Hello Headfiers!

In regards to Jan Meiers design claims I like to announce the withdraw of all first versions HEADPHONIA amps.

On April 7th I wrote Jan a very friendly email to solve the matter priviately. I offered him two options: Paying him a one time fee for using the obviously same crossfeed topology which he applied for a patent or withdraw all sold amps -- however only in case he could give me plausible explanation why the topology is not the Ohman crossfeed puplicized in 1994. He did not answer to this email and choose to escalate it in puplic.

Please email me for more infos and how to process with the exchange: info@headphonia.com.

Cheers

Robert

Interesting. I wish I knew more about what is being spoken up though I can get the gist of it. What amps are being referred to?

Ok, I read the thread on the issue. Interesting, to say the least. I did have a design of mine stolen by Wave Technologies once. It was for IC's. They coppied everything from the teflon to air dialetric to braid technique and then with a greater resource of money advertised it on 1/4 page adds in Stereophile. Well I didn't have a patent but it was disgusting to me. What happened here I have no idea as only two people really know.

Hi Robert! Great to see you work out something.

Quote:



I'm in no position to question anything, but i do have similar experience. I'm an IT undergrad and there was this incident happened in our campus. We were given a programming assignment and so happen student A found a reference source code (which is the algorithm to solve our assignment question) from the net. He copied it completely and submitted his work. However the lecturer found out that student B have used the same algorithm too. Both students were called and questioned.

Now, student A claims that he got his algorithm off the WWW and student B insist that he came up with the algorithm himself yet he even accused student A for copying. At the end the lecturer let both of them go, as student A has strong proof that his algorithm came from the Internet.

I'm seeing a lot of similarities in the Headphonia incident. I know you already made the decision to withdraw the amps, but i do hope this sad incident will not have a huge impact on your sales.

Good on Headphonia. It doesn't matter what actually transpired, this is a classy thing to do.

thats great, Robert. Your new amps looks really good. Just as much configuration options as Xin amps!

Quote:



Is the Ohman crossfeed the same as the Meier crossfeed?

Found this:

http://www.headwize.com/projects/sho...en_add_prj.htm

But Why? Why withdraw ...... That's a shame...

Should be thanking you for your circuits I would think....

I have been following this whole ordeal closely, as I am in the market for a new portable amp/USB DAC. I'm happy to see this come to a seemingly agreeable conclusion, and I hope all parties involved are pleased with this agreement.

Quote:



I guess since no one has mentioned it, i think i have to point one thing out:
April the 7th was a good six days after Jan made his initial post (see here).....

So trying to put Jan up as the "bad guy who didn't want to solve this problem", is a very dishonest thing to do, in my eyes. Because as Jan had said, he tried to contact Robert before he went public, without getting an answer. YMMV, but i really wanted to poin that out.

Good, now people should be able to move on. Either buy Headphonia products or not. It would be interesting to know how much better or worse does the new Headphonia amp sounds like.

Also kudos for taking back the old units. Although IMO it should it probably will not appease all.

Quote:




Quote:Originally Posted by Robert Gehrke
On April 7th I wrote Jan a very friendly email to solve the matter priviately. [...] He did not answer to this email and choose to escalate it in puplic.

I guess since no one has mentioned it, i think i have to point one thing out:
April the 7th was a good six days after Jan made his initial post (see here).....

So trying to put Jan up as the "bad guy who didn't want to solve this problem", is a very dishonest thing to do, in my eyes. Because as Jan had said, he tried to contact Robert before he went public, without getting an answer. YMMV, but i really wanted to poin that out.

Yes, glad to see that's all behind us, and Roberts reputation remains intact with this explaination above.

I have no idea who is in the right. Hopefully everyone now. I do think that it is good that this was resolved without the sharing of customer lists. Absent a court order, that would have been an inappropriate violation of privacy (can't speak however to Germany's privacy laws).

Quote:



No no, we had few conversations before he went to the puplic. I wrote him I would never give customer data to a third party and his patent isn't valid until it is proven (he only has an application for a patent).

p.s. But I don't want to repeat the glory of our disputes. I really hope Jan is fine with the drawback.