That's good to know. But of course I don't give a damn what you think.Rockstar wrote:I think you should clam up !
What have I said that was negative? Are you brain dead? I've said that the french bros were unquestionably pioneers of the sport we all love. The closest thing I've made to a negative comment is that the wording of their patent claims is piss-poor. And it is. The fact that a jury ruled in their favor is no surprise. Anyone that's been through a patent case knows its a crapshoot at best (you know how juries tend to award millions of dollars to old women that spill coffee in their laps?). But I can tell you as a matter of patent law the C-kites on the market do not infringe the claims of their patent.Rockstar wrote:Why are you so negative ?
There are several types of patents, and some are far more general than others. The typical progression is a very broad patent when the technology is brand new. As time goes on, there is more prior art, and patent applications in that area necessarily become more narrow and typically less valuable. I have read a number of patents that were simply written poorly. While you want to be specific (but still all emcompassing) in the disclosure, you definitely want to be as general as the examiner will allow in the claims. I have seen cases where the claims have been far too specific without cause. I believe this is the case with the patent I've been talking about.dazza5172 wrote:You can't just patent a general idea. Therefore the patient has to be formulated specifically...
The following link indicates they filed a Canadian patent on the bow kite (# CA 2498729). Typically, there would be a U.S. application that would be nearly identical. I haven't been able to find either; but it appears Bruno is on the forum - so perhaps he'll point us to it. Both the U.S. and Canada publish applications these days, so the applications would be a matter of public record.dazza5172 wrote:So, where is that patient link for the bow??
I am interested in knowing who "WE" think have a god complex? I sure as hell don't know...I am not God!!!!??? I don't claim to be. I think we know who has the god complex here.
Why do you expect more from him? You ask him to not judge you, yet you seem to be doing some judging yourself.I expect more from you Toby.
and thenWhat have I said that was negative?
Sure does not seem very positive. Of course you could mean this as an honest question, but asking someone if they are brain dead would be kind of futile.Are you brain dead?
But I can tell you as a matter of patent law the C-kites on the market do not infringe the claims of their patent. [\quote]
Yet cases were solved by brands licensing the patents?
Partly because idiots like you somehow take my analysis of patent claims to be negativity, and partly because the patent in question is either expired or ready to expire very shortly.
I thought that was the case. But I couldn't find the source so I had to assume my memory was bad. I am aging you know. When Bruno failed to answer that direct question I suspected the original claim was right. In any case I'm not betting the farm on it either way. The issue of the patent claim is clear to me however.sq225917 wrote:no you are rigth with the inflatable kite, there were a couple of kooky english guys who made an inflatable triangular kite in the seventies.
not sure where i saw it but it was pictured and press dated and everything..
I'm not sure where I was going with that. I just thought the comment "you are not god" was about the most bizarre comment I've ever read on this forum. Making an assertion about the meaning of his patent claims is a far far cry from claiming to be god. I suppose I take the L'Bros to have a bit of a god complex because it sometimes seems they believe they invented kites and kiting. There's no denying they did on helluva lot for this sport. It might not exist today, and almost certainly wouldn't be what it is now, if not for them. But I think their claims are a bit over the top.tautologies wrote: my perceptions of this discourse...
I am interested in knowing who "WE" think have a god complex? I sure as hell don't know...
It's not a matter of him judging me. It's a matter of him making a bizarre statement based on no facts. To suggest I'm one of those that just takes and gives nothing back to the sport is ludicrous. There's no need to go into what I've taken or given back, but even Toby would know better if he even went back and re-read PM's he's sent to me some time back. If I'm judging others I'm probably in the wrong, but I hope I'm making my judgements based on the facts (what I've seen, or what they post).tautologies wrote: quote:
I expect more from you Toby.
Why do you expect more from him? You ask him to not judge you, yet you seem to be doing some judging yourself.
Not my best moment - huh?tautologies wrote: Quote:
What have I said that was negative?
and then Quote:
Are you brain dead?
A patent is like a $10,000 gun that shoots million-dollar bullets. We were spending $350,000 per MONTH at one time (previous job) defending a patent. It's very expensive, time consuming, and frustrating. I've been through a couple of patent cases since then that were less expensive, but not by much. I also had a job at one time providing engineering services as an expert witness for catastrophic events. I can tell you settling out of court is extremely common, and has much more to do with moving forward and saving money than it has to do with justice. Add to that a patent that's only months away from expiration, and paying $12/kite seems like a no-brainer to most.tautologies wrote: quote: But I can tell you as a matter of patent law the C-kites on the market do not infringe the claims of their patent. [\quote]
Yet cases were solved by brands licensing the patents?
Believe it or not, the wind's been great lately. We had a real slow start to the season, but I had my 26th kiting day for the season today. The trouble must be my meds - it's not the wind.tautologies wrote: The overall tone seems like one of irritation and anger. Not that I claim to know you, but maybe too little wind lately? I know I get grumpy then
tautologies wrote: Please lighten up a little.
dazza5172 wrote:Having read through a lot of threads on this it seems a little confusing and contradictory.
Who is going to give me the straight facts on original inflatable bow, designer and manufacturer
there was also a link to the original patent licensees and I can't seem to find it??
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests