planet10 said:
Dave,
As far as the word 'linen' is concerned, in fabric terms it only strictly refers to cloth made out of fibres from the flax plant. This has been so for a few hundred years (ie. before the US came into being, let alone the anti-hemp stance). The term 'linen' has been incorrectly applied to cloth made from hemp, wool, cotton and other things, but this is not strictly correct.
P.S. Read an article on you from the 'Times' newspaper (July 6 2008) - you're famous!!!
1st... Louis of Omega has responded to this in the past on his forum at Audiocircle. You know this is the case. You bringing this up cannot be interpreted as anything other than you pushing your agenda... the fact is you are a competitor with Omega. You are using this forum to further your business agenda, which is is absurd, sad, pathetic, and you should be banned for it.
If you can't see the conflict of interest here, you need to pull your head out of wherever you crammed it.
2nd... Your understanding of the patent application is flawed:
Item #1 refers to hemp, as in Cannibis
Item #2 refers to Manilla
It looks like BOTH Cannibis and Manilla are covered under this patent application, if the material consists of EITHER more than %50 hemp OR %50 Manilla, it is infringing on this patent, assuming it is approved. BTW, most people don't spend big $$$ applying for patents they know won't be approved. Unless you happen to be a patent lawyer, your assumption that you understand the law in this area is questionable at best.
Also... this isn't the first time you've instigated a $hitstorm with others. I wonder what Horneshoppe Ed would have to say about that? Reflect on your behavior and figure it out.
If you can't see the conflict of interest here, you need to pull your head out of wherever you crammed it.
2nd... Your understanding of the patent application is flawed:
Item #1 refers to hemp, as in Cannibis
Item #2 refers to Manilla
It looks like BOTH Cannibis and Manilla are covered under this patent application, if the material consists of EITHER more than %50 hemp OR %50 Manilla, it is infringing on this patent, assuming it is approved. BTW, most people don't spend big $$$ applying for patents they know won't be approved. Unless you happen to be a patent lawyer, your assumption that you understand the law in this area is questionable at best.
Also... this isn't the first time you've instigated a $hitstorm with others. I wonder what Horneshoppe Ed would have to say about that? Reflect on your behavior and figure it out.
Isn't it interesting how this has suddenly become regarded as a personal attack on Omega & Louis?
Let us again read what Dave wrote in the first post:
I was reading the 6moons review of the Omega SuperHemp (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/.../superhemp.html) and came across this line:
"Patented A Brown Soun Hempcone"
(and the image of the speakers in front of a lovely illustration of a cannabis plant)
So, we go to the link, and what do we find? A picture of an Omega speaker, which has an A Brown Soun built driver mounted in it, to which, in reference to the 'hemp' motif, 6moons had added an attractive picture of a cannabis plant. The reviewer later adds a few remarks WRT cannabis etc. To which Dave points out that on current evidence, this is not really the case. There appears to be no patents granted for this cone to date (I can't find one), merely an application. I've re-read this application several times now, nor can I find any reference to cannabis, unless you're going to stretch definitions and implications up to and beyond breaking point by noting on p.3 paragraphs 0006 - 0008 which refers to the word hemp without any specifics. However, as the subsequent paragraphs solely refer to 'hemp' with a manilla prefix the de facto implication is that manilla, not cannabis, is the industrial product refered to.
Now, assuming there is no cannabis (which is what hemp technically is) in these cones, the use of the term hemp without the manilla prefix is both incorrect, and potentially misleading. As would be the use of a cannabis logo, a picture of the plant, indirect references 'will smoke you' 'cannabis awareness' & so on. You will note that I'm not refering to Omega here. Nor do I see Dave attacking them. However, as a great deal is made about the cone material, Louis will probably wish to disassociate himself with any incorrect suggestions introduced by others (for e.g., cannabis references if there is no genuine hemp in them). For myself, I've never heard one of Omega's products, nor, TBH, do I have a great deal of interest in them personally, but I gather they are excellent for what they are.
As for the rest -P10 is not a competitor to Omega. Dave & Chris sell modified drivers, and do one-off custom builds of Onken loaded Fostex-based drivers & a couple of other cabinets, all of which are well documented. AFAIK, Omega do not do this, and are primarily a larger concern selling BR speakers using completely different drivers through an increasingly global network of dealers. Good luck to them too. FWIW, I suspect that seeing the cannabis drawing associated with the word hemp in that review simply acted as a catalyst for this thread, which will hopefully result in the matter being cleared up, once and for all. I might point out in closing that Dave's done a hell of a lot for the DIY community -more than you or I are ever likely to do. Which might be remembered before inferences are made that he's somehow trying to undermine companies which he has little to do with & is certainly not competing against.
Let us again read what Dave wrote in the first post:
I was reading the 6moons review of the Omega SuperHemp (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/.../superhemp.html) and came across this line:
"Patented A Brown Soun Hempcone"
(and the image of the speakers in front of a lovely illustration of a cannabis plant)
So, we go to the link, and what do we find? A picture of an Omega speaker, which has an A Brown Soun built driver mounted in it, to which, in reference to the 'hemp' motif, 6moons had added an attractive picture of a cannabis plant. The reviewer later adds a few remarks WRT cannabis etc. To which Dave points out that on current evidence, this is not really the case. There appears to be no patents granted for this cone to date (I can't find one), merely an application. I've re-read this application several times now, nor can I find any reference to cannabis, unless you're going to stretch definitions and implications up to and beyond breaking point by noting on p.3 paragraphs 0006 - 0008 which refers to the word hemp without any specifics. However, as the subsequent paragraphs solely refer to 'hemp' with a manilla prefix the de facto implication is that manilla, not cannabis, is the industrial product refered to.
Now, assuming there is no cannabis (which is what hemp technically is) in these cones, the use of the term hemp without the manilla prefix is both incorrect, and potentially misleading. As would be the use of a cannabis logo, a picture of the plant, indirect references 'will smoke you' 'cannabis awareness' & so on. You will note that I'm not refering to Omega here. Nor do I see Dave attacking them. However, as a great deal is made about the cone material, Louis will probably wish to disassociate himself with any incorrect suggestions introduced by others (for e.g., cannabis references if there is no genuine hemp in them). For myself, I've never heard one of Omega's products, nor, TBH, do I have a great deal of interest in them personally, but I gather they are excellent for what they are.
As for the rest -P10 is not a competitor to Omega. Dave & Chris sell modified drivers, and do one-off custom builds of Onken loaded Fostex-based drivers & a couple of other cabinets, all of which are well documented. AFAIK, Omega do not do this, and are primarily a larger concern selling BR speakers using completely different drivers through an increasingly global network of dealers. Good luck to them too. FWIW, I suspect that seeing the cannabis drawing associated with the word hemp in that review simply acted as a catalyst for this thread, which will hopefully result in the matter being cleared up, once and for all. I might point out in closing that Dave's done a hell of a lot for the DIY community -more than you or I are ever likely to do. Which might be remembered before inferences are made that he's somehow trying to undermine companies which he has little to do with & is certainly not competing against.
Hemp
Hi Davec113, thanks for your posts. I appreciate your support.
Everyone, please note that Planet 10 contacted me a few months back expressing a desire to begin performing modifications on my drivers. Politely, I declined. I have no desire to add cost to my product, which I feel is designed to offer maximum performance value.
Not sure if this prior conversation has anything to do with the motives of Planet 10. I will let you all decide yourselves, since I cannot speak as to what might be on his mind. I do feel that this conversation should be considered when reviewing this thread, however.
I have spoken about this several times before. Revisiting this issue is rather tiresome, especially given the prior communication with Planet 10. I would never knowingly misrepresent any element of any Omega model to any extent. I pride myself on offering great sound at a great price, and being totally upfront with everybody. I believe that I have established a very good reputation for honesty and integrity over the last 8 years.
This kind of reminds me of Planet 10's mudslinging at Ed at the Hornshoppe. This seems to be par for the course for Planet 10.
So now you know a little more about what might be going on here.
Thanks,
Louis
P.S. I am certain Eminence is quite proud of their hemp based speakers, as they are TT cones. I doubt that they would misrepresent their work, either.
Hi Davec113, thanks for your posts. I appreciate your support.
Everyone, please note that Planet 10 contacted me a few months back expressing a desire to begin performing modifications on my drivers. Politely, I declined. I have no desire to add cost to my product, which I feel is designed to offer maximum performance value.
Not sure if this prior conversation has anything to do with the motives of Planet 10. I will let you all decide yourselves, since I cannot speak as to what might be on his mind. I do feel that this conversation should be considered when reviewing this thread, however.
I have spoken about this several times before. Revisiting this issue is rather tiresome, especially given the prior communication with Planet 10. I would never knowingly misrepresent any element of any Omega model to any extent. I pride myself on offering great sound at a great price, and being totally upfront with everybody. I believe that I have established a very good reputation for honesty and integrity over the last 8 years.
This kind of reminds me of Planet 10's mudslinging at Ed at the Hornshoppe. This seems to be par for the course for Planet 10.
So now you know a little more about what might be going on here.
Thanks,
Louis
P.S. I am certain Eminence is quite proud of their hemp based speakers, as they are TT cones. I doubt that they would misrepresent their work, either.
Davec113 said:
I don't consider myself a competitor. Louis sells complete loudspeakers, i sell drivers to the diy community. The number of complete loudspeakers we sell is insignificant and composed primarily of cycling prototypes of units made to confirm their function so that diyers can build them with confidence. Louis probably sells more complete speakers in a day than we do in a year.
We are both in the tiny niche of single driver speakers, and what we each do is important to validate the niche. The better Louis does the better i do... i don't know that i'm big enuff to give him much of a boost.
I do not frequent the Omega portion of Audio Circle so i was unaware that Louis has addressed this before...
I asked the question to gain clarity. Rumours are circulating, they do no one any good.
I guess you could read it that way... the preferred recipes say manilla hemp specifically... right down to who the suppliers are.
dave
Re: Hemp
Are you sure that was not one of your customers? I have no record on any emails to you or from you before my heads up to you wrt this thread -- and i have email records going back to 1994. I have had inquiries from your customers -- nothing has come of it to this date.
I would like to see this correspondence (by private mail) just to make sure i am not going senile.
I do not contact manufacturers about modding their drivers. I do not have the capacity to handle a "larger" manufacturer like yourself.
In the case of Ed Schilling, he asked me, and then at a later date i responded to incorrect assertions made by him. It did get a little carried away i am sad to say.
Well now that you know that the technology is not patented maybe you should change that bit to patent pending.
And my question as to whether the TT cones are made using the preferred formulation (ie nowith manilla hemp) or a different receipe using real hemp remains unanswered.
It would please me to no end if indeed it was the latter.
dave
omegaspeakers said:
Are you sure that was not one of your customers? I have no record on any emails to you or from you before my heads up to you wrt this thread -- and i have email records going back to 1994. I have had inquiries from your customers -- nothing has come of it to this date.
I would like to see this correspondence (by private mail) just to make sure i am not going senile.
I do not contact manufacturers about modding their drivers. I do not have the capacity to handle a "larger" manufacturer like yourself.
In the case of Ed Schilling, he asked me, and then at a later date i responded to incorrect assertions made by him. It did get a little carried away i am sad to say.
Well now that you know that the technology is not patented maybe you should change that bit to patent pending.
And my question as to whether the TT cones are made using the preferred formulation (ie nowith manilla hemp) or a different receipe using real hemp remains unanswered.
It would please me to no end if indeed it was the latter.
dave
This kind of reminds me of Planet 10's mudslinging at Ed at the Hornshoppe. This seems to be par for the course for Planet 10.
I have never known Dave to mudsling without due cause. Heck dave and chris even pointed out my errors in the past. Its all a learning thing. Now if we can just tackle Bo$e and their ad management.
ron
(sings" leaving on a jet plane")
Laters gators
I have never known Dave to mudsling without due cause. Heck dave and chris even pointed out my errors in the past. Its all a learning thing. Now if we can just tackle Bo$e and their ad management.
ron
(sings" leaving on a jet plane")
Laters gators
Hi Dave,
I understand that we are not in competition with one another and no ill will to you at all. I'm by no means a large company. I try my best and also I feel very passionate with my product. I do believe in value and it reflects in my range. I also take pride in being part of all aspects of my speakers. I design them; build them and also designed OEM drivers at considerable costs. I'm very happy with the result and most happy in this profession.
In regards to hemp and using cannabis as a logo or any part of my literature, I don't. My cones are hemp fiber. This is all I say.
I will follow up again with John about the issue of Cannabis as I have repeated over and over in the past. I will do so again.
I'm happy to do this. I do say Patented on the site and it's something that will be changed to Patent Pending. This is not a problem.
I was contacted by Bud.
Thanks,
Louis
I understand that we are not in competition with one another and no ill will to you at all. I'm by no means a large company. I try my best and also I feel very passionate with my product. I do believe in value and it reflects in my range. I also take pride in being part of all aspects of my speakers. I design them; build them and also designed OEM drivers at considerable costs. I'm very happy with the result and most happy in this profession.
In regards to hemp and using cannabis as a logo or any part of my literature, I don't. My cones are hemp fiber. This is all I say.
I will follow up again with John about the issue of Cannabis as I have repeated over and over in the past. I will do so again.
I'm happy to do this. I do say Patented on the site and it's something that will be changed to Patent Pending. This is not a problem.
I was contacted by Bud.
Thanks,
Louis
omegaspeakers said:
Now that makes sense (note that i am one of Bud's licensees, and hope he does well. He has some of our speakers (George Wright's Bamboo Fonkens on loan), and we are helping him with some other experiemntal cabinets & vica versa, but other than that planet10-hifi is completely separate). If you ever decide to try out the tech, i'm happy to share what i've learned from a (small) production POV. It would make sense for Bud to do any prototypes or evaluation units. If after that, you decided to go ahead, it would only make sense to bring the tech in-house -- my experience is that once you try it, it is hard to live without. Most of the cost is labour(some of my drivers require basket stiffening which takes more time). Licencing (to Bud, nothing to do with me) & materials are not onerous.
dave
from a friendly query into a foray..
Ok, boys and girls, let's start behaving.
Louis
If any here might be considered a competitor to A Brown Soun, I might be. I do have a somewhat loose association with Perry@ Hemp Acoustics, and have tried to help out with some DIY support.
Regarding the "airing dirty laundry" and comments regarding public discussion and disclosure of some of the facts, I did receive an email from Louis (more than a year ago, and unfortunately I've changed computers and operating systems, PC to Mac), but may not be able to find it. Louis also indicating that he didn't want to enter into public arguments , and I have honoured that.
Concerning a patent, an application is not a granted patent. Applying does nothing to protect the applicant. If patent pending status is granted, then effectively, the patent has merit and upon completion of the administrative process WILL be granted.
Dave's initial comment, and hence this thread was in response to the use of a Cannabis sativa image being used as part of PR and in an article, whether on A Brown Soun's website, or in an online review. It is somewhat misleading, if C.sativa is not present in the product. And that was the point. No need to through gallons of gas on a fire, when a few ounces of water is all that's needed.
As per mudslinging, a couple of things need to be looked at (and with my association , real, loose, imagined or otherwise I 'm a little familiar with mudslinging).
Mudslinging is only that if it is untrue. It also tends to get very personal. So as long as the goal is the same, for example some clarity of thought and directed specific questions, then mudslinging is not an issue.
I do have a few further thoughts, but I must stop here, as it seems this rather innocent comment from Dave has created a new monster....
and now to Scottmoose and Rec1
Originally posted by REC1 Now if we can just tackle Bo$e and their ad management.
Now that would be accomplishing something.
peace
stew
Ok, boys and girls, let's start behaving.
Louis
If any here might be considered a competitor to A Brown Soun, I might be. I do have a somewhat loose association with Perry@ Hemp Acoustics, and have tried to help out with some DIY support.
Regarding the "airing dirty laundry" and comments regarding public discussion and disclosure of some of the facts, I did receive an email from Louis (more than a year ago, and unfortunately I've changed computers and operating systems, PC to Mac), but may not be able to find it. Louis also indicating that he didn't want to enter into public arguments , and I have honoured that.
Concerning a patent, an application is not a granted patent. Applying does nothing to protect the applicant. If patent pending status is granted, then effectively, the patent has merit and upon completion of the administrative process WILL be granted.
Dave's initial comment, and hence this thread was in response to the use of a Cannabis sativa image being used as part of PR and in an article, whether on A Brown Soun's website, or in an online review. It is somewhat misleading, if C.sativa is not present in the product. And that was the point. No need to through gallons of gas on a fire, when a few ounces of water is all that's needed.
As per mudslinging, a couple of things need to be looked at (and with my association , real, loose, imagined or otherwise I 'm a little familiar with mudslinging).
Mudslinging is only that if it is untrue. It also tends to get very personal. So as long as the goal is the same, for example some clarity of thought and directed specific questions, then mudslinging is not an issue.
I do have a few further thoughts, but I must stop here, as it seems this rather innocent comment from Dave has created a new monster....
and now to Scottmoose and Rec1
Originally posted by REC1 Now if we can just tackle Bo$e and their ad management.
Now that would be accomplishing something.
peace
stew
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.