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.
Here It Is!!!!!!!!! A Karpiel Sneak Preview............
- Thread starter Brian HCM#1
- Start date
Looks flexi. 
Can I get one with three chain rings in root beer?
Can I get one with three chain rings in root beer?
looks cool. such $ feeling bikes once dialed in.
So this will be run buy Jan again, who bailed leaving over a dozen riders without bikes, or with bikes that were never heat treated?
I know and trust you, the dealer. I know and do not trust Jan, the manufacturer.
I know and trust you, the dealer. I know and do not trust Jan, the manufacturer.
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.
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.
I always liked Karpiel bikes. Had one on order and waited 7 months and no bike. I was a lucky one to get my deposit back and bought a Brooklyn instead. The bikes have a lot of potential only if it was managed better. Looks like it will be better and best of luck.
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.
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.
The best part was running full speed into a rock garden and letting the bike just suck it all up. My friend following nearly killed himself trying to follow the same "line".
The only thing I didn't like about the Army or Apoc was that they were a bit "finicky" to dial in, with so many adjustments. That, and they had some odd quirks as well - those quirks were just standards for the day though - like not being able to run smaller than a 40T ring without feedback issues, high leverage ratio, no thru axle, poor rear tire clearance (on mine at least). Still glad I got a chance to one though!
Can't wait to see the new Apocalypse frames.
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.
Give up
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.
no. he's saying that the person who filed trek's patent did NOT copy jan because they are completely different systems. a linkage actuated single pivot is in no way the same (and in no way would be granted "prior art") as what trek's patent covers, which it appears the new karpiel uses. In other words, the new karpiel is totally different from the old one, and the new one probably infringes on Trek's patent
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.
Let's run through a checklist, if you still don't get it after this, you are totally retarded:
1. The Trek patent covers a 4-bar linkage layout. The VRS is not a 4-bar linkage, it's a singlepivot. Forget the VRS.
2. The linkage layout in the Trek patent was NOT built by Karpiel before the patent was filed.
3. Another part of the Trek patent specifies that the patent only covers that linkage layout WHEN the shock is driven off the lower link.
4. The new Karpiel, as pictured by you, has a linkage that fits the description in the Trek patent as well as driving the shock off the lower link.
Therefore, as far as I can see, your bike falls under a pre-existing patent.
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
omgwtfmatebbq11!!1!1!1!1
Your parents were related before they were married right?
Great contribution. Moron.
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.
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 forums
http://www.google.com/patents?id=zA8FAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=6,203,042#PPA10,M1
Under "Summary of the invention":
Movement of the rear suspension system is controlled with the shock absorber, which is attached to the frame and to the chain stay pivot link.
Under "Detailed description of the preferred embodiment":
The first end 41 of the shock absorber is pivotally attached to the frame, and, as mentioned, the second end 42 of the shock absorber is pivotally attached to the third portion 37 of the chain stay link 17.
Under claims:
1. A rear suspension bicycle comprising:
(among other things)
said first link having a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion, said first portion being pivotally connected to the frame at a first pivot point located immediately above and slightly forward of the bottom bracket, said second portion beinv pivotally connected to a forward portion of the chain stay, and said third portion being pivotally connected to the shock absorber.
So yep, it falls under the patent. Whether or not Trek would chase it or what, who knows, but if I was them I would.
I think the main issue everyone's missing is that it might not even matter whether the Karpiel design technically infringes. If it's close and Trek feels at all threatened by it, they can just file suit and go to war over it. If that happens, who do you think has deeper pockets - Karpiel or Trek? It could quickly turn into a war of attrition that would bankrupt Karpiel, regardless of whether a judge/jury would ultimately side with Trek. I know that sucks, but it's a reality (and a scenario with which I have some familiarity).
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.
--JP
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.
--JP
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. 
what about the new canfields? don't those infringe the patent's as well?
In communist Poland, infringement patents you!!!!
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......
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.
Also if you're the importer, you can be dragged into it, cause technically you'd be the one violating the law here in the US. Not sure if you're just going to be dealing them, or if your bringing them in too.
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?
how about the new banshee that one really infringes the patent
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)
<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)
Oh look it looks like the old one.....GREAT
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.
OH MY GOD
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 can tell you it's not something you just want to assume you're ok on, if you have any info you might not be. Not only can you be sued to stop selling the item, but you can be sued for damages also here in the US.
I haven't read the patent so i have no opinion is the design is stepping on it or not. What i can say is if a company in general even thinks your stepping on it, they'll go after you. Especially in a case where they know they have more money than you. Many time patent battle come down to who is will to spend the most money.
hope it works out ok..but if not we can still get them in Canada right 