Here's wishing you and your family the merriest of the holliday season.

msl

• http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=8857&topicID=48

You are the only one who can label what you build a Peerless TX. There is a significant difference between that and your wild, all-encompassing claims.

You may claim what ever you want, and up to a point, it's amusing. The fact of the matter is you have no legal rights to sole ownership of the design. Sole ownership of your copies is about all you can truthfully claim.

If you think you bought something else, you were misled, and not just a little.
cheers,
Douglas

Mike is a fool for believing he has complete control over an ancient design. His tactics are the same as the last time he got into a public disagreement.

The first time I saw Jute's name mentioned on AA there was a whole lot of 'be quiet you'll wake up his ghost'. No mention of the nastiness contributed by your parts supplier Mike.

as to this one>>>What sort of silly question is this? it is obvious, and either you're blind and foolish( unlikely ), or you think it can't happen to you. Why not ask him how a CT choke works. How half the turns can have both half and a quarter the end to end inductance. Maybe another question is needed, in case Mike as actually learned something. For the record, I doubt it. The RAT war didn't teach him anything useful, chief among them being that as the last one standing, you can rewrite history to suit the story/audience at hand. Mike is a nasty control freak, and the proof is all over this forum, and RAT. If you still need his personal goodwill, and/or wish to remain one of his customers, I can see why you'd choose to ignore the truth, and actually deny it. There is no other reason to support his position, and only those who fall into those categories are doing it.

Like I said, it is quite simple.
cheers,
Douglas

:::Mike is a fool for believing he has complete control over an ancient design.:::

I try not to engage you... as I realize your starved for attention... but... I find this claim to be fascinating.

Can you offer a definition of what or when a design becomes "ancient"?

Yesterday, I was talking to a friend who is also in the audio trans business... and he prays that he never falls on your radar screen...

anyway... he suggested a practical learning plan that you should try out with your various theories...

what he suggested was for you to build "copies" (i.e., clones) of one or more of the following products...

here's an "ancient" product... so surely ALL the rights must have evaporated by now... why not build a clone Bose 901 speaker... it was originally designed in 1968. So it's approx a 37 year old design. Go buy a pair in the second hand market and then "clone" it... then start hustling your clone on the GB forum.... be sure to use Bose's name and goodwill and make sure you remind the readers of the "likeness piracy" of your 9001 clone to the original (yeah, just try to change the number a lil' bit)... be sure to try to skirt any legal issues by claiming that you've made some modifications to the original design. And, then, wait and see what Bose's reaction might bee.

Second product you might like to try cloning... try making and marketing a very thick speaker cable... make sure you show and tell the readers that it is a 'clone' or a 'copy' of the original Monster Cable (R) product that was introduced in the early seventies if my recollection is correct. Now... can't be anything proprietary about a 30 plus year old speaker cable design, can there? And given that the original cable design is thirty plus years old... that should satisfy your "ancient" requirement... so offer a group buy on GB of some Monster Cable (R) look-a-likes (no matter the age of the product) and bee real sure to use Monster Cable's (R) namesake and goodwill in promoting your "knock off" speaker cables... want to see Monster Cable's reaction? Or, do the above and say your knock off is better than the original because you are using a "better" dielectric to cover the conductors. Give it a try if you feel lucky.

Doug... you have this crazy warped notion that if you buy a product then you have acquired all the rights to the design of that product.

So... for a third test... pick up a really old (say first generation) Audio Research preamp.... clone it... bee sure to use Audio Research's namesake and be sure to tell folks that it is identical to the original except for some minor modification you've made (say a change in the volume control from a potentiometer to a stepped atten)... and then be brazen and email Audio Research a link to the offer you post on the GB forum.

All these friends of yours, all with no names, just like your goons around here. Get a grip, and try some other tactic than your old RAT BS.
cheers,
Douglas

and your only reply is to remind me that your the SECOND kook that I've bumped into after 17 years of being in business?

well... compared to bill gates... I guess at two kooks and counting I am not doing so bad...

msl

Also, why would I want to copy something I know doesn't work? But thanks for the invitation.
cheers,
Douglas

:::Also, why would I want to copy something I know doesn't work? But thanks for the invitation.:::

so... then why did you copy our xfmr design and then use our goodwill and namesake to hawk it for a profit (which you admit to doing finally)?

let me guess your next move... you improved the design radically... you weren't smart enough to design your own trans... you rip off our design... you hawk it using our name and our goodwill... and when your called on it finally...

my guess is that you'll declare that your a tranney guru\genuius and that you made the copycat version a whole lot better...

yeah... yeah... just the vacuous words of a conman...

And it is a lot better. I, and anybody else who wants one, can use it in an original circuit in ways David Sarser never anticipated. Big deal. It isn't anything you can't do as well. I invite you to do so.

There is no con BTW. besides your vacuous head that is.
cheers,
Douglas