HiFi Nut:
I think your topic is definitely of interest to the audio hobbyist and should not be considered off-topic, especially in the "Everything Else" section.
I must disagree with you, however, about the idea that Bob Carver is trying to patent the "integrated amplifier". I went to the other forum you mentioned in your first post, and got a link to Carver's integrated amplifier. Here it is:
(
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
Most amplifiers seem to be composed of two sections: the power supply and the amplifier section. In most amplifiers, the power supply produces a steady DC current, + or - 30 volts or whatever. It stays more or less steady, regardless of what the audio signal does. This steady voltage is fed to the amplifier section, which varies up and down with the audio signal.
Carver's integrated amplifier varies up and down with the audio signal. This is a big difference from most amplifiers' design.
In addition, mention is made of pulses, which usually don't exist in common amplifier design, unless you are talking about the rectified waveform, which I don't think Carver is in this patent.
I realize that certain Class A amps also vary the power supply with audio signal to some extent. As you may have guessed, I am not that well versed in amplifier design to say whether or not his design is so very different from these other manufacturers. But it might be. From your post, I would get the idea that Carver was trying to patent putting the preamp and the amp together in one unit, which he is not trying to do.
It looks to me that Carver's design might well be unique enough to merit a patent. At any rate, it looks like it might be a close, arguable thing.
I have not read the patent on speaker/enclosure for the Sunfire subwoofer. Most of the consternation seems to be about those patents. But the amplifier patent, at first glance, does not appear to be a gross miscarriage, at least that I can see.
