*


All times are UTC + 1 hour



Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:44 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 12:41 am
Posts: 2757
Location: Portland, Oregon
Geeezus guys lets not turn a thread that could have been an interesting discussion on different designs into a flamewar about what patents mean. :evil:

start another thread for that...


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 10:53 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 1942
Location: Melbourne, Australia
I think Simon's post was misleading. It could be construed as being a flame, but I think he was actually stating a legitimate point. What he was saying is that although a patent offers great options, the fact that the patent exists may force other designers not wishing to use the patent to work around the patent and actually come up with a good idea they would never have thought of originally. I.e. think outside the box.

For example, lets say for arguments sake that Bruno only released the original LEI patent to one company, any other company wishing to enter the kitesurfing market would have to come up with an alternative kitesurfing design than the LEI to compete with them, as opposed to refining the actual LEI design itself.


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:30 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:41 am
Posts: 460
Location: SPI, TX - IKO Level 2 Sr Instructor
Mission:

I think you miss the most important point of sq's post - and this is it:

"but the counter to that theory is that the the 'bow' may not be the best flat kite design layout, and designers choosing to plough their own furrow don't want to be limited by the parameters of the 'bow' patent and with more flexibility in their available choice, they actually stand a better chance of improving the basic design."

You may not know that other kite designers (besides the L brothers) were working on flat, or Hi-Pro kite designs as far back as 6 years ago. At least one kite designer took his own path, independent and certainly different from the "bow" design concept. Again, his research started 6 years ago and he has pictures to prove it. Do you think he was trying to skirt a patent issue before the patent was even applied for? If I came up with my own unique flat kite design, I'd be damned if I would pay anybody a royalty because they also came up with something similar, BUT NOT EQUAL TO MINE.

Again, I take the point of sq's post to be that differences in design are good. It fosters competition amongst designers, and, most importantly, the kite consumer benefits from these different approachs.


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:33 pm 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:05 pm
Posts: 194
Location: DR - inventor
Phil wrote:
Thanks for posting on the forum Bruno. 8)

Would love to hear your position about one of the most discussed flaw in bow design, I mean the "inverting profile isue".


We know for a long time that it can occur in certain cases. It happened to me a few times, generally when the kite is in contact with water. And what ? Just be patient, it always come back to its normal shape, generally the lines are not tangled and I never felt it could be dangerous. Maybe a bit impressive the first time but.
To be noticed that it happened to me with C-shape kites too.
And that I kitesurf every windy day (what is not 7 days a week in DR, especially this year :(

I don't see a real problem with that, I know that it is not the opinon of certain people on this forum but it's mine.

We are working on flatter bow kites and we met much more inverting problems with them. It is logical that flatter the kite is, more sensitive it is to invertion (because the LE is not anymore in the shape of a vault/arch) but it seems that we found a solution. Waiting for prototypes to confirm it.

For those who want to let a message concerning bow inverting, please go to the active topic opened for this matter. Thanks.

Bruno


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:39 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 8737
piakite, you got the point exactly.

it was in no way a flame, and definately not meant to take anything away from the 'bow' principles, but there's two sides to every story.

being tied to a design 'regime' via a patent does limit your options, if the basic design in the patent is the best solution then it doesn't matter..



i look forward to seeing what bruno comes up with next, without him we'd all be windsurfing.....


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:55 pm 
Offline
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:31 am
Posts: 294
sq225917 wrote:


i look forward to seeing what bruno comes up with next, without him we'd all be windsurfing.....


I'm sure Best has the copier running hot already .


Last edited by El_Gran_Extractor on Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:55 pm 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 12:10 am
Posts: 1956
Location: A Best owner; ex F-One, SS, North, Cab owner
sq225917 wrote:
being tied to a design 'regime' via a patent does limit your options...


I don't get this line of thinking at all. Patent by definition doesn't place any restriction on diversity of designs. One is free the use any alternative design that does not infringe on such patent. If anything, patent tolls serve as an incentive to search for an alternative.

The restriction you speak of is really one of 'installed base"... as in if Bruno's design becomes "popular", it will be difficult for any alternative design to compete unless it can be shown to be materially superior... a not so low barrier.

Also, please note the Bruno has chosen an open licensing path. From a consumer perspective, this is much more beneficial than an exclusivity licensing. (I presume the royalty rate is non-descriminatory and is diminimish relative to kite ASP.)


Last edited by vietkiter on Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:00 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:41 am
Posts: 460
Location: SPI, TX - IKO Level 2 Sr Instructor
Bruno deserves a tremendous amount of credit. Many kiters have, and will, ride his designs. We are very fortunate indeed, to benefit from so many of his ideas.


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:04 am 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:05 pm
Posts: 194
Location: DR - inventor
sq225917 wrote:
i look forward to seeing what bruno comes up with next


We are actually exploring the limits of the bow concept. We will show the result as car companies show their "concept cars" sometimes, then the kite brands will do what they want with it.

After that, I have no idea, let me have a breath :)

About patent and design:
- there is nothing that obliges companies to turn around our patent: just contact me, sign the contract and pay 12 euros per kite, that's that simple and cheap
- if a kite is outside our patent with a flat kite, well, no problem for me, I don't need to work for the rest of my life anyway, I just do it as a passion,
- but if a company is inside the patent and infringes, that, I think it to be unacceptable.

Bruno


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:20 am 
Offline
Medium Poster

Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:05 pm
Posts: 194
Location: DR - inventor
vietkiter wrote:
sq225917 wrote:
being tied to a design 'regime' via a patent does limit your options...


I don't get this line of thinking at all. Patent by definition doesn't place any restriction on diversity of designs. One is free the use any alternative design that does not infringe on such patent.


I fully agree: a brand can sign a license for our patent then design a kite that is outside and offer both to the market. if they want. Just paying royalties for the bow kites they manufacture.

Bruno


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dyyylan, Kiwibayer, KYLakeKiter, loco4viento, Zian kiteboarding and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group