Powered by Outside

Should specialized be allowed a patent?

PB Forum :: Bikes, Parts, and Gear
Should specialized be allowed a patent?
  • Next Page
Author Message
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:27 Quote
f*cking loopholes
flag jonbikes
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:30 Quote
Looks like it is below the axle?

I wonder how much effect it has being above or below, think it is much? I know my stuff but I don't even think about pretending I know the ins and outs of linkage design.
flag mr-wilson
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:32 Quote
When was the patent placed on "FSR"? Was is done by Leitner first, or by Specialized. Most American patents have a term of 14-20 years, has to be getting somewhat close to ending.
flag jonbikes
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:32 Quote
Either way, the current patent holder is given the first stab at renewing it before it goes on the market don't they?
flag bomberdave
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:33 Quote
flikende wrote:
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.

yaa, scott USA couldnt sell xc bikes in the US for years because there "knock-offs"
flag mr-wilson
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:35 Quote
jonbikes wrote:
Either way, the current patent holder is given the first stab at renewing it before it goes on the market don't they?

Not sure, thought once the initial patent has run its course it is free to the market.

Specialized bought the patent May 1998
Leitner's first prototype was sometime in 1993
Patent in 1994
flag mbjz
O+
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:36 Quote
this is a nice short aticle that applies all the questions here on the fsr suspension patent...i hope you like it

http://www.feedthehabit.com/mountain-biking/2009-rocky-mountain-altitude-horst-link-or-not/
flag flikende
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:36 Quote
bomberdave wrote:
flikende wrote:
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.

yaa, scott USA couldnt sell xc bikes in the US for years because there "knock-offs"
ok they weren't knock-offs, but they violated the patent, thats why they couldn't sell them in the us. maybe knock-offs wasn't exactly the best word i couldve used in my post
flag mr-wilson
Posted: Mar 8, 2009 at 18:47 Quote
Jonbikes,

Are Patents Renewable or may the Term of Protection be Extended?
The term of protection under most modern patent laws is 20 years from the filing date of the application. However, in some countries, the term of protection may be renewed or extended for applications in certain fields, such as pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs, which need to undergo an administrative approval procedure before they can be put on the market and, therefore, the patent owner could not enjoy his right, in certain cases, for a considerable period of time after the grant of the patent.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/faq/pat_faqs_q7.html

It's from the World Intellectual Property Organization. Not sure on how true it is. Far as I know the "WIPO" could operate out of the crazy cat lady's house down the street, but it's something.
flag sonicsloth
Posted: Mar 9, 2009 at 4:48 Quote
this is a very interesting article on the legal side of the design.
http://www.bikemag.com/news/newsarchive/012406_scott/

and let me refute a few points that have been brought up
- the concept that specialized spent millions developing fsr and so need a patent to protect what they spent so long making is surely false - specialized bought the patent, and then took any other company using fsr to court, so that they could be the only ones selling fsr.

- the concept that any company can have it if they want it, they just need to pay specialized is again false - the possibility is there, but specialized use their discression as to whether they want to sell it to you or not.

If this really is the case that fsr was being used by a lot of companies (although not called fsr at the time), probably because it's the logical place to put a pivot, and then specialized decided to get smart, buy the patent and take everyone to court, then i can see where all the ill-feeling is coming from, and why so many people think the fsr patent is unfair.
  • Next Page

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.011702
Mobile Version of Website