*


All times are UTC + 1 hour



Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:27 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:37 am
Posts: 1561
Location: SoCal
Spork

I think you should clam up !

Why are you so negative ?


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:13 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:41 pm
Posts: 2479
Location: Mtn View, CA (S.F. Bay)
Rockstar wrote:
I think you should clam up !


That's good to know. But of course I don't give a damn what you think.


Rockstar wrote:
Why are you so negative ?


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.

I can't know whether they initially filed with much broader claims, and had to narrow them as a result of rulings from the examiner, or more likely they wrote ludicrously narrow claims because their own patent atty sucked; but their claims are narrow. They do not cover the C-kites on the market.

But here's the most important point - I don't give a damn. I don't have a horse in this race. I've owned Cabrinha, Gaastra, and Slingshot. I don't work in the industry, and I don't have any particular allegiance to any brand over another. Believe what you like. There's no point to arguing about it, partly because there's nothing in it for me. 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.

Just to clarify things for you I'll give you some actual examples of negativity:

"Lou is a has been!"

"But who gives a shit because we all know that Pmu is full of shit!!! ..."

"I dont know what you motherfucking cocksucking cunts are fucking bitching about!"

"In fact,I am a bit of a legend! ...You certainly have a big mouth! ...I think you are full of shit !"

Any of these quotes look familiar?


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:05 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:23 am
Posts: 942
Location: Australia
As far as I could see on the list whcih I still can't find, was that Airush was the only Cokeacola brand with a bow patent, or are the other big brands listed with different company names.

The patent agument is interesting, A patent covers what it covers and as far as I know it must be very specific and unique. You can't just patent a general idea. Therefore the patient has to be formulated specifically and likely there are many patents around similar concepts of the inflatable and bow. Sporks comment is simply that 'the patent is what it is' and it is not ownership of a general kite idea.

I agree that people should have the true rights protected, however in history it is common for the original inventors to reap little in the scheme of things. Look at Mr Velcro and IBM.

I think Toby is right in the sense that mostly business does better if it concentrates on productivity and new ideas, it is not enough to come up with an idea and then try to protect it and hope that this is enough. sometimes it works negatively, there is a careful balance.

So, where is that patient link for the bow??

Dazza :?:


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:52 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:41 pm
Posts: 2479
Location: Mtn View, CA (S.F. Bay)
dazza5172 wrote:
You can't just patent a general idea. Therefore the patient has to be formulated specifically...


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.

I personally would like to see the L'Bros make a mint on the inflatable traction kite. I'm sorry if my comments came across the wrong way. I may have mis-spoke when I said they hadn't invented the inflatable traction kite. I thought I read an article that described significant improvements they had made to existing designs of such kites. But I can't find that article now, so I'll assume my memory was incorrect. That doesn't change my opinion regarding their patent claims (which is only to say they should've had a better patent atty).

dazza5172 wrote:
So, where is that patient link for the bow??


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.

http://kitesurfingschool.org/Flat%20LEI.htm


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 4:17 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 5:23 am
Posts: 942
Location: Australia
Not a bad link, good general overview

Dazza :thumb:


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:17 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Posts: 8737
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..


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:57 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:36 am
Posts: 8712
Location: Oahu
spork although OT,
my perceptions of this discourse...

Quote:
I am not God!!!!??? I don't claim to be. I think we know who has the god complex here.


I am interested in knowing who "WE" think have a god complex? I sure as hell don't know...

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.

Quote:
What have I said that was negative?
and then
Quote:
Are you brain dead?

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.

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?

Quote:
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.


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 ;-)

Please lighten up a little.
a.


Top
Profile
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:25 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:41 pm
Posts: 2479
Location: Mtn View, CA (S.F. Bay)
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 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.


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...


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:
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.


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:
What have I said that was negative?
and then Quote:
Are you brain dead?


Not my best moment - huh?


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?


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:
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


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:
Please lighten up a little.


I'll try.

RC


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: Bow history and patent
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:44 am 
Offline
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:23 pm
Posts: 448
Location: drtuba.eu, kite-stuff.org, eXtremist.si, kajtar.si
FYI,

the author of the article "The Camel Goes Kitesurfing", made a reply on Q @ Kite-stuff.org.

I think it is worth to read (and comment off course! :))...

:bye:

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??

thanks guys

Dazza :thumb:


Top
Profile
 Post subject: Re: Bow history and patent
PostPosted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:19 am 
Offline
Very Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 7:41 pm
Posts: 2479
Location: Mtn View, CA (S.F. Bay)
The author says (in that post):

"Back when I submitted the paper, I did so in full knowledge that its publication would prevent me from subsequently patenting the idea (you can't patent an idea once it's published, even if you're the publisher)."

This is true in Europe, but in the U.S. you have one year from public disclosure to submit the patent application. Regardless of whether you apply for a patent on the idea, no one else can legally patent it once you've disclosed it. Nevertheless, the system is far from perfect. Without question many patents have been granted, and later invalidated due to prior art (and other issues).


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

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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