Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Downhill & Freeride' started by epic, Sep 10, 2012.
Please register to disable this ad.
I think DW just makes people more aware of the trek's ABP.
If I ever asked myself what is better... come DW, and make me now think that they are the same.
So if trek only made a 140mm trail bike... I would probably replace my MKIII to it.
If that's true I really hope Dw rips them a new one.
What about the remedy? it's 150mm. Or the fuel @ 130mm? Or the Dixon, @ 145mm? Does the 10mm of travel make that much difference to you?
I agree. If that is true, I hope Lance Armstrong is DW's chauffeur.
Is this statement true? Anyone gone through the patents in detail? If they're not patenting the split pivot then what exactly are they patenting? There isn't really anything revolutionary in the way the rear ends of the bikes are attached to the main frame that I can see.
If so, it seems to me like another case of taking something that already existed and getting a patent for the sake of calling it your own.
I thought the ABP/split pivot thing exsisted on some 1920s motor bike?
That 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.
When did that happen? I didn't think that had ever gone anywhere.
What happend with the giant thing? I figured it just fizzled out.
TMI. Way, way TMI.
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.
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.
This. I am, and will always will be for the little guys
(not sure if DW is one of them, but still, he has great ideas and should receive the reward for them.).
I can't believe these things are patentable. So ridiculous.
and now it's best salesman engineer on the planet vs. the other big evil company that does not carry an S in it's name ^^
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?
P.S. Even if this type of suspension was used on a motorcycle in some fashion in the 1930s, there may be key differences and it may not have been "obvious" to a POSITA to employ it on a bicycle.
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.
P.S. DW may have a perfectly valuable and justly issued patent. I hold DW in high regard, have never read the patents and don't know anything about the prior art or his interactions with Trek. This is more of a general statement about the state of patent litigation.
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?
No, but we can all read the patent and laugh at it.
^^^, that, and the world cup season is drawing to a close, so we need something to keep us entertained while we wait for the team and trade rumor season to start....
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.
But, the bigger issue is that juries are simply inadequate arbiters of whether technology is novel to a person of ordinary skill in the art. They simply lack the life experience to make those decisions.
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.
Trek has the money to hire attorneys that will bury DW in paperwork.
I thought this had been handled already, guess not. Crazy story of the meeting with Trek.
hopefully he can get this sorted out so he can start licensing his design to other companies like devinci or morewood.
Where is bradflyn?
I like to think dw met with all of the bike companies in the hope that some would steal his idea rather than just licence it so that he could then rake it in by suing them for double the amount
This is going to get bucked into a sloppy mess.
The only winner in a lawsuit is the lawyers.
I wish DW luck!
Ha ha ha. Didn't DW used to be Evils Overlord?
I'm not sure what to say or how I feel about this. DW had a thread requesting images of old designs, possibly with the intent to patent them.
DW is a great designer, and his method of getting his designs out there via patents and licensing is great to keep him free from one company and it's marketing ideals. And it is fair that he gets to patent HIS ideas and protect them, and it is dud if Trek chose to do the dodgy on him after he shared a design with them, even if it was "prior art". I'm happy to just boycott Trek until the dust settles. I wish they'd stuck with their high single pivot design anyway, and their frames are made too lightweight and perishable for my liking anyway. Profit seems very high on Treks agenda, and yes that is the point of a company, but when do you cross the line to being unethical.
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.
thats a pretty bold and negative statement.
But it's true! You've heard of gamut chain guides?
Made from distilled baby gelatin. Nothing more resilient.
And still totally worth it!
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.