Hilarious. Flawed reasoning to avoid the truth must be in the bloodline:
0. Linn did not start as an offshoot of Castle Precision Engineering. Ivor's father Jack, who owned Castle, helped him by designing a very-quiet running central bearing for the LP12 turntable, and by providing seed capital for Ivor to start Linn.
So, supposedly getting the bearing off Jack his father who owned Castle and being provided with the seed capital from Jack his father who owned Castle smashes any argument that Linn was an offshoot of Castle??? That's like saying Ivor wasn't an offshoot of Jack despite Jack being his father and Ivor being his son. Castle as a corporation may not have derived an income stream nor ownership of Linn Products, but Jack as a person saw his son benefit from the establishment of the corporation from the seed capital. No overt financial benefit but definite overt familial benefit. Plus a reasonable inference that Ivor couldn't have started Linn without the capital from his father. If independence from Castle is seen as such a big deal, Ivor could have raised capital from other sources. It is possible that a looming court case with Hamish might have set-back the availability of other sources of capital.
1. The reference to Acoustic Research is an attempt to discredit Ivor's original design for the LP12. The LP12 took none of its inspiration from this or any other turntable. Quite the opposite, in fact, as it was conceived from first principles through Ivor's own experimentation to be immune to acoustic feedback, which in turn led to the design.
The Linn took none of it's inspiration from (my words: the AR turntable)? Quite the opposite? The AR was derived from the Linn LP12? Quick!! Take them to court!!
2. The reference to Hamish Robertson and the Ariston RD11 is
a) Libellous - a ruling in the high court in 1978 rejected any claims Hamish Robertson had to the design of the LP12.
The old "We won in court. It must be correct" argument. Pragmatic Life Experience illustrates that winning in court doesn't necessarily translate to being in the right or in the wrong. Court Judgement is as flawed as any other aspect of Human Existence. Funny how the history seems to cloud this issue. Plus the reasonable inference that a court might find you guilty of Libel if we take this further.
b) Wrong - the Ariston RD11 was an OEM version of the LP12.
I'll admit it makes perfect sense that a turntable which existed 2 years before the Linn Sondek LP12 owned by a company which came into existence 2 years before Linn Products, was derived from the Linn. It's absolutely logical.
c) Irrelevant - the Ariston RD11 did not succeed commercially, and had no bearing whatsoever on the success of the LP12 or Linn.
By that logic, the Bugatti Veyron, which sold in pitiful numbers compared to the Toyota Corolla, did not succeed commercially. Everything which sells in lesser numbers must be irrelevant. It must also be irrelevant that Linn saw the need to mention the Ariston RD 11 and aspects of its design in the initial advertisements for the LP 12. That argument doesn't answer why, if it is irrelevant, they did mention the Ariston RD 11.
So to sum up:
0): Huh?
1) Linn is responsible for the design of the AR as well as the Ariston.
2
a) Take this as a warning: We won. That's all that matters, no matter else what can be shown.
b) Our company designed something that preceded our company by 2 years.
c) Numbers make things relevant. Plus despite the fact that we did see the need to refer to the technology in the, pre-existing selling in hundreds numbers Ariston RD 11, in our initial ads: it wasn't necessary and isn't relevant.
It all makes sense in a Thiefenbrun kinda way.