Ariston/Linn: contested History

[cre009]

@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.

This page - right hand column

Linnpatent1 — Postimages

postlmg.cc

"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 Hearing Officer then went on to summarize the train of events that led up to the current marketing of Linn turntables. To the best of my knowledge this has not previously been crystallised, so thanks are due to the officer for his delightfully clear summary of the situation.

Indeed, anyone both puzzled by and interested in the history of the Ariston-Linn saga need look no futher than the Hearing Officer's main decision for a full breakdown of the extraordinary facts surrounding this unique episode in Audio History.

To summarize the summary: Jack Tiefenbrun formed Castle Precision Engineering (Glasgow) Ltd. 15 years ago. Hamish Robertson had a company called Thermac in 1967 which became Ariston in 1970 and Ariston Audio in 1973. 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.

In February 1973 Linn Products Ltd. was formed to sell single-point bearing turntables made by Castle. Ariston was then taken over by Dunlop Westayr Ltd. and the separate firm Fergus Fons formed with Robertson as director. As we have already seen, it was Fons and Robertson and not Ariston-Dunlop-Westayr, who attacked the Tiefenbrun patent claims.".

 

[irb]

This page - right hand column

Linnpatent1 — Postimages

postlmg.cc

"The Officer ... claims.".

Thanks, but that's not what I meant. That's Barry Fox's words, his summary of the summary, as he himself puts it. I was wondering if the actual Patent Officer decision is available anywhere to be read?

Edit: I'm guessing you've seen the actual Patent Officer's summary, because you say this above: '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.' I don't see anything in Barry Fox's articles to support that, so I presume you have the actual Patent Office documents.

 

[cre009]

I don't see anything in Barry Fox's articles to support that, so I presume you have the actual Patent Office documents.

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 and may be costly unless they have already been digitally copied.

Tones thought the Justice Whitford decision may be available but could not locate it.

 

[irb]

OK, thanks. In that case, what are your grounds for the following statement:

'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.' ?

 

[Tony L]

The point I keep coming back to is the Sony TTS-3000 had a single-point main bearing way back in 1966! I don’t see how any of these patents can hold water given the technology was pre-existing and well established. Thorens moved to a single-point bearing with the TD-125 MkII (1972) too, and I doubt they were worried much by any patent held in Scotland.

I don’t understand how any of this ever held up.

 

[cre009]

The point I keep coming back to is the Sony TTS-3000 had a single-point main bearing way back in 1966! I don’t see how any of these patents can hold water given the technology was pre-existing and well established. Thorens moved to a single-point bearing with the TD-125 MkII (1972) too, and I doubt they were worried much by any patent held in Scotland.

I don’t understand how any of this ever held up.

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 portion that is in public view.

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

Originally Fergus Fons Limited was the only opponent. Its opposition was on the grounds of obviousness and prior publication. Obviousness has ceased to be a feature of the case, and we are not concerned with it. At a later stage Mr. Robertson was added as an opponent, opposing on the ground that the applicant had obtained the invention from him, he being the true first inventor of the patented article. The applicant resisted the opposition, on the ground that the applicant, and not Mr. Robertson, was the first inventor. Prior publication was admitted by the applicant, who however relied on section 50 (2) of the Patents Act 1949.

 

[Tony L]

I still don’t get it. It is like my trying to patent a door hinge that is the same as x number of other door hinges. The Ariston/Linn bearing was not new. It was not unique. Even with my limited knowledge I can cite several pre-existing examples even within hi-fi turntables (the TD-124 step-pulley is another example from the ‘50s-60s). I’m certain there will be countless examples in other engineering disciplines. It should never have been considered for a patent to my eyes.

 

[irb]

The point I keep coming back to is the Sony TTS-3000 had a single-point main bearing way back in 1966! I don’t see how any of these patents can hold water given the technology was pre-existing and well established. Thorens moved to a single-point bearing with the TD-125 MkII (1972) too, and I doubt they were worried much by any patent held in Scotland.

I don’t understand how any of this ever held up.

Absolutely. And Sugden/Connoisseur had one even earlier, I've read. Presumably neither of the parties nor the patent officer involved knew any of this at the time.

But the real question lying behind this 'contested history', and which causes it to keep cropping up, I suspect, is this: who designed the first Linn LP12/Ariston RD11? They were largely the same turntable - that much is clear, and has been since the start. But who designed it? Was it solely Ivor Tiefenbrun, with input from his father, and other staff at Castle, as Ivor appears to have claimed repeatedly over the years? Or was it primarily Hamish Robertson? Or does the truth lie somewhere in the middle?

@cre009 Sorry if I'm getting like Jeremy Paxman on you, but I'm wondering why, if Barry Fox was your source, you said that the Patent Officer viewed the Ariston RD11 as a turntable "developed at Castle by Ivor Tiefenbrun and with the entire development done at Castle". Because I don't see that in Barry Fox's articles.

 

[Tony L]

Yes, sorry, I keep forgetting the Sugden! I’m sure there are loads if one really digs likely going back to the days of wind-up gramophones. It is a very logical way of making a bearing if you don’t need a replaceable ball.

 

[cre009]

I still don’t get it. It is like my trying to patent a door hinge that is the same as x number of other door hinges. The Ariston/Linn bearing was not new. It was not unique. Even with my limited knowledge I can cite several pre-existing examples even within hi-fi turntables (the TD-124 step-pulley is another example from the ‘50s-60s). I’m certain there will be countless examples in other engineering disciplines. It should never have been considered for a patent to my eyes.

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 Tiefenbrun would probably have folded.

Hamish Robertson had problems attacking it because his own literature stated it was a unique point bearing.

 

[irb]

So, on that question of who actually designed the RD11/LP12, cre009 has said that the patent officer is the best guide, and the patent officer regarded the turntable as entirely the work of Castle and the Tiefenbruns. But cre009's source for that claim about the patent officer remains unclear.

The best guide I can find to the patent hearing officer's view is in the legal document linked to in posts 41 and 66:

"In this regard the hearing officer said on the same page that Mr. Tiefenbrun, the applicant, had been, if anything, less successful than Mr. Robertson in bringing forward anything more solid than personal assertion that he had made the invention; and at page 27 of the decision the hearing officer said: "I am unable to find with anything like the appropriate degree of certainty, that the invention for which protection is sought emanated, in its broadest aspect, from him" - that is, the applicant. [i.e. Jack Tiefenbrun] "I have to accept the fact that in these proceedings two people, both of whom appeared convinced of the Tightness of their cause and neither of whom I believe to have been deliberately trying to mislead, lay claim to having invented the fine point bearing. No convincing evidence in favour of one story rather than the other has been put before me and I am unable to say that Mr. Tiefenbrun has established that it is probable that he first conceived the idea of forming the spindle with an adequately wear-resistant point contact bearing"

 

[cre009]

but I'm wondering why, if Barry Fox was your source, you said that the Patent Officer viewed the Ariston RD11 as a turntable "developed at Castle by Ivor Tiefenbrun

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 concession may have been passive in that Hamish did not try to include his own version or active in that he actually agreed it was done by Ivor. Without seeing the hearing case file I do not know.

Outside the hearing Ivor has described working on the prototype as a lunch time project at Castle and named the key staff who helped him. I expect that was the story that Jack Tiefenbrun would have provided.

 

[cre009]

So, on that question of who actually designed the RD11/LP12, cre009 has said that the patent officer is the best guide, and the patent officer regarded the turntable as entirely the work of Castle and the Tiefenbruns. But cre009's source for that claim about the patent officer remains unclear.

The best guide I can find to the patent hearing officer's view is in the legal document linked to in posts 41 and 66:

"In this regard the hearing officer said on the same page that Mr. Tiefenbrun, the applicant, had been, if anything, less successful than Mr. Robertson in bringing forward anything more solid than personal assertion that he had made the invention; and at page 27 of the decision the hearing officer said: "I am unable to find with anything like the appropriate degree of certainty, that the invention for which protection is sought emanated, in its broadest aspect, from him" - that is, the applicant. [i.e. Jack Tiefenbrun] "I have to accept the fact that in these proceedings two people, both of whom appeared convinced of the Tightness of their cause and neither of whom I believe to have been deliberately trying to mislead, lay claim to having invented the fine point bearing. No convincing evidence in favour of one story rather than the other has been put before me and I am unable to say that Mr. Tiefenbrun has established that it is probable that he first conceived the idea of forming the spindle with an adequately wear-resistant point contact bearing"

Do not get confused between who did the turntable and who did the bearing.

The invention being addressed is the point bearing.

 

[Tony L]

Just to highlight my point about lack of uniqueness or originality, and because I have a spare within easy reach, here’s a TD-124 step-pulley. This is the second revision and can be found in late MkIs and all MkIIs. The MkII was introduced in 1965, so it clearly pre-dates that. Anyway, looks kind of familiar doesn’t it?!

 

[irb]

Do not get confused between who did the turntable and who did the bearing.

The invention being addressed is the point bearing.

OK, but in that statement of yours that I quoted (twice) above, you said that the patent officer viewed the turntable, not just the bearing, as Castle's work. It turns out that's an assumption of yours, read into Barry Fox's articles. The actual conclusions of the patent hearing officer, as quoted in that legal document, look very different.

I'm just trying to keep everything clear. You obviously know a lot about the case, but in among the hard information you've posted, you've made a number of statements to the effect that the turntable design work was all done by Ivor and others at Castle. But I just can't see anything in the evidence you've posted to warrant that opinion.

Hamish's family have claimed that he'd built a prototype turntable by the time Jack Tiefenbrun first visited him in 1969. His daughter has described the flat where the family lived, and which Thermac operated from, saying that three rooms were given over to the business, one of which was a workshop. Hamish designed, constructed and sold the Ariston SR90 speakers from there. He had engineering education and an apprenticeship at PYE, building audio equipment including record players. Yet you've dismissed the account made public by Hamish's daughter, on the grounds that the family were probably not "actively shadowing" Hamish's business activities. If my father had built a turntable and played records on it in the flat where I was growing up, I think I'd remember that. Especially if he'd subsequently gone through the kind of business and legal upheavals which Hamish Robertson did, all on account of that turntable.

Despite all the useful information you've posted, it's starting to feel to me as if you're grinding an axe here.

 

[cre009]

Despite all the useful information you've posted, it's starting to feel to me as if you're grinding an axe here.

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 background summary " Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971". I expect this would have been submitted by Jack Tiefenbrun.

That differs from the family version which says that Hamish did the prototype.

Only one of the versions can be true.

If Hamish did the prototype then he should have been able to include that in his submission. This would have contested the Jack Tiefenbrun submission. It would have then been wrong for the Patent Officer to include the "Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971" as a fact and would have needed to reach a decision about which was correct. The decision would have potentially impacted on further decisions about any financial compensation. There is no indication in the hearing coverage that he was required to make that decision.

 

[irb]

In case anyone's wondering what my interest in all this is, I have no direct knowledge of the matter at hand. I own no Linn or Ariston products, though I've had both in the past, including an LP12. I bought my first system at the end of 1978, aged 17, so I'm too young to have been there. But I live locally to where all this played out, so it interests me. The first hifi show I ever attended was in the Howard Park Hotel in Kilmarnock around 1979 or 1980. The main exhibitor was Ariston, and they were launching the RD110, I think it was. (John Carrick ran the company by then, I think.)

I've made it plain previously on this forum that I've a long-standing distaste for Ivor Tiefenbrun's 'my way or the highway' approach to audio. As the owner of a Systemdek in the early 80s, I took exception to Linn retailers and owners telling me that I was deaf or stupid, or both. I traced their attitude back to Ivor's many public statements in a similar vein, enthusiastically reported in the magazines. Why couldn't he and his followers accept that we don't all have the same tastes? I don't think for a moment that this means Ivor didn't design the LP12, however.

On the other hand, Linn have managed to remain standing, where Ariston, Fons and Systemdek are ancient history (not to mention other companies in this part of the country making turntables or arms, back in day - STD, Syrinx). Linn have provided good jobs for people who live around me, for a long time, and I hope they continue doing that for a long time more.

I don't know who designed the first RD11/LP12 turntables. I've read the account by Hamish's daughter carefully, and lots of details ring true, to me. I can't be sure where the truth lies, but I find it very plausible. I also find it very plausible that Ivor worked to develop the turntable design in his lunch hours. It seems highly likely to me that there was input from both sides, in other words, but I can't prove that.

I've seen/read a number of accounts by Ivor of how he got his start in the hifi business, and the origins of the LP12. He never mentions Hamish Robertson. That seems a bit suspect to me, even we were to accept that Castle/Ivor did all the design work (which I don't).

That's where I'm coming from.

PS Here's a photo I took recently while walking the dog. It's the linn (i.e. waterfall) on the White Cart that gave its name to the park it's set in, and hence to Linn Products.
20240225_111103 by grilled snapper, on Flickr

 

[irb]

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.

Well if you have other sources please share them. I find the family view largely plausible, yes, not least because quite a few 'local' details in it ring true.

The Patent Officer has quite clearly stated in the background summary " Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971". I expect this would have been submitted by Jack Tiefenbrun.

That differs from the family version which says that Hamish did the prototype.

Only one of the versions can be true.

Why? Couldn't they both have made prototypes?

If Hamish did the prototype then he should have been able to include that in his submission. This would have contested the Jack Tiefenbrun submission. It would have then been wrong for the Patent Officer to include the "Ivor Tiefenbrun made a prototype turntable with a ball bearing and then went off to Israel in 1971" as a fact and would have needed to reach a decision about which was correct. The decision would have potentially impacted on further decisions about any financial compensation. There is no indication in the hearing coverage that he was required to make that decision.

But this is speculation. You haven't read the patent officer's decision, only the brief summary by Barry Fox.

 

[cre009]

Well if you have other sources please share them. I find the family view largely plausible, yes, not least because quite a few 'local' details in it ring true.

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 did it. I have to use what I can find and then reach a conclusion. Happy to reconsider if you can provide something better.

Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

Nigel, I to have known Ivor for a number of years and I too, use an LP12. I visited his factory back in 1976, and we have spent days together discussing audio. I found that he was very closed about 'what worked' but once in a while, he would give me a further hint, and I might be virtually...

www.diyaudio.com

Revive an Ariston RD-11S

Sewing machine oil although not perfect is better than motor oils. It might un-gum the works also. If the platter turns freely when no belt fitted I doubt much is wrong. You could try Loricraft Audio via their shop for their oil. It is very like what Linn and Ariston used in the early days. ATF...

www.diyaudio.com

I have established that Ray Collins was an actual employee of Ariston Acoustics,

Ivor has also named several employees who helped him at Castle and I have established one of them was definitely a Castle employee.

My working assumption is that Hamish did not contest the development of the prototype by Ivor because Jack would have called on the Castle employees as witnesses and that would have caused other problems for Hamish as well as discrediting his version.

 

[irb]

My working assumption is that Hamish did not contest the development of the prototype by Ivor because Jack would have called on the Castle employees as witnesses and that would have caused other problems for Hamish as well as discrediting his version.

Thanks. Again, I think that's speculation, given that you haven't read the patent officer's actually findings, only Barry Fox's brief summary. Remember, the patent officer found Jack Tiefenbrun's claim to be the sole inventor of the bearing even less well supported than Hamish Robertson's - and that's from the patent officer's actual report, not a journalist's summary.