One new battery and recapped about 3 years ago - that's it here. Otherwise, your comment would fit with PT reputation, if not fact.
Linn
- Thread starter robbyd
- Start date
One new battery and recapped about 3 years ago - that's it here. Otherwise, your comment would fit with PT reputation, if not fact.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
I was careful to avoid any judgement...as ever..per-Sony-fied
Me in another jacket
Turntables of the era way back then when the LP12 came out, very few knew how to produce a well sorted & engineered deck. They generally were as good as the technology available for the day. Technology advances throughout the years which allows improvements in design. In future years I'm sure turntables including the LP12 will be even more advanced. Maybe in some (much simpler) form the laser tt will return.
I think if tt's stood still since the advent of CD I think their popularity would be far less.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Hmm. I suspect that Thorens, Garrard, Lenco and a few others who were around when Ivor was still in short pants, would say that their technology, construction etc, made the Linn look decidedly cheap, flimsy and compromised.
I think it's a mistake to assume that those I mention didn't understand the physics of record replay, or that Linn understood it better.
In my humble opinion, the Michell approach to both bearings and suspension, iscfar more innovative. Well Tempered and others, such as Kuzma have also developed novel solutions.
I think it's a mistake to assume that those I mention didn't understand the physics of record replay, or that Linn understood it better.
In my humble opinion, the Michell approach to both bearings and suspension, iscfar more innovative. Well Tempered and others, such as Kuzma have also developed novel solutions.
per-Sony-fied
Me in another jacket
I would agree in comparison some were vastly more robust maybe just because of the construction techniques people used at the time. Most things were over engineered in comparison to the materials that are used today. Even if Ivor went this route (if it could work) I'm certain for a TT to continue in this day would have changed for modern times. Looks are not necessarily everything.
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
Very true, except for those beholders who buy into the herd view of beauty.
I'm firmly of the view that there is no necessary correlation between ubiquity and quality. If there was, the Ford Escort would be 'the best car'.
Amen
dadgad
pfm Member
I actually think we are largely in agreement here, and I defer to your experience of having applied for/received patents. In my case, I have had many discussions with patent lawyers about the patentability of various clever bits of technology coming out of universities. They usually end up saying something like 'well you can submit an application for this, but you may find yourself in a legal battle with Microsoft/Glaxo/General Motors etc'. My role is to make sure the university, or its spin-out, raises enough money to cover those costs if they are still determined on that route.
For me, an example of 'what's obvious' would be a simple change to a side group on a drug molecule (I trained as a chemist). I would expect trouble from Glaxo for example, if I took one of their drugs, changed a methyl group to a ethyl group, and then tried to patent it.
UK patent office's 'list of things you can't patent' is at https://www.gov.uk/patent-your-invention and includes
- literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works
- a way of doing business, playing a game or thinking
- a method of medical treatment or diagnosis
- a discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method
- the way information is presented
- ‘essentially biological’ processes like cross-breeding animals or varieties of plants
- software that has a ‘non-technical’ purpose (For example software to control a driverless car could have a patent, while a chess playing app could not)
Over the years I have learned that the only general rule about patents, is that there are hardly any general rules about patents! Additionally, all my experience has been in the UK, and things are very different in the USA for example.
John Phillips
pfm Member
Yes, as a mechanism it may be obvious to someone skilled in the art. But you can't just patent a mechanism.
However, using that (obvious) mechanism to solve an identifiable problem may not be obvious to someone skilled in the art. Solving an identifiable problem is key to patentability and the obviousness test needs to be taken in that context.
(I am not a patent lawyer so I might be wrong, but I have had six granted, have defended others too and have had many conversations with patent lawyers.)
That would depend on what Gaxo's patent said. In my experience, that sort of thing would be covered by a statement similar to "........ and an ester group of up to 6 carbons, but typically 2" (they will have eliminated groups of higher numbers as being useful). My example of the depilator is pretty much analagous to a chemical group change, but, the first patent did not cover any equivalent to a spring.
I can't think of an example at the moment, but patents have been granted where something that had no function whatsoever in the intended use, has been "tacked onto" something that is covered by a previous patent - the superfluous bit being novel and making the whole patentable. I am pretty sure that the patent would detail the "benefit" of the extra bit though.......
For me, the unpatentable things that you list are not things, they are not tangible in the main. Most can also be covered by some other form of protection, such as copyright, or by patenting their practical use (scientific discoveries may not be patentable, but lots of very specific practical applications of them are). Not putting anything in print at all can sometimes be the best course as some things are phenominally difficult to reverse engineer without detailed inside knowledge - if the secret can be kept long enough, it could be protected for longer than it would be by patent.
nostromo
pfm Member
Most such patents I've seen cover this aspect ad-infinitum and before a patent application is submitted many such easy derivatives are made and included. With subsequent applications to cover the chemical space even more widely.
rhgbristol
pfm Member
My popcorn box is nearly empty reading through this very thought-provoking thread…
But two questions if I may, regarding the LP12, specifically regarding its mat -
Firstly, does anybody know when Linn changed from the original ribbed rubber mat to the felt version - my educated guess is about summer 1976, but I stand to be corrected?
Secondly regarding the felt mat, why do you think that Linn have never seemingly come up with an alternative ‘superior’ product to replace it, in over 45 years, which with their marketing prowess would have undoubtedly sold in bucket loads?
I can only assume that it’s because the profit margin on the felt version must be massive, and cannot in anyway be improved ? !
But two questions if I may, regarding the LP12, specifically regarding its mat -
Firstly, does anybody know when Linn changed from the original ribbed rubber mat to the felt version - my educated guess is about summer 1976, but I stand to be corrected?
Secondly regarding the felt mat, why do you think that Linn have never seemingly come up with an alternative ‘superior’ product to replace it, in over 45 years, which with their marketing prowess would have undoubtedly sold in bucket loads?
I can only assume that it’s because the profit margin on the felt version must be massive, and cannot in anyway be improved ? !
You perfectly explain why I have not replaced my Rock II/Excalibur. No Upgrades except a psu and occasionally belt changes and cartridge replacements.
Today I saw a Citroën 2cv in very good condition. It was there and probably still is. Nothing we can do about it. Couple of minutes later I visited a pharmacy. They had a selection of homeopathic medicine, too, even if we know that homeopathy is quackery.
Considering the Linn mat costs less than £20 I doubt it.
rhgbristol
pfm Member
….but pennies to make !