[jonKranked]

This patent doesn't seem to actually cover the "concentric pivot" it really just covers the specific arrangement of linkages while using a concentric pivot... moreover all the Split Pivot designs we've seen so far aren't even covered under this patent as I understand it... I wonder if Spooky and Devinci are aware of this? Seems more like marketing BS to me... first post = FLAME ON .


http://split-pivot.com/Weagle Split Pivot Patent 7717212.pdf

this is the first time you've tried to read a patent, isn't it?

 

[Meat]

this is the first time you've tried to read a patent, isn't it?

Not at all...

 

[IH8Rice]

My guess is DW was awarded the patent but trek was awarded a non-compete clause...ie DW can license, trek can still build it but not license it to others. That's entirely based on trek rolling out its 2011 bikes and the expectation that they will sell them and not simply roll them back under the table, while DW clearly has a/the patent in place.

thats not really what a non compete clause is.
and the rumor has it that they licensed it to Trek and Trek pays for every bike they sell that uses split pivot/"abp"

 

[jonKranked]

Not at all...

well keep trying, you'll get it right eventually.


Sorry, just had to bust chops some (I've been buried in patent legalese lately).

You are right... sorta... it doesn't directly cover the use of a cocentric pivot at the axis of rotation of the rear wheel. However, the use of said configuration is fundamental to the other claims in the patent.

 

[sikocycles]

I am waiting for the Spooky Projext-X. On my short list of new rides next year.

 

[4xBoy]

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't trek pursue a patent for ABP (their marketing term for split pivot)?

My sarcasm was missed.

 

[Meat]

here's your problem, this on the fist page of the DW patent.
http://mombat.org/Crestone.htm

I guess this is why the patent doesn't actually cover the concentric pivot... Crestone did it in 1994!

http://mombat.org/94Crestone2.jpg

 

[Vrock]

I think that the US Pattent Office is so lame, that even if DW gets their Pattent, Trek can get it too. It has happened before: FSR-ICT, DWL-Maestro....

 

[big-ted]

I think that the US Pattent Office is so lame, that even if DW gets their Pattent, Trek can get it too. It has happened before: FSR-ICT, DWL-Maestro....

I dunno, one might say the opposite. If two people simultaneously develop the same technology independently, it seems unfair to say to one party they can't use it as they were beaten to the punch. In my opinion, the object of patents is to stop people from seeing your ideas, then copying them and profiting for themselves without having the same R and D costs you incurred. I think allowing one party to simply use the technology, whilst the "first to the punch" get to not only use it, but license it to others is a pretty good compromise.

 

['size]

was it a rumor that weagle was actually visiting at trek while they were developing abp during the same time he was developing split pivot, noticed it and mentioned (or not) that he was working on the same thing? i read that somewhere but never knew if it was fact or awesome inter'lore.

 

[bradflyn]

here's your problem, this on the fist page of the DW patent.
http://mombat.org/Crestone.htm

I guess this is why the patent doesn't actually cover the concentric pivot... Crestone did it in 1994!

http://mombat.org/94Crestone2.jpg

Wow, 1994. That's pretty cool also. It seems till Dave and Trek got busy everyone one else forgot or didn't see the ultimate function available from this arrangement that now seems obvious.

Good people out there keep thinking how to make old new with more modern parts available to achieve better performance.

 

[bikesair]

DW Wins Split Pivot patent.

http://www.split-pivot.com/home.html

 

[klunky]

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/Bergamont-2011.html

split pivot?
Might not be ligit though I seem to remember these guys ripped off DW link a few years back...

 

[sethimus]

no, but they had literally the same bike 2 years ago @ eurobike, the production bike was then different, only had a faux bar without the splitpivot/whattheycallit...

 

[fluider]

There is no way it isn't DW's SplitPivot, despite having different name. Although he might not be willing to describe licensing details and his own intentions (as usually ), there's no way some Bergamont would ripped SplitPivot that already is patented all over the world.

 

[CBJ]

Nice bikes Bergamont has produced.

 

[Lelandjt]

There's no way some Bergamont would rip off SplitPivot that is already patented all over the world.

You sure the patent matters in Europe? Think of the Horst Link bikes that are sold in Europe but not the US because of patent issues.

 

[fluider]

DW himself mentioned that patents have been applied in EU, too. Also SplitPivot website mentions patents in US and Worldwide.
However, there is one thing I noticed only now. Those Bergamont bikes have lateraly symetrical arms arangement. BrakeLink|Swingarm ----- Swingarm|BrakeLink. Just like Trek ABP. SplitPivot is asymetrical.