Did he not deliver your frame? I will have the frames in stock, and will only sell what I have in stock. No deposits are necessary.Does it come with Jans' patented support and a willingness to empty your bank account without delivery of frame?
Did he not deliver your frame? I will have the frames in stock, and will only sell what I have in stock. No deposits are necessary.Does it come with Jans' patented support and a willingness to empty your bank account without delivery of frame?
That design is nothing like the Trek one or the current Karpiel one. The current Karpiel one is, however, extremely similar to the one shown in the Trek patent that jvnixon linked to. I'd say the Karpiel design falls under it personally, having read the patent and seen the pics.In regard to the patent issue. Jan had a similar design back in 1993, here is an article in MTB action from Sept 1995. That patent was filed in 1999. Karpiel should be okay.
yea i agree, but at the same time, there can be no doubt that the trek patent (filed for in feb 99) is predated by the disco volante by a year or more, so (USA has a first to invent type patent law, according to wikipedia at least) he should have no problems with that patent at least.That design is nothing like the Trek one or the current Karpiel one. The current Karpiel one is, however, extremely similar to the one shown in the Trek patent that jvnixon linked to. I'd say the Karpiel design falls under it personally, having read the patent and seen the pics.
The Disco Volante had the shock driven off the top link though, that's the critical difference. The new one has the shock driven off the lower link, hence it falls under the patent.yea i agree, but at the same time, there can be no doubt that the trek patent (filed for in feb 99) is predated by the disco volante by a year or more, so (USA has a first to invent type patent law, according to wikipedia at least) he should have no problems with that patent at least.
The old VRS was driven off the lower link. So shock "attachment" is basically the same, Jan had that first.The Disco Volante had the shock driven off the top link though, that's the critical difference. The new one has the shock driven off the lower link, hence it falls under the patent.
My Apocalypse, with Deemaxes, Shiver and a normal parts spec was around 43 lbs. Definitely not a "hucking" bike, although it excelled at that as well.It's funny how the Armageddon has the reputation of only being a "huck" bike. For those who have ridden them, it's a great DH bike, the bike ate up any rocky technical descent you could throw at it.
The old VRS was driven off the lower link. So shock "attachment" is basically the same, Jan had that first.
I fully understand what you are saying, and I do know this. However I guess it could be fair to say the person who filed the Trek patent copied Jan on how the shock is attached to the lower link, true? After all the patent was filed 6 years after Jan designed that on the VRS and that article is from 1995, that's 4 years difference before it was filed, it would be very easy to copy it from a magazine. That is the point I'm trying to make. I know these designs are 100% different, and never claimed they are the same. The way I'm reading your posts is you're referring to shock connection.Are you freaking blind or what? The VRS was a linkage driven singlepivot. IT'S NOTHING LIKE THE NEW ONE OR THE TREK PATENT. IT DOESN'T COUNT, IT'S NOT RELEVANT, IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. The new Karpiel is a 4-bar linkage (no not specialized FSR for you people who are about to leap in and yell "no it's not! Only specialized have a true 4-bar!"). The Trek patent covers a 4-bar linkage with the Karpiel Disco Volante/Armageddon/Apocalypse pivot layout where the shock is driven off the lower link. The VRS did not have a true 4-bar linkage for the swingarm, therefore it is entirely irrelevant. The DV/Army/Apocalypse drove the shock off the top link, therefore it was not included in the patent. The NEW Karpiel has a 4-bar layout that falls under the Trek patent because both the pivot positions and the shock position come under what the Trek patent describes. If you guys aren't capable of realising this, you shouldn't be selling bikes. FFS.
Oh my ****ing god! Jan's VRS design is TOTALLY, 100% IRRELEVANT TO THE TREK PATENT BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLEPIVOT. The linkage driving the shock IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLEPIVOT. The singlepivot part makes it IRRELEVANT. What part of this do you not understand? Forget the freaking VRS.I fully understand what you are saying, and I do know this. However I guess it could be fair to say the person who filed the Trek patent copied Jan on how the shock is attached to the lower link, true? After all the patent was filed 6 years after Jan designed that on the VRS and that article is from 1995, that's 4 years difference before it was filed, it would be very easy to copy it from a magazine. That is the point I'm trying to make. I know these designs are 100% different, and never claimed they are the same. The way I'm reading your posts is you're referring to shock connection.
Your parents were related before they were married right?Lean back and spread 'em...I think we're gonna need a fire hose to get all that sand out of your vagina.
omgwtfmatebbq11!!1!1!1!1
Great contribution. Moron.Lean back and spread 'em...I think we're gonna need a fire hose to get all that sand out of your vagina.
omgwtfmatebbq11!!1!1!1!1
Maybe it's just a local thing as most of the armys I've seen were build brick heavy(MTN 8 & stuff). The new one looks very nice but a bit burly for me. Liked the old disco more anyway.It's funny how the Armageddon has the reputation of only being a "huck" bike. For those who have ridden them, it's a great DH bike, the bike ate up any rocky technical descent you could throw at it.
youre right of course, but at least from my initial reading of the patent, the place where the shock is anchored is not one of the main claims, if you look at the abstract, it doesnt even mention that, it seems to me what they wanted to secure was the chain stay link with a configuration that provides rearward axle motion, no idea if the proliferation of bikes with linkage arrangements like that are result of circumventing this patent like you said or if its because its a hard patent to defend, either way, i dont think this discussion will ever enter other arenas save for internet forumsThe Disco Volante had the shock driven off the top link though, that's the critical difference. The new one has the shock driven off the lower link, hence it falls under the patent.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=zA8FAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6,203,042#PPA10,M1youre right of course, but at least from my initial reading of the patent, the place where the shock is anchored is not one of the main claims, if you look at the abstract, it doesnt even mention that, it seems to me what they wanted to secure was the chain stay link with a configuration that provides rearward axle motion, no idea if the proliferation of bikes with linkage arrangements like that are result of circumventing this patent like you said or if its because its a hard patent to defend, either way, i dont think this discussion will ever enter other arenas save for internet forums
I believe if there was no patent, but proof it existed before one was patented, it would be considered "Prior art" and excluded from any patent infringement.Also if somebody has a patent but others has made the same design before, like Brian mentions, does that even have any effect on the rights to use a desing. If somebody has the patent they exclusively hold rights to the design I would think?
Like Turner's Horst link? lthumbsdown: This is America - even if you're 100% "in the right" it takes A LOT of money for that little piece of paper to prove it.I believe if there was no patent, but proof it existed before one was patented, it would be considered "Prior art" and excluded from any patent infringement.
In communist Poland, infringement patents you!!!!With that in mind, Karpiel has 3 options in my opinion - call Trek up to discuss whether it might be a non-issue, redesign the bike, or start building up a war chest.
I didn't get to post it last night but that's what I was thinking as well once I saw the Canfields, the Karpiel, and the patent......what about the new canfields? don't those infringe the patent's as well?
However, even if it is deemed "prior art" to get to that point, it going to burn up some big money. Patents aren't simple things to get in fights over. You'd be surprised what getting dragged into court over it costs.I believe if there was no patent, but proof it existed before one was patented, it would be considered "Prior art" and excluded from any patent infringement.
Out of all the bikes on their site, the only one with the shock driven off the lower link is the F1 Jedi thing, and that has a chain roller as well as a backwards-sloping top link, so I very much doubt that'd count. I think they have another bike called the "Lucky" or something don't they? But iirc that drives the shock off the top link too, so not counted. Do they have another new frame?what about the new canfields? don't those infringe the patent's as well?
I was thinking about that, I for sure am not. However last night I was helping a friend build up his Moorewood and looking at the suspension design. Well it looks like just about every single pivot frame out there, more so a Bullit. There are tons of bikes out there with lots of similarities. I can understand if you copy something identically, but if there are clearly visible differences especially in performance enhancements I don't see where the problem is. That's just me though, and this goes for anything.Is anybody on here actually a patent attorney? I love all of the e-speculation about who infringed on what
<edit> I'll add to the speculation.....I bet where the shock mounts doesn't make a difference. Look at Specialized and the horst link, the demo 8 is still a horst link despite the shock being driven by the chainstay instead of the upper link (like most other horst variations)
I'm not a PA, however I work with ours very closely. IP is a very very complicated area. You really have to take a close look at EXACTLY what was said in the patent. If you write your patent well, you can push your IP out pretty far.I was thinking about that, I for sure am not. However last night I was helping a friend build up his Moorewood and looking at the suspension design. Well it looks like just about every single pivot frame out there, more so a Bullit. There are tons of bikes out there with lots of similarities. I can understand if you copy something identically, but if there are clearly visible differences especially in performance enhancements I don't see where the problem is. That's just me though, and this goes for anything.