the dope-smoking hippie "free love and intellectual property rights, man, you're trying to use the US Patent Office to hold us down, woooOOOooooo" is getting a little thick in here. where's Cartman when you need him?
As a wise man pointed out to me: if you abolish IP, big corporations will get the entire pie, not just a piece of it.the dope-smoking hippie "free love and intellectual property rights, man, you're trying to use the US Patent Office to hold us down, woooOOOooooo" is getting a little thick in here. where's Cartman when you need him?
Nope, the patent has to have some purpose. If the shape had a reason (besides asthetic) you could for sure. Say for impact resistance etc. Pretty sure you cannot just patent a shape for the sake of it.ah, then i guess the other side of that coin is - how broad a point can you put on it? i suppose if i came up with a bit of metal that had a specific snow-flake patern and exact dimensions for each angle and cut-out with a specific size and shape for the plastic bash that mounts to it, then it would be an easy patent to defend. however the specifics would be the limitation. to the contrary, could someone say that any metal thingy attached to the iscg mount that has a hard plastic-like other-thingy mounted to it falls under my umbrella patent for "metal-thingies w/ plastic-thingies attached to it"?
yeah, i see where you are going. i am in business and i did take business law classes while in school, so i get this. it just seems like there is a point at which we are splitting hairs. without reading the specific patents and/or applications for the patents for each device, it is hard to know who owns what. ultimately it is up to the government official overseeing the application to approve or deny the patent. once you can get the paperwork by that guy, it is a matter of proving that somebody else's product is "similar" enough to fall under you patents umbrella.Nope, the patent has to have some purpose. If the shape had a reason (besides asthetic) you could for sure. Say for impact resistance etc. Pretty sure you cannot just patent a shape for the sake of it.
The purpose of the guide, it's mounting system, it's protection system and the materials used (in the case of specific plastic blends or metal alloys) can all be patented in either a single patent to product a specific product, or separate patents to protect a range of products.
This is why patent lawyers exist and cost a fortune. You have to be VERY specific in your patent, which can end up making them very broad as well. It's a strange type of abstract to write.
Sorry, but the laws are in place to prevent this sort of thing. If i have a great idea but limited resources my innovation would get swallowed up by any larger, more highly capitalized company who chose to 'compete' with me. patent laws are there to protect individuals from just this sort of thing. If said company thinks they can do better, and has vested interest in doing so then they can either buy my patent rights or license the technology from me.yeah, i see where you are going. i am in business and i did take business law classes while in school, so i get this. it just seems like there is a point at which we are splitting hairs. without reading the specific patents and/or applications for the patents for each device, it is hard to know who owns what. ultimately it is up to the government official overseeing the application to approve or deny the patent. once you can get the paperwork by that guy, it is a matter of proving that somebody else's product is "similar" enough to fall under you patents umbrella.
however, from a consumer-standpoint, i say let them both go at it and let the best man win. i don't care if the patent covers guards that are semi-circular or curvilinear or right-angled. let the invisible hand of the market decide. edit - even if it just comes down to brand loyalty and/or a fashion show.
It might seem like a fair game to you, at least when the 2 companies (e13 and MRP) are relatively small but on a more macro level it gives all the advantage to wealthy highly resourceful companies rather than to innovative individuals.
This is business, not some sort of bike indsutry love-in
thank you, that's what i was trying to get at in my original post. If 'copying' were allowed it might seriously discourage real innovation. the fact that a certain technology is protected forces anyone in that field to constantly rethink and rework the process to get a competitive advantage. contrary to what many think, the patents actually help to drive further innovation.Well, you can get a design patent to cover the appearance of something. Sometimes a trademark or copyright can cover that too.
Anyway, to get a utility patent (what we are talking about), the idea needs to be novel and not obvious to those skilled in the art. The disclosure must also be filed within one year of public disclosure for a US Patent and prior to any disclosure for the rest of the world. That's pretty much the requirements. The laywers argue over the novel and non-obvious parts. A utility patent is generally good for 18 years.
The reason why patents are important is to promote innovation. The inventor needs to eat. If after he invents something, another company rips it off and sells it for less then he can't eat. They can sell it for less since they didn't spend money to pay someone to invent it.
ISCG 05 was designed by DW, old ISCG mounting was made by mr dirt / tomac if memory server me correctly???The ISCG "industry standard" that was created at e.13 by DW.
I don't know alot about this issue, but ....Some of the more simple-minded folks on here seem to be entirely missing the point of the e13/mrp dispute. It's not about improving on an existing product or its seeming simplicity or seeming lack of 'technology' involved in making a chainguide. It is more about the protection of intellectual property and patent rights. whether you agree or not, patents exist to protect the individuals and businesses who are innovative from those who wish to use their innovation for their own benefit. The e13 guide is not rocket science, but for anyone who has raced dh prior to 2002 you know what a revelation that guide was when it came out. DW may not have invented the chainguide but he came up with a light, simple way to make an almost indestructible guide that didn't drop the chain, make tons of noise, jam with mud, or create a great deal of friction. In hindsight it was completely obvious, but that's my point. DW and the folks at e13 had the good fortune of having an innovative idea and applied for and were granted a patent to protect it. Patents are designed to reward and protect innovation. Where true competition and improvement comes from is not from copying someone else's patented technology and simply 'making it lighter.' Innovation comes from improving on their patent, or more precisely, improving the product or technology in a newly innovative way. Patents not only protect innovation, they encourage it further. MRP's practice of copying and using lighter materials masquerades as innovation when in fact it does nothing more than maintain the current standard. 2 conclusions can be drawn from this: either MRP is not interested or capable in investing in their own R&D, or the e13 guides represent the the best possible execution of a chain guide. If the latter is the case then all the more reason for DW and e13 to defend their patents and intellectual property to the greatest extent legally possible. They are tiny company in an equally small market, why voluntarily allow someone else to profit from their own investment?
Sounds to me like the MRP patent for the guard was filed BEFORE the lg1 was even thought up. It doesn't matter that they didn't actually take a product to market. If that is the case i think its a bit rich of you, general lee, to go slagging off MRP. Who copied who's idea?? Not up to us to decide, if E13 want to pursue MRP then thats up to them.No, the other weird twist to this is that MRP never made an attempt to manufacture or market this guide until well after Dave dreamed up the LG-1+taco (and to my knowledge, he didn't know anything about the MRP guide when he did it).
Yep, and he is a teacher too, maybe he can tutor you.Even though it's only the end of March, General Lee gets poster of the year award for correct GRAMER, critically thought out ARGUEMENTS, and jackassery free content.
werd.Even though it's only the end of March, General Lee gets poster of the year award for correct gramar, critically thought out arguements, and jackassery free content.
One thing I should point out in this statement is that not only was the model T a multi fuel car (meaning it could take several different forms of fuel and still run without modding) but it also got 25 MPG, which is better than 95% of the cars out on the roads in America today....blah blah blah...
Let progression happen and go back to driving your Model T
....blah blah blah...
It's a wonder what beer can do your spelling and grammar skillz.Yep, and he is a teacher too, maybe he can tutor you.
P.S. E13 owns
They use robots.
True story.