|
adatesman
Jan 6, 2009, 11:30 PM
Post #26 of 190
(16840 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
tigerlilly
Jan 7, 2009, 2:22 PM
Post #27 of 190
(16791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2006
Posts: 564
|
US Patent Law: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf
BYO lawyer...
Section 35 U.S.C. 102Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. - looks like you have a year from the date of first public disclosure.
I'm no lawyer, but this section would suggest one should stick to one's own designs:
"35 U.S.C. 271Infringement of patent.
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
Kathy
(This post was edited by tigerlilly on Jan 7, 2009, 2:30 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 7, 2009, 3:16 PM
Post #28 of 190
(16780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 7, 2009, 6:02 PM
Post #29 of 190
(16756 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I'll ask one or two folks for their opinions, but barring some clear precedent at the upper federal levels that says, yeah, go ahead and do it, I think the answer probably has to be no. Even if this is a gray area, let's make sure we stay well within the white.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Jan 7, 2009, 10:43 PM
Post #30 of 190
(16715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
Seriously, what gear company in its right mind would sue a bunch of climbers for taking part in a contest? PR quagmire...
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jan 8, 2009, 2:37 AM
Post #31 of 190
(16688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Here's my winning entry, give up now1!!!!!
(This post was edited by dynosore on Jan 8, 2009, 2:41 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 8, 2009, 3:36 AM
Post #32 of 190
(16670 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
If I understand this patent issue the way yall have splained it...
Risk/Reward - for the chance of winning a set of big bros contributors put any design patent potential at risk. But contributors also can't use already patented designs either.
Seems like a Catch 22 to me?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 8, 2009, 3:47 PM
Post #33 of 190
(16630 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 8, 2009, 4:07 PM
Post #35 of 190
(16609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Until you hear differently, assume the answer to whether or not you can purposely seek out somebody else's design to enter to be no. Be creative!
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 8, 2009, 4:08 PM
Post #36 of 190
(16603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
If, however, you have permission from the patent owner...
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 9, 2009, 1:30 AM
Post #37 of 190
(16540 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
Jan 9, 2009, 4:51 PM
Post #38 of 190
(16499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
There isn't any way I'd be able to actually build something, but I sure would like to see something built.
Anyone who knows how to add vectors knows, or can almost immediately figure out, that a rigid stem cam will have much greater holding power in either a horizontal placement or, for that matter, any placement in which the stem rests on a solid rock feature (for example, a severe constriction just below the placement). Flexible cable designs abandon this huge advantage for what seem to me to be a small gain in convenience in horizontal placements and minimal gains in restricting walking.
Metolius-style U-shaped designs are in some ways the worst possible solution: flexible in horizontal placements, thereby converting all downward loads to outward extracting forces, and rigid in vertical placements, exposing the cam to maximal walking leverage from rope motions.
The solution, it seems to me, is to have a very short extremely robust rigid stem with sling or cable attachment eyelet, followed by a semi-rigid perhaps non load-bearing cable-trigger mechanism---a modern version of the original friend with Gunks tie-off loop. Such a thing would much stronger in horizontal and pinched-off placements and would walk less in vertical placements.
Perhaps the biggest design challenge would be to keep the clip-in sling, which is attached very close to the head, from tangling with the trigger mechanism---this was an annoying feature of the Friend with tie-off loop that usually resulted in a set-up that restricted the Friend to a particular orientation when placed horizontally.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jan 10, 2009, 1:30 AM
Post #39 of 190
(16440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
adatesman wrote: This one will be just cams since figuring a way to fairly judge passive vs active gear would be a nightmare. I'm hoping these sorts of competitions become a fairly regular thing, so perhaps we could do passive gear next time....
'Nother question! I may be taking this quote a bit too literally, but I like clarity. Is this comp for cams only, or active pro in general? For example a big bro is generally considered active, but is not a cam.
Also, and this is a tricky one, what about grey areas? Like a tricam in active mode is considered active, right? Not that I'm building a tricam, but would that qualify for this comp?
Sorry to be a nudge, just trying to see how far outside the box I'm allowed to think/go
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 10, 2009, 5:38 AM
Post #40 of 190
(16409 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 10, 2009, 5:52 AM
Post #41 of 190
(16408 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Jan 10, 2009, 4:01 PM
Post #42 of 190
(16382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
STOP READING MY MIND
|
|
|
|
|
brenta
Jan 11, 2009, 3:34 AM
Post #43 of 190
(16326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2006
Posts: 50
|
adatesman wrote: Personally, I want to see an example of Provisional Patent 20070164180, which uses cam lobes cut from sections of a cone. Looks interesting, but might have some strength issues. |
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 11, 2009, 11:20 PM
Post #44 of 190
(16290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 12, 2009, 2:42 PM
Post #46 of 190
(15333 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
bhickey
Jan 12, 2009, 5:02 PM
Post #47 of 190
(15292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2008
Posts: 46
|
If I include return postage, can I get what's left of my entry back?
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 12, 2009, 5:14 PM
Post #48 of 190
(15279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
semaj
Jan 13, 2009, 2:22 AM
Post #49 of 190
(15223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Is the strength test horizontal or vertical? What surface will the cam lobes be interfacing with? Are their rules specifying usable materials? Will the cam actually be edge-loaded to ultimate?
Thanks Aric... more questions on the way.
-Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Jan 13, 2009, 2:46 AM
Post #50 of 190
(15216 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
