Powered by Outside

Should specialized be allowed a patent?

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
Should specialized be allowed a patent?
Author Message
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 16:58 Quote
m47h13u wrote:
If there is one thing the biking industry could grow from it's Specialized losing their patent rights on FSR. Then the U.S. would have a whole bunch of new bikes to choose from. The market would grow and there would be more competition. I wonder if like for copy rights you can void a patent with proof of previous use.
then you might as well revoke all the patents on any design. the market would then be completely flooded with bikes that used the same design, and it would be completely overwhelming to try and make a decision on a bike. patents is how we regulate knock-offs.
flag jonbikes
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 17:10 Quote
sonicsloth wrote:
jonbikes wrote:
I can assure you that the design of the Flatline is far from the FSR system.

It's not that other companies can't use the FSR system, they just have to pay a toll for it.

i was refering to the new altitude - sorry i should have been more specific. the chainstay pivot evades the fsr patent by a mere 5mm, sitting within rocky mountain's patent. the new design has sparked a lot of debate.

I haven't seen a picture of this bike, but is the axle not attached to the chainstay? Half of what makes FSR what it is is the fact that the axle is attached to the seat stay and not the chainstay.
flag typecaRl
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 17:12 Quote
jonbikes wrote:
I see nothing on Merida's website that suggests they have anything to do with Specialized, and this is the first I have ever heard of it. Got any sources to back that up with?

Unfortunatly no I dont have any weblinks as such to back up what Im saying. Im just repeating what I have been told by reliable sources. I.e Merida representatives at the core bike show.
flag m47h13u
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 17:13 Quote
flikende wrote:
then you might as well revoke all the patents on any design. the market would then be completely flooded with bikes that used the same design, and it would be completely overwhelming to try and make a decision on a bike. patents is how we regulate knock-offs.

You're feeding me the same crap that your school books have taught you. The patent system has proven itself to be flawed time and time again. I've seen ridiculous lawsuits in the past 3 years in the tech sector over concepts that shouldn't even be patentable. Fact is in this industry it's a negative across the board.
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 17:21 Quote
m47h13u wrote:
flikende wrote:
then you might as well revoke all the patents on any design. the market would then be completely flooded with bikes that used the same design, and it would be completely overwhelming to try and make a decision on a bike. patents is how we regulate knock-offs.

You're feeding me the same crap that your school books have taught you. The patent system has proven itself to be flawed time and time again. I've seen ridiculous lawsuits in the past 3 years in the tech sector over concepts that shouldn't even be patentable. Fact is in this industry it's a negative across the board.
1) i dont take economics. this isn't stuff that im regurgitating from a book, its common sense
2) if the patent system is so flawed, then why hasn't it disappeared yet? if it was as flawed as you claim, then it wouldve died off
3) patents keep money going to the right people. if you create something, and you patent it, then you get the credit for your work, and you make the money for creating it. if people could just use anything they wanted, then nobody would be making money. thats why big names like specialized, giant, and others are so big
flag jonbikes
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 17:28 Quote
m47h13u wrote:
flikende wrote:
then you might as well revoke all the patents on any design. the market would then be completely flooded with bikes that used the same design, and it would be completely overwhelming to try and make a decision on a bike. patents is how we regulate knock-offs.

You're feeding me the same crap that your school books have taught you. The patent system has proven itself to be flawed time and time again. I've seen ridiculous lawsuits in the past 3 years in the tech sector over concepts that shouldn't even be patentable. Fact is in this industry it's a negative across the board.

The patent system may be flawed and corrupt, but name a system developed by humans that isn't. Fact is, it works more than it doesn't, so it stays.
flag harles
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 17:49 Quote
flikende wrote:
2) if the patent system is so flawed, then why hasn't it disappeared yet? if it was as flawed as you claim, then it wouldve died off
3) patents keep money going to the right people. if you create something, and you patent it, then you get the credit for your work, and you make the money for creating it. if people could just use anything they wanted, then nobody would be making money. thats why big names like specialized, giant, and others are so big

I don't have a huge opinion on this particular issue, but just wanted to point this out.

Your #2 argument is ridiculously weak. It's basically an appeal to authority. The human race used slave labour for thousands of years. We know now it was obviously deeply flawed. Why didn't it disappear right away? It's because people don't always *know* when things are flawed. They don't know that it can be any other way. Or, atleast, they havn't been show a better way.

Patents, originally, were meant to give inventors there fair share of profits from an invention while the invention was new. Over the years, patent terms have been extended to what are now, IMO, ridiculous lengths. They are stifling to growth. Also, maybe not so much in the bike industry, but corporations now take out patents on anything they can shove through the process. And buy patents they don't want competitors using.
Now, this may make sense from a *business* point of view, but from a technological advancement point of view? It's stagnation.
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:00 Quote
harles wrote:
flikende wrote:
2) if the patent system is so flawed, then why hasn't it disappeared yet? if it was as flawed as you claim, then it wouldve died off
3) patents keep money going to the right people. if you create something, and you patent it, then you get the credit for your work, and you make the money for creating it. if people could just use anything they wanted, then nobody would be making money. thats why big names like specialized, giant, and others are so big

I don't have a huge opinion on this particular issue, but just wanted to point this out.

Your #2 argument is ridiculously weak. It's basically an appeal to authority. The human race used slave labour for thousands of years. We know now it was obviously deeply flawed. Why didn't it disappear right away? It's because people don't always *know* when things are flawed. They don't know that it can be any other way. Or, atleast, they havn't been show a better way.

Patents, originally, were meant to give inventors there fair share of profits from an invention while the invention was new. Over the years, patent terms have been extended to what are now, IMO, ridiculous lengths. They are stifling to growth. Also, maybe not so much in the bike industry, but corporations now take out patents on anything they can shove through the process. And buy patents they don't want competitors using.
Now, this may make sense from a *business* point of view, but from a technological advancement point of view? It's stagnation.
jonbikes has a point. it has more pros than cons, so in net worth, its better.

you cant make progress by using old designs. if you modify an FSR so that it falls outside the patent, then its still a new design, and isnt FSR anymore. and if the company really wants to use it, then just liscence it from specialized. thats what everybody else that uses it does.
flag jonbikes
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:06 Quote
^^^Exactly. Patents aren't hurting the progression of our sport one bit. Like I said earlier, if everyone starts using the same design, that's not progression at all, an certainly not an advance in technology.
flag sonicsloth
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:08 Quote
jonbikes wrote:
sonicsloth wrote:
jonbikes wrote:
I can assure you that the design of the Flatline is far from the FSR system.

It's not that other companies can't use the FSR system, they just have to pay a toll for it.

i was refering to the new altitude - sorry i should have been more specific. the chainstay pivot evades the fsr patent by a mere 5mm, sitting within rocky mountain's patent. the new design has sparked a lot of debate.

I haven't seen a picture of this bike, but is the axle not attached to the chainstay? Half of what makes FSR what it is is the fact that the axle is attached to the seat stay and not the chainstay.
don't worry - i'm aware of the definitions of fsr. here's a link to the bike - you tell me if you think it's fsr or not. you'd be forgiven for thinking that it is. and bear in mind these bikes are being sold in america, side by side with specialized.
http://www.bikes.com/main+en+01_102+ALTITUDE_90_RSL.html?BIKE=549#2
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:09 Quote
i personally think it is
flag jonbikes
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:11 Quote
sonicsloth wrote:
jonbikes wrote:
sonicsloth wrote:


i was refering to the new altitude - sorry i should have been more specific. the chainstay pivot evades the fsr patent by a mere 5mm, sitting within rocky mountain's patent. the new design has sparked a lot of debate.

I haven't seen a picture of this bike, but is the axle not attached to the chainstay? Half of what makes FSR what it is is the fact that the axle is attached to the seat stay and not the chainstay.
don't worry - i'm aware of the definitions of fsr. here's a link to the bike - you tell me if you think it's fsr or not. you'd be forgiven for thinking that it is. and bear in mind these bikes are being sold in america, side by side with specialized.
http://www.bikes.com/main+en+01_102+ALTITUDE_90_RSL.html?BIKE=549#2

Oh damn, I see your pointSalute
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:13 Quote
i heard somewhere that this fell under their old etsx design, because it places the pivot above the axle? what the heck is going on?
flag sonicsloth
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:25 Quote
like i stated earlier on, this design falls within the rocky mountain patent because the pivot is 5mm higher than required for it to be deemed "fsr". critically, the pivot is just above the rear axel, not level with or below it.
flag sonicsloth
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:25 Quote
interesting stuff...

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.012322
Mobile Version of Website