Talk:Telefunken

Ball Mouse

According to Bill Buxton's webpage on input devices the first ball mouse was invented at Telefunken. Worthy of inclusion on the webpage? Bill Buxton is quite a big name in human-computer interface design, this is not some random anecdote. 213.101.209.9 (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Zappa

Paragraph about Frank Zappa and his predilection for Neumann/Telefunken mics is trivia for the musician and not germane to this article. But it is important to note that Telefunken distributed Neumann mics for a time. Shadowhillway 21:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Split

I suggest this article be split with a disambiguation page —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have thrown a lot out in order to bring some semblance of being an article to this verbal hodgepodge, but a rewrite is still badly needed, thanks. Maikel 15:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

07-June-2007: After working months on translating German articles for WP, I have smoothed most obvious word-order issues, added sections for Notes/References, and retagged as simple "cleanup" (was "cleanup-rewrite"). The German people/place names were partially auto-translated and should be undone (such as "brown" undone to "Braun"):

• rename "George Count von Arco" as appropriate;
• link suburbs: Berlin Kreuzberg, Berlin-Moabit, etc.;
• un-code street names;
• smooth word order as "subject-activity-timing" with long time-period phrases at the end (such as "years 1970 to nearly 1985").

Perhaps the top paragraphs should be expanded as in a disambiguation page; however, I think all variations of "Telefunken GmbH" or "Telefunken|USA" should be listed in the article, rather than put in a separate disambiguation page, because "Telefunken" is the company or brand name, with no other meanings outside the article. -Wikid77 05:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Telefunken Kompass Sender

This article is currently an orphan. I'm pretty sure it could be deorphanned by linking from this page but as I know nothing about this subject can someone here insert the link for me. Cheers Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Zappa, etc

Okay, who put in "Telefunken is so funny because it sounds rude."? ;c)

I would argue the Zappa quote [from "Crew Slut", on "Joe's Garage"] is, at least in its short form, notable as it's [IMO] the biggest cultural reference to the trademark, even if Zappa's own predilections for German recording equipment is outside the scope of this article. 92.62.2.239 (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One line in a song doesn't make for notability. A whole song, a song title—that would be notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking it out until someone comes up with a better way to type it, because without going to here, you have no idea wtf its talking about.Thakmere (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted some propaganda

In addition, in occupied areas of the Baltic and in Poland at Tallinn, Riga, Krakau, floats and Lodz works were established also with forced laborers. The tube mill Lodz was shifted in 1944 with the staff from Ulm.

The Baltic countries were liberated in 1941, not occupied. Maybe you watched too much of your History Channel. Tens of thousand of volunteers joined the German Armed Forces. WWII Germany's Nazi's never liberated anything except the Jew's pocketbooks...and their lives.

What do you mean with "tube mill Lodz .. was shifted .. from Ulm"? Does this give us a impression of your intellectual capability?

How do you define a "Forced Laborer" and is their any proof for this claim? Are German POWs and Volga Germans, who performed field labor on US farms or mining labor in Soviet Gulag Death Camps Forced Laborers? (Yes, so what's your problem?) What criteria does make a paid Polish employee a Forced Laborer? The military administration of Poland? Or Polish propaganda? (Their national sport)

* Pure hard small Arendt: The radio station Nauen with Berlin. In: Ulrich van the Heyden, Joachim Zeller (Hg.) „… Power and portion of the world domination. “Berlin and the German colonialism. Unrast publishing house. Münster 2005, ISBN 3-89771-024-2.

Eloborates like this from anti-German propagandists always gives one the impression that they put the word "German" in place of "British", "French", "American" or "Russian"/"Soviet" with their formal, respectively informal Empires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.68.63 (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Nazi Germany's presence in the Baltics and elsewhere was certainly an occupation; it was initially perceived by many people in the Baltic countries a liberation from the Soviet occupation that preceded (which included forced deportations of tens of thousans of civilians to Siberia by the Soviet army), and after the Baltic nations were reoccupied by the Soviet Union, its narrative was then one of liberation from Nazis, also termed 'Fascists' by the Soviet Union. The Soviet occupation itself did not end until about early 1990s; independence of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia was restored between 1990–1991, and the last Soviet/Russian armed forces left the Baltics in 1994.
• The use of forced labour by the Nazi regime is not disputed, and multiple citations of reliable sources should offer the best overview of what happened and where.
• That numerous volunteers from Baltic countries joined the German armed forces to fight and repel Soviet forces is accurate, as well as the fact that many were conscripted without any recourse just as they happened to reach the age deemed fit for service and had not left their respective countries. Conscriptions also happened under the Soviet occupations before and after. -Mardus (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Felix Sandman 1928-2011

A film of this remarkable man's life shows that his Vishay company bought Telefunken (I don't know the date) and gives an important reason why he was keen to do so. While it may possibly be right that the reason should be unguessable, the fact of Vishay ownership (supported by other sources) surely cannot be ignored in this 'history'. 94.70.78.104 (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Tom Nicholson, 28 July 2011

German radio patents section

I removed the following section from the article added by Tangledweb60 on 2013-09-12 ([1]). It did not became clear (to me) why this is important in the article. I think it needs to be trimmed considerably and otherwise worked on before it could be reincorporated into the article. Feel free to comment on it:

The German Radio Patents (The History of Certain Important Patents Seized During the War, and Now Released for General Use)

One of the outstanding events in the radio patent field took place Oct. 30, 1924, when the Navy Department decided to issue licenses to approximately sixty independent radio manufacturers under 129 German patents seized by the Alien Property Custodian during the World War. (WWI)

Early in 1923, application had been filed, but no decisive action was taken by the Washington authorities. The cooperation of Congressman Fred Britten of Chicago, the National Association of Broadcasters, and the Radio Manufacturers' Association was enlisted.

The majority of the patents and applications involved were originally owned by the Telefunken Company, a German corporation. Among their patents is the controlling patent covering tuned radio frequency amplification - the well-known Wilhelm Schloemilch and Otto von Bronk patent. Under a series of contracts, the first dated Feb. 21, 1913, substantial rights in these patents and applications were assigned by the Telefunken Company to the Atlantic Communication Company, a German corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York.

Under the provision of the Trading With The Enemy Act, as amended, the Alien Property Custodian seized all right, title, and interest in and to these letters patent and application, which remained in the Telefunken Company, and simultaneously took over the Atlantic Communication Company.

Under the provisions of the Trading With The Enemy Act, as amended, the Alien Property Custodian on Feb. 5, 1919, sold to the Secretary of the Navy, representing the United States, all right, title, and interest in and to the said patents, which had been vested in the Atlantic Communication Company and acquired by him from it. Next day the Custodian also sold to the Secretary of the Navy all right, title, and interest in and to the patents and applications which had remained in the Telefunken Company after the assignment to the Atlantic Communication Company, and which had been acquired by the Custodian.

These sales were outright, without any limitations, and covered all the rights acquired by the Government. The sale expressly includes "the sole and exclusive right, license and authority to manufacture or cause to be manufactured within the United States, its Territories and dependencies, and within the Republic of Cuba, and the right to sell and install, to use and to grant the right to use..."

The Sale Is Legal

There is no question about the legality of sales of this nature. Title to property so acquired vests in the United States, The Attorney General has so decided.

It is also established that the grant of a revocable, non-exclusive license to use patents valuable to the manufacture of radio apparatus is well within the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy.

On Aug. 5, 1920, the Secretary of the Navy granted to the International Radio Telegraph Company a non-exclusive, irrevocable license, without royalty, to make, use, and sell for the purposes and to the extent which the department has the right to do the inventions covered by the patents.

The theory on which the independent manufacturers requested grant of license was that such grant would tend to advance the welfare of the people of the United States and would promote a healthy competition in the manufacture and sale of radio apparatus; that to withhold such license would tend to injure the public welfare by tending to promote monopoly contrary to the policy declared by the Sherman Act; that the denial of the license to the applicants would make the International Radio Telegraph Company the only licensee, which would be inconsistent with governmental policy as to monopoly.

As a part consideration for granting the license, the independent radio manufacturers agreed to grant to the United States of America, represented by the Secretary of the Navy, a non-transferable, non-exclusive license under United States letters patent which they now own or may hereafter own during the term of the agreement, to make or have made for it and use for governmental purposes apparatus utilizing or embodying the inventions of their patents, but not for sale.

It is claimed that this grant of license by the Navy Department to the independent radio manufacturers will completely change the complexion of patent litigation.

One of the chief obstacles to the greatest development of the industry is thus removed. The complexities of the radio patent situation have been minimized.

A "muffler" or "blocking" tube is a vacuum tube used in a special circuit to eliminate radiation from a receiving set. The patent which covers this method of radiation is owned by the United States Navy Department. Proposals have been made to release the invention to the public so that American manufacturers can develop a device to stop the interference caused by radiation of receivers.

The patent was originally issued on Feb. 17, 1914, by the United States Patent Office by two Germans, Wilhelm Schloemilch and Otto von Bronk. The patent is 1,087,892 and is titled "Means for Receiving Electrical Oscillations."

Since this patent was finally granted during the World War (WWI) to citizens of Germany it was seized by the Alien Property Custodian Jan. 28, 1919. It was sold by the Alien Property Custodian on February 6, 1919, to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. The legal title now belongs to the United States Navy Department. - New York Times.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how one "trims" a magazine article when the whole article in its entirety is critical to show understanding of the real history of Telefunken's patents.

The importance of including the magazine article is to show understanding of the very beginning of radio technology and how government and big business manipulated ownership of key patents to change history. Even Telefunken's own website doesn't show how the U.S. government confiscated and monopolized key German patents during/after WWI and sold them off to American business interests while keeping exclusive ownership rights to important German patents.

At least allow a notation in the Wikipedia article with a link to the magazine article. - Tangedweb60

(unsigned) 2013-09-15T21:03:36‎ Tangledweb60

Hi! Well, it didn't became clear that this was copied from somewhere else (from where?) at all. Please provide detailed information about the source. However, we cannot copy whole external articles into Wikipedia articles, anyway. This would constitute a serious copyright violation, see WP:COPYVIO. In order to avoid that we must rephrase everything we want to include in the article in our own words - at most, we can include short citations.

I didn't say that the information is unimportant, however, this did not became very clear from the text as is. It is also our duty as editors to put things into perspective and establish the context in order to achieve a logical flow in the article.

I also didn't say that we shouldn't include the information at all, however, before this can be included, it needs (IMO) considerable work to make it fit in tone, scope and context.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a New York Times article reprinted in the January, 1925 issue of Radio Broadcast magazine, pages 515-516.

Tangledweb60 (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

References

Category move wrt mobile phone manufacturing

Since Telefunken is effectively defunct, then I've moved it from Category:Mobile phone manufacturers to Category:Defunct mobile phone manufacturers. If there is any proof of mobile phones currently manufactured and sold under the Telefunken brand, then the category can be changed back. -Mardus (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Telefunken was a company...

Telefunken still exists. In fact I just viewed a 40inch full HD flat LED TV on ebay. The website of the company is also online with no indication of a cease to exist state. Article needs an update.Rbaleksandar (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The brand owners of many famous names from radio history have licensed them to all sorts of disreputable manufacturers of cheap tat. Look at the famous British brand Bush or indeed the once mighty Grundig. Branding is largely meaningless in consumer electronics today. --Ef80 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit

The article is still very obviously written by German speakers with English as a second language. This is understandable given the subject matter, and I'm not going to formally tag it, but nevertheless it needs a copyedit by a native English speaker or a native German speaker who is truly bilingual. --Ef80 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)