Results 1 to 27 of 27
  1. #1
    Glad to Be Alive
    Reputation: SHIVER ME TIMBERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    42,910

    Ellsworth Sucks.....

    Now i got your attention...here is the question

    how can a company (Ellsworth) pay a royality to Specialize for the FSR (Horst link) but can turn around and try and sue Specialize because they have a patent on some angles that are not part of the bike....

    Turner doesn't do it's FSR because of it and the Same thing for the Azonic Saber because Ellsworth says they own the angle patents

    wouldn't the whole angle patents be all part of Specialize, because they are the one giving out the FSR design


    what are your thoughts
    the trick is ENJOYING YOUR LIFE EACH DAY, don't waste them away wishing for better days

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    26
    1) Ellsworth DO NOT pay a royalty to Specialized. I'll asume that you are talking about the FSR (Horst) Link at the rear dropout?

    The Ellsworth pivot is outside the Horst link patent area.

    2) Where did you get the idea that Ellsworth are suing Specialized? (that are not... to my knowedge... )

    3) the issue that Azonic were in trouble for is Ellsworths ICT patent. Which is not (directly) retated to the FSR patents.


    'snitch

  3. #3
    Glad to Be Alive
    Reputation: SHIVER ME TIMBERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    42,910
    Quote Originally Posted by industry snitch
    1)

    3) the issue that Azonic were in trouble for is Ellsworths ICT patent. Which is not (directly) retated to the FSR patents.


    'snitch
    what is the ICT patent anyway then????...if you use the FSR rear end your bike will be the same geometry.
    the trick is ENJOYING YOUR LIFE EACH DAY, don't waste them away wishing for better days

  4. #4
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by industry snitch
    The Ellsworth pivot is outside the Horst link patent area.
    Gawd, I often wonder where you get your misguided info.

    Have you done the claim analysis on all patents relating to the Horst linkage? If not, how can you be sure the EW linkage is not covered by a valid claim in any one of these patents, assigned to Specialized?

    Are you sure EW will prevail if Specialized decides to enforce their patents?
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-15-2006 at 09:00 PM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tassie Devil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    505

    US Patents are almost meaningless anyway

    Without getting into a huge discussion, US Patents are almost meaningless anyway. All rear suspension patents don't apply in the real world (ie outside US), where a four bar is just a four bar wherever the shock, pivits, imaginary pivit point are or rotation of the links is.

    If you consider that the Demo 9 by Ellsworths definition is an ICT bike, and that the Rogue with both the rear pivits (top & bottom) within the wheel diameter is Lawill, then the only people who win in any of these pointless arguments are scumbag lawyers.

    The sooner you all stop trying to rip everyone off with stupid US patents and start enjoying riding the better

  6. #6
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassie Devil
    Without getting into a huge discussion, US Patents are almost meaningless anyway.
    Really!?

    Do you know how much the patents for Viagra is worth?
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Gawd, I often wonder where you get your misguided info.

    Have you done the claim analysis on all patents relating to the Horst linkage? If not, how can you be sure the EW linkage is not covered by a valid claim in any one of these patents, assigned to Specialized?

    Are you sure EW will prevail if Specialized decides to enforce their patents?
    EW has it's own patent on the ICT design and it is outside of Specialized's Horst Link patent. Check out ellsworth's website to learn about ICT. EW and Specialized are not in a patent dispute. Turner didn't pay Specialized for their Horst Link patent, they paid EW for their ICT patent. EW decided not to renew the ICT license to Turner in '06 so Turner had to change their design.

  8. #8
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    EW has it's own patent on the ICT design and it is outside of Specialized's Horst Link patent. Check out ellsworth's website to learn about ICT. EW and Specialized are not in a patent dispute. Turner didn't pay Specialized for their Horst Link patent, they paid EW for their ICT patent. EW decided not to renew the ICT license to Turner in '06 so Turner had to change their design.
    Please check your info before you post.

    Just because EW owns patents for ICT, does not mean their linkage design is not covered by the horst patents or any other patent/s in the art. In other words, EW's ICT patents don't give them the right to make and sell their invention as other patents may be necessary to fully practice ones invention.

    Patents only give the inventor/assignee the right to exclude others from making, selling, using, or importing the claimed invention. They do not give one the right to make or sell the patented invention.

    Turner did not have a license for Horst link patents? Are you sure about that?

    EW was the one who decided not to renew Turner's license for the ICT patents; really?!!! How do you know this?
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tassie Devil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    505
    Do you know how much the patents for Viagra is worth?

    Not the same argument, to the best of my knowledge Viagra was a "new" product/design and has international patents.

    but

    The reason FSR, ICT etc are not recognised outside the US is because they are already considered an existing design. "Horst link" style four bar suspension appeared on some motorcycles 50 years prior to the US patent (can find pics for those really interested).

    If you look at a lot of mechanical design you'll be surprised how much new stuff is just something a lot older with a new fancy name (preferably a TLA) and paint job.

    If something is truely new then by all means protect it, otherwise save us all the ********

  10. #10
    5 x 5
    Reputation: MrMountainHop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    263

    This is the dumbest ****ing thread ever

    and it seems to me that all of you armchair patent lawyers are full of ****. quote your sources, dimwits. paste links. walk the ****in' walk.

    funny thing is, i can't find if a patent is public information, or private. anyone know? anyone wanna cite their sorce?

    bill
    "Check out dude."
    "Dude, crazy."

  11. #11
    No, that's not phonetic
    Reputation: tscheezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    14,313
    I've never seen stonewalling like when I asked DW how his system differed from Giant's Maestro.
    My video techniques can be found in this thread.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    25

    Smile I have checked my facts

    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Please check your info before you post.

    Just because EW owns patents for ICT, does not mean their linkage design is not covered by the horst patents or any other patent/s in the art. In other words, EW's ICT patents don't give them the right to make and sell their invention as other patents may be necessary to fully practice ones invention.

    Patents only give the inventor/assignee the right to exclude others from making, selling, using, or importing the claimed invention. They do not give one the right to make or sell the patented invention.

    Turner did not have a license for Horst link patents? Are you sure about that?

    EW was the one who decided not to renew Turner's license for the ICT patents; really?!!! How do you know this?
    The only way EW gets a patent for their ICT linkage/design is if it doesn't violate other patents for similar designs...the Horst Link. ICT is outside of the defined patent for the Horst Link.
    The main reasons for getting a patent is to protect your intellectual property, protect your invention, and to give you the ability to license that patent out for money!
    Turner's previous design was an ICT design they licensed from EW, not a Horst link design they licensed from Specialized.
    Yes EW decided not to renew the license for the ICT patent to Turner for 2006. I could tell you how I know this, but then I would have to kill you

    Try to understand the topic fully before you call b.s.

  13. #13
    Time is not a road.
    Reputation: chad1433's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,146

    Troll Alert

    What is a Troll? http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT
    An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

    The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

    When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

  14. #14
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMountainHop
    and it seems to me that all of you armchair patent lawyers are full of ****. quote your sources, dimwits. paste links. walk the ****in' walk.
    For clarification purposes, a patent lawyer is essentially an armchair person as he does not make the inventions, the inventor does, unless he invented the claimed invention and reduced said invention to practice himself, he merely writes up the specification of the patent/application for invention.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMountainHop
    funny thing is, i can't find if a patent is public information, or private. anyone know? anyone wanna cite their sorce?
    Yes, an issued patent or published patent application is a public document free from copyrights. Source: 35 USC, 37 CFR, MPEP, & USPTO.
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-16-2006 at 04:02 PM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  15. #15
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    The only way EW gets a patent for their ICT linkage/design is if it doesn't violate other patents for similar designs...the Horst Link. ICT is outside of the defined patent for the Horst Link.
    Correct, but that still does not mean that the four-bar linkage used in some models of EW bikes do not fall within one or more claims in one of the Horst related patents.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    Correct, but that still does not mean that the four-bar linkage used in some models of EW bikes do not fall within one or more claims in one of the Horst related patents.
    All of EW bikes that use the 4 bar use ICT, not Horst link. You really need to research a little better.....

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by chad1433
    What is a Troll? http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT
    An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

    The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

    When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.
    If you think someone is a troll, why would you point them out and then say "the only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored"?

  18. #18
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    All of EW bikes that use the 4 bar use ICT, not Horst link. You really need to research a little better.....
    We'll be arguing in circles all day but as I said, even if you have a patent on your specific linkage invention, for example, does not mean you can make or sell your invention having that linkage as it may also be covered by other patents. My point is that even with an ICT patent, the ICT linkage may still fall under the potentially broad umbrella of the horst link patents. Nuff said.

    EDIT: e.g. one may have a patent for a rocking chair but can't make and sell the patented invention (rocking chair) without getting a license to the patent for a chair.
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-16-2006 at 11:46 AM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  19. #19
    Time is not a road.
    Reputation: chad1433's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    4,146
    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    If you think someone is a troll, why would you point them out and then say "the only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored"?
    I'm certainly not debating the differences between ICT and FSR...this is an issue for Tony Ellsworth and Mike Sinyard.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by chad1433
    I'm certainly not debating the differences between ICT and FSR...this is an issue for Tony Ellsworth and Mike Sinyard.
    That is probably the best answer to the ICT/Horst Link FSR debate!!

  21. #21
    The Dude Abides
    Reputation: UP Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    212

    Patents are for everyone

    Quote Originally Posted by MrMountainHop
    and it seems to me that all of you armchair patent lawyers are full of ****. quote your sources, dimwits. paste links. walk the ****in' walk.

    funny thing is, i can't find if a patent is public information, or private. anyone know? anyone wanna cite their sorce?

    bill


    US patents are public domain and can be accessed by anyone by the internet at www.uspto.gov. From this site I have successfully acquired all of the patents for Ellsworth's ICT and Atlas, Specialized FSR, Hugi hubs, Chris King hubs and several others. Next on my list is to locate Dave Weagle's patents.

    Finding the patents isn't super easy however. You kind of have to be crafty about your search and really know what you are looking for. So for anyone who is spouting out misinformation about who's patent covers what and where, get informed and read the actual patents so you know what you are talking about.


  22. #22
    Just another FOCer
    Reputation: Winston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,371
    I'm looking forward to the day when Giant bikes sport the fluorescent green DW-Link sticker.

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    I've never seen stonewalling like when I asked DW how his system differed from Giant's Maestro.
    "I hope your gravity droppers all seize up....BASTIDS." - Aquaholic

    NLZ
    The Path Bike Shop
    Winston presents - Socal Videos

  23. #23
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    The main reasons for getting a patent is to protect your intellectual property, protect your invention, and to give you the ability to license that patent out for money!
    Incorrect! The main purpose of a patent is "to further the useful arts". Secondly, reward a patentee with “right to exclude others” from making, using, selling, offering to sell, in the US, or importing into the US, the patented invention (35 USC 271). Patentee may grant this right to exclude others to a thrird party through a license agreement but not always for money.

    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    Turner's previous design was an ICT design they licensed from EW, not a Horst link design they licensed from Specialized.
    Debatable but may be partially correct. You get 5 out of 10 for that.

    This is actually where the irony lies and may come back to haunt EW as this indicates that their linkage may potentially fall under the FSR/Horst link patents (assuming Turner had to get a concurrent license from Specialized for the FSR patent).
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-16-2006 at 12:04 PM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  24. #24
    Glad to Be Alive
    Reputation: SHIVER ME TIMBERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    42,910
    Quote Originally Posted by srobertstx
    Turner's previous design was an ICT design they licensed from EW, not a Horst link design they licensed from Specialized.
    Yes EW decided not to renew the license for the ICT patent to Turner for 2006. I could tell you how I know this, but then I would have to kill you

    Try to understand the topic fully before you call b.s.
    Why did Turner call it an FSR rear end then???? (which would be Specialized)
    the trick is ENJOYING YOUR LIFE EACH DAY, don't waste them away wishing for better days

  25. #25
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVER ME TIMBERS
    how can a company (Ellsworth) pay a royality to Specialize for the FSR (Horst link) but can turn around and try and sue Specialize because they have a patent on some angles that are not part of the bike....

    what are your thoughts
    I guess someone needs to answer your original question.

    As I alluded to earlier, just because you have a patent on something does not mean you have the freedom to make the device covered under the claims of your patent as a portion of the device/product as a whole may be covered by other patents. This is why cross-licensing is common. It is, however, difficult to give you a straight answer to your question without knowing the details/facts of the case.

    But by way of example, I will try to explain how this can potentially happen:

    Specialized may have patents that block (exclude) EW from making their 4bar linkage, as you mentioned. Similarly, EW may have patents that may potentially prevent (exclude) Specialized from making some of their bikes with certain linkages that may fall under the appropriate EW patents. So EW may be trying to sue under the later.

    DISCLAIMER: I do not know the facts so the above example is merely a hypothetical situation (I made it up!) for the sole purpose of this discussion and entertainment on this board.
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-16-2006 at 03:10 PM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

  26. #26
    Glad to Be Alive
    Reputation: SHIVER ME TIMBERS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    42,910
    Quote Originally Posted by SCUBAPRO
    I guess someone needs to answer your original question.

    As I alluded to earlier, just because you have a patent on something does not mean you have the freedom to make the device covered under the claims of your patent as a portion of the device/product as a whole may be covered by other patents. This is why cross-licensing is common. It is, however, difficult to give you a straight answer to your question without knowing the details/facts of the case.

    But by way of example, I will try to explain how this can potentially happen:

    Specialized may have patents that block (exclude) EW from making their 4bar linkage, as you mentioned. Similarly, EW may have patents that may potentially prevent (exclude) Specialized from making some of their bikes with certain linkages that may fall under the appropriate EW patents. So EW may be trying to sue under the later.

    DISCLAIMER: I do not know the facts so the above example is merely a hypothetical situation (I made it up!) for the sole purpose of this discussion and entertainment on this board.
    it just seems so dumb......if you run the FSR linkage, then many bikes will have the same geometry, like the Turner and the Azonic Saber (Xtension Bikes) .....man the Saber are such a good deal and a great bike and they stopped making them because of EW
    the trick is ENJOYING YOUR LIFE EACH DAY, don't waste them away wishing for better days

  27. #27
    Amphibious Technologies
    Reputation: SCUBAPRO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by SHIVER ME TIMBERS
    it just seems so dumb......if you run the FSR linkage, then many bikes will have the same geometry, like the Turner and the Azonic Saber (Xtension Bikes)
    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but geometry may differ even if you use the same linkage type take for example the different EW bike models with the ICT or the various Specialized FS bikes e.g. Enduro vs. Demo
    Last edited by SCUBAPRO; 02-17-2006 at 11:11 AM.
    "The best you've ridden is the best you know" - Paul Thede, Race Tech

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.