I just have the patent on rocks, not stones.
the mrp/e13 battle continues
- Thread starter TWeerts
- Start date
And in the process all it's doing is jamming up the court systems and wasting a lot of time and money. Money that could be better spent, perhaps on R&D.
and hookers! and beer! and bacon!
F yes! I like where your heads at. Well done.
back to the point, this thing is cool and i want one. where to buy? kplzthx.
I wonder what Gamut has cookin ??
^^^ evidently, it is the ace of spades
...oh, u said "gamut." nevermind.
...oh, u said "gamut." nevermind.
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).
Gamut has some good stuff in the works...
E13 didn't really invent the chainguide either by a long shot. They hardly have anything original at all going on - they just got a bunch of nuisance patents going and claimed fame to a lot of things. It's about the most simple friggin thing on a bike and again people are acting like there's a lot of intellectual property here when there isn't. It's really pretty humorous from an engineering standpoint. I will buy the MRP when/if I ever build another 3-ring bike simply because I can't stand the business approach of E13, which is to basically make a royal nuisance out of themselves in an industry that is far too small to call for such behavior. I see them edging towards the business practices of the Big S at some point down the line...
"To copy one person is plagarism. To copy multiple people is research." - Someone smart.
E13 didn't really invent the chainguide either by a long shot. They hardly have anything original at all going on - they just got a bunch of nuisance patents going and claimed fame to a lot of things. It's about the most simple friggin thing on a bike and again people are acting like there's a lot of intellectual property here when there isn't. It's really pretty humorous from an engineering standpoint. I will buy the MRP when/if I ever build another 3-ring bike simply because I can't stand the business approach of E13, which is to basically make a royal nuisance out of themselves in an industry that is far too small to call for such behavior. I see them edging towards the business practices of the Big S at some point down the line...
"To copy one person is plagarism. To copy multiple people is research." - Someone smart.
i have to say, its a good idea, but at the same time, i think the guard is too far away from the big ring to be truly effective.
can someone please delete my prior post it is far too dangerous to be in this thread (e13 police are watching)
Well, this is designed for hitting logs perpendicular to the rings.
good times
©2001;2879529 said:
That's a coper you dope.
Like tracker ultralights.......bolts right on.
so hey, you wanna sell that thing or what?
yes and thats what IMO makes it "not truly effective", at least i have more problems with rocks than logs, might be something that changes with riding terrain of course.
irate2:
I agree. e13 is super annoying. The end.
i didnt mean to say one was copying the other, its just that from what i see, mrp doesnt have the sales that e13 does, and they are steming off e13's ideas to take a little of that profit back. e13 releases something, and mrp must also just to keep up.
All in all, wtf do you care? I mean, if there is more to offer, more options, it's just better for us clients. If there are more designs and models, than shurely the prices will go down and products will get better, it's all just logical, so why do you care if who copied who, if it works it's fine! If it's cheap? even better! if it's light.. than hell yeah! I see mrp designing an improved chain guide, but then... aren't all chaing guides and improvement of and older design? who gives a ****, just ride your bike! LMAO
Again, right on!
omfg GM should makes cars that don't have 4 wheels, they are SO just copying the model T from ford........ Wait, they should just redesign the wheel so they can call themselves innovative....
get bent ftw gfys
easy, easy! every one calm down
Ted, you start sh*t and then you wonder why everyone hates you?
My understanding is that MRP only just recently purchased this patent from SMT (simple minds technology). These guys had a '240' bashie for street use. Designed by Jim Bob- http://simplemindstech.com/db2/00182/simplemindstech.com/_uimages/SP.JB2.JPG
They also tried to adapt it to chainguides, I gave a couple a try, but they were only mildly successful.
Jim Bob designed the g2 guide I believe and works for mrp now.
Correct me if I'm wrong in any part.
isn't the G2 lighter than the LG1? I thought everyone likes lighter stuff?
you honestly think the Model T was the first car with 4 wheels?
I really dont care who copied who in this case, but if youre going to copy someone you should at least have the nerve to make you product cheaper.
mrp g2 = $165
lg1=$115
mrp g2 = $165
lg1=$115
this brings up an interesting question...can i run a taco only on my trail bike for a bash? seem like a pretty good idea...
obvioiusly not the mrp but i am thinking about doing an e.13 to protect my xtr's instead of a full bash. The east coast trails are pretty log infested we do alot of bashing here...
obvioiusly not the mrp but i am thinking about doing an e.13 to protect my xtr's instead of a full bash. The east coast trails are pretty log infested we do alot of bashing here...
all this talk about "bash guards." in communist Russia, the guards bash you.
teh win!!all this talk about "bash guards." in communist Russia, the guards bash you.
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?
for those of you around in 1997 when the first generation mrp showed up it was thought to be the end-all be-all answer to dh chainguides. And it was at the time and for many years thereafter. e13 very easily could have made a guide based on the mrp platform and marketed it as an 'improvement' but they didn't, instead they showed real innovation a designed an entirely new system using materials not yet applied to bicycles chainguides. They didn't improve an existing design, they created a new one altogether. The same cannot be said about MRP's current practice of simply altering the status quo.
as for this xc bashguard, i don't foresee it really catching on except with a very small group of riders. Personally i don't see the point.
for those of you around in 1997 when the first generation mrp showed up it was thought to be the end-all be-all answer to dh chainguides. And it was at the time and for many years thereafter. e13 very easily could have made a guide based on the mrp platform and marketed it as an 'improvement' but they didn't, instead they showed real innovation a designed an entirely new system using materials not yet applied to bicycles chainguides. They didn't improve an existing design, they created a new one altogether. The same cannot be said about MRP's current practice of simply altering the status quo.
as for this xc bashguard, i don't foresee it really catching on except with a very small group of riders. Personally i don't see the point.
hello mr. nail, meet mr. head.
i don't know that MRP is "masquerad(ing) as innovation." they may simply be keeping up with the joneses or "maintain(ing) the current standard."
the company that first thought to use a dual compound rubber casing for a tire body doesn't "own" that idea. the industry accepts it as standard and moves on in that direction. both mrp and e13 have products that attach to the bottom bracket or iscg mounts which protect the chainrings. the e13 guide is a bit more mechanically advanced and it would seem they have some proprietary methods for constructing it. however, this is a guard bolted to in iscg mount... a device that mounts to the "industry standard" so i find it hard to believe there is much you can own about it.
The ISCG "industry standard" that was created at e.13 by DW. 
edit: beat me to itThe ISCG "industry standard" that was created at e.13 by DW.
don't give a rat's a$$. it is created and marketed as the industry standard. sounds to me like open-source software. you can't say "here take it" then get pissed when peeps use it.
Nope, but you can certainly patent your products around it. No one is being charged to use ISCG either on bikes or products. In this case, the MRP patent is not specific enough, and that is their own fault.
No one really care if you give a rat's ass. Patent laws are there for a reason. Those who are smart, use them. Those who think they can get around them, get sued.
No one really care if you give a rat's ass. Patent laws are there for a reason. Those who are smart, use them. Those who think they can get around them, get sued.
my "rat's ass" value was associated with the comment about the ISCG being created by DW. as for the patent around the guard mounted to it, how fine a point can we put on that patent? i will admit that i'm no lawyer, but it would seem that at some point you just can't patent stuff. no patent on the wheel (probably because it hs been around forever and Og's ancestors can't be found to pay the royalties to). no patent on the tire... though you can patent the compound the tire is made of, or the tread design. where is the line of demarcation for the bash guard that mounts to an industry standard for mounting stuff?
Very, that is the entire point of patents.
You COULD have patented the wheel, but of course there was no USPTO around at that point. Not sure what the reason was behind the rubber, inflatable tire, but it could have been patented as well. The point is, you CAN patent these things as long as there is no prior art, which of course there is historical evidence of for both of these.