OneUp Components Granted Patent for Wide Range Sprocket, Cassette
The last few seasons have seen scores of riders decide to ditch their front derailleurs in favor of 1x setups, a configuration that became more feasible with the advent of SRAM's wide range 1x11 drivetrain, which was recently followed by Shimano's introduction of an 11 speed gruppo of their own. But turning it up to 11 can be a pricey proposition, and that's where companies like OneUp Components come in, offering add-on cassette sprockets that allow riders to expand the gear range of their 10 speed cassettes by removing one of the smaller cogs and installing a 40 or 42 tooth sprocket to create an easier climbing gear. Soon after OneUp launched their line of drivetrain solutions a number of other manufacturers entered the market after noticing that there was a sizable demand for cassette conversion kits.
OneUp Components was recently granted a US patent for their cassette sprockets, as well as a wide range cassette. The patent describes “a bicycle sprocket for use with a multi-gear rear cassette that improves the gear range
OneUp Components was recently granted a US patent for their cassette sprockets, as well as a wide range cassette. The patent describes “a bicycle sprocket for use with a multi-gear rear cassette that improves the gear range
OneUp was granted a US patent for this sprocket design, along with a wide-range 10 speed cassette.
OneUp Components have stated that they feel there are several companies producing products that infringe on their patent, but according to the Squamish, BC, based company, “We'd like to give these parties a chance to evaluate their designs against our patent. We would be happy to discuss a mutually beneficial licensing agreement with any company that does deem their design to be covered by our patent.” OneUp was vague about what the costs would be for a company to license the design, but did say that the amount was negotiable.
MENTIONS: @OneUpComponents
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
60238 views
60238 views
[UPDATED] Final Elite XC Results & Overall Standings from the Mairiporã XC World Cup 2024
41172 views
41172 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
It sounds to me like they are gearing up for a fight.
I couldn't agree more. Typical of the internet really. Anything good comes along, and shortly after thousands of idiots queue up to fill it with drivel. The comments sections on pinkbike used to be full of insights, clever arguments and the occasional splash of actual wit.
Now they are just littered with lowest common denominator attempts at humor. Its a real shame.
www.punoftheday.com
Enjoy
"Whatever floats your boat"
C'mon this isn't a fox thread! Nice try but no cigar!
Either way you look at it it's a sign that a company is looking to the long term future and being prudent if they have the wherewithal and knowledge to look at patents.
Not really all THAT original, is it?
Thanks
An interested engineer
Patents are all totally fvcking stupid, the whole process should disappear, but some patents are stupider than others & it kinda looks like this may be the pinnacle of stupidity right here. The way this article reads to me is that two of the "Big 3 (all of which start with "S")" greatest evils in the bike industry already came up with an idea, that you turds subsequently copied, maybe slightly modified in some trivial & insignificvnt manner & then applied for a patent on it. A patent on someone else's idea? O.o It's a stupid thing to patent in any case, but this is sooooooo fvcking stupid. So ambiguous & all encompassing. Like anyone that makes a cassette with "improved" range (whatever the fvck that means) is in violation of your legally binding stupidity? GTFO! Fvckin' stupidiotards.
What if everyone patented everything? Like if RS patented the telescoping fork? Answer the inverted telescoping fork? What if someone patented the whole bicycle? The car? The microchip? What sensible way do you define the limits of what is & isn't patentable? It's totally fvcking stupid. Build decent products, for decent prices, backed by decent customer service & you'll probably do fine. Look how many pedal brands, bar brands, stem brands etc. there are out there. You don't see anyone patenting things like hollow chain pins, titanium fasteners, telescoping seat posts etc. Those are things that actually have some kind of compelling advantage to offer & anyone is free to produce them however they like as much as they like.
Get over yourself, knock off the greediness & do things to make the industry, the sport & the world a better place for everyone, or please just fvck off. :/ This rant isn't just directed at OneUp, it's for all the a*shole profiteers out there. The best products in the world are "open source". Sometimes some idiot comes along all "patents are necessary to stop an idea getting stolen, protect IPs, blah blah blah" yet so many more things have not been patented & numerous companies do just fine manufacturing & selling the same things. Pick anything, toilets, blenders, coffee makers, music players, TVs. Fvck me, the guy that invented the wheel sure would have been kicking himself for not patenting it ya think?? :s
SRAM patented hollow link pins.
google.com/patents/DE20314167U1?cl=ru
Dropper post patents?
www.google.com/patents/US20110204201?dq=telescoping+seatpost+patent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UJQ-VYOxJZS2ogTwiIGACg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ
I'd say @leelau is on the right track here.
Lets see how @OneUpComponents plays this one, and what the specifics of the patent say, and who they think is infringing before jumping to conclusions here.
Jus' sayin'.
I Hope that helps,
Jon @ Oneup
A patent is only comes down to what is in the claim section, not what the pretty pictures look like or what is talked about. Basically, their awarded patent claim is a extra sprocket that works with existing drive trains that has teeth on the OD and an interface to the free hub on the ID. It has specific shoulders to maintain correct spacing.
The dependent claims, all below the initial claim, are supporting specifics. So basically, they've patented the application of making a single sprocket that is designed to work with existing multi speed bicycle drive trains. This is not about teeth design, or shape, whatever.
It's BIG to be awarded this. It reads to me like every manufacturer of is in violation...
I'm an engineer too that has about 5-6 patents, fwiw
I don't hold anything against OneUpComponents, they have to do this to protect themselves against a big, mega-corporation that has a bigger legal budget than an entire smaller company like OneUp. The environment created by patent law forces companies to patent everything in sight before their competitors do. When markets are decided by the lawyers of big companies like "S" or a certain tech company that patented "rounded rectangles", the old and rich win and the new and innovative lose.
I could certainly be wrong, and am the first to admit that these thoughts are the result of just one quick read of the patent, but it's looking to me that this is more of a defensive patent than an offenSive one. If the other makers of such products are careful in observing the specific details of this patent, they should be home free.
I think the question here is what is non-obvious about one-up's design, that isn't simply copying shimano's design just with a larger diameter. I wouldn't think the spacing is any different than the spacing the stock cog came with.
Getting the patent is one thing, but i would think in court they could be challenged on the idea that their idea was non-obvious. Did they or did they not simply make a larger diameter sprocket?
@OneUpComponents - very good way of reacting, I was affraid that people would go ape sht as soon as I saw the head line. Keep on kicking guys!
The first steel extension cogs started to appear on ebay in 2012 after people had bolted chain rings to their cassettes previously. General Lee came out roughly at the same time.
In April 2013 the first one made of aluminium I have ever seen appeared on a German massage board, a user there produced a small patch and I own one from this very first patch: www.mtb-news.de/forum/t/xx1-alternativen-diy.601751/page-57
Oneup posted their first ever post on facebook in late november 2013, showing their cog.
Then loads of others followed.
"OneUp Components have stated that they feel there are several companies producing products that infringe on their patent, but according to the Squamish, BC, based company, “We'd like to give these parties a chance to evaluate their designs against our patent. We would be happy to discuss a mutually beneficial licensing agreement with any company that does deem their design to be covered by our patent.” OneUp was vague about what the costs would be for a company to license the design, but did say that the amount was negotiable."
So, if other companies are using technology or a configuration that is covered under this patent, as they say above they can negotiate a "mutually beneficial licensing agreement with any company that does deem their design to be covered by our patent". Meaning: start paying or shut it down...or find another way around this patent.
So... maybe not the end of competition here.
I don't foresee companies being sued by oneup for patent infringement. For a small company to waste a ton of money in lawsuits and lawyer fees would be foolish. They definitely have the right to say they can flex that muscle if needed though. And like others have stated, the patent is only for US markets.
Come on One Up, inovate not suffocate.
Patentable: check
Novel: sort of check
Useful: check
Non-obvious: seems pretty obvious to me...
Non-obvious is defined as when a person skilled in the field (in this case mtb drivetrains) would not be able to solve the problem the patent addresses.
In my opinion it seems pretty obvious that if you want a lower gear ratio you can just add a larger sprocket in the rear or a larger one up front. In fact, it's about as obvious as the gear it replaces. There's nothing that innovative about swapping the side of the cassette that the gear is on.
Also, if other companies want to produce similar components it seems like all they would have to do to get around this patent is make it part of the cassette. Might be wrong about that, but patents are always convoluted.
As soon as the narrow wide (1*11) was there, everybody was asking for the most obvious thing....a bigger sprocket (so they did not have to buy a completely new drivetrain and shifters etc.)
One up might have been the first to produce it, or ask for a patent, but that is not called invention or innovation.
So - OneUp decided to survive by selling itsself and/or becoming a patent troll. Kudos to them.
Fair play to them.
As I have heard said many times - "love don't pay the bills".
All the hippies need to pipe down. If One Up get ripped off because of not protecting their ideas, they will not make the money they need to make to keep running. People will lose jobs. It's simple business, not some lizard rulers of the earth conspiracy.
I can only pass judgment on the decision based on what I will need/want in the future. My desire to move from 9 to 10 speed was based on more gearing. My desire to move from 3x to 2x was the terrain I ride, 2x to 1x, losing weight from the bike (and a bit of fashion If I am honest, I like it so this is ok!). Question - will I want to move to an 11 speed cassette at some stage? Logically I would say yes. Is this going to cost money, of course, but by the time I decide to do this my other components will need changing anyway.
Oneup have protected their interests for this moment in time which is great, a small company competing with the big boys. The main question for me is will I 'need' an expander when I eventually order an 11 speed shiram cassette/shifter/mech combo? Not sure...
I see these expander solutions are merely temporary and will eventually almost die out as more affordable wide range grupos are specced on bikes, as they certainly will be (GX, XT, SLX eventually). Several companies will keep these items in their mix of offerings, but a company built solely around it won't be able to stay in business past another couple years........ which brings us to this article and the reason for attempting to secure a patent.
And I don't see any reason why SRAM/Shimano would purchase OneUp. Maybe if they're actually able to lock in some revenue from licensing but that might turn into an antitrust issue? Time will tell. I just hope it doesn't turn into a pissing match. The owners of OneUp went into business to fill a need in the market and make a living doing it, but to start a legal battle with Wolf Tooth, Kore, Hope etc. is likely going to hurt their image as those brands are well respected (and I'm not totally convinced there's even anything patent-worthy going on here). My 2 cents. We'll see how this plays out.
I don't know what you mean by the "typical American patent system" comment though. A company should have the right to protect their technology from being copied. This protects that companies profits and also encourages innovation within the industry to come up with new and better alternatives.
The UK patent system is set up so that if OneUp was granted this patent then eg WolfTooth turned up and could prove that they had done something very similar before the patent was granted then that patent is declared null and void. It's why companies in Europe will patent something before bringing it to market and prototypes are so closely guarded. If eg Hope were to file for a UK patent on their expander cog it would be refused on the grounds that A: they weren't the first to do it and B: it's widely available in the market. It's the same reason SRAM's Narrow/Wide patent wouldn't have been granted here as it is a technique that was used in old farming machinery in the 19th century.
I'm not saying one system is better than the other, just that they are set up differently. The UK system means you have to prove you have come up with a unique solution or idea and allows the people who have invested time, energy and money to protect their investment. The US system rewards the first person to file the correct paperwork once they have a working product. And yes, I have experience of applying through both systems: UK wasn't granted, US was.
it clearly is lol
Standard rule in Europe regarding US patents on stuff: Were they the first to do it? No? Who was? Do they have a patent? No? Then ignore it!
They are not the same systems at all.
I'm in the same situation. I fully understand the importance for a company to protect its IP on genuine innovation that can cost a fortune to develop (and I support the fact that they do), but too often, the lawyers are the only real winners.
Someone scan one of these into a 3D program and we'll print our own.
SUMMARY
One aspect of the present invention provides a bicycle sprocket for use with a multi-gear rear cassette that improves the gear range of the cassette and can be used with most conventional drivetrains designed for use with a ten sprocket rear cassette.
Another object of the present invention is to provide a bicycle multi-gear rear cassette having an improved gear range that can be installed for use with most conventional drivetrains designed for use with a ten sprocket rear cassette.
One aspect of the present invention provides a bicycle sprocket for use with a multi-gear rear cassette. The sprocket includes a chain engaging portion and a mounting portion, both having a generally annular shape about a central axis. A radially outward edge of the chain engaging portion comprises a plurality of circumferentially spaced and radially outwardly extending teeth for mechanical engagement with a bicycle chain. A radially inward edge of the mounting portion defines an aperture shaped to receive therein a freehub body. A radially outward edge of the mounting portion is radially spaced apart from a radially inward edge of the chain engaging portion. A plurality of spaced support arms, integrally formed with the chain engaging portion and with the mounting portion, extends radially outwardly from the radially outward edge of the mounting portion to the radially inward edge of the chain engaging portion. The sprocket further includes a plurality of space maintaining protrusions, each space maintaining protrusion integrally formed with and extending axially forwardly from an axially forward surface of a corresponding support arm.
For example when I replace my cassette I don't want to buy a new XT cassette for example and a loose Expender cog (/pay twice as much as neccessary). I would much rather buy a complete cassette that already goes up to 40T (or more).
Strange to see that first the product came onto the market, than other companies started producing it aswell or making their own versions of it, and only a while after that the patent suddenly came. I thought it was only possible to get patents before you release the product (defensive), not when many others already invested a lot of money aswell in their own products and than kick them in the face by not allowing them to sell all those already-produced products (offensive). This proces seems a bit weird to me, but in to be honest in the end I'm still happy that One Up Components started this proudct, so I do think they deserve some defense for it.
It would have been safer for their own image though if they would have done the patent when they released the product.
I just really hope this doesn't mean that I can't buy a complete wide range cassette when I will need to replace my current one.
If One Up comes with one that is not ridiculously priced, I would be happy with buying that one though
Are you ashamed of what you have done now that it's out in the open. Bet you sat around the office bemoaning stupid patents at some stage or other of your product development too.
Why not give us a easy to understand layman's explanation of your patent(s)? Is it something to do with tooth profile? Ramps?
Imagine you are oneup components - you have created the idea of this add-on component and think people want to buy it for given price. To make it at set price you need to invest in new manufacturing equipment, employees, facilities, etc. Are you going to risk investing all that time and capital if another savvy competitor can come in, patent the idea or some necessary design subset that makes the idea work and shut you down or get a court to order to have your profits garnished due to infringement on what was really your idea and your hard work. Of course not you risk losing everything and being in huge debt - if this was the case no one would spend the time to innovate and invest in manufacturing technology and resources that can drive down price.
To think that all these companies & people that start companies should take that risk of a time and money investment into a new idea/product and not be protected is really ridiculous.
I think that the real question here is should the patent office have given them the patent for something so small and obvious (and specific to cogs on a bike cassette, because this is hardly the first time a spacing ledge has been used on a gear). Sometime patents are reversed by courts - which sucks to involve lawyers but what else are you gonna do? In this case the court could find that the design feature or innovation was not novel enough and reverse the patent.
You don't think Shimano holds patents? One of the most proprietary companies in the industry. Time to get real and look at the hypocrisy of your statement.
I see it as Scandium's opinion that this product isn't "patentable" to the point of litigation, with no interest in seeing small bike-related brands (which we're all passionate about) nickle and dime each other.
I use OneUp's product but am not yet sold on why anything about my 42t monster cog needs a patent.
Just because someone doesn't take their opinion to the nth degree and apply it as a blanket across every aspect of their life doesn't make them a hipocrite.
I could spend every hour of every day researching the business practices of every brand I buy, but when then hell would I work, spend time with my family, ride and waste time on Pinkbike?
Probably some smart farmer that wanted his chains to stay on and didnt think beyond that
www.bikeradar.com/mtb/news/article/sram-to-license-narrow-wide-chainring-design-39491
Now listen to this, it will either make you believe or not, things changed in the 90's, before and after we thought.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Bx1s8Nus8
Don't get me wrong, In The Aeroplane Over The Sea is a great album, but it wasn't ground breaking or new at the time. They just kind of redid ideas that were thought up during the sixties.
Yeah, like all others - Hope, E13, WolfTooth, WorksComponents ect.
For whatever reason it won't be Shimano or SRAM who both have the technology to do an offroad internal hub and it won't be Box either so how about it Oneup?
Maybe you could also let us spec our own cassettes with fewer than 10 cogs for those of us who want them.
As for efficiency people forget the more lateral offset between the chain ring and cog there is, in other words the worse your chain line is the less efficient the system is. If you spend much time working on systems with fewer cogs than 10 or 11 you would know just how much friction there is when you are on the larger cogs furthest from the centre line of the chain ring.
The are heavy but both the efficiency and weight could be improved if someone put their mind to it.