Originally Posted by sonic_blue
Just thought I would link the patent for the 2009 models as it can be a bit hard to find:http://www.pat2pdf.org/patents/pat20090021452.pdf
Interesting on page 16, it says the contrast should be 5000:1 when new, and then drop to around ~4400:1 by 1000 hours. Instead we get 1666:1.
The mystery deepens. So, now we have an MLL rise which is not consistent with their claimed design specs in the patent. Wouldn't that be incontrovertible proof that the TVs are not operating as Panny designed them (i.e. the initializing voltage after the rise is measured and compared to the patent). If so, what would Panny say if one of their techs confirmed this as the cause if, say, increased IR (by measuring a post-rise set)?. It is clearly not operating as designed, so would that bypass their "not a warranty issue" claim? If they are trying to hide behind the "It's designed to do that. See, look at the patent" defense, what could they say to a "the patent says that the final initializing voltage should be no more than 235v, but on this set it's 280v...?!?" They are hiding behind the fact that there is no standard for measuring MLL, but there is for voltage which is pretty cut and dry. I wonder if cnet is aware of this...
On another note, does anyone know what is going on with the class-action lawsuit? Not hopeful, just curious.