arguments. The patent officer should not have included something material to the case as a fact in the background summary if it was contested, It would also not be in the interest of either party to include something in their written submission that the other party could easily show was wrong.

The patent officer summary is quite clear that the Hamish Robertson magic trick for coming up with the Ariston RD11 "design" was to use a "prototype turntable" developed at Castle by Ivor Tiefenbrun and with the entire development done at Castle. It also implies Castle were manufacturing complete units. The family version does not provide an alternative magic trick or an explanation about how Castle were then subsequently engaged contractually to be the "metal parts" manufacturer. My suspicion is the family version is based on a story that Hamish provided to Peter Dunlop to justify taking the the manufacture away from Castle to Dunlop-Westayr. In order to believe the family version of the backstory is correct I would need to see that Hamish submitted that he developed the prototype turntable in his written submission and the patent officer ignored it without good reason.

 

[cre009]

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 used but the last few years I have also been saving images that are potentially useful for establishing manufacturing variations. In general it is only possible to get a good view of what happened when enough decks show up. Usually those sold on ebay do not show all components of the deck so what I am providing here is a view on what I am seeing based on limited images and could be inaccurate. It could well change as more decks show up. For example the 0091 LP12 twin button deck that was sold on ebay recently is unusual in that it has the buttons in the Ariston configuration while all other twin button LP12s so far have the buttons reversed from that.

There appears to be three phases of twin button decks.

Phase 1 which should include the original 40 ordered that was mentioned in both the family and patent officer versions of the back story. An occasional PFM poster Hamstall is very much the expert on this phase of decks.
These decks have start buttons in the Ariston configuration (black stop green start). They appear to have a sub chassis that is very similar to the later Linn sub chassis with a welded strengthening strap but the rim of the lozenge shaped sub chassis is open at the motor end (thanks to Hamstall for spotting this because fine details sometimes matter). The sub platters are quite different and Hamstall who has owned or handled a few of them believes the outer platter only fits them in one orientation. There is an inner ring just inside the outer rim of the outer platter that is some kind of distinctive manufacturing artefact which was even pictured on the Ariston literature. The outer platters had green felt on the underside of the outer rim. The rim of the pulleys is much more substantial than modern pulleys,

20200818 222839 — Postimages

postimg.cc

20200818 222942 — Postimages

postimg.cc

IMG 7171 — Postimages

postimg.cc

s l1600 (10) — Postimages

postimg.cc

s l1600 (13) — Postimages

postimg.cc

The following serials have shown up and suggests there is in the region of 70 to 100 decks in total for this phase.

Those I have labeled CTE (claimed to exist) are from reported sightings by people who I believe to be credible but no images provided.

0001 (CTE) said to be a demo unit which Hamish gave to a customer.
0021 No Ariston serial label, Serial written on the yellow label. WJR initials on the inspection label. The motor pulley unusually appears to be the type used on the Dunlop-Westayr RD11 (this needs to be reviewed if others in the range show up. Was it a later motor swap or was something else going on?).
0061 (CTE)
0067 No Ariston serial label. Serial written on the yellow label. No WJR initials on the inspection label.
0071 (CTE)
0083 Ariston serial label with serial printed. Yellow label. WJR initials on the inspection label.
0089 (CTE)
0095 Ariston serial label with serial printed. Yellow label. WJR initials on the inspection label.

Three other decks have shown up with WJR initials but no serials provided.
One deck is viewable in this thread and has several images of the type of platter used for this phase of decks. It did not have the Ariston Serial Label or yellow label. While it would be possible for the yellow labels to become dethatched the Ariston serial labels are well stuck on so more likely this deck did not have the labels in the first place.

Early Linn LP12

Hi I picked this turntable up yesterday and have reading all about the early days of Linn since yesterday,before then I had never seen an LP12 up close,I would have posted this in the thread when an Ariston RD11 is a Linn LP12 but it has been closed,the only sticker which is left on the top...

audiokarma.org

Another deck in what appeared to be a home made plinth was purchased on ebay by a Hi-Fi journalist also did not have an Ariston inspection label or yellow label.

The 3rd showed up last year on ebay in a slightly different looking plinth, It had the WJR initials and other labels but the serial number was not visible to list it.

Phase 2 - during this phase a different sub platter was introduced which is identical to that used on very early LPs with a hammertone finish on the underside. The rim of the sub platter is thicker than modern LP12s and the spindle is several mm longer than on modern LP12s. Outer platters appear to be the similar to the earlier phase but had black felt on the underside. At some point in this phase they switched to a dual ribbed sub chassis with a cross rib which then continued to be used on the early LP12s. No WJR initials on the inspection labels have showed up so far on this range of decks.

The labels that come with this phase are an inconsistent mess. This along with the cutting of the Ariston serial labels on some of them strongly suggests they were factory sold. The family story stating only very limited numbers were purchased by Hamish plus lack of WJR initials also indicates that these were not purchased by Hamish. The range of serials in this phase implies around 180 to 200 decks were manufactured with the expectation they were going to be purchased by Hamish as Ariston decks. The presence of Ariston style labels (and other Ariston documentation) with these decks is not a great fit for the family story that Castle were a mere supplier of metal parts. Castle would have had to be in possession of significant quantities of the Ariston labels and documents for these to be sold with these decks. Also if the family version that Hamish originally purchased the plinths, dust covers, motors etc is correct then Castle would have had to make their own special follow on procurement to get these decks out of the door in the manner in which they were eventually sold.

s l1600 (2) — Postimages

postimg.cc

s l1600 (3) — Postimages

postimg.cc

s l1600 2 — Postimages

postimg.cc

00503 - an interesting deck which has a phase 1 sub chassis. Inner platter is the later type. Serial number is on the inspection label using the Linn style and the yellow label is also cut Linn style to remove the Ariston reference. No Ariston serial labels
Hamstall who has owned this deck referred to it as an LP12 due to the labelling. However in my view it is an Ariston that was assembled early but factory sold quite late just before Castle changed to the Linn style labelling. I speculate they used the Ariston serial but for this deck printed it on the inspection label. It does not contain the Linn stamp on the top plate or reference to Linn on the inspection label and does not have the tilt screw holes on the top plate. In addition I have not so far seen any retail LP12s show up between serial 161 and 999 so this serial would be an outlier among LP12 retail serials.
000516 (CTE)
000545 - not in a state of good repair. The black power button exposed and black plate missing. Power buttons configured in Linn style. Yellow label was clearly originally present and intact but has been peeled off. Ariston serial label intact.
000568 - No yellow label but Ariston serial label intact.
000570 - Yellow label and Ariston serial labels intact.

Is it a Linn or An Ariston ?

Question: When is an Ariston a Linn ? Answer: When It’s a RD11!! There is an important distinction to be made between the Ariston RD11 and the Ariston Audio RD11s. The Ariston RD11 was produc…

linnsondek.wordpress.com

000624 - No yellow label but Ariston serial label intact.
000629 - Yellow label intact. Ariston serial label present but "Made In Great Britain By Ariston Audio Ltd is cut off. Squiggle signature on the inspection label. Both the yellow and Ariston serial labels are quite clear that it is an Ariston deck so they only appear to have been twitched about the manufacturing origin.
000640 - No images of the serial labels but the serial is written on the guarantee card which is identical to the card used for 000021. Came with what appears to be a home made plinth. Paperwork with the deck shows that Castle were offering chassis only or with plinth options.
000668 - Yellow label intact. Ariston serial label present but "Made In Great Britain By Ariston Audio Ltd is cut off. Squiggle signature on the inspection label.
000672 - Ariston serial label present but "Made In Great Britain By Ariston Audio Ltd is cut off. Squiggle signature on the inspection label. Home made plinth.

Phase 3 - these have serial numbers that inter mingle with Linn LP12 retail decks but do not have Linn fluted plinths and are believed to be factory sold. It is a possibility that some of these were rebadged phase 2 decks factory sold as LP12s. The serial badges refer to Linn Products and "Linn Products Patents Pending" is stamped on the top plate the same as retail decks. They come with the yellow labels but all have the reference to Ariston cut off as also happened with all retail LP12s up to serials around 4400. The top plates cater for motor tilt screws on these decks. I suspect they also came with Linn style outer platters in that I have not seen the phase 1 Ariston manufacturing ring artefact on those that have shown up where an image of the outer platter was provided.

0005 - chassis only
0018
0022
0034 - (CTE)
0039 - youtube video but serial labels not shown
0088
0091

I have logged inter mingled retail LP12s up to serial 0160 but then a gap up to 999 with a new range of serials then kicking in from around 1000.

2940 - CTE - apparently images were provided on the old Linn forum but I do not have them
3503

I am not aware of any twin button deck with a higher serial. There is a gap in the LP12 retail serials from around 4400 and a new range kicked in at 10000. The highest retail serial I have recorded which used the mutilated yellow label is 4361 when they also swapped away from the use of the original inspection label.

 

[SteveG]

Interesting stuff. My deck is 1108 and has the single button and the yellow label.

 

[Tony L]

Given the issues Tony has had with Richard in the past I will not link to them here but there was some useful information provided amongst the vitriol.

I have no issues with you posting that content, but I would caveat it by stating Richard Dunn was a known liar and fantasist. I know this with 100% certainty due to the lies about myself and pfm he published on his site. Just absolute bullshit with no grounding in fact. I viewed him as the hi-fi equivalent of InfoWars or David Icke. I’d certainly not take anything there as a truthful account.

 

[irb]

@cre009 Thanks for your researches on this, and for posting them. You say that you consider the patent Hearing Officer to be the best guide. Where can the patent officer's summary of the case be found, though? I've read Barry Fox's articles which you posted, but I haven't been able to find the actual summary by the Patent Officer.