Originally Posted by acain
I bet half the people that decide on patents don't even know what there looking at.
but they probably know more than us. If vibration/distortion cancelling siamesed BAs originated with JHaudio, it's a validly contested suit. Doesn't mean they will win if 1964 can find an earlier precedent that is applicable but just because dual drivers with a single port are becoming more common, it doesn't supersede a patent and I doubt there's much question that Jerry created this market and design. That they haven't pursued it until now is besides the point and using off the shelf twfks would be in compliance anyway. Note that it's not the dual config that's being contested but the that the 2 drivers are equal and mechanically opposite, at least with the tweeter. For instance, a twfk used as a 2 way or in parallel with different drivers per each 1/2 wouldn't be in violation. I was always a fan of this design but had no knowledge of a patent or feasibility of patentability.
If you go to his wiki page, you'll see why he's become protective of his work. The market is now strong enough that others can get drivers made and use them in a way that may infringe. Others may as well but 1964 is US based and easiest to establish a precedent with, especially with a patent filed here.
It's not exactly the same thing but if I were 1964 I'd point to products like older Kef 107 speakers and their woofer loading as a prior example but it may also be patented and have different parameters mentioned in the patent as it's vib cancelling is not direct and the config is probably also a bit about band pass.
Edited by goodvibes - 3/23/15 at 7:36pm