[Sandwich]

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?

yeah, sghost summed up my point. If there's a mutual cease and decist, and all companies except for trek and DW could make frames, Devinci will get scrood...but since DW is a person and not a company/manufacturer, I don't know how that works.

no I'm not an enginerd, but I am a scientist.

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

As for patent laws...there are certainly places for patents and law and rule and all that stuff. And yes, it does belong in the bike industry, just like DW did with the DW link...and even split pivot. My complaint is that there's now a drive to patent whatever you can, as soon as you can, and sell bikes with a patent sticker on the side, even if what you're patenting is a glorified banana hammock. For example...now DW and Trek may be locked into a patent battle, spending many many hours and thousands of dollars competing for this patent, when if they had negotiated a mutual agreement, if they had indeed developed SPABP at the same time, we'd all be riding cheaper bikes, trek could have had "ABP, designed by Dave Weagle" on the side of their frames and no licensing fees, then DW could have licensed the techology to other people (devinci), and everybody gets paid except for patent lawyers...

I'm just bitching about the process, not about DW wanting to patent things or Trek being right or wrong or anything... I just want to see a return to a focus on development, and not patenting whatever you can as soon as you can, as though patents sell bikes.

 

[boogenman]

rm suckin dw cock, rm= dw butt buddy

We all DW

 

[roel_koel]

Trek is a big company. Maybe the biggest in cycling

Giant is the largest, then Specialized.....

 

[dante]

Trek is a big company. Maybe the biggest in cycling

Giant is the largest, then Specialized.....

Only if you include the respective assembly factories that are associated with each.

 

[Pete..]

Trek is a big company. Maybe the biggest in cycling

Giant is the largest, then Specialized.....

Learn to quote.



Lots so assuming and guessing in here.

 

[w00dy]

Quick, somebody swing a cactus.

 

[IH8Rice]

 

[jonKranked]

Trek is a big company. Maybe the biggest in cycling

Giant is the largest, then Specialized.....

Only if you include the respective assembly factories that are associated with each.

Yea, here in the US at least Spesh and Trek are duking it out for LBS attention. Shop I used to work at sold both, and each company was trying to convince the owner to drop the other brand.

 

[illnotsick]

Giant is the largest, then Specialized.....

Which is irrelevant since Trek is >>> Devinci

 

[rocketmatt17]

Giant owns Trek

 

[DirtyMike]

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.

That is essentially correct. Thy both can use it, they both can license it for use.... BUT they wont be able to go after someone who is using it or licensing it from the other.

that would leave a pricing battle on companies wanting to license the technology from either company no?

And yes, it will be a pricing battle for who licenses it from who...... My thoughts.... trek wont be licensing it out anyways


Note... still reading more on the thread so if I repeated..... My bad

 

[DirtyMike]

Ok.... My real responce to the thread.

Trek didnt steal the idea from DW on this. Trek had some test bikes back as early as 2001.... I got to ride some of them. Basically what I got to ride was the original idea of the trek fuel which exists today. They have been playing with it for a long time and tuning tweaking ETC.

I will add that I do not for one minute belive DW stole the idea from trek either, I belive two entities were indeed working on an idea at the same time.

Now as far as the patent goes.

It could be as simple as this...... Maybe trek and DW listed there pivot idea with a different outcome.... IE one for shock performance, one for braking performance....... wording can make all the difference in the world in the legal system. It can also explain how two entities can essentially both own a patent for what is essentially the same thing. This ahppens in much more than just bikes.... it happens in everything.


I do not belive for one second there will be a paotent battle here, I belive both entities invloved have more respect for each other on this particular matter. Trek wont be licensing it out to anyone, they are planning on having it on their bikes. So anyone that does decide to lciense it from DW will need to make sure it doesnt infringe on what trek has listed as its purpose for use...... Basically they will need something other than a floating shock system..... and life will be good.

 

[seth505]

sweet odens raven!!

 

[kidwithbike]

this thread is Yawesome.

keep up the good work "Gentlemen"

i am going to add "patent leather pivots" to tags which i saw used elsewhere, whoever came up with that deserves rep. so rich.

 

[kidwithbike]

tags are maxed!

 

[dropmachine]

Thats me son! Rep away.

 

[stiksandstones]

I come for the tags.

 

[dropmachine]

Quiet down Patent subject.

 

[Demomonkey]

Some of the tags are funny. The rest of this thread stinks. If bikes are fun to ride why would someone bother even bringing this up? RM is like Playboy - I'm just here for the pics.

 

[eatmyshorts]

yeah, sghost summed up my point. If there's a mutual cease and decist, and all companies except for trek and DW could make frames, Devinci will get scrood...but since DW is a person and not a company/manufacturer, I don't know how that works.

no I'm not an enginerd, but I am a scientist.



As for patent laws...there are certainly places for patents and law and rule and all that stuff. And yes, it does belong in the bike industry, just like DW did with the DW link...and even split pivot. My complaint is that there's now a drive to patent whatever you can, as soon as you can, and sell bikes with a patent sticker on the side, even if what you're patenting is a glorified banana hammock. For example...now DW and Trek may be locked into a patent battle, spending many many hours and thousands of dollars competing for this patent, when if they had negotiated a mutual agreement, if they had indeed developed SPABP at the same time, we'd all be riding cheaper bikes, trek could have had "ABP, designed by Dave Weagle" on the side of their frames and no licensing fees, then DW could have licensed the techology to other people (devinci), and everybody gets paid except for patent lawyers...

I'm just bitching about the process, not about DW wanting to patent things or Trek being right or wrong or anything... I just want to see a return to a focus on development, and not patenting whatever you can as soon as you can, as though patents sell bikes.

Amen to that..

IMO too much development is biased on making something different around another patent for the sake "well we have our own technology too"... Like whats the difference between pepsi max and diet pepsi - obviously pepsi max is extreme and should be consumed by DH riders..

 

[essenmeinstuff]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=trek&word2=dave+weagle

 

[jonKranked]

Amen to that..

IMO too much development is based on making something different around another patent for the sake "well we have our own technology too"... Like whats the difference between pepsi max and diet pepsi - obviously pepsi max is extreme and should be consumed by DH riders..

but sometimes that's the nature of the game.

 

[jonKranked]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=trek&word2=dave+weagle

trek wins that one only because dw doesn't have his own IT department

 

[dante]

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=trek&word2=dave+weagle

Uh, is it me or is googlefight broken? Since when is 2,150 bigger than 3,210,000?

 

[Kevin]

Like whats the difference between pepsi max and diet pepsi - obviously pepsi max is extreme and should be consumed by DH riders..

This is actually more relevant then you would think...

Watch and learn why so many linkages are marketable.

 

[-BB-]

This is actually more relevant then you would think...

Watch and learn why so many linkages are marketable.

Interesting... I actually watched the whole thing. Then again, I'm a marketing guy.

 

[Sghost]

Amen to that..

IMO too much development is biased on making something different around another patent for the sake "well we have our own technology too"... Like whats the difference between pepsi max and diet pepsi - obviously pepsi max is extreme and should be consumed by DH riders..

They are fighting for visible shelf space on shelves to push the other out of your frame.

trek wins that one only because dw doesn't have his own IT department

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=trek&word2=dw

 

[SylentK]

This is actually more relevant then you would think...

Watch and learn why so many linkages are marketable.

So Trek is creating the Grey Poupon of the bicycle world by creating patent leather pivots?

 

[jonKranked]

So Trek is creating the Grey Poupon of the bicycle world by creating patent leather pivots?

no, the point is that consumers generally don't know sh*t. What they think they like and what they ACTUALLY like only lines up a fraction of the time.

 

[ridefast]

Update: This is now official, Trek has the patent for their version of split-pivot/ABP

US Patent # 7,837,213.

That is all, back to your regularly scheduled hatin'

 

[bizutch]

Update: This is now official, Trek has the patent for their version of split-pivot/ABP

US Patent # 7,837,213.

That is all, back to your regularly scheduled hatin'

I don't trust Bellingham. Too close to Canada.

 

[ridefast]

Damnit butch, im in Chattanooga

 

[dropmachine]

I'm actually fairly confident that most cycling consumers are dumb enough to think that Treks ABP is something different and unique, and won't realize that ABP and Split Pivot are pretty much the same thing.

This works to Treks advantage, from a marketing standpoint.

 

[Uncle Cliffy]

 

[IH8Rice]

I'm actually fairly confident that most cycling consumers are dumb enough to think that Treks ABP is something different and unique, and won't realize that ABP and Split Pivot are pretty much the same thing.

This works to Treks advantage, from a marketing standpoint.

those swayed by Trek's fancy marketing will undoubtedly think its a unique design to Trek, but us bike geeks will know better

 

[daisycutter]

from mtbr
Trek’s Active Braking Pivot Issued US Patent
Proprietary suspension design now protected by federal law

(Waterloo, WI) - Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued Trek Bicycle a patent on its Active Braking Pivot (ABP) suspension system, #7,837,213.

Invented by Trek suspension engineers James Colegrove, Dylan Howes, and Jose Gonzalez, ABP has been praised for being the first suspension technology to effectively separate braking and suspension forces. This separation allows the suspension to remain active while the rear brake is engaged.

Trek’s ABP patent has broad implications, as it covers a concentric pivot in combination with much more sophisticated and varied types of rear suspension designs.

ABP, utilizing a concentric rear pivot, was first introduced to the marketplace in May of 2007 and has since evolved to become the foundation of Trek’s full-suspension bikes, offered on eight platforms to date.

From its origins in 2006 to today’s 2011 Trek full suspension lineup, Active Braking Pivot remains a competitive performance advantage found exclusively on Trek and Trek’s Gary Fisher Collection full-suspension mountain bikes. Now patented, ABP is further proof of Trek’s commitment to leading the world in mountain bike technology.

 

[roel_koel]

can anyone break this down for the simple amongst us?

-so Trek has an official Patent for A.B.P.

-D.Weagle has (had?) an official Patent for Split Pivot

does this new Trek patent mean D.W. does not have a valid patent for S.P. any more?

or do they exist side by side?

or are they different patents (although both relate to a concentric dropout pivot)?

what impact does Trek's "floating shock" design have on this issue, compared to S.P. which has a fixed shock?

what does this mean for S.P. customers like Devinci?

 

[IH8Rice]

what impact does Trek's "floating shock" design have on this issue, compared to S.P. which has a fixed shock?

the Session is a single pivot bike

 

[jonKranked]

can anyone break this down for the simple amongst us?

-so Trek has an official Patent for A.B.P.

-D.Weagle has (had?) an official Patent for Split Pivot

does this new Trek patent mean D.W. does not have a valid patent for S.P. any more?

or do they exist side by side?

or are they different patents (although both relate to a concentric dropout pivot)?

what impact does Trek's "floating shock" design have on this issue, compared to S.P. which has a fixed shock?

what does this mean for S.P. customers like Devinci?

I'm pretty sure it's this. I'll take a look at the claims.

Also, this only affects sales in the US. Don't know the status (or existence) of any patent applications relating to these items abroad.

 

[roel_koel]

I've just found this on Bikeradar:

The issuance of the Trek ABP patent recognizes, in the government’s eyes, that Trek and Weagle developed the similar systems separately. Now that each design is patented, they are legally allowed to co-exist. This is a win-win scenario for riders who will have more choices of suspension systems with the benefit of concentric rear pivots in 2011 and beyond.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/treks-abp-suspension-design-issued-us-patent-28501