It gets more complicated than this, but that is the general idea. The "laches" (unlike the "latch" on a door) doctrine, which isn't specific to IP, is kind of like a non-statutory "statute of limitations." Basically, if you wait too long to sue someone, and you knew of the wrongdoing, you can't sue anymore. I'm not an IP lawyer (certainly not in the jurisdictions mentioned), and I don't know the facts here. If I'm totally off-base, enlighten me, pls. But based on the info that I've gleaned, and based on Kondo-san's own account of what happened, it seems like Kondo-san had the rug pulled from under his feet unfairly. Both Peter Qvortrop & Audio Note UK seem to enjoy a healthy level of respect and credibility in the hi-fi world, so it's highly likely that I'm not getting the other side of the story, which is why I've started this thread. From Kondo's post on AA, it seems that PQ was merely an UK distributor, and if Kondo-san's allegations are true, it would seem that PQ's usurpation of the Audio Note name and design philosophy would be regarded as morally suspect, at the very least? Again, I don't claim to know the whole story so this question is merely speculative. I'm still curious as to how PQ could legally and successfully claim the Audio Note brand and name, and operate a company based on Kondo's designs. Seems that he was a man of rarefied & delicate sensibilities, able to discern and intuit elements in music that most of us cannot. Thanks for the link to the Kondo interview, JA. so, who's the genuine Audio Note, the real deal, soundwise? Plus, I heard that now Kondo & Audio Note UK products sound pretty different, even with the adherence to same design principles. If you work in the industry or are a writer & need to be politically correct & not sound off on this matter, pls feel free to PM me or email me at I'm genuinely curious. Can any of you explain to me how this could happen? Is it simply because Kondo was so naive as to not having had his designs and ideas patented & copyrighted? Even if so, how does Qvortrop have enough legitimacy in using much of Kondo's ideas & branding to build Audio Note as HIS brand and not lose his credibility in the world of hi-fi? Very interesting & I'd love to learn the history behind this, as it seems more twisted than Kondo's AA post lets on. Ongaku, IO cartridges, etc etc., when it seems, clearly, it was Kondo who came up with these designs & names. It's all the more bizarre to me that Audio Note UK uses the same design principles and model nomenclatures as Kondo, i.e. What the hell happened? I found this politely salty posting by Kondo on AA, but is there more than meets the eye? I find it bizarre how Kondo, who created & built the brand Audio Note, conceded the use of the brand "Audio Note" to Qvortrop. Somebody should write a dissertation on the history of contentious catfights among audio designers, because God knows there is a wealth of supporting material out there! So many divas in this hobby, I swear.Īnyway, I was wondering about the split between Hiroyasu Kondo and Peter Qvortrop, one operating as Kondo and the other as Audio Note.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |