Noticed on the Firewire website ( http://www.firewiresurfboards.com/index.php ) that is says “Patent Pending”. Anyone have an idea what it could be that they are trying to Patent?
It’s not rocket science? What’s the big deal. I’ll make one tommorrow. I have all the materials. Will I be sued by Friday?
Quote:
Noticed on the Firewire website ( http://www.firewiresurfboards.com/index.php ) that is says “Patent Pending”. Anyone have an idea what it could be that they are trying to Patent?
This is all old tech Bob Simmons did this EXACT blank in the 60’s I dont think you can get a patent on this due to that fact.
Ok, two replies thinking exactly what I was. What is there to patent? It’s all old tech now, windsurfers and other surfboard builders have been doing this stuff for years. I’m sure the refinements that Bert brings to the table will make for an excellent surfboard. But I don’t see anything patentable in that product. You cannot patent the infusion process that was being done about the time Bert was born, and there are many patents on that process as well.
It is against the law to falsely advertise “patent pending”. So there must be something they think they got.
you prolly have to buy one to find out
if you cut it up can you post the photos here please?
well truth is we here probably don’t know what they will be trying to patent this is all spectulation. And so what if they get a patent good on them it will stop some offshore company from knocking them off if they get the patent. I doubt simmon used the different types of core matreial they will be using eps, core cell, and specific lay ups of these foam to achieve the desired flex characteristics. That is most likely what they will be patenting. The patent only applys to people trying to manufacture and resell there tech.
My guess is the perimeter stringer. While others have put balsa bands on the edges of their boards, I’m not sure anyone else has claimed that’s what controls the flex of their boards.
i noted they did not give the number of their pending patent. one could go up on the u s patent office website with that number and see everything in the patent including the drawings, if the patent number were provided. without that information, then, it would be more difficult. much more difficult.
it is possible that they have submitted the paperwork for a presumptive patent, which will allow them to officially say/state, that they have a patent pending. however, it is a long walk from the presumptive patent to the patent being awarded.
on the other hand, one presumes that the company has substantial $$$, and, that there is a patent attorney involved, rather than the individuals involved in the manufacture themselves. the patent attorney makes the process much simpler for the company…although more expensive.
i think i will go take a look on the uspo web site. just out of curiosity.
pete.
so i looked at the uspo website.
searched under applications for surfboards. found 409 applications relating to surfboards. skimmed thru them and read a few. didn’t see anything relating to parabolic rails, although there are some interesting chinese, and australian and american applications. saw one for salomon in there. but none i saw appeared to be for firewire specifically, tho i have been wrong before, and may be so about this, as i did not read every one of the 409 individual applications on the site.
on the other hand, the site appears to be …slow… in terms of patents/applications/amendments being posted, so the ones i saw are probably the original applications, but not updated…not as if that were particularly pertinent in this case.
so…got me. they may have some sort of arcane patent application in process, but if so, i didn’t see it. what i did see tho indicates that there are several different patents applications for compsand sorts of surfboards.
maybe someone from firewire would like to post the application number of their patent?
pete.
I have only limited experience with patent law…
They are probably patenting a process to manufature the boards. The idea of parabolic stringers is not novel, but the process they are using to make the stringers/boards might be…
I browsed those same patent applications (search argument = “surfboard”) right after this thread was started. I agree, there is nothing listed there that would seem to apply to the Firewire compsand process (there are some real loonytoons out there though, some of the best comedic material can be found in patent applications). Some random observations:
- US Patent and Trade Office doesn't issue an application number and publish the application information until a specific step is reached in the process
- Refinements to existing processes and techniques may be eligible for patent in their own right - my guess would be that Bert may be trying to patent some little but essential "trick" that he sees as guaranteeing an edge for Firewire.
- You can pay the fee and apply for a patent on anything, and at a certain point advertise the "pat pending" slogan - doesn't mean the patent will be granted
- The "home base" for Bert (and AFAIK Firewire) is Australia, which is covered by its own patent law - possibly none of this applies
- From what I have read, under any reasonable definition of the term, Firewire is an "offshore" company
- Under US patent law, a patent application must be filed within 12 months of public disclosure of the process, so if "pending" does refer to a US application, anything that Bert posted here (or anywhere else) prior to a year before filing is automatically disqualified.
-Samiam
Quote:
My guess is the perimeter stringer. While others have put balsa bands on the edges of their boards, I’m not sure anyone else has claimed that’s what controls the flex of their boards.
"How do we build it?
Step One:
TL2 begins with a fused cell Techlite blank that is virtually waterproof! We invented it for TL2 and it has been so successful we are now placing them in all of our boards.
Step Two:
That Techlite blank is hand finished to become the Techlite core of a fresh new flexy TL2. The core then goes through a vacuum bagging process where it is wrapped in epoxy, glass and Acrylite. Acrylite is a very tough, bright white, closed cell shapeable foam found only in TL2 surfboards by Surftech. It is what makes the TL2 tough with a parabolic rail that provides you with controlled flex and drive. It’s like putting the stringer on the rail and we have been doing it for over a decade! We know this technology like no one else.
Step Three:
The newly bagged core is then hand shaped to perfection like a custom shape and finished by skilled craftsmen. These craftsman then check the shape with rail and rocker templates to make sure it has been finished as it was intended. These finish shapers ghost shape daily for the most respected labels and biggest names in the world.
Step Four:
The finished and quality checked core is then given a custom epoxy glass job in exactly the same fashion as any custom board. The new TL2 is then sanded by hand and tuned to perfection, with special attention to finishing out an ultra hard edge in the tail!
The finished board is then finned with the latest in full foiled fin technology and finds its way into your hands from there…
Ahh… so light, mmm feel those rails, oh! Nice tail…and flexable…mmmm, yesss…Your not dreaming, no alarm to wake you up… it’s TL2."
Seems a coincidence that they’re all of a sudden using “Parabolic Rail”. Which seems a take on GL’s “Parabolic Stringer” . But saying they’ve been doing it for years.
The problem with patents is you have to disclose everything about what you are “patent -ing”
Therein allows individuals with a swaylocks mind to have step by step instructions on how to recreate such said patented technique , item, whatever.
If that individual sells it for a profit, they could be sued. But whats to prevent the VHS copying for yourself / friends? Or for their own diabolic experimentation? Or the MP3?
“Savvy?” -Captain Jack Sparrow.
Arrrr
j/k
Unless the patent is applied for in Australia, NZ or other non-US jurisdiction exclusively, and their regulations on elapsed time after first public disclosure differ radically from ours, I do not see how it can be the parabolic stringer itself. I find posts here by Bert that date back as far as Spring 2004 that go into quite a bit of detail on the subject, and describe it in the same basic terms as the current Firewire marketing language. Example:
“Parabolic rail” vs. “parabolic stringer” terminology [ed., clarity - S] might be sufficiently different to qualify for trademark protection, but it could hardly influence a patent decision.
-Samiam
currently winding up the patent process for the keysafe.
in the course of the application period before the patent is awarded or denied, one has to present an argument to the examiner defining how your submission differs significantly from all others of the same ilk previously awarded. or at least, i had to.
interestingly enough, one of the “prior art” that i had to defend against was german. i think from 1985. i had gotten a copy of his patent application, which was in german, as the patent had been awarded in germany, and accorded international patent status. i can tell you, defending against a patent written in a language one neither reads or speaks was tasking.
anyway, it seems that a patent awarded in another country can be accorded international patent status, in accordance with whatever laws govern that, and consequently a patent awarded here can provide protection against incursions in other countries.
so, i would think that a patent awarded in australia would provide protections here, and vice versa.
Understood. The second phrase was key. I very much doubt that any national patent system recognized internationally would fail to have a post-disclosure time limit, and I would be pretty surprised if the limit anywhere was more than 2 years…
-Samiam
yeh. agree with that.
i am just eaten up with curiosity as to what, exactly, they are claiming is a patent pending.
without any further information from the company in question, i don’t see how we can look at what they are claiming in the patent.
well, maybe a good patent attorney could find out.
i’m not that curiou$ tho.
pete.
I think before everyone gets hot to trot about this stuff it might help to read up on patent 4,255,221 and make sure that what they are doing today wasn’t a direct result of violating this patent at the time when it was in effect. Getting from step A to step Z (parabolic rails) without the use of the technology being described in 4,255,221 would have been a difficult venture. Of course there’s the concept of multiple trains of similar though propogating in space at the same time. But is it or is it not original is the question…
If the owner of 4,255,221 filed his original idea in 1978 it’ll be hard to say that alot of this composite stuff being done today didn’t violate some of the Intellectual Property he published in this document.
1978 was well before Sways or Surftech came into fruition or many here were even out of diapers…
Patent law can be tricky. Any innovation or improvement on an idea can constitute a new patent. Changing a small, miniscule idea can give u enough cleareance to rip some one off… In the long run alot of it comes down to the dollars.
About the Surftech “paraboic rails”, it seems to me that what they consider a stringer is acrylite wrapped around the rail. What I think they are doing is thermoforming it around the blank, then trimming the excess. This would create a small crease between the two sheets and I’m guessing they would then cap the rails with a fiberglass tape. The fiberglass tape can be considered a stringer then also… I guess CMP has been using parabolic rails too; even though none of these rails are parabolic. But who cares its just marketing, throwing around words to confuse the consumer into paying more for a product…
It’s all about sales and marketing at this point. A different ball game then what Bert was doing in his hometowm, relying on word of mouth. He was a big fish in a small pond. Now he’s in the ocean…