Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
It's all irrelevant, because the LP12 is still a pretty average sounding player.
Linn
- Thread starter robbyd
- Start date
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
Trollardman?
Does anyone know what £64 in 1972 equates to now? Curious whether the LP12 represented the same enormous chunk of cash then that it does now.
sonddek
Trade: SUPATRAC
There is also the question of granting a patent for an idea that had already been communicated/published at the Harrogate show. When I decided to apply for a patent I had to keep the idea secret until the application was registered. Not only that, but my understanding is that patentable ideas are not supposed to be obvious. What could be more obvious than a bearing shaft with a rounded-cone end on a thrust plate? It must have existed hundreds of times before. If we pfishers were assigned the task of designing a bearing for a turntable platter having never thought about it before, that would be one of the first suggestions that many of us would make.
In that context, it seems surprising that the patent was upheld, and it raises the question of whom the patent was sought in order to stop, since an infringer with moderate resources should surely have prevailed in overturning any claim by Linn.
When you look at the RD11 and LP12, it seems like it ought to have been a dispute over passing off rather than a dispute over invention.
Out of curiosity, at the time what was at the bottom of the AR and Thorens spindles?
In that context, it seems surprising that the patent was upheld, and it raises the question of whom the patent was sought in order to stop, since an infringer with moderate resources should surely have prevailed in overturning any claim by Linn.
When you look at the RD11 and LP12, it seems like it ought to have been a dispute over passing off rather than a dispute over invention.
Out of curiosity, at the time what was at the bottom of the AR and Thorens spindles?
Around the time the patent dispute kicked off Thorens had introduced a similar spindle point for the TD-160. Jack Tiefenbrun was probably unaware of that. The AR decks used a ball bearing at the spindle tip.
Going into the hearing each side had issues to overcome.
The background provided by the hearing officer taken from the written submissions has the entire turntable development using Castle facilities with significant early input by Ivor. For Hamish he had to show he had not just leeched of the Tiefenbruns and Castle and that it was reasonable for him to take the manufacture elsewhere after purchase of a mere 40 units. Otherwise he was unlikely to get any substantial financial compensation for the threats made by Jack Tiefenbrun.
For Jack Tiefenbrun the main issue was that he raised the patent after the fact and after taking advice he probably realized he would lose due to the prior publication issue. I have read that Jack tried to reach a settlement prior to the hearing. Modern guidelines advise people to try to settle if possible. Following the initial hearing the patent was actually rejected due to the prior publication at Harrogate.
The Hearing Officer would also have spotted that the patent was probably raised with the intention of trying to thwart Hamish Robertson taking manufacture away from Castle. This was an abuse of the patent system unless Jack could demonstrate the patent actually had merit. Fortunately for him Hamish Robertson had produced literature that claimed a unique point bearing following a year of development. This meant that Jack would be able to claim his bearing was special and any similar bearings were just run of the mill ordinary point bearings. Hamish would have had to credibly argue that both his literature was wrong and that it was unreasonable for Jack to take this literature at face value in raising the patent. It appears from the coverage that Hamish did not even try to make this argument.
The hearing officer was not happy that the patent defined what made the bearing special but this was not enough to reject the patent application.
Going into the hearing each side had issues to overcome.
The background provided by the hearing officer taken from the written submissions has the entire turntable development using Castle facilities with significant early input by Ivor. For Hamish he had to show he had not just leeched of the Tiefenbruns and Castle and that it was reasonable for him to take the manufacture elsewhere after purchase of a mere 40 units. Otherwise he was unlikely to get any substantial financial compensation for the threats made by Jack Tiefenbrun.
For Jack Tiefenbrun the main issue was that he raised the patent after the fact and after taking advice he probably realized he would lose due to the prior publication issue. I have read that Jack tried to reach a settlement prior to the hearing. Modern guidelines advise people to try to settle if possible. Following the initial hearing the patent was actually rejected due to the prior publication at Harrogate.
The Hearing Officer would also have spotted that the patent was probably raised with the intention of trying to thwart Hamish Robertson taking manufacture away from Castle. This was an abuse of the patent system unless Jack could demonstrate the patent actually had merit. Fortunately for him Hamish Robertson had produced literature that claimed a unique point bearing following a year of development. This meant that Jack would be able to claim his bearing was special and any similar bearings were just run of the mill ordinary point bearings. Hamish would have had to credibly argue that both his literature was wrong and that it was unreasonable for Jack to take this literature at face value in raising the patent. It appears from the coverage that Hamish did not even try to make this argument.
The hearing officer was not happy that the patent defined what made the bearing special but this was not enough to reject the patent application.
That’s an ‘irrelevant’ response!
What LP12 configuration is ‘pretty average sounding’? And compared to what?
Do you mean an LP12 at the Majic level of components, or the Select level, or the highest, Klimax level, or something between. And is that an ‘LP12’ comprising third party components, or a mix of Linn and third party bits?
It’s a modular turntable, for God’s sakes. The description, ‘LP12’ is in itself non-descriptive, therefore!
Wish all these commentators would keep their ‘irrelevant’ observations to themselves
They don’t inform the discussions!
Ptah
pfm Member
Did the hearing officer have exceptional auditory powers?
notevenclose
pfm Member
Neither does taking the bait and responding to them...
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
My first one ( a really early big red button one with an SME 3009 arm) was like mana from heaven going from my student days Dual CS505.I still remember what it was about the sound that was so much better. Fast forward 30 years and I got a new one with an Ekos 2 and AT33-ptg as a second deck to an Orbe/ SME V and was taken a back by how much worse it was than the Orbe. I thought it must be my existing AT33 ptg but I later put thar on another deck and it sounded excellent. I sold it and now have a 1985 LP12, with Cirkus, Stamford Audio sub chassis, psu and a Pro-ject carbon fibre arm and AT33ptgII and I love it. I’m very very attached to the LP12.
Not so. They just have to be novel.
Anyone can apply for a patent on anything that they like, but Patent Offices and anyone with an interest and is aware, will trawl prior publications and applications to try to prove prior art. There is only one exception - perpetual motion machines. Immensely broad applications will also be rejected.
Patents being granted to people/companies that were not first on the scene are not common but far from unknown. One instance that I know well is the position with fibre optics used for telecom's - the idea was first published by co-workers at STL (Standard Telephones Laboratories) in Harlow, but Corning got a patent on it in the USA, as did STC in the UK.
One common example of what is and is not prior art used by patent agents is bricks - the bible says that bricks cannot be made without straw, so at some stage, somebody could have patented bricks made without straw.
There are also many, many examples of cunning ways around patents - a common example quoted is the first (Philips???) ladies' shaver (actually a depilator) that was patented using a slightly curved/bent spring that rotated, so the spring became coil-bound on the inside radius and plucked the hairs. That was pretty much instantly got around by an imitator using what was basically a legth of O ring material with loads of cuts in it, which rotated and achieved exactly the same thing, but only the spring had been patented.
I know what you mean. My largest EVER upgrade was going from an ERA something to...
An Ariston RD80
A couple of years later it was replaced by an LP12. Also an upgrade, but much less so.
per-Sony-fied
Me in another jacket
With that, you have just put up the price of the Orbe & lowered the price of the LP12......
Next thread - How good is the Orbe
notevenclose
pfm Member
I bought my first Linn in 1977, I think. RRP then was £75. At the time I was earning 80 quid a week, working in a hifi shop.
per-Sony-fied
Me in another jacket
Also the LP12 police will be round . . . . . . . . . .
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
I don’t get all the dogma surrounding them. I’ve owned about five now over 40 years. Can’t afford a *Kilmarnock* variant but I’m sure I can get the same performance for less wonga s/h.elsewhere.
** that’s Apple spellcheck for you. It doesn’t do Klimax
** that’s Apple spellcheck for you. It doesn’t do Klimax
notevenclose
pfm Member
'Kilmarnock' would get my vote. (Not a sentence I ever thought I'd type...).
dadgad
pfm Member
Just to respond further to the original question, and for those unfamiliar with Scottish geography, a Linn has a specific meaning in Scotland. It's a cutting formed by a fast flowing river when it suddenly meets hard rock. If the rock has no weak spots a waterfall is the result, but if there are any narrow crevices etc the water will cut a narrow channel. The most well known is probably the Linn of Dee, near Braemar in Aberdeenshire. You can step across a cutting that goes down 10 feet or more to the water surface, and the water itself can be up to 50 foot deep (Scuba divers swim through it...) See the video on this page: https://www.nts.org.uk/visit/places/mar-lodge-estate
per-Sony-fied
Me in another jacket
As so many companies do, name their products from nature. Seems a way to success.
irrelevant!