Trek Awarded REAL Split Pivot Patent: 7,837,213
- Thread starter bradflyn
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 8=============> = trek 8=======> = dw 8=> = bradflyn abp=angrybitchingpatents bacon > bradflyn be creative ... brad doesnt understand ip bradflyn = troll bradfyln suckin trek cack dw sh1ts pure gold dw split pivot your mom. ih8rice = ih8christ man train on rm nemesis project brad? patened mouth jizz pivot split ass to tit pooooop rm = dw butt buddie rm now tea party angry! rm suckin dw cock schmeck me trek! sniff my grundle split profit trek fallatio session wtf is fallatio?
ROFL at the "nemesis project brad?" tag 
I agree! It has been a while since tummysticks has been used. I ran around the office yelling tummysticks after I read that.
hahaha awesome
i think that was more a jab at the misspelling of the term
if you have to ask, you cant afford it
rofl at this
can you even buy a split pivot bike yet? I thought the devinci was the closest thing to a real one yet, but it still isn't out.
I don't really care about the patent, so long as trek can continue to sell their bikes with ABP. They ride extremely nice!
Question: Does this mean Trek is allowed to use it themselves but not sell/license it? Where DW is free to sell, license, lick, poke, nudge and cajole?
my guess is that they're both allowed to use/license it. because if trek were to go after a company licensing it from dw, they would essentially be going after dw. and vice versa. seems like kind of a stalemate to me.
in regards to devinci, I believe they are a Canadian company and therefore not under the jurisdiction of US patents unless they sell the bike in the US.
tis true, but that's why I thought they dropped horst and went splat pivot. I'll LOL if they can't sell bikes in the US due to a super mega goofball patent battle.
the whole patenting everything is getting a little out of hand.
well scott sells FSR bikes in Europa.
there's definitely a place for patent laws. sandwich i thought you worked for an engineering firm of some sorts?
that would leave a pricing battle on companies wanting to license the technology from either company no?
people work for years on new technology. i wouldnt want someone else trying to steal my work or someone else having rights to said design
from what i understand yes this is whats going to happen. Trek can have ABP to use for themselves but thats it. while DW can license it to who ever he wants, neither trek nor dw will be able to go after each other, well they could, but nothing will happen. these two patents could explain things ever so slightly different that they are both viable.
similar to maestro - dw-link
Look at it from the perspective of each business entity.
Trek is a big company. Maybe the biggest in cycling. Look at how they've been consolidating their brandings over the last few years (Lemond, GF), and expanding their own parts and accessories offerings (ie Bontrager). Licensing ABP out to other companies doesn't seem to really fit with their MO.
DW on the other hand is approaching things a different way. Instead of focusing on having a company that makes a product, he develops designs, takes steps to protect his IP, then licenses that out to companies that actually produce product. This way his primary focus isn't on the production end of things.
bingo. Trek is free to use their own design because they provided prior artwork that predates the split pivot patent. But DW still beat them to the patent.
Yea, they could go after each other, but nothing would be accomplished except both sides wasting time and resources.
He means how Devinchi built with Horst and couldn't/wouldn't do US sales, they switched to Split to gain US sales just to end up cockblocked out due to litigation.
This is my take.
but if its licensed by DW/SP then they should be covered for sales in the US, otherwise why bother licensing?
Thinking too hard.
It was a speculation point if the courts ruled in Treks favor and DW got completely shut out and they couldn't strike a deal with Trek.I like riding bikes. 
then argue with me on the internetI like riding bikes.
DW may be the smartest person in the bike industry. He does the fun engineering developement, gets paid to consult on frame developement, gets paid to tweak/test other companies prototypes, he "leases" his ideas to companies, and he does not have to deal w/ the crappy side of the industry (Production/Sales/Marketing).
And if the bike doesn't sell, fails in the field, has massive production issues, he still gets paid! Awesome!!!
Hey DW, you hiring? Need some extra help in that new shop you are building? I could grow to love those east coast rox....
for the stuff in bold, not sure whether or not he gets paid for that.
for the underlined stuff, that's not necessarily how licensing works. Typically there's a lump payment (Not very big) up front, then you get a percentage or set amount of each unit sale. At least that's from my experience dealing with licensing patents and IP in other industries. So no products sold = no payment more or less.*
*To clarify it depends on the terms of the licensing agreement, which typically are not publicly disclosed.
I know everything, just ask me.
How did that stick blow up my drivetrain while I was riding xc the other week?
I think you are referring to the "slit pivot".
Dave W and Jenna Jameson are battling it out in court. I think DW will lose this one.
Sorry but I've read a couple of times that the pattent goes to the first one that have the idea, even if someone else try to pattent it first??? So if that's correct Trek wins the pattent. I don't know, Pattent Laws are to complicated. But SP and ABP are the same thing, so someone has to win and someone has to lose, if both pattents are OK i'll keep thinking that the US Pattent office is a joke.
it works like this:
when you apply for a patent, you are making certain claims about your idea/design. So a patent will have multiple claims. In the event you have two patent applications for what's essentially the same idea, if even just ONE of the claims is different, then two separate patents can be granted (this is also a way of getting around a patent, but that's a different story). So I'm assuming that the claims by by DW in his application differ from those made in Trek's application, so issuing both patents was not an issue.
In regards to the timing, DW filed his patent application first. That cannot be disputed or changed. The point of Trek showing prior artwork (ie, showing that they were independently developing the same idea BEFORE dw applied for the patent) is that from an IP litigation standpoint, they cannot be held liable and are free to use their idea even though somebody else (DW) patented it first. It means that they are free to manufacture and sell bikes with APB and DW cannot go after them for damages (money) for patent violation.
Make sense?
Last edited:
It depends on the patent system. The US adopts a "first to invent" patent system. Whoever comes up with the idea first and can prove it by showing diligent reduction to practice, notebooks, memos, etc "owns" it. If someone else files first but was not the first to invent, they can have their patent application challenged in court even after the patent has been issued.
In a "first to file" system, whoever files first owns the rights to the patent. That is the case in Europe, for example.
Prior art does not really apply in this discussion: prior art refers to information available to the public, not company memos or secret prototypes.
If anyone can show existing prior art to a filing, it means that the idea was already in the public domain and it cannot be patented by anyone. Again, there are differences between different systems: in the US, if I have an idea and present it in a public forum (publication, trade show, conference), I have one year from the date when I first disclosed the idea to the public to file a patent. Outside of the US, if I didn't file a patent application prior to publicly disclosing my idea, I have lost the right to file a patent.
Prior art may still be applicable here; depends on whether or not the engineers/designers were under NDA (why they wouldn't be is beyond me), but if there was no NDA then it could be considered prior art. I don't know either way (if they were under NDA).
And according to OP, all the documents proved is that they were developing this idea before DW patented it. Not enough info is available to determine who started working on the idea first.
And according to OP, all the documents proved is that they were developing this idea before DW patented it. Not enough info is available to determine who started working on the idea first.
providing he filed for a patent in Europe (did he?)
given that this situation is obviously not fully resolved, I'm not surprised he's keeping mum.
It's not about who started working on the idea first, it's about who worked diligently to reduce it to practice first. Tell me that is not a recipe for endless litigation ...
Personally, I think the "first to file" system is so much cleaner and simpler. If you sit on your butt, not follow up on a great idea by filing promptly and you end up getting scooped, too bad!
totally. especially given who the parties involved are (in regards to diligence, not litigation).
it is much simpler, but my understanding of a "first to file" system also seems like it would be far more susceptible to patent trolling. That's not to say the "first to invent" system eliminates patent trolling (obviously not), but I think it has better safeguards to prevent it.
I saw he viewed bradflyn's profile.
Admantium. Do not question this.