What does the RM community say about this? http://www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2013/12/16/judge-rules-trek-does-not-infringe-split-pivot-patents#.Uq96KuJKjLM 
Trek wins over DW
- Thread starter stiksandstones
- Start date
Thank god. Some sanity. Too bad other fields have retarded patents.
As long as they don't use:
- DW's leverage curves;
- Trek's leverage curves;
- Either in combination with a shock already in production; or
- Worsley-Twist warp drive string theory derivatives . . . specificially when applied to subluminal travel.
Last edited:
see black ****ing holes
I hope Trek enjoys their epix win, as I'm pretty sure Spesh is going to sue them for fvcking up Aaron Gwin.
Just sue it
Poor DW, that had to cost a very pretty penny to get kicked in the teeth.
Time to hit the street and start pushing his little links!
Specialized??? He has tried to get in bed with them before; but with the Demo platform being re-done, FSR patents expired and not being renewed, now could be the perfect time!
Time to hit the street and start pushing his little links!
Specialized??? He has tried to get in bed with them before; but with the Demo platform being re-done, FSR patents expired and not being renewed, now could be the perfect time!
this thread makes me miss the sunday
Where's bradflyn?
Talk about black holing the Internet!!!!
Last edited:
On the scene.
His real name is Judge William Conley.
I have no concise knowledge with which to decipher it all. I want to care, because DW is a buddy, but I can't without knowing all the legalities of it. And there is no way for me to do that.
Stir the pot much?What does the RM community say about this? http://www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2013/12/16/judge-rules-trek-does-not-infringe-split-pivot-patents#.Uq96KuJKjLM
Just wait until TLD's patent on belt loops goes through.
As long as you don't design shorts with the same placement and number of belt loops, you should be ok
misleading thread title is misleading. all trek "won" was the ability to carry on BAU. DW doesn't get royalties.
if anything, trek lost because they counter-sued to invalidate dw's patent, and his patent was upheld.
if anything, trek lost because they counter-sued to invalidate dw's patent, and his patent was upheld.
Time for DW to make an ecrypted phone call to his old DARPA friends.
Robot voice: "Is this the residence of Judge William Conley?"
Robot voice: "Is this the residence of Judge William Conley?"
FTFY...
google owns boston dynamics, don't make any threats or big dog will take a dump on your lawn.
I agree though, trek didn't win, DW just lost, kind of. they both get to keep selling bikes, it sounds like, and DW probably gets to continue licensing his design...which really means that DW won, he just doesn't know it yet. Now he's going to appeal, and more lawyers are going to get rich. I still just imagine a world without lawyers and overly litigious "inventors"...but what would apple do without patent trolling? I mean honestly, by the time that DW could potentially "win", he'll be out millions in a pair of lawsuits, and trek can probably just cease and desist at that time and release their next suspension design. abp will be like 10 years old, and horst will be free to run amok.
It just seems like such a shame sometimes...all this buggery, and I still think split pivot is the best design out there.
I think the justification of the patents was around everything else besides the concentric axle pivot, since that's been around for ages...so DW may have wrapped his application of "obvious" technology around an application that isn't obvious. I wonder now if trek may have poured through his patent and found two areas where he was a bit specific...that of the moving lower shock mount and the DRCV shock...which it sounds like is what the judge made his decision on.
It's sort of like the sweet spot pivot or any of the shortlink bikes. Shortlink bikes aren't really patentable, but putting the links in a specific location to do a specific thing suddenly makes them patentable.
It's sort of like the sweet spot pivot or any of the shortlink bikes. Shortlink bikes aren't really patentable, but putting the links in a specific location to do a specific thing suddenly makes them patentable.
may have? i guarantee you this was done. that's the challenge with writing patents, not making it so broad that it's hard to get approved, but also not making it so specific that it can easily be circumvented
perhaps, but that should and does go pretty solidly with backing the judge's decision...that trek design doesn't infringe on DW's patent. An appeal may not be an open and shut case, if trek can prove, again, that they made an improvement to or significantly different design...but again, I wonder...why bother? DW is currently free to license his design to everybody but trek, trek doesn't license their design. Perhaps DW's patent writers are the ones he should be mad at.
Possibly . . . if it was printed on cheesecloth.
zeig heil mein grammar fraulein!
did not know the difference between pore over and pour over...derp.
Improving on a patent does not mean the improvement (even if patented) does not infringe the original patent. The subject matter of an improvement patent can still infringe another.
Without reading the opinion, it is clear that the Judge found that DW patents are valid and enforceable patents. The Judge also found that Trek's design is different from the invention that is covered by DW patents (or at least the asserted claims thereof). For anything more you will need the actual opinion.
I should mention that the Judge's opinion is based in part on something called claim construction. The scope of a patent is defined by so called claims. Claims are brief descriptions of the scope of the invention (found at the end of the patent). A claim may read in part: "A device that has two wheels and a shock ... ." Claim construction is a process by which the Judge determines the meaning of the claim language. For example, what does the term shock really mean? From a practical perspective, this usually means that one party wants to ascribe a narrow meaning to a term (like limiting shocks to air shocks and excluding coil shocks) and the other side wants to ascribe a broad meaning to the term. The court looks at the evidence, including the patent itself, statements made by the patentee, experts, and other intrinsic evidence and decides what the term means. Funny enough, claim construction does not necessarily make the meaning of the claims any clearer. From the statement that DW will appeal the claim construction, it sounds like the Judge may have construed the patent claims in a way that DW disagrees with.
All of this happens in a district court. After the claim construction, the jury (or judge) determine (among other things) whether there is infringement (is the patent used) and whether the patent is valid (a new invention). After the decision by the district court, the patentee (DW) or the accused infringer (Trek) can choose to appeal the decision. Here Trek could appeal the finding of validity and DW can appeal the finding of non-infringement. Subsidiary to this, they can also appeal the construction of the claims by the Judge. Because claim construction is a "question of law", the federal circuit affords NO DEFERENCE to the construction by the trial court. In other words, claim construction is redone without regard to the Judge's decision. As a result, claim construction is often reversed on appeal.
I hope this helps understand the process a little bit better.
Last edited:
pipe down, this thread is for speculation only.
Last edited:
Speculation is always a lot more fun. Carry on then.
Unintended comedy.
hey so if I'm hearing you correctly, and those claims get reversed, is it just whoever is granted the last appeal that wins? I guess I don't fully understand how you can just escalate a lawsuit because you don't agree with a ruling. I know that's not DW related, I'm just (thankfully) lawsuit dumb.
No problem. The right to appeal a verdict is intended to prevent legal errors and to ensure that Judges and juries follow the law. If you didn't have the right to appeal, then you would be unable to do anything if a Judge decided to ignore the law. What if your neighbor sued you claiming (obviously frivolously) that he is entitled to your home because it is Tuesday and the Judge awarded your neighbor the home (maybe the Judge and neighbor are in cahoots). Without a right to appeal your home would be gone.
So, in other words, you do not appeal a verdict just because you do not like it, but also because the Judge (or jury) didn't follow the legal rules/laws in arriving at their decision. In the above case, there is no law that your neighbor is entitled to a home because it is a Tuesday and the Judge cannot give away a home on that basis.
In a patent case, for example, there could be a legal error with claim construction. Let's say that in the example I gave (a claim for "a device that has two wheels and a shock ..."), the judge construed the term shock to mean only air shocks but not coil shocks. The accused design used a coil shock but otherwise met every element of the claim. As the patentee, you could say that there was no legal basis for limiting the patent claim to air shocks and then appeal the verdict of non-infringement because the finding of non-infringement was based on the claim construction that the patent did not cover coil shocks.
So, in order to appeal a verdict in a lawsuit, you have to find a sufficient legal error that would justify overturning the verdict. Let me know if that helps.
Last edited:
fifteen percent and it's different pipe down flute whistlers trek wind that from static aptitude of fudging numbers
Last edited:
go away
Btw, I *really* like the fact that PSP edited his post. 
Snaked by Woo!
But to make up for my poop deck post, I saw this on Tosh and it made me think of PSP (lucky number 20 perhaps) -
Snaked by Woo!
But to make up for my poop deck post, I saw this on Tosh and it made me think of PSP (lucky number 20 perhaps) -
Last edited:
Good stuff. Thanks for shedding some light on the process. Hang in there DW.
apparently prior artwork doesn't count for anything here...
only custom prior artwork counts