Weagle is suing in U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisconsin (Complaint. pdf), claiming that Trek is violating two of his patents, one issued in 2010 and one in 2011. He is asking for a jury trial and demanding licensing fees.
The discussion began as far back as 2007, when Weagle visited Trek and shared photos of his then-patent-pending design. Weagle’s suit notes that a month after that visit Trek applied for a patent for a concentric pivot design. Trek's patent was issued in 2010.
I agree. If that is true, I hope Lance Armstrong is DW's chauffeur.If that's true I really hope Dw rips them a new one.
'But while the concentric pivot is the most noticeable feature of both designs, in itself the pivot is not even patentable — that innovation dates to the early 20th or even late 19th century. The Trek and Split Pivot patents differ in the ways the rear suspension linkages connect to the front triangle and the shock.
That does not mean a god damn thing if no one had a patent on it.I thought the ABP/split pivot thing exsisted on some 1920s motor bike?
When did that happen? I didn't think that had ever gone anywhere.I hope DW comes on top like he did with Giant.
TMI. Way, way TMI.I hope DW comes on top like he did with Giant.
This. I am, and will always will be for the little guysThat does not mean a god damn thing if no one had a patent on it.
It sure sounds sketchy that Trek invited DW over probably to brainstorm or meet with him about becoming a consultant and then they all of a sudden have a patent for what he showed them. Scum bags! I hope DW comes on top like he did with Giant.
I can't believe these things are patentable. So ridiculous.
Actually it could. As someone who has litigated several hundred million and billion dollar patent cases, I can assure you that there is no requirement that something has to be patented in order for it to be potentially invalidating prior art. Why would you act so indignant about klunky's statement when you don't know much (best case scenario) about patent law?That does not mean a god damn thing if no one had a patent on it.
...
There are lots of things that are patented that make me think twice. One big issue in patent law is that juries are very loath to invalidate a patent because they do not feel qualified to second guess the determination of the patent office. This is particularly troublesome when the USPTO has not seen the prior art that potentially renders a patent invalid. Also, you have to realize that an examiner usually spends only a few hours and in some cases only minutes, over the course of an examination that can take years. People mistakenly assume that the USPTO always does a thorough job.I can't believe these things are patentable. So ridiculous.
No, but we can all read the patent and laugh at it.i love how some people are so dang fast to jump on either sides nuts. When noone besides DW and trek ACTULLY know what is going on. Has anyone taken a peek inside of treks lab notebooks?
There are lots of problems with the patent system as it is today. As you point out, the alleged infringer has a higher burden of proof to show that the patent is invalid than he patentee has to show the patent is infringed. The rationale is that the USPTO has already examined the patent and deemed it valid. However, that argument holds little or no water when the USPTO has never seen the potentially invalidating prior art.I've got a few patents and spend a fair amount of time reading them, reading about them, etc. We need court cases like these from time to time to slap engineers/businessmen in the face to remind them that their patents often do not pass the novelty bar. It seems to be that these kinds of cases are problematic because it is the accused infringee who needs to prove that they haven't infringed on the patent, or that the patent isn't valid. When The court cases really should be about the patent holder having to prove that their patent is legitimate in the first place.
Also, I can even imagine the nightmare of something like this going to a jury trial.
People thought he was just patenting a certain location for a linkage, but he patented an entire concept, not just a physical bit of metal and some measurements. Advance thinking.I am not 100% on this but I am pretty sure Giant drastically changed their bikes in 2008 so DW would stop pursuing them in court.
Ha ha ha. Didn't DW used to be Evils Overlord?without actually reading the patents or hearing the full arguments presented, I have strong opinions and feel strongly that one of these people is a saint and the other is an evil overlord.
Couldn't that argument be made against pretty much any company these days? There is always something unethical, on some level, going on behind the doors.Profit seems very high on * agenda, and yes that is the point of a company, but when do you cross the line to being unethical.
thats a pretty bold and negative statement.Couldn't that argument be made against pretty much any company these days? There is always something unethical, on some level, going on behind the doors.
But it's true! You've heard of gamut chain guides?thats a pretty bold and negative statement.
Not really. You really think the small guys go into the bike industry to make money? Because it's like calling them stupid. I personally met a few guys who do it out of passion and I'm pretty sure you realize there are many companies who are more about it than maximizing profits and screwing everyone.But it's true! You've heard of gamut chain guides?
Made from distilled baby gelatin. Nothing more resilient.