Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
It's all irrelevant, because the LP12 is still a pretty average sounding player.
"Linn Products Limited was started by Tiefenbrun in the city's Castlemilk district near Linn Park in 1972 in order to manufacture a hi-fi turntable, developed from his personal interest in music reproduction."
Ivor: The Linn Sondek originally cost £36 as a chassis and £64 complete with plinth and cover and the ‘K’ came from the idea of using the name sound deck simplified to communicate the revolutionary idea that the turntable would influence the sound. Thereafter the ‘K’ acquired a kind of mystic significance.
https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2777400
It's all irrelevant, because the LP12 is still a pretty average sounding player.
Did the hearing officer have exceptional auditory powers?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.
That’s an ‘irrelevant’ response!
Wish all these commentators would keep their ‘irrelevant’ observations to themselves
They don’t inform the discussions!
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.It's all irrelevant, because the LP12 is still a pretty average sounding player.
.............my understanding is that patentable ideas are not supposed to be obvious.
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.
With that, you have just put up the price of the Orbe & lowered the price of the LP12......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.
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.
Also the LP12 police will be round . . . . . . . . . .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.
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
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-estateLots of threads about Linn recently -
I have a few LP12s myself, first bought when I was probably 17...
- But the name 'Linn' - anyone know where that origates from? How/why?
I know the 'Sara' speakers story, but that's it...
thanks
As so many companies do, name their products from nature. Seems a way to success.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
Neither does taking the bait and responding to them...