• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

AR-3A speakers, Why were they so good regarding the deep Bass

Just read through this from end-to-end; good read. Just a point to add; I think the pinnacle of AR speakers is actually achieved in the Allison line-up; yes a different brand, but Roy took the acoustic suspension speakers to the next level with smooth bass response by taking into account wall interaction and uniquely wide dispersion tweeters that give you an almost panel speaker like sound. These speakers are 'wow' in any room I have tried.
 
I think that the reason KLH didn't pay royalties (if, in fact they didn't) is that Kloss (and maybe Low and Hoffman) had been involved in founding AR, and the rights to use the patent were part of the separation. Kloss made the cabinets for Vichur's experiments and, I think, supervised manufacturing at AR. It is also true that Ed Vilchur seems to have be an uncommonly ungreedy man. After AR he went into hearing aid research, but not as a commercial money making venture, but to do basic research into how to make hearing aids better.
 
Something that should be clarified about patent law.

The sole issue before the trial judge in that case was a simple one: did the Olson and Preston patent sufficiently teach how to build an acoustic-suspension bookshelf speaker, regardless of whether or not that was the patent's intent. If so, the ViIllchur patent is thereby void by way of prior art. If not, the Villchur patent is novel, not known to the public, and thus valid. The applied test is quite narrow and it is not generally one which would be made by a judge without assistance from an expert. So Villchur's comment about the ignorance of the judge is not necessarily reflective of what actually happened.

The normal process would be for the court to appoint a special master, an expert skilled in the art, to weigh the facts and arguments, an then prepare a report. Both sides have the opportunity to present material to the special master, to critique the report, dispute it, and submit further evidence in support or refutation. The special master makes a recommendation, to which the judge gives great weight, but does not make a decision as a matter of law. This is an actual bench trial. Depositions, witnesses, reports, etc. A decision is not casually made off the cuff, as Villchur appears to imply. It would be unusual for a judge, notably not skilled in the art, to make such a decision as a matter of law without expert testmony. Such a decision would be be reversed on appeal. What we do not know is whom was appointed as the special master. That is an interesting facet of the matter.

The difficulty with modern patents, to distinguish between ones of fifty years ago, often becomes one of deconstructionism: it is only in retrospect that one might, with much contortion, re-interpret a patent as validly teaching a method, when the facial reading of it would never suggest such an application, nor did the inventor ever intend such a teaching or even, in a great irony, conceive of such an application. Patents are today now therefore deliberately written to be as broad as possible, to allow considerable post-host re-interpretation of scripture and thus expand the patent to areas it never covered as those areas are discovered, while being as obfuscatory as possible. Many are vague and weasely worded, with just enough detail that one might charitably conclude the claimed infringement was legitimate. Such patents are often not intended for litigation, per se, but are more wielded as weapons to encourage cross-licensing or to extract royalty payments because it is less expensive to pay than to ligitate. This is why patent trolling is a very profitable business.

But such issues were not a problem at the time of the Olson-Preston and Villchur patents; each patent is clearly readable and well defined in scope and teaching.

So the core issue was clear: could one skilled in the art state that the Olson and Preston patent was sufficient to build an acoustic suspension speaker if the teaching was followed. I consequently believe that Pete's analysis is correct and accurate.

By way of explaining why Olson may not have suggested a bookshelf speaker I think it would be safe to speculate that RCA's core business at that time was still radios, so it would make sense to improve the sound of a radio, not trying to sell a stand-alone speaker for HiFi into a market that did not yet exist. Here's a speculative argument with a bit of "and then a miracle occurs" handwaving in the middle of the diagram.

We must remember that the Olson and Preston patent was applied for in 1944. Home loudspeakers did not truly exist those days. Neither did home audio. Even the infinite baffle Bozaks, a speaker against which Villchur intended to compete, were not yet on the market. The state of the art was a radio with a gramophone pickup to play records. The acoustical labyrinth (transmission line) speaker invented by Benjamin Olney and patented by Stromberg-Carlson, applied for in 1934 with granted in 1936. But that, too, was used in radios. Wonderful radios, true, but radios nonetheless. I doubt anyone had the vision to forsee the sorts of home ownership which became common a decade later.

So it is understandable that neither Olson and Preston, the RCA patent attorneys, or any RCA manager missed the opportunity for a bookshelf speaker. It made no sense at that time to even ask that question, and, as Wittgenstein would say, nobody yet had the vocabulary to formulate such a question.
 
Of course my post was tongue in cheek as I could feel for Vilchur. Owning a business and apartment buildings for thirty years, I had my fun with lawyers. This was mentioned above but a little more detail of the story...

Villchur says that he knew the judge’s decision to void the patent was incorrect, but that he felt he had better things to do than to spend his life in litigation. He cited the example of Edwin Howard Armstrong, the inventor of FM radio, whose patent was rendered unprofitable through the actions of RCA. Armstrong spent years unsuccessfully fighting that injustice, and eventually committed suicide.
 
I am of the opinion that the judges decision was correct but Villchur would
never have the means to fight a major corporation like RCA.
 
Retrovert said:
snip....

But such issues were not a problem at the time of the Olson-Preston and Villchur patents; each patent is clearly readable and well defined in scope and teaching.

So the core issue was clear: could one skilled in the art state that the Olson and Preston patent was sufficient to build an acoustic suspension speaker if the teaching was followed. I consequently believe that Pete's analysis is correct and accurate.

By way of explaining why Olson may not have suggested a bookshelf speaker I think it would be safe to speculate that RCA's core business at that time was still radios, so it would make sense to improve the sound of a radio, not trying to sell a stand-alone speaker for HiFi into a market that did not yet exist. Here's a speculative argument with a bit of "and then a miracle occurs" handwaving in the middle of the diagram.

We must remember that the Olson and Preston patent was applied for in 1944. Home loudspeakers did not truly exist those days. Neither did home audio. Even the infinite baffle Bozaks, a speaker against which Villchur intended to compete, were not yet on the market. The state of the art was a radio with a gramophone pickup to play records. The acoustical labyrinth (transmission line) speaker invented by Benjamin Olney and patented by Stromberg-Carlson, applied for in 1934 with granted in 1936. But that, too, was used in radios. Wonderful radios, true, but radios nonetheless. I doubt anyone had the vision to forsee the sorts of home ownership which became common a decade later.

So it is understandable that neither Olson and Preston, the RCA patent attorneys, or any RCA manager missed the opportunity for a bookshelf speaker. It made no sense at that time to even ask that question, and, as Wittgenstein would say, nobody yet had the vocabulary to formulate such a question.
Click to expand...

I was not aware that the Olson and Preston patent was so old and your analysis
explains it perfectly - thanks! I was thinking of small table radios.
 
I think the judge's decision was incorrect, but the Vilchur was correct in his analysis of the endgame. I doubt if anyone realized how valuable such a patent might be, but if RCA had realized, they would have bankrupted AR in court regardless of the merits of the case (see Edwin Armstrong). Meanwhile, AR, by offering an excellent product, advertised effectively and innovatively, and reasonably priced, managed to sew up a third of the market. If Vilchur had chosen to fight the case, he wouldn't have done anywhere near as well.
I still miss the AR advertisements - elegant, and appealling to reason rather than emotion or prurient interest, taking the consumer seriously. They set a standard rarely even attempted nowadays.
 
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it there are, broadly, two types of patents a
standard (is standard the correct term?) and something called a utility patent. A
utility patent, as I understand it, patents a specific implementation of a device or,
usually, a product. Bose gets utility patents for many of their products and I believe
that Villchur could have easily gotten one for the AR-1 etc. But the purpose is to
stop others from making the same product and therefore it does not produce revenue
through royalties which is probably what Villchur wanted.
I welcome the lawyers here to correct anything in this post.
 
Pete B said:
I am of the opinion that the judges decision was correct but Villchur would never have the means to fight a major corporation like RCA.
Click to expand...

Nat said:
If Vilchur had chosen to fight the case, he wouldn't have done anywhere near as well.
Click to expand...

Villchur had one path: appeal and prevail. That would have required proving that the judge had abused discretion and violated a rule, a law, or precedent case. This would not have been possible if the judge had correctly followed and applied the law by relying upon the special master's findings. Appellate courts are loath to disturb findings of fact by the courts below. This case hinged on findings of fact, so it would have had to be a gross error in technical finding.

Given the stakes, the appeal cost would have been small potatoes. Prepare and submit a brief, pay a trivial filing fee, and have an attorney argue at oral argument. That's it. It would have cost a tiny fraction of the original lawsuit. So tiny it makes no sense to not proceed given the money already spent.

Unless one has already lost the case and well knows it.

So Villchur, despite his claims, could not have won. He was trying to save face by saying he walked away when the fact was that he'd already lost and had no way to prevail. Game over, man, game over.

Had Villchur won that patent case, he would not have had to fight any major corporation. He would have been handed a patent that was valid, res judicata, and others would have paid rather than lose an infringement suit. Instead, he lost his patent and now had less than he had when he started. One could argue this was a very foolish move. He could have licensed Electro-Voice, insisted upon confidentiality vis a vis the Olson and Preston patent, and then collected royalties.

Armstrong was a different type of lawsuit, different time, different company, different resources, different judiciary, all different. Not comparable to going after small companies like Electro-Voice. Totally different type of defendant.
 
Pete B said:
I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it there are, broadly, two types of patents a standard (is standard the correct term?) and something called a utility patent.
Click to expand...

Three types of patents exist: utility patent, design patent, and plant patent.
(1) A utility patent is what we commonly call a "patent", it is the "standard" type to which you refer. The invention must be novel, non-obvious, and of utility, hence the name.
(2) A design patent is for a specific appearance.
(3) A plant patent is for a new type of biological plant. Used for such things as orchids, roses, and frankenfood.​

See 35 U.S.C. §101.
 
Let me just swing over to fleabay and see what AR3A speakers are going for. HOLY CRAP. 1500-2500.
 
Armstrong may have sued in a different time. place etc., but his example was clearly on Vilchur's mind. The idea that an individual can prevail in court over a large corporation is very appealling, but it is well known that having a patent is not the same thing as being able to enforce it.
When I was in infrared optics, we worked on a fiber optic multiplexer project. A very ingenious and useful product, it had been invented by a guy working for the Navy in 1963, if memory serves. Twenty years later, fiber optics were beginning to be big business, and the switcher would have been a boon to the market. But, apparently, the way to protect yourself with a patent is to describe the product just enough to establish patent priority, but misdirect and confuse the actual method so much that companies that would swoop in copy the product, and get to market before the hapless inventor even got investors lined up, and then the company, fat with the profits from the product, could tie up the inventor in court so long that they go bankrupt (or even more conveniently, commit suicide).
We finally got the thing working right, and the company we were doing the project for was bought by a french company, and the project was shut down. Bummer.
 
lokerola said:
Let me just swing over to fleabay and see what AR3A speakers are going for. HOLY CRAP. 1500-2500.
Click to expand...

And that's why I jumped on a CL ad for a pair of AR58S speakers for $120. A modern AR3a for less than 10% of the value of the 3's. I'll take that all day long. :D
 
PeteB: Thanks for posting all of the info on Villchur and the patents! It is very interesting reading.

Retrovert: Thanks for the explanation about the patents. I have always wondered what the patent attorneys were trying to accomplish. I've had several patents where I struggled to recognize my invention after the lawyer was done rewriting it. It (almost) makes sense now. ;)
 
Nat said:
Armstrong may have sued in a different time. place etc., but his example was clearly on Vilchur's mind.
Click to expand...

We are not privy to what Villchur actually thought. All we know is what Villchur actually said. Big difference!

My point is different from the one you make about Armstrong. AR had a patent. AR sued to enforce it. AR not only lost the infringement case, but had the patent invalidated. At this point the smart money appeals to try to re-establish the worth of the patent. Any CEO which so easily abandoned a lost and expensive lawsuit over intellectual property when an appeal could have resulted in a reversal would be replaced, and justifiably so.

Having spent a pile of cash on a lawsuit Villchur could and should have filed an appeal. If the patent was valid. Which it clearly was not. So he would have lost. He had to have known this. Any competent lawyer would have explained it. Villchur's claim that he did the noble thing and walked away from an expensive and pointless fight does not appear to be valid. Remember, AR SUED ELECTRO-VOICE!!!

Now, here's the kicker: AR could have filed a post-grant proceeding with the USPTO for a re-examination of the Olson and Preson patent. That could have narrowed the claims or even tossed them. But AR didn't do that. Really bad lawyering! Or was it? The answer is that it could have resulted in the AR patent being invalidated. Because RCA would start taking a look at the patent portfolio of the requester and noticed, hmmmm, this patent looks like it should never have been issued. So if AR did that, it ran the risk of (a) losing, (b) losing its own patent, or (c) having the Olson and Preston patent invalidated AND losing its own patent. Clearly not a good risk to take.

Nat said:
The idea that an individual can prevail in court over a large corporation is very appealling, but it is well known that having a patent is not the same thing as being able to enforce it.
Click to expand...

You are correct. This is how Samsung and LG destroyed their rivals in plasma TVs and phones. Infringe, infringe, infringe, use the results of a billion dollars of R&D at no cost, use every innovation one's competitors create, undercut the originators of the technology, stall on licensing with empty promises, wait for the inevitable lawsuit, delay, delay, delay, then settle for a pittance out of the money made by stealing the intellectual property. It is a great strategy and why only Samsung and LG are now making TVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom