http://www.miragespeakers.com/mediac...RVERRelease.pd
f

"Audio Products International confirmed today that the company's
recent successful verdict in a U.S. patent lawsuit, brought against
them by Robert W. Carver, is now final.

"On April 3, 2003, a jury of the Federal Court in Seattle invalidated
all patent claims asserted against Audio Products by Mr. Carver.
During a two and a half week trial, the jury considered Mr.
Carver's allegations that Audio Products had infringed certain
claims of two of his U.S. patents relating to small box subwoofer
technology.

"The Court entered judgment in Audio Products' favor on April 15,
2003. Carver also failed in an attempt to have the judge overturn
the jury's findings and subsequently declined to appeal the
decision. The Court will be awarding costs to Audio Products.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

http://www.miragespeakers.com/mediac...RVERRelease.pd
f

"Audio Products International confirmed today that the company's
recent successful verdict in a U.S. patent lawsuit, brought against
them by Robert W. Carver, is now final.

"On April 3, 2003, a jury of the Federal Court in Seattle invalidated

I haven't followed this, and can't get to the article.
Did you follow the case, and is it your opinion that Carver's claims were
without merit?

Robert Morein said:

[snip]

I have a question about the subject. How, and why, did Carver get a
desert or deserts? Which ones -- big ones like the Atacama or Sahara,
or little ones like they have in Utah? And how are the deserts seen to
be "just"? I've never heard of an unjust desert, so does that mean it
was very easy to find ones that are "just"?

George M. Middius wrote:


Robert Morein said:

[snip]

I have a question about the subject. How, and why, did Carver get a
desert or deserts? Which ones -- big ones like the Atacama or Sahara,
or little ones like they have in Utah? And how are the deserts seen to
be "just"? I've never heard of an unjust desert, so does that mean it
was very easy to find ones that are "just"?












It sounds like the writer of the post about just deserts is having Lawrence of
Arabia style aspirations. (I recommend the soundtrack from Lawrence of Arabia*
- a very well done score by Maurice Jarre)*
Or it could be that he just likes to gtive human qualities to inanimate
objects. Hasn't he also said that Google and/or his computer talk to him? His
current concerns with justice may also reflect his current legal problems.


*Obligatory audio reference - audio post.



Bruce J. Richman

On 06 Dec 2003 16:58:18 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman)
wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:


Robert Morein said:

[snip]

I have a question about the subject. How, and why, did Carver get a
desert or deserts? Which ones -- big ones like the Atacama or Sahara,
or little ones like they have in Utah? And how are the deserts seen to
be "just"? I've never heard of an unjust desert, so does that mean it
was very easy to find ones that are "just"?












It sounds like the writer of the post about just deserts is having Lawrence of
Arabia style aspirations. (I recommend the soundtrack from Lawrence of Arabia*
- a very well done score by Maurice Jarre)*
Or it could be that he just likes to gtive human qualities to inanimate
objects. Hasn't he also said that Google and/or his computer talk to him? His
current concerns with justice may also reflect his current legal problems.

No, maybe he's back to talking about the military. Perhaps he's trying
to tell us something about his record?

(Yes, I can take a page from the Arnold Krueger Handbook of Divisive
Discourse)

dave weil said:

I have a question about the subject. How, and why, did Carver get a
desert or deserts? Which ones -- big ones like the Atacama or Sahara,
or little ones like they have in Utah? And how are the deserts seen to
be "just"? I've never heard of an unjust desert, so does that mean it
was very easy to find ones that are "just"?

Or it could be that he just likes to gtive human qualities to inanimate
objects. Hasn't he also said that Google and/or his computer talk to him? His
current concerns with justice may also reflect his current legal problems.

No, maybe he's back to talking about the military. Perhaps he's trying
to tell us something about his record?

It's too bad Krooger is such a coward. Otherwise, he'd have had the
stones to shoot himself in the foot in order to get sent home.


(Yes, I can take a page from the Arnold Krueger Handbook of Divisive
Discourse)

Speaking of which, Turdborg is still worshiping at the altar of
Blaming One's Enemies. As he whined to Earl Geddes after grossly
misunderstanding a simple explanation:

One of these days Earl you're going to learn that communications failures
reflect on both the reader and the writer.

Not everything written in English is perfectly understood by all competent
readers of English.

In other words, when Krooger fails to explain himself properly and
somebody misunderstands him, it's the other person's fault for not
listening Kroofully enough. Similarly, when Krooger fails to
understand somebody, it's the other person's fault for not explaining
in stupid enough terms.

How, and why, did Carver get a
desert or deserts? Which ones -- big ones like the Atacama or Sahara,
or little ones like they have in Utah?

Obviously, he's referring to little ones. That's why they're called "just"
deserts. As in "just" little ones. See?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


http://www.miragespeakers.com/mediac...RVERRelease.pd
f

"Audio Products International confirmed today that the company's
recent successful verdict in a U.S. patent lawsuit, brought against
them by Robert W. Carver, is now final.

"On April 3, 2003, a jury of the Federal Court in Seattle invalidated

I haven't followed this, and can't get to the article.

There's also one on the Stereophile site.

Did you follow the case,

To some degree.

and is it your opinion that Carver's claims were without merit?

For sure. IMO Carver was bullying small subwoofer producers to pay him
royalties on a patent that ignored an unreasonable amount of prior art. For
example, Carver claimed that his patent covered all woofers with Xmax of a
certain amount, say 0.6 inches. (I can't remember the precise amount.) Yet
Carver himself had developed and sold speakers that incorporated woofers
with Xmax greater than 0.6 inches prior to his patent being applied for. So
had a number of major competitors. It was a ludicrous patent. The patent
office's examiners seem to have become more liberal in recent years.

AFAIK, Carver's strategy for this patent was to demand royalties from first
small, and then increasingly large speaker manufacturers. Obviously, the
small producers caved-in regardless of what they thought of the patent,
because it was cheaper to pay the royalties than to pay the lawyers to fight
it. API were the first people approached by Carver who thought they had
enough volume to justify the costs of fighting the patent.

BTW Bose has been known to take a similar approach. However, many of their
patents seem to have greater merits.

IMO API deserves a big "Thanks" from all audiophiles and speaker
manufactures for obtaining a reasonable court decision that benefits
*everybody* (but Carver!) at their own expense.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:




"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


http://www.miragespeakers.com/mediac...RVERRelease.pd
f

"Audio Products International confirmed today that the company's
recent successful verdict in a U.S. patent lawsuit, brought against
them by Robert W. Carver, is now final.

"On April 3, 2003, a jury of the Federal Court in Seattle invalidated

I haven't followed this, and can't get to the article.

There's also one on the Stereophile site.

Did you follow the case,

To some degree.

and is it your opinion that Carver's claims were without merit?

For sure. IMO Carver was bullying small subwoofer producers to pay him
royalties on a patent that ignored an unreasonable amount of prior art. For
example, Carver claimed that his patent covered all woofers with Xmax of a
certain amount, say 0.6 inches. (I can't remember the precise amount.) Yet
Carver himself had developed and sold speakers that incorporated woofers
with Xmax greater than 0.6 inches prior to his patent being applied for. So
had a number of major competitors. It was a ludicrous patent. The patent
office's examiners seem to have become more liberal in recent years.

AFAIK, Carver's strategy for this patent was to demand royalties from first
small, and then increasingly large speaker manufacturers. Obviously, the
small producers caved-in regardless of what they thought of the patent,
because it was cheaper to pay the royalties than to pay the lawyers to fight
it. API were the first people approached by Carver who thought they had
enough volume to justify the costs of fighting the patent.

BTW Bose has been known to take a similar approach. However, many of their
patents seem to have greater merits.

IMO API deserves a big "Thanks" from all audiophiles and speaker
manufactures for obtaining a reasonable court decision that benefits
*everybody* (but Carver!) at their own expense.

Yes they do. But, my understanding is that there were other manufacturers on
the 'defense' team.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...



http://www.miragespeakers.com/mediac...RVERRelease.pd
f

[snip]

IMO API deserves a big "Thanks" from all audiophiles and speaker
manufactures for obtaining a reasonable court decision that benefits
*everybody* (but Carver!) at their own expense.

I agree.

Robert Morein said:

a reasonable court decision

I agree.

Isn't it peculiar that Krooger has a deep emotional investment in a
civil case that has nothing to do with him, but he completely ignored
one that will cost him thousands of dollars?

I mean peculiar for a sane human being, of course. For Krooger, I
guess this dichotomy is par for the fantasia course.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said:

a reasonable court decision

I agree.

Isn't it peculiar that Krooger has a deep emotional investment in a
civil case that has nothing to do with him, but he completely ignored
one that will cost him thousands of dollars?

I mean peculiar for a sane human being, of course. For Krooger, I
guess this dichotomy is par for the fantasia course.

Yes, but I'd like to know what happened to that case.
Did it just fizzle?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Robert Morein said:

a reasonable court decision

I agree.

Isn't it peculiar that Krooger has a deep emotional investment in a
civil case that has nothing to do with him, but he completely ignored
one that will cost him thousands of dollars?

Wrong on several counts.

Bob, I'm beginning to think you seriously thought you were going to win your
suit against Drexel University.

Now that's scary!