Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    30

    Santa Cruz/Yeti lawsuit

    David Earle and Luke Beale from Soto are ex-Santa Cruz engineers that came up with the idea(sb-66) and a sold it to Yeti. Obviously they understood the benefits of vpp suspension and designed a new eccentric system to try to avoid ip conflicts and improve upon old system.

    Santa Cruz: ex-employees created a similar system by copying our ic migration and wheel path rates concept of counter rotating links.
    Yeti's response: we use an eccentric link and therefore there are no counter rotating links and create a similar but not the same ic migration and wheel path.

    I kinda lean towards SC a little more than Yeti. Seems there might be a compromise between the two. Like sharing a new patent or cross licensing.

    Eccentric links are probably the future for suspension systems and SC should probably start using them before they get boxed out due to other companies with patents.
    Not: Ibis will have eccentric links in their new ripley but the links follow the dw-path.
    Last edited by erik2k10; 02-17-2012 at 06:12 PM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    152
    thanks for sharing

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Joules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,184
    yeah, that's great.

    let me explain to you how patent law works: you write a patent, it's as broad as possible because that's how it has to be and those reviewing it know nothing about the subject (seriously, I'm surprised Specialized hasn't filed a patent for "a 2-wheeled, human powered vehicle" yet; I work in boats, I'm pretty sure there are valid US patents for "a vehicle that floats").
    Then someone makes a product that you think you can bully. Nothing violates any patents because they are all so vague as to be meaningless.

    Then it's a contest to see who's willing to throw more money at the suit. That's the sole determination of who wins. It has nothing to do with who is right, because no one is. No one that hears the case will have even a slight idea what the parties to the suit are talking about.
    The customer is the one that always looses.

    Any fantasy you have about protecting inventors or encouraging innovation... that all died out a century ago. Now it's a system to prevent small companies from competing with big, connected ones.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bpnic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    Quote Originally Posted by erik2k10 View Post
    David Earle and Luke Beale from Soto are ex-Santa Cruz engineers that came up with the idea(sb-66) and a sold it to Yeti. Obviously they understood the benefits of vpp suspension and designed a new eccentric system to try to avoid ip conflicts and improve upon old system.

    Santa Cruz: ex-employees created a similar system by copying our ic migration and wheel path rates concept of counter rotating links.
    Yeti's response: we use an eccentric link and therefore there are no counter rotating links and create a similar but not the same ic migration and wheel path.

    I kinda lean towards SC a little more than Yeti. Seems there might be a compromise between the two. Like sharing a new patent or cross licensing.

    Eccentric links are probably the future for suspension systems and SC should probably start using them before they get boxed out due to other companies with patents.
    Not: Ibis will have eccentric links in their new ripley but the links follow the dw-path.

    Why did this post need it's own thread? It would have fit perfectly in the other thread labelled YETI/SC Lawsuit two doors down.
    I'd hit it, but I bruise like a peach.

  5. #5
    Johnny Dependable
    Reputation: BigBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Joules View Post
    yeah, that's great.

    let me explain to you how patent law works: you write a patent, it's as broad as possible because that's how it has to be and those reviewing it know nothing about the subject (seriously, I'm surprised Specialized hasn't filed a patent for "a 2-wheeled, human powered vehicle" yet; I work in boats, I'm pretty sure there are valid US patents for "a vehicle that floats").
    Then someone makes a product that you think you can bully. Nothing violates any patents because they are all so vague as to be meaningless.

    Then it's a contest to see who's willing to throw more money at the suit. That's the sole determination of who wins. It has nothing to do with who is right, because no one is. No one that hears the case will have even a slight idea what the parties to the suit are talking about.
    The customer is the one that always looses.

    Any fantasy you have about protecting inventors or encouraging innovation... that all died out a century ago. Now it's a system to prevent small companies from competing with big, connected ones.
    And the riders buying the products pick up the tab. Screw Santa Cruz. Never again.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBill View Post
    And the riders buying the products pick up the tab. Screw Santa Cruz. Never again.
    Couldn't agree more, their nothing but a bunch of stoners with heads up their a$$e$.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    345
    Hahaha, My take is similar to one posted in the other thread, I think SC is doing to so they can appear valid and willing to fight if someone infringes close enough to THEIR PATENT. This is playing devils advocate here cause I love my SB and I have never owned an SC but I think they are sick bikes too.

    If you were a business owner who has invested tens of thousands of dollars, if not more into the development of a patent and a suspension system, can you honestly say you would not pursue some sort of action?! This is your company you have spent years to build, your passion, you have a good handful of employees to employ, who also worked hard developing your brand and some of the most sought after bikes in the industry, your company has X amount of the market share, if someone takes it on your design, you wouldn't be pissed? thats dollars in your pocket and your teams GONE! Would you just LET someone take it?!

    Do I think Yeti is infringing no, my personal take. but I get where SC is coming from.

    From a pure riders perspective, I want brand competition in pricing and design, and this is it! I want companies finding ways to make the bikes we ride better!

    Maybe the designers tried to get SC on board with their new design and SC didn't jump, MAYBE cause it really didn't fit in the patent language, the suspension designers, also business men who I am sure are passionate about the industry realized they have something good, know its not within the patent either so they sell what they have and wrap up development with Yeti. SC sees the success and realizes they better explore their legal limitations.

    This is our passion and theirs too but it is also their lively hood and their business.
    Want a one of a kind bike? Message me for a one of a kind paint job.

    The internet is a tough place to ride

  8. #8
    Doesntplaywellwithmorons!
    Reputation: DeeEight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,566
    I don't know about a US patent for a vehicle that floats but I did know of US patents granted in the 90s for what were essentially the "wheel" and "fire". The guy who paid the fees and filed the applications did it just to prove how flawed the US patent office was at the time (its worse now) and to have some expensive, one of a kind art work for his office wall.
    I don't post to generate business for myself or make like I'm better than sliced bread

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: packfill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    230
    Anybody have an update on this? I heard that Yeti just lost and is currently screwed. Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this is true or not.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTT77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by packfill View Post
    Anybody have an update on this? I heard that Yeti just lost and is currently screwed. Disclaimer: I'm not sure if this is true or not.
    I thought it got dismissed a while ago?
    Document 38 :: Santa Cruz Bicycles, Inc. v. Yeti Cycles Inc. et al :: 3:2011cv04324 :: California Northern District Court :: US Federal District Courts Cases :: Justia

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: packfill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    230
    Oh, good. thank you!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •