[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedalhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't pretend to know, and yet you still accuse. Next you'll be claiming the moon landings were faked & there are aliens in the White House. (ok the latter is possible)

But there is an Alien in the White House!

 

[Morph201]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedalhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't pretend to know, and yet you still accuse. Next you'll be claiming the moon landings were faked & there are aliens in the White House. (ok the latter is possible)

Moon landings were faked.... and as far as aliens in the whitehouse! Well, we know what happened out in Roswell, no??

 

[pedalhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif But there is an Alien in the White House!

lol, nicely edited post...you were almost taking things too seriously there for a minute

 

[ShaolinRasta]

Wow, can't believe this has degenerated into a discussion of law and semantics. As Clarence Darrow once commented, "The law does not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest. That would seriously interfere with business."

It seems clear enough to me that Jan's approach was to first attempt to settle this matter as gentlemen do and when that failed, to bring it to the community. There's a world of difference between what is "legal" and what is right. Headfi is generally a place where the MOTs do what they do because they love making cool stuff, not simply because they can make a quick buck doing it. They may sometimes feud, to the amusement of all, but generally manage to observe standard protocols of behavior. Is it such a hard thing for the parties involved to just step up and do the right thing rather than hiding behind things like copyrights and laws?

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaolinRasta /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, can't believe this has degenerated into a discussion of law and semantics.

This thread has not "degenerated" into a discussion of law. It has been about the law since Dr. Meier's initial post in this thread, which was made for the express purpose of gathering evidence for a damages claim.

 

[ShaolinRasta]

I believe Dr. Meier's post was an attempt to gather intel on whether pursuing this legally would be financially feasible. Not everyone immediately resorts to lawyers and their ilk. These issues can be handled on a personal basis, and failing that can be addressed on a community level. No need to toss legalese around at each other, all that does is make it into a no-win situation for all except for the lawyers, who will make a fortune.

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif The definition of defamation quoted above is not a particularly good one, as it appears to include the "actual malice" standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court . . . . Black's Law Dictionary also defines defamation as "an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name." (Though I would need to check the caselaw to confirm, I believe that in this context, the phrase "intentional false communication" means an intentional communication that is false, as opposed to a communication that is intentionally false.)

How does this definition make the one I quoted "not a particularly good one"? It seems to me that "with malice aforethought" (from the definition I quoted) is just another way of saying "an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name."

 

[digitalmind]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

The following might not be the reason why it was done, but...

This could be done because of a trick I've learned early on in an internship consisting of developing a certain piece of hardware from design to prototype to finish.

Making PCB's can get very expensive, especially in small orders. So, instead of ordering a bunch of small orders, tweak with them, and then go for a big order for the "production" run, small manufacterers often order a large number of PCB's right away to lower the price per PCB. Now because there is still prototyping done with these PCB's, 0 ohm resistors are placed at certain places and in certain lines where there might be changes later on.
This is to be able to just take it out, place a resistor if needed, or jumpers to other places, and not having to buy a new batch of PCB's because the lines are fixed. It can very well be that early produced items (or, if it is a small scale item, such as headphone amps would be) have these jumpers or 0 ohm resistors in place because they are on the PCB boards that were ordered. This might seem unlogical when looking back at a finished consumer item, but it is critical during prototyping and because of the lower price for large orders of PCB's, can extend to finished designs even after the prototyping stage. This is comon procedure and pretty much all engineers will use this trick during the first batch of a product, unless they are very sure of their work (and which engineer is?

).

That said, I find it unlikely that someone else would come up with the same schematic and values that Jan has came up with. It's a fairly straight forward amplifier, and as said before, the crossover is (partially?) public, but there are so many ways to do it that I find it unlikely to be coincidence. Not impossible, just very unlikely.

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif How does this definition make the one I quoted "not a particularly good one"? It seems to me that "with malice aforethought" (from the definition I quoted) is just another way of saying "an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name."

Your definition states that malice is a required element of a suit for libel. This is true in the United States with respect to public figures. It is not necessarily true with respect to private figures.

Suppose I make a false and defamatory statement about a high-ranking public official. In order to recover for defamation, that public official would need to prove (a) that I knew that the statement was false or (b) that I made the statement with a reckless disregard for its falsity. That is "actual malice" as the Supreme Court has defined it. On the other hand, if I make a false and defamatory statement about my next door neighbor, my next door neighbor may (depending on the law of the jurisdiction where we live) be able to recover for defamation even if I believed the statement to be true. "Malice" is not necessarily an element of libel with respect to private figures.

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Your definition states that malice is a required element of a suit for libel.

You're misreading "malice aforethought." "Aforethought" has the same meaning as "intent."

 

[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're misreading "malice aforethought." "Aforethought" has the same meaning as "intent."

I'm actually not referring to the phrase "malice aforethought," but to the following statement in your definition:

Quote:

In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well [as] the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel.

Malice is a term of art when used in the context of defamation that has the meaning that I've described previously.

 

[Vicomte]

Ah, semantics. Someone should write a book...

 

[dropkickduffy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer5150 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The accused has not been proven guilty of anything. I will not take sides in this debate until concrete evidence is provided. "Innocent until proven guilty"

Agreed. Rather than debating the nuances of U.S. libel law and spitting legalese, please keep in mind that both amp manufacturers are seriously gambling with their reputations. Professionalism is a key factor when one considers purchasing an amp in an otherwise glutted market. As mentioned before, this forum should not be the place for this altercation, regardless of the degree of communication (or lack thereof) between the two parties.

Litigation is expensive, and in my opinion, more money than it's worth. Hopefully some productive mediation can be introduced to rectify this exacerbated ordeal. As we say in the legal community, this discussion is a quintessential example of "slippery slope".

 

[MaloS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's a good line regarding the "good old boys". I have always admired Headroom's products, long before I knew of this place, but Tyll's assertion that any new entry into the headphone amplifier market must have something radical about it in order to "be allowed" to compete is ridiculous.

And how is this ridiculous sir? Someone produced an excellent product, spent time designing it very likely economical risk at it, into a market that is rather limited in itself - and another person comes in to that market and decides to put out a product that does really the same nothing new, but maybe for slightly cheaper because he did not have to the expansion of the market. I am not going to point to this specific case - Robert did what he did cheaper which is an improvement, but if someone just comes out and adds another product which is identical for our purposes - that is honestly 'cheap' on interpersonal level. Would you be happy if you were running a Greek food restaurant, and someone builds another restaurant with the same pricing and food offered as your own, with same service speed and so on? That would bring a dose of competition, sure, but given economic costs of sustaining a restaurant it could also put you and the competing restaurant next door out of business, where the other person might not even lose anything because that person owns alot more restaurants - while you might be screwed completely even though your business was running great until the neighbor appeared just to leech off your setup. Notably, I stick to buying American products unless there is no equal (Darkvoice 332 I owned is a very well designed and constructed amplifier, ath-w5000 is the best in-production woody on the market, and that is all I own thats not US made). I prefer to eat in small privately owned restaurants or chains that have a history of constantly improving their production. By doing this I support American businesses that show that they will produce improvement in their field, if I was to buy things from a Chinese market with identical function I would be feeding people who are using a design that is not really their own, people who do not show any benefit for me in the future except for the fact that I get to save a bit of money. And please note the larger and larger amount of products manufactured in other countries just to produce reduction in costs because companies are finding it more and more difficult to sustain quality of production and still make money. (Vox used to produce beautiful guitar amplifiers, but recent models have reliability issues because production was moved into Korea. Same models that were produced in Britain are excellent extremely reliable and unique amplifiers).

If I still did not show you Tyll's point - I don't want to be offensive here, but I think you are falling to what is the problem of capitalism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedalhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif You don't pretend to know, and yet you still accuse. Next you'll be claiming the moon landings were faked & there are aliens in the White House. (ok the latter is possible)

I kinda agree with Skylab. -_-

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dropkickduffy /img/forum/go_quote.gif Agreed. Rather than debating the nuances of U.S. libel law and spitting legalese, please keep in mind that both amp manufacturers are seriously gambling with their reputations. Professionalism is a key factor when one considers purchasing an amp in an otherwise glutted market. As mentioned before, this forum should not be the place for this altercation, regardless of the degree of communication (or lack thereof) between the two parties. Litigation is expensive, and in my opinion, more money than it's worth. Hopefully some productive mediation can be introduced to rectify this exacerbated ordeal. As we say in the legal community, this discussion is a quintessential example of "slippery slope".

Hopefully...
Perhaps an agreement IS being worked out...

And therefore, this thread was helpful in that regard...

Seems the Lawyers are already circling ....