G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board Archives » Archive through September 09, 2003 » Look familiar? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Benm2
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 08:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Road_thing
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bomber
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 09:11 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

it would also make sourcing a replacement shock a bit easier (and mebbe cheaper)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Road_thing
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Cheaper would be good!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_quiñones
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 02:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_quiñones
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 02:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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......
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

99buellx1
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 04:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Turn that on its side and it looks just like the bottom of a springer front end. In my eyes anyway.


Craig
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davegess
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 05:21 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Erik not only has a patent for the fuel in the frame he has an actual bike that predates the Tularis.

Dave
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_quiñones
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Well, sure, his first patent for this dates back to 1990, so I'm sure he had a prototype running around somewhere.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Xben9r
Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Benm2
Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:50 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Glitch
Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 01:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Hhmm...
All we need is a frame and engine...
needs a frame and engine
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_quiñones
Posted on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Benm2
Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 08:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

José_quiñones
Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 08:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Davegess
Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:14 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mikej
Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:30 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bomber
Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:33 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nevco1
Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 01:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

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.



« Previous Next »

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and custodians may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Post as "Anonymous" (Valid reason required. Abusers will be exposed. If unsure, ask.)
Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration