Toby wrote:And once I can use the stable forum software, you can just put users on the "ignore list"!!!
Toby, I find the "ignore" feature to be awkward at best. It's a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears when your child insists on interrupting a conversation between adults. The fact that I don't see someone's posts doesn't mean those posts are not a part of the "conversation". I definitely would prefer that the originator of the thread could block whichever users he wishes. That way Bruno (and everyone else) wouldn't have to hear my interpretation of specific patent claims, and no one would ever have to hear from fo-flatus again. You'd never even have to ban another user.
Last edited by spork on Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I credit Bruno L. with being perhaps the most influential person in making kitesurfing what it is today. However, he did not do it alone. There have been others that have made significant contributions as well. In some cases I believe their developments preceded Bruno's. In some cases those inventors did not seek patents (this is not uncommon). But having put their inventions in the public domain, prevents anyone else (even Bruno) from coming along after the fact and claiming patent rights on their work.
Despite what many on this forum seem to believe, I am VERY MUCH interested in seeing the rightful inventors get credit for their work. I do not want to see one man get credit and remuneration for another's work however.
I have heard from more than one source that the U.S. courts denied the bow patent in recent weeks. I think this lends credence to my claim that patents are a crapshoot in court. I find it interesting (but not altogether surprising) that the patent has enjoyed greater success in european courts. If Bruno follows the typical route, he will make an appeal to the examiner, and more than likely will eventually narrow his claims in the U.S. filing until the patent can be granted. At this point people will claim that some companies are "working around his patent" because he was never in fact entitled to claim the designs in question.
I have not been able to independently confirm that this patent was denied in the U.S. courts. If someone knows differently, please post it here so I can apologize for my error.
Again, I credit Bruno with being perhaps the primary force that put kitesurfing where it is today. Please feel free to ignore this statement when you choose to say my purpose is to "trash" Bruno.
Last edited by spork on Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
dazza5172 wrote:So who did invent the first inflatable kite really??
Dunno. I believe I read that it was an englishman. I suspect he didn't patent it. I recall someone else on the forum knew the particulars better than I. But I read something about it in one of the early articles on the development of kitesurfing.
I don't think the first inflatable was C-shaped. I'm sure Bruno could tell you more than I. Again, as far as I know, this is not in dispute. I don't recall either of the L'Bros to ever have claimed to invent the inflatable kite.
Toby, the fact that the majority of people here have such distorted views of patents SHOULD be the reason why it should be discussed, particularly when there are two people (brunolgx and spork) who can give us a proper balance to the kite patent debate.
To challenge or ask for an explanation of the kite patent does not mean one is a proponent of commercial theft. In fact, one can make an equaly strong case that patent laws are too lax (too many stupid ideas are given protection... see recent court rulings.)
With all due respect to brunolgx, he has often come here to tout his licensees and threaten litigation of non-licensees, so why is it wrong or disrespectful for someone that is knowledgeable about patent law to ask for clarification. Brunolgx does not have to respond, but certainly not wrong to ask, particularly since spork's questions are quite good.
Remember the vigilante judgement against companies that refused to pay a fee on the bow patent (application) two years ago... and today there are only one major brand (Cab). And if spork is right that the US application was not accepted as submitted, what does that say about all those who asserted that non-licensees were amoral?
There is rule of law... it's not perfect... but certainly better than arbitrary judgement based on one's moral/ethical precept.
Again, it's not too hard to make a case that brunolgx started the current bridle kite transformation two years ago. But unless he has a valid patent, we would be wrong to condemn companies and buyers that choose not to pay for a non-existent patent.
Those who believe brunolgx is entitled to bow royalty should buy a Cab or EH or send him E12 for each non-license kite that they buy. But this does not make those who choose not to wrong or dishonest.
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??
Down with patents, copyrights and the like intellectual property! They are a lure, a fraud. They do not reward the creators (who can possibly claim being the sole originator of an idea?) , but the quickest to the patent office and the patent lawyers.
Intellectual property, as a monopoly, goes against the principle of free enterprise and competition rewarding the most efficient companies.
Kites and kiting would have emerged regardless of the Legaignoux brothers, perhaps even with more vigour. Just as an example amongst hundreds to illustrate the point: the Wright Brothers patented their plane (which by-the-way was not their invention, as usually is). Came First World War, the US Air Force (was it called such then?) had to buy the far more advanced European made airplanes which did not suffer from the patent restrictions preventing free competition. In order to get the aviation industry going, the patents were thrown to the dustbin.
This forum is about flaming, isn't it?
Cheers to all who are into kiting for the passion,
alexrider wrote:Just as an example amongst hundreds to illustrate the point: the Wright Brothers patented their plane (which by-the-way was not their invention, as usually is).
Really? Have you seen their patent? Do you know what it claims? I thought not.
Came First World War, the US Air Force (was it called such then?) had to buy the far more advanced European made airplanes which did not suffer from the patent restrictions preventing free competition.
If they bought them for use in the U.S. they were subject to the exact same patents as any other.
Thanks for posting those links. It saves me having to wonder if you're a complete nut job. I now realize you want all the pharmaceutical companies to stop all research, all authors to stop writing books, all producers to stop making movies...