Replicant 100 stylus

Dear ''high level humorist'' , ''digression '' about whatever ''subject''

does not mean more clarity. So preconception about ''reference of

an name'' does not warrant identitity of an entity. Certainly not when

producer try to hide the origine of an product. Think of my example

with  ''Glanz'' and '' Astatic''. The inventor ( patent) is Mitachi company

in Japan who invented MF technology while ''Glanz'' and ''Astatic''

suggested their own product . So Raul was convinced that Astatic

made its own cartridges. BTW Van den Hul and Gyger have had

lawsuit about patents. What we are trying to do is provide right

information. We lack the right information about Replicant and

this was my reason to start this thread.

In relation to the Replicant 100, all that surrounds this that is not made known to the Consumer, is the Companies IP and this information may never be offered at a level where the source of the information is the undoubted authority on the matter.

Any other speculation is 'here say' and can inaccuracies woven into the descriptions being offered.

As said before the critical dimensions and Tip Shape 'may' be the only safe method to carry out the comparisons between the differing Styli from the Brands referred to, but are these dimensions on offer from all parties about their product ?  

pinda, I suggested to you to start your own thread. I think that you

needless extend our ''subject'' to other subjects which are not

relevant for our questions about Replicant. We are not investigating

Fritz Gyger and the question if ''someone'' produce ''those'' nor are

we investigating ''patent laws'' which imply national legislation

according to ''territorial principle'' ; each country on its own except

Europen  '' bundle patent law'' which apply for each member of the

agreement. You can also not extend American duration of 20 years

to all countries. One need to know Chinese rules about ''intellectual

ownership'' instead to assume that American legislation apply

to China and then accuse China  of ''breaking the patent law'' in general .

OK @nandric I am receiving loud and clear,  I don't need a new thread to commence, I will not offer any further input to this thread unless I discover if  ' Expert stylus (Paratrace) provide them to the other mentioned '.

In the opening Post beyond the claim that a correction may be needed, there are references to Five Brands and Five differing Stylus Form/Models from those Brands, that does not steer one towards a specific subject matter about a Specific Stylus Form, the Thread has evolved into a multi faceted 'pardon the pun' range of discussion.

As I explained in my introduction 3 persons looking true microscope

were not able to see any difference between Paratrace, Replicant

and stylus in London Decca. This imply that ''someone'' must produced

this stylus. ''Someone'' is existential quantifier because ''lt'' assume

existence of some object or entity. There this name Pegasus which

assumes existence of an flying  horse. We somehow know that this

animal does not exists. Logical  reading of this quantifier is that the

statement which entail this expression is true if at least  one object

satisfy condition ''some''. More than one is also welcome.

You stated : ''I am open to be corrected''. 

Really? 

Well which question are you trying to answer?