Page 16 of 21

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:36 am
by wind chaser
Matteo V wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:34 am

Anybody back up Pumpy??? He is not the most reliable source. And no one is really around from Best, to defend Best on this accusation. And my info is second (third?) hand. But multiple sources from before I started kiting all say Best had originally purchased, then at least "sub-leased" out the bow kite design.

Can look up US patents - http://patentimages.storage.googleapis. ... 844875.pdf

Sublease? Like an apartment?

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:30 pm
by Matteo V
wind chaser wrote:
Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:36 am
Sublease? Like an apartment?
Licensing agreement is a better term. Thanks for clarifying. But it can be very similar to a sub lease where you lease the particular item to be rented out by you for specific periods of time within that lease from the property holder. Pretty much all of the designs were Legaignoux brothers originally, and subsequent non Legaignoux brothers designs were specifically created to get around the patents. This is not unique to the kiteboarding industry. It happens in all industries where patents usually secure a reward for R&D for a specific time period, after which, it becomes a "free for all" on that design.

Your link was more of an example of an attempt to skirt the patents by Peter.

Read this link.
https://www.seabreeze.com.au/News/Kite ... 83805.aspx

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:12 pm
by john a
Quite a few of us know a lot about what was going on with Best, but didn't´t want to put our neck out....

Anyway for the patent, the boss himself told on the dealer meeting that they had taken over the patent from Bruno. And Bruno showing up with Peter during the event kind of made it credible.

Patent owner: FORPORA SARL, LUXEMBOURG


Patent:
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7494093

They mention all the patents here:
https://kitesurfingmag.com/north-kitebo ... te-patent/

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:08 pm
by iriejohn
john a wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:12 pm
Patent:
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/7494093
I would guess that if you don't have any "sliding shrouds" (aka "pulleys") the patent would not apply because without these (as shown in the patent drawing) the device as described would not function.
comprising an assembly of shroud lines (36A, 36B ; 90A, 90B) applied to the propulsive central region (16) at locations which are distributed over the length of the leading edge (20), at least one sliding shroud line (60A, 90B) being engaged in a sliding manner in a guide (92A, 92B) which is fixedly joined to the leading edge (20), the end of the sliding shroud line (90A, 90B) being fixedly joined to a rear line (40A, 40B)
Image

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:59 pm
by Matteo V
john a wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:12 pm

They mention all the patents here:
https://kitesurfingmag.com/north-kitebo ... te-patent/
That's it! That fills in the blanks and confirms my suspicions about Pumpy's thoughts. As per ususal, Pumpy is a little more than just slightly off. And North did have a stake in the game (owed Best some money) with Best being in control of the Patents before North signed on.

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:13 pm
by Flyboy
I'm sorry: are you saying that Best purchased the rights to the patent (& patent royalties) from Bruno? How long did Bruno's patent run & which companies actually paid royalties? I know ... it's a complicated history much discussed in the past, but is there any clear information on this?

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:28 pm
by Toby
I am not 100% sure, but here is what I recall:

Bruno had 2 patens. One since 1986 (I think) for the tube kite itself. Expired 20 years later, so in 2006.
Then later the second for the bow kite.
Not sure from when, but I assume around 2004 ?

The second one he tried with lawyers etc to get money from the brands. Companies like Naish tried to go around with its Sigma shape.
Others didn't pay. So a hassle with lots of costs for lawyers.
I think here Best jumped in and purchased the bow patent...

But sq should know it all. Hope he tells us.

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:23 am
by john a
Flyboy wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:13 pm
I'm sorry: are you saying that Best purchased the rights to the patent (& patent royalties) from Bruno? How long did Bruno's patent run & which companies actually paid royalties? I know ... it's a complicated history much discussed in the past, but is there any clear information on this?
I actually just got the info confirmed straight from the source, Best ownes Forpora. So means Best owns the patent.

Here is more info: http://bowkite.org

The European patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1574241B1/en

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 5:56 am
by Flyboy
john a wrote:
Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:23 am
Flyboy wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:13 pm
I'm sorry: are you saying that Best purchased the rights to the patent (& patent royalties) from Bruno? How long did Bruno's patent run & which companies actually paid royalties? I know ... it's a complicated history much discussed in the past, but is there any clear information on this?
I actually just got the info confirmed straight from the source, Best ownes Forpora. So means Best owns the patent.

Here is more info: http://bowkite.org

The European patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1574241B1/en
Interesting. So Best bought the patent rights from the Legagnioux bothers for a lump sum? Seems strange that the upstart company would have done this rather than one of the established brands. Looks like Naish signed on to the original LEI patent, but not to the bow patent.

Re: Best bankrupt?

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:39 pm
by Toby
As I mentioned before, Naish developed the Sigma shape to go around the bow patent.