Quote:



QFT ^^^

Quote:



strange? yup your're absolutely correct this thread is darn strange.

what i find strange is that people dont give a hoot when someones character and name gets assassinated and the rest applauds (on basically the worldstage) without a care for the consequences.

what i find more strange is that the accuser gets "the benefit of a doubt" and doesnt have to prove his charges but the accused has to defend and prove himself innocent. anyone else see any whodoo voodoo here?

what i find strangest is that "the good old boys" feel that since they pioneered this business, they are then defacto entitled to it regardless of global reality. does GM, FORD and CHRYSLER (if theres a Chrysler left) ring any bells?

i guess its just me. O well, i'll bug out now and go shove my head in a hole. 'nuff said.

Hope everything works out, for both parties. None the less, this thread has been a very interesting read.

The cheap Chinese clones are not going to effect the $1500+ custom amp market, so there is still hope for American amp makers and innovation will continue.

Quote:



Well said. Right now, whatever that's going on between the two main players has degenerated into a childish debate not unlike those found in gaming forums where people start flame wars over whether "FFVII is the b35t RpG game EVA1111onesoneseleven!!!!!"

I second what people have said so far: "If Jan Meier is certain that Headphonia has stolen his designs, he should go ahead and pursue the matter through the proper legal channels. Likewise, if Robert of Headphonia is innocent, he should sue Jan Meier for slander.

Quote:



The unfortunate reality is that Jan probably will not win in the court of law, because even proving these obvious things are notoriously difficult. I don't know about German law but that's the case in the USA. If a headphonia owner opens up their amp and verifies everything that Jan has stated, then that is already hard proof of cloning. I mean, what do you guys want? A secret video recording of Robert analyzing the Porda Corda? Anyone who has designed their own amp would be convinced by Jan's arguments, which are very strong.

Quote:



If nobody cared about the consequences, this thread wouldn't have any responses worth reading.

If you're talking about Robert's character and name being assassinated, I'll ask if you've read Jan's message with the schematic, including his follow-up message saying that the Headphonia model he had in his possession not only had the same schematic, but the same values, which Robert now says are different, but which apparently were not when the one that Jan received was manufactured.

Read the schematics messages again, starting with the one in which Jan posted the photo of his schematic. Among several things, one to note includes this sentence: Quote:



Jan has been a member of the community with the most sterling of reputations as a design contributor and businessman since before Head-Fi was founded nearly six years ago. This is why he would receive at least enough benefit of the doubt to believe that he's not lying about the Headphonia amp he has in his possession. I won't make any proclamations of guilt or innocence here in this message, but I will say that, for example, it would be helpful to Robert's position, in my opinion, to see an articulate response that explains why Jan would have a Heapdhonia amp in his possession with identical schematic, identical values, and why R19 and R20 exist (again, in identical fashion to the Porta Corda, in Jan's assessment, which probably few, if any, who know him doubt) if only to short them with wire?

Quote:



Again, Jan's contributions to this community predate the founding of Head-Fi. His reputation as a businessman serving his customers is also virtually peerless.

On these forums, for nearly six years, Jan has been rather quiet and mellow, and isn't one to stir the pot. To the best of my recollection, he has made a similar assertion only once before (someone selling a crossfeed unit based on his design), and it turned out he was correct then.

Quote:



If you have a problem with Tyll's message, respond to Tyll's message, but don't attribute it to other manufacturers because he mentions other manufacturers. For what it's worth, in the context of this situation, I agree with what Tyll is saying.

And, to that point, it is my opinion that one has no right to use another's design for resale without the designer's permission (unless the design was put out there with the understanding that it was free to be used in any way). Within the confines of this community, this has been recognized before, with companies properly licensing technology/designs from one another, including Grace licensing Meier's crossfeed, and Audio Alchemy licensing HeadRoom's crossfeed. HeadAmps's commercial use of Gilmore's designs and name has also been done under the aegis of Kevin Gilmore.

Explain to me how your "global reality" bit even applies to this situation?

Additionally, I find the suggestions that such a situation is only legitimized is if it is in the form of a lawsuit absurd. I would venture that most who've made this suggestion in this thread have never actually sued or been sued.

Here's a funny thing. These potentially libelous accusations are allowed to remain on this public forum, and yet my post in this thread warning that Headfi and the OP could be putting themselves at risk of legal action was deleted.

Quote:



Your post was deleted, because, like the one above it that was also deleted, was off-topic, and, in my interpretation, merely trying to encourage the closing of the thread (which, if any of the moderators by that point though it should be closed, it would have been closed). In other words, there was a call to close the thread and a couple of posts afterwards simply trying to make it so. So, yes, I deleted that post and the one that by someone else that preceded it.

As to your point that you think Head-Fi is exposed to liability here, now you've made it.

Quote:



Thank you for the Chineese workers and their product production point of view and that you are not in a developed 1st world country by along stretch.

Thanx especially your "Post Script"...

Could somebody please verify if their Headphonia also matches the schematic including the additional comments regarding the two resistors shorted with wire et al., as asserted by Jan?

Quote:



As has been said: Why would R19 and R20 exist (again, in identical fashion to the Porta Corda, in Jan's assessment, which probably few, if any, who know him doubt) if only to short them with wire?

This IS the "smoking gun" IMO, needing to be verified by any owner for the debate to be settled.

Quote:



..and for what it's worth, I maintain that allowing the continued existence of this thread is, imho, very unprofessional, naive, and terrible for Headfi's reputation. Whether Jan is your best mate or a total stranger is irrelevant. He is making defamatory comments about another person's business and character in a public forum, and the Forum (with a capital "F") is supporting him. Whether you personally think this chap is guilty or not, it is wrong, again imho, for a Forum to take this stance. Frankly, it comes across as bullying. So yes, if I were the moderator, I would close it.

Running a forum like this, I'm sure you are well aware of the legal aspects, but this excerpt from a BBC article (do a google...there are many many articles about this) might be interesting to some people following the thread...

"Internet sites are not exempt from any libel laws. If you are publishing on the internet you are bound by the same libel laws as print publishers.

In a significant ruling in 2002, the Australian high court ruled that mining magnate Joseph Gutnick could sue publisher Dow Jones under Australian law for alleged libel online. The judge deemed that the web was no different from newspapers or television.

In the UK, internet service providers are coming under increasing pressure to close sites containing defamatory allegations. You also have to be careful about the comments others post on your site. There have been cases where individuals have sued online publishers for libel over customer book reviews published on their sites. "

I think that it is a simple situation that has a simple solution. HOwever, with the ammount of **** storming and name calling going on it has turned into a giant battle over things not even related. IE: chinese knockoffs and the definition of various words.
Take the amps, have some one look at them and see if they are the same. If they were at one point but have since been changed then the problem has been rectified. If not then take this as a warning to have your designs properly protected under copy right laws.
It is ultimatly down to what ever people want to buy. If the Headphonia could be sold for cheaper and is the same then taht says somethign about the original.
I think that if the Headphonia is in fact a clone than collectivly people will shunn it and it will not be around for long.
Personal attacks, name calling, and side stepping on both parts is distasteful to me, and I wish that some one would just look at the amps and prove if the accusations are true.
-greg

* Forgive any spelling errors. I am in a hurry and not able to do my usual SC.

"These potentially libelous accusations are allowed to remain on this public forum,"

If they are "Libelous" then there is a course of action to resolve the libelous statement. If they are allowed to stand then they are accepted as fact.

I believe Jan Meier made truthful statements, which would need to be rebutted in a detailed manor and not thrown out, as simply ridiculous.


Mitch