• THIS IS THE 25th ANNIVERSARY YEAR FOR THE LES PAUL FORUM! PLEASE CELEBRATE WITH US AND SUPPORT US WITH A DONATION TO KEEP US GOING! We've made a large financial investment to convert the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and now have to move to a new host. We also have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!
  • WE HAVE MOVED THE LES PAUL FORUM TO A NEW HOSTING PROVIDER! Let us know how things are going! Many thanks, Mike Slubowski, Admin
  • We're having some "break in" period issues with our new email system provider - the Achilles Heel of our conversion to a new hosting site. Please give us some time to resolve this. Thanks and apologies.

Weber Legacy Speakers (Scumbacks?)

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
According to T.A. Weber, Scumback doesn't know the build formula used to make those speakers. Jim tried to get TA to give him the formula over a lunch in Kokomo. TA realized that Scumback wanted to have the speakers produced by someone else in California, and was unwilling to give up any secrets. TA was suspicious that Scumback was attempting to hire away the main Weber speaker building technician, who obviously would also know the secrets.
 

63sg

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
311
Didn't he also say something about how there might have been emails detailing a proprietary speaker agreement after all (there's one posted on the Metro board from Ted discussing it), and that Scumback was hiring some guy from Russia to build speakers?

Seems like TA's story keeps changing. And if Scumback was unhappy with the quality control and extended lead times, why would he hire one of TA's builders? None of that makes any sense.
 

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
And if Scumback was unhappy with the quality control and extended lead times, why would he hire one of TA's builders? None of that makes any sense.

Perhaps he was fine with their QC, but just wanted to reduce his cost?
Or he could hire TA's speaker builder to teach others to build and increase the production rate.
 

edgewound

New member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
23
Perhaps he was fine with their QC, but just wanted to reduce his cost?
Or he could hire TA's speaker builder to teach others to build and increase the production rate.

Products that fail right out of the box is not good QC. That seemed to be a relatively recent and frequent event.
 

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
Products that fail right out of the box is not good QC. That seemed to be a relatively recent and frequent event.

What kind of failures? Open voice coils? Voice coil rubs? Uncharged magnets? Or did customers smoke speakers with too much current?
 

GlassSnuff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3,693
Here is the explanation from TA Weber's viewpoint, which he posted recently:

http://www.tedsforums.com/forum/index.php?topic=8485.0

Al
In reading these threads, you will see many people assume there must have been some agreement of exclusivity. It's just common sense. The way things are done. For T A Weber to refuse such an agreement to Jim Seavall is absurd.

An engineer will tell a technician what to do, and the tech builds a prototype. Happens all the time. The tech doesn't become the owner of anything. I haven't seen any evidence that Ted performed as anything other than a technician, conforming to Jim's specs.

Cutting off Jim's supply, and selling the speakers at "warehouse direct" prices, is simply uncool. No class, there.
 

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
In reading these threads, you will see many people assume there must have been some agreement of exclusivity. It's just common sense. The way things are done. For T A Weber to refuse such an agreement to Jim Seavall is absurd.

You assume there is an agreement, but offer no proof. TA has posted that there is no agreement, because that's not the way Weber did business. Jim has posted that no speaker manufacturer was interested in doing business with him except Weber. So Jim had no choice other than to go to Weber and do business without an agreement. Without the agreement, both parties are free to do whatever they want.
 

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
That e-mail is not a contract. It doesn't specify anything. So the parties are free to do as they like. Jim tried to take speaker manufacturing business away from Weber, and Weber decided to market the speakers themselves. It's really that simple.
 

63sg

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
311
You don't think the term "proprietary" is indicative of Ted's & TA's intentions? And how do you know for sure Scumback tried to take his business away from Weber?
 

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
You don't think the term "proprietary" is indicative of Ted's & TA's intentions? And how do you know for sure Scumback tried to take his business away from Weber?

They had an informal agreement (not a legal contract) that they would do business as long as both sides were happy. Jim pissed TA off by making the moves to take his business away......according to TA.
 

1fastdog

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
683
One never knows.

Wasn't the reason the speakers were originally brought about was to go into finished amplifiers? Maybe not specificied as raw speakers for sale?

Companies commonly collaborate on inventions. Each company might end up being a part owner of the patent. Each company would be free to use or license the invention without being accountable to the other companies. Before collaborating with other companies, businesses should execute a written agreement setting forth each company's rights to the invention.

The actual inventor has the rights to their invention unless their employment contract requires assignment of the person's inventions while being employed. It's customary that that agreement comes prior to any invention work.
 

1fastdog

New member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
683
http://forum.metroamp.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=36267

Definition of PROPRIETARY
: one that possesses, owns, or holds exclusive right to something; specifically

Hate to nitpick, but the comment in that e-mail is that it "can" be proprietary, not that it is... It also references one speaker, not a line of speakers. It also states something "different" will need to be done...

I'm not saying a written agreement doesn't exist post that e-mail, just saying that particular e-mail is not a meeting of the minds, thus not a contract...:hmm IMO.
 

63sg

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
311
They had an informal agreement (not a legal contract) that they would do business as long as both sides were happy. Jim pissed TA off by making the moves to take his business away......according to TA.

Not quite sure what "happiness" was involved. Weber manufactured the Scumbacks for Scumback, and got paid for it. What if the reverse were true, meaning Weber was going to take the business from Scumback?
 

GlassSnuff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3,693
You assume there is an agreement, but offer no proof.
Read it again, I'm not assuming anything. :2cool

It's one thing for Jim and Ted to work together informally. Ted was the kind of guy you could trust. It's quite something else for Ted's son to deny Jim the understood exclusivity. It gets worse when he takes it upon himself to do exactly what Jim assumed his father wouldn't do. That makes T A the kind of guy you can't trust.

Mind you, I'm looking at this as someone shopping for an OEM supplier. If you're just buying one speaker at a time, then Weber's shenanigans likely will have no effect on you and your take on this might be quite different.

Personally, I'm pleased Jim is going out on his own. We now have a truly boutique supplier of quality speakers.
 

Diablo1

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
597
That makes T A the kind of guy you can't trust.

How do you come to that conclusion if Jim was shopping around 1st for other suppliers, and wanted the Weber know-how to have the speakers built by those other suppliers?
 

GlassSnuff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3,693
Hate to nitpick, but the comment in that e-mail is that it "can" be proprietary, not that it is...
True, but it does put TA Weber's claim, "We did not and never have had any "signed" exclusivity agreement with anyone...." in a different light. TA makes it sound like it was a company policy, Ted's email shows he was amenable to such an agreement.

You'll also note Ted isn't contesting Jim's claim to the ownership of the speaker design. :hmm
 

GlassSnuff

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3,693
How do you come to that conclusion if Jim was shopping around 1st for other suppliers, and wanted the Weber know-how to have the speakers built by those other suppliers?
Jim wouldn't have been doing that if TA Weber had been able to supply the product. Weber failed. Period.

(And that may look like an assumption, but I'll let Jim tell his own story.)
 
Top