| Author | Message | ||
     Benm2 |
http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/scripts/NewsInsert.asp?insert=7181 First: How does the additional linkage add anything to the Buell design? I suppose maybe linkage points can be changed for rising rate & such, but it just looks heavier. Second: Look anything like the re-fit setup from progressive? Take some of other peoples ideas (under mount shock), add someone elses (linkage to use conventional shock) and get yerself a patent! | ||
| Road_thing |
The big difference I see is that the shock is in compression when the wheel is on the up-stroke. I suppose that gives it more of a "fail-safe" design than the Buell set-up. r-t | ||
| Bomber |
it would also make sourcing a replacement shock a bit easier (and mebbe cheaper) | ||
| Road_thing |
Cheaper would be good! | ||
| José_quiñones |
Where did Buell get the idea from? Where did HD get the idea for the Softail Frame before that? edited by josé_quiñones on September 03, 2003 | ||
| José_quiñones |
BTW, the Tul-aris has part of its fuel in the frame, and was being raced before the Firebolt saw the light of day. Buell does have the patent for the design. you can find lots of interesting things in the U.S. Patent office website...... | ||
| 99buellx1 |
Turn that on its side and it looks just like the bottom of a springer front end. In my eyes anyway. Craig  | ||
| Davegess |
Erik not only has a patent for the fuel in the frame he has an actual bike that predates the Tularis. Dave | ||
| José_quiñones |
Well, sure, his first patent for this dates back to 1990, so I'm sure he had a prototype running around somewhere. | ||
| Xben9r |
"The stress focusing structure therefore causes the steering head 26 to be separated from the fuel storage unit 34 while leaving the separating wall 60 substantially intact. The steering head 26 may thus be termed a "break-away" steering head 26. The likelihood of a fuel spill in the event of a front collision is reduced by the illustrated structure because the separating wall 60 remains substantially intact." Well that is a part of the Patent that I really can relate to. It does work well. Ben | ||
| Benm2 |
Didn't HD buy the softail design from an aftermarket manufacturer of custom frames? Had that design been patented? I thought Kawasaki built some 500GP bikes in the eighties that were aluminum monocoques; does that count as "fuel in frame"? In principle, the Tularis design doesn't seem too different from the progressive suspension retrofit, which they don't seem to sell anymore judging from their website. The Tularis design didn't look novel to me, just a convenient use of patent law. | ||
| Glitch |
Hhmm... All we need is a frame and engine...  | ||
| José_quiñones |
That's my point, they (Tularis, Buell, Softail)are all variations of something developed and patented by someone else, Bill Davis in the case of the Softail Frame. | ||
| Benm2 |
Did Bill Davis patent it? My point was that Tularis was patenting something that did not seem to be worthy, whereas others did not. Personally, I find it kind of funny. The real secrets in manufacturing are NOT patented, they're hid. | ||
| José_quiñones |
Yes he did, but the Patent office feels that this is distinct enough from other patented but similar rear suspension designs to give it a patent too. Did you know the stock Blast muffler and footpeg arms are patented? | ||
| Davegess |
The trick with patents are to patent ALL the ways to do something not just the best way. Erik learned this with a single sided swingarm patent. No one uses his way they all use a variant that he did not patent. | ||
| Mikej |
Yep, the age old lazy way, copy someone else's work and modify it just enough to keep you out of court. I looked into some bicycle product patents once and found a lot of "improvement" patents on top of them by other individuals. With a patent you have to be specific enough to get approval and broad and vague enough to disuade abuse of design rights. | ||
| Bomber |
thass one of the reasons trade secrets and the like are taking the place of patents in many areas . . . not so much in the area of mech engineering (cuz you can zen it out, often), but in chem and the like | ||
| Nevco1 |
Just don't forget that all a patent does is provide you with the "right to sue" an infringer. Have been through a few patent lawsuits and from personal experience, I can tell you that it costs an arm and a leg to attempt to enforce your patent. Not to mention, it is up to the court that hears the case to determine if your patent is valid, not the patent office. Quite often a company cannot afford to defend their patents and lose the protection it provides by not doing so. In one case, it cost us almost 5 times earnings made over an 8 year period to defend a patent and settle out of court. All we got out of it was a royalty on that infringer's sales. Heck, we couldn't afford to go after the other infringer's after that. Additionally, it is up to the patent holder to provide proof that they actually manufactured and sold the product. In the courts opinion, if they did not make a reasonable effort to do so, they lose the protection as well. In essence, you can't patent something just to prevent someone else from making it. It took four folks from Manpower eight weeks to copy all the invoices and related paperwork for those 8 years of sales! The last way to lose a patent is if the court determines there is "prior art." In essence, someone made the product before even though you received the patent without knowing about it. An example would be the perimeter brake rotors. Have seen them on design school concept bikes and choppers for years. Yeah, One Off, but still prior art. We lucked out here as there was prior art, but the infringer was not sure they could prove it to the courts satisfaction so they settled. Oh well, at least with HD financially backing Buell as well as all the legal and clerical support they can provide, Buell may now be able to afford to attempt to enforce their patents. Quite honestly, my advise to any entrepreneurial inventors is to patent it, build a strong customer base, sell the company before you get knocked off and then repeat the process. Have seen way too many lose everything by not moving on. |
