[The Shadow]

Word Around the campfire is that Santa Cruz is trying to enforce a new patent they've been awarded in 2009 on "Floating" shock suspension theory and a spectrum of possible rates. It is the US patent 7581743.

In all fairness when an invention is novel and original in nature and has no previous art, a respect is given to the amount of work, filing and protection of that invention. If the patent has been awarded without a real review of previous art then the patent can be contested and reexamined at a cost.

A key component in reexamination is previous art that can be brought to light that has been printed publicly. Santa Cruz seems to have overlooked this Mountain Bike Action test in 1987 http://www.mombat.org/Hanebrink.htm of Dan Hanebrink's suspension design that can accomplish all of Santa Cruz's patent claims of rates and suspension benefits "including" geometry adjustability.

In reality, if Dan Hanebrink were to rebirth this suspension design today, Santa Cruz could cite him for infringement and sue. Considering the volume of "Floating" suspension systems popping up there is real traction in the reexamination of Santa Cruz's patent. All companies should take note in this reality. Considering this real evidence of previous art and not emotional conjecture, respect to Santa Cruz's patent is elusive.

Do your own research and let us know what you think.

Sincerely,

The Shadow!

 

[stoney]

It really depends on who has the better lawyers. Good to know that SC is becoming Specialized, as one more company chasing revenues with patents, on non-original ideas. Check them off my list.

 

[fluider]

From my point of view, for me it's absolutely no problem to stop being interested in SC products. However, their aim to rule many interesting designs out of market, that' the problem.

 

[FullMonty]

If I interpret the post correctly, SC is effed anyway because of the prior art?

respect to Santa Cruz's patent is elusive.

meaning that people aren't taking the patent seriously, thanks to said art. It sucks that they went down this road, but I don't see the ramifications, other than some people being annoyed at their shadiness.

 

[daisycutter]

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7581743

 

[The Shadow]

Just to make it clear I am not protecting Hanebrinks place in history. I am representing the freedom of progress of a sport I care very much about and there are many companies that can be effected by this. Freedom to progress should not be suppressed by a mis-awarded patent. Hope everyone understands.

Here is another site for the patent.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/7581743

Considering when you look at the MBA 1986-87 magazine layout of the SE Shocker this last paragraph in the Santa Cruz patent is why it is grounds for reexamination.

"While the present invention has been shown and described with regard to certain preferred embodiments, it is to be understood that modifications in form and detail will no doubt be developed by those skilled in the art upon reviewing this disclosure. It is therefore intended that the following claims cover all such alterations and modifications that nevertheless include the true spirit and scope of the inventive features of the present invention"

 

[fluider]

Hm, if patents and all law texts would have to be written in precise fashion of mathematical logic, the world will be better.
The patent claim for bicycle suspension where instant shock rate is SR = delta_Shock_Length / delta_Vertical_Wheel_Travel (how else should it be) and that the change in shock rate dSR / sVWT has a change in sign .... . Which is mathematically way different from what they claim aftwards that shock rate first decreases, then reaches minimum value, then increases (or vise-versa).
But it's not end of all days since they claim for approximate (space for lawyers) dimensions of linkage elements. Which looks like they already have set of many layouts prepared.

As I see it, they didn't applied for a method (unlike DWLink) of controlling the shock-rate but for a small space of dimensions of linkage arms with floating shock arangement.

 

[Inclag]

Hey, if a 4 bar linkage can be patented or a disc of polycarbonate can why not?

F, I just wrote a proposal/quote to work on building a prototype around an existing patent that is complete BS. Just an hour of analysis of the patent and what was written showed that physics dictated that this "invention" would and could never function in the manner it was intended too.

I'm sorry but patent law in this country is a complete and utter joke...

 

[SylentK]

Another saying that this post reminds me of: "It's not who invents it, but who exploits it the best."

 

[Inclag]

BTW, what's up with the handle of the OP?

What cycling company do you work for?

 

[Bikael Molton]

anonymous coward

 

[time-bomb]

anonymous coward

ha-ha. i guess we all are since most of us use some avatar or handle rather than a real name and we don't typically sign our names at the end of a post.

anyway, i applaud the "coward" for expressing his/her opinion and putting it out there in an informative way rather than trying to cram it down our throats.

patent issues like this remind me of politics. the companies aren't doing anything to help the industry progress or for the benefit of the consumer. it is for their own agenda (sorry for sounding like a conspiracy theorist). fvck SC. build something original.

 

[big-ted]

The patent claim for bicycle suspension where instant shock rate is SR = delta_Shock_Length / delta_Vertical_Wheel_Travel (how else should it be) and that the change in shock rate dSR / sVWT has a change in sign .... . Which is mathematically way different from what they claim aftwards that shock rate first decreases, then reaches minimum value, then increases (or vise-versa).

FYI, there's nothing wrong with that last statement. Shock rate decreasing -> dSR/dVWT is negative, shock rate reaches minimum, -> dSR/dVWT is zero, shock rate increases, -> dSR/dVWT is positive.

 

[bdamschen]

Just to make it clear I am not protecting Hanebrinks place in history. I am representing the freedom of progress of a sport I care very much about and there are many companies that can be effected by this. Freedom to progress should not be suppressed by a mis-awarded patent. Hope everyone understands.

I'll argue with you there. If companies innovate something just to have their patent shot down and everyone else steal it, then what's the point of coming up with new ideas?

Why not axe your R&D money and point it toward reverse engineering instead?

Just playing devils advocate, nothing more.

 

[mullet_dew]

Looks like someones bike company is getting sued by SC, one thread here, 3 more on mtbr, you really want to get the word out.

 

[fluider]

FYI, there's nothing wrong with that last statement. Shock rate decreasing -> dSR/dVWT is negative, shock rate reaches minimum, -> dSR/dVWT is zero, shock rate increases, -> dSR/dVWT is positive.

IMO, it's written inexactly. I really don't want to sound like some math nerd, but in math that statement would literally mean that for each change of shock rate there is a change of sign (of deltaSR). So if SR increased in dVWT_1, then SR decreases in dVWT_2. That would oscilate around linear rate.
They just put some formula in their patent application but described it inexactly.

 

[IH8Rice]

Looks like someones bike company is getting sued by SC, one thread here, 3 more on mtbr, you really want to get the word out.

yup, it would seem someone is peeved that "their" design is getting shot down like a Iraqi jet fighter

 

[William42]

black market killswitch?

 

[IH8Rice]

black market killswitch?

he talks about how its not similar on one of his many threads on MTBR.
http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=595262

 

[Huck Banzai]

ha-ha. i guess we all are since most of us use some avatar or handle rather than a real name and we don't typically sign our names at the end of a post.

anyway, i applaud the "coward" for expressing his/her opinion and putting it out there in an informative way rather than trying to cram it down our throats.

patent issues like this remind me of politics. the companies aren't doing anything to help the industry progress or for the benefit of the consumer. it is for their own agenda (sorry for sounding like a conspiracy theorist). fvck SC. build something original.

I always find the 'hiding behind a screen name' accusation/argument/insult to be a cop out load of crap. Put a seemingly real name, put your real name - it's a forum, to get lost in moot (IMHO) details rather than the discussion is to play politics. An argument, or statement is or isn't valid on its own, regardless of the poster/speakers apparent identity. This is a good application for the word 'moot'.

Also - god forbid anyone should protect their patents; any patent holder, given the resources, will pursue infringement, perceived or real.

And what more 'original' than SC? SC hasn't help this industry progress? Should all businesses be ruled by ideologues who want to give their products away? Do you think Morewood, Knolly, or <insert your preferred pedestal dweller here> is in it for the fame and adoration? really?

 

[time-bomb]

I always find the 'hiding behind a screen name' accusation/argument/insult to be a cop out load of crap. Put a seemingly real name, put your real name - it's a forum, to get lost in moot (IMHO) details rather than the discussion is to play politics. An argument, or statement is or isn't valid on its own, regardless of the poster/speakers apparent identity. This is a good application for the word 'moot'.

- agreed. i think we are saying the same thing here. i was laughing at the irony of the poster's comment since he too is anonymous, not agreeing with him.

Also - god forbid anyone should protect their patents; any patent holder, given the resources, will pursue infringement, perceived or real.

- i agree on this point as well. i was under the impression SC is trying to obtain the patent, they don't already have it. if they own it, it is their right to protect it.

this is just my opinion so feel free to agree or disagree, but if something has already been created or invented by someone else, i don't like that someone else can take that idea and patent it just because the original designer/inventor didn't. it just seems greedy and selfish. the only motivation is to prevent others from using it. however, if a patent already exists (like VPP) and you purchase it, that is different. i understand this isn't necessarily how the real world works it is just my opinion.

And what more 'original' than SC? SC hasn't help this industry progress? Should all businesses be ruled by ideologues who want to give their products away? Do you think Morewood, Knolly, or <insert your preferred pedestal dweller here> is in it for the fame and adoration? really?

- fair enough. to say they haven't progressed things isn't true. they have no doubt taken a complex design (VPP) and made improvements on it. they have also built a solid reputation for building durable bikes. have they invented anything or created something new? no. Single pivot bikes have been around before they were, VPP was purchased, and as pointed out earlier, the design now being discussed was also a reality before SC ever even thought about it.

now to imply that i think they (any bike company) should give it away is a real big stretch though. not sure how you made that leap.

i may have misread or misunderstood if it has already been stated, but does SC have this patent already or are they in the process of filing for it?

 

[ChrisKring]

you guys are nuts. If you come up with a novel idea, you should be able to profit from it. If this didn't exist, innovation would cease to exist. The USPTO and courts are there to be the referee.

 

[The Shadow]

I have been posting this on other forums so I hope you dont mind the copy and paste responses.

Everyone has something to gain from what is being brought to light and I mean no disrespect to the forums here. I care very much for this sport and it's many many amazing people it's brought to my life. This sport creates a network that reaches all companies and it's hard not to hear of actions like the one Santa Cruz has made. I have the opportunity to voice it in the most respectful way and though it's anonymously(most people here are) it's because I don't represent any of the effected companies personally. Just like a reporter does with the news.

Cannondale, Evil, Trek and the list goes onto every individual bike company in America are effected by this which means us as the customer are effected. I want every company to keep their freedom to progress and this is my way of helping that freedom. I even want mr hanebrink to have the option to bring back that wacky bike if he wants.... under this mis-awarded patent he would actually not be able to. That's an injustice for any aspiring inventor out there. And America's inventors are why I have enjoyed the freedom of riding bikes and meeting all of my best friends.

Most of us don't understand being awarded a patent doesn't mean that it should of been awarded. The reexamination process is in place exactly for what SC has missed and it should not be a surprise to SC that all of this is being posted. The USPTO awarded the patent without knowledge of the MBA artlicle from 1987.

I really believe in consumer awareness because as a consumer myself I want to know the "why" behind what I buy. I like being inspired by people and when I heard of this I just didn't see anything inspiring going on. And I knew no one else would be motivated enough to put the homework together in order to reach all of you as an audience.

I'm glad you've taken the time to write about this and again I thank you for it.

 

[time-bomb]

you guys are nuts. If you come up with a novel idea, you should be able to profit from it. If this didn't exist, innovation would cease to exist. The USPTO and courts are there to be the referee.

Who said they shouldn't profit? I had words put in my mouth earlier. They should profit if they come up with a novel idea or even if they take an existing one and improve upon it.

 

[IH8Rice]

That's an injustice for any aspiring inventor out there.

no, thats a lesson for aspiring inventors to get their sh!t locked down instead of having some anonymous person bitch about it 20+ years later

 

[The Shadow]

no, thats a lesson for aspiring inventors to get their sh!t locked down instead of having some anonymous person bitch about it 20+ years later

You made my point exactly. Santa Cruz didn't do their homework and left the 1987 MBA article out of the previous art. Their patent will be reexamined and invalidated based on that article.

Here's a quick link for understanding the basics of reexamination. Reexamination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Brian HCM#1]

I even want mr hanebrink to have the option to bring back that wacky bike if he wants.... under this mis-awarded patent he would actually not be able to.

I do believe being past art, SC would lose that battle even with their patent in place.