[satfrat]

From what I've read in the last few months, it seems to be thing with Planet 10 to spew dirt on what was a clean floor. First it's Omega, now Tim Rawson?

Dirt?

If you read closely i do not accuse Rawson of anything. If what Hogg says is true then what Rawson is doing is fine.

As a moderator at diyAudio, where Nelson Pass and his stuff is very prominent, i have been privy to the discussions (which include Nelson) about what constitutes OK behaviour wrt this stuff. It is very important to diyAudio as a forum that we have a clear policy. All i have been doing is expounding this (in my own words) as a guideline.

As to Omega, i made 2 observations and asked a question arising out of one of them;

1/ hemptone cones were referred to as patented when in actual fact only a patent application exists.

2/ the patent talks mostly about manilla hemp including the proffered preferred receipe. A generic use of the term hemp was also used but i know of at least 15 species of plants referred to as hemp and only one of them is cannabis hemp. One could then infer that there is a high likliehood that the hemptone cones are made from manila and not cannabis as is often inferred but never stated outright. I just asked for clarification on what the hempcones were actually made of. That question never got answered, as it seems Louis is not sure.

Any dirt is in the minds of the beholder.

dave

I'll let your participation in this mud throwing contest be "in the minds of the beholders" as to your mud slinging skills. This issue as with most  issues of legal concequence should be between Nelson Pass and Tim Rawson. Other business's sticking their 2 cents in on public forums automatically leads me to believe ulterior motives. Even if this isn't the case, in the minds of the beholders that's how it can look. And you're looking aweful dirty to me Planet 10.

Cheers,
Robin

ps,,, I see that the DIY link got shut down after less than 2 pages,,,, I wonder why that was? Maybe DIY forum is a little more tolerate of dirt than AudioCircle?

[sts9fan]

This issue as with most  issues of legal concequence should be between Nelson Pass and Tim Rawson. Other business's sticking their 2 cents in on public forums automatically leads me to believe ulterior motives.

yes the motive is to protect "the commons" if you will.  That is why it is not just their business.  A community that can discuss these things and work it out can protect the collective interest.  This is not really mud slinging and if that is all you see then you have missed the point. 

[satfrat]

This issue as with most  issues of legal concequence should be between Nelson Pass and Tim Rawson. Other business's sticking their 2 cents in on public forums automatically leads me to believe ulterior motives.

yes the motive is to protect "the commons" if you will.  That is why it is not just their business.  A community that can discuss these things and work it out can protect the collective interest.  This is not really mud slinging and if that is all you see then you have missed the point. 

Guess that where in the eye of the beholder comes into play, hea? Sure do wish you had identified yourself to me at Pat's gathering. I would have liked to know who I was talking to.

Cheers,
Robin

[Wind Chaser]

Looks like Tim is hanging up his spurs... In This Audiogon Ad he writes, "Burned out, tired and under fire. Did as favor for audiophile community but create unintended consequences from sharing."  Notice he does not state that this is a Pass design.

However, Here's Another Guy advertising a DIY project as a Pass design for big money - big compared to what Tim would charge - but still considerably less than what an actual Pass product would sell for.

It seems to me you get what you pay for.  Nelson Pass could make his stuff as crude looking as Rawsonite's work and sell it without a warranty and professional packaging for cheap, but clearly he doesn't have any interest in doing that sort of thing.  So what's the big deal in Tim providing a unique service that no one else does?

It would be nice if Mr. Nelson Pass could come to some sort of an agreement with Tim Rawson that lets him provide this valuable service to folks who are not qualified to mess with electricity.

[Gaara]

Looks like Tim is hanging up his spurs... In This Audiogon Ad he writes, "Burned out, tired and under fire. Did as favor for audiophile community but create unintended consequences from sharing."  Notice he does not state that this is a Pass design.

However, Here's Another Guy advertising a DIY project as a Pass design for big money - big compared to what Tim would charge - but still considerably less than what an actual Pass product would sell for.

Ad is gone, Here is the cached version.

If he throws in the towel for good you will see many more DIY guys coming out of the woodwork, charging a lot more.  Hell, many times you will see people profiting off Tim's work, buying a amp for $150-$200 then reselling for $300.  I watched one of Tim's amps go for ~$300 and a couple weeks later the same amp with the same pics was being sold by the buyer for $500.  Sold in less then a week, as there was nothing to compare to so the person felt they were getting a good deal.

[anubisgrau]

Hats off to Tim. Great guy!

You've got what you asked for guys. I was lucky enough to get mine. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tim's product going soon for a double.

[anubisgrau]

this is rather interesting twist for me:

http://www.pedjarogic.com/announcement.htm

[planet10]

this is rather interesting twist for me:

pedjarogic.com

He has a rather twisted view of reality. There was quite a bru-ha-ha between him (and his crew) and the mods at diyAudio. He got kicked out.

The Pass bit is funny. Published articles on jFET buffers go back decades (and even further back if you count cathode followers), that he claims Nelson is copying his diy ideas is just sad -- this is one of those obvious applications.

dave

[wilsynet]

I do not want to wade into the Tim Rawson versus Nelson Pass debate.  I don't know enough about it and I don't understand copyright law, contract law or patent law well enough to have a reasonable opinion.  They both seem to be good people at heart, so maybe they'll eventually work something out to the mutual benefit of both parties.

As for Pedja Rogic's post, here I do want to wade in.

I think there's a difference between someone copying a design/schematic wholesale, and someone borrowing an idea.  Pedja claims that Nelson Pass is stealing ideas from him.  If so, good for Nelson Pass.  If Pedja published designs and schematics, and Nelson Pass copied those design and schematics, then I think yeah, Nelson is engaging in outright and malicious theft by his own standard.  But from the language that Pedja uses, that doesn't seem to be the case. 

Pedja considers Nelson Pass's current source buffer an abuse of Pedja's intellectual property.  Except Pedja goes on to say that Nelson's "design is obviously flawed, for several reasons".  This pretty much admits that Nelson's design is his own.

Generally, all the claims seem to be that Nelson has copied Pedja's IDEAS, and as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with that.  It is entirely appropriate to borrow someone's inspiration.  Ideas are one thing.  Actual design, implementation, and execution are something else entirely.

[planet10]

Pedja claims that Nelson Pass is stealing ideas from him. 

The thot that you could steal the idea of a jFET buffer is ludicrous... it is a pervasive concept/idea that is a standard part of the designer's toolbox. I'd bet the very 1st jFET data sheet or Ap Note had such a beast in. Further, it follows directly from transistor buffers which followed after tube buffers,

Here is a text book extract on the subject (you could probably find 100 more written in many different languages):

http://www.engr.uky.edu/~gedney/courses/ee521/notes/Set11_JFET_SourceFollowerAmp.pdf

http://www.muzique.com/lab/buffers.htm

dave

[anubisgrau]

well, if pedja made it first, than nelson stole it....

also what about F3 with applied topology from his GCs....

funny, you all jumped on tim rawson for not respecting nelson's IP, and now it gets clear that nelson obviously disrespected someone elses work and commercialize it in much more sophisticated matter without any credits to where and how he got these "ideas" from.

wheels keep in turning....

[planet10]

well, if pedja made it first, than nelson stole it....

It is in the ap notes... the manufacturers published it 1st... and they were/are encoraging people to use it, so it can't be stealing by anyone!!!

I repeat, any claim that a jFET buffer is stolen from anyone is ludicrous.

dave

[planet10]

also what about F3 with applied topology from his GCs....

nothing in the F3 that isn't pure Pass... Nelson started all this with the Zen amp in Audio Amateur in the 80s.

dave

[wilsynet]

well, if pedja made it first, than nelson stole it...

Stole what? Whoever made the first car, does that mean no one else can ever make another car?  Ideas are not proprietary, but detailed designs and methods are.

Pedja thinks you can just have ideas and somehow the idea belongs to you.  It doesn't.  Lots of people have had the same idea many times before, lots of people even have the same idea concurrently, and lots of people will independantly arrive at the same idea in the future.  It isn't about having an idea, lots of people have ideas. I mean really, big deal, anyone can have an idea.  It's about design, implementation and execution.