now Im starting a 4 years degree -Systems Analyst
Ouch. If that is what I think it is, I hate that stuff. Useful, yes. Some people seem to enjoy the work, but it’s not for me. 2 hours a week for half a year was way too much for me, but 4 years? Good luck…
regards,
Håvard
I encourage those interested to seek references. Miki lives on the Gold Coast and a lot of people
in the industry know him there. Ask questions to different people and see what types of responses you get.
FWIW with the support Miki’s been getting in this thread, those who don’t like him does not seem to post on swaylocks(except for those who don’t like shaping machines, but my WAG is that they don’t like you a hair better). A few of those who do seem to like him certainly does.
Ending a business relationship this way is never pretty. Been there, done that…
My two cents worth.
regards,
Håvard
…Haavard, cause have programming and much more
anyway, when I finished the highschool I d study this but I d changed to go to live on the beach and start with the surfboards
now 20 years making boards and 10 years studying music and some years teaching some people
and a opportunity to start a degree again…
My name is matt ambrose a machine owner, I just want to ask jimmy a couple questions on the subject. When I first was interested in a machine in 2004 I looked on APS3000 website, among all the info I saw this about how jimmy met miki.
Word for word from the former APS3000 web site. Under “The Story” Jimmy Freese
My sister, my buddy Tom Noel and I went down to the Gold Coast, Australia on in May 2001 vacation to check out Oz and score some waves like this one at Burleigh (surfer unidentified).
On the flight down I read an article in TransWorld Surf in which talked about Miki’s machine. I went and talked to the boys and they explained what they had going on. Things became real clear when I was shown a surfboard that came out of the machine. At that point I knew, Miki’s machine was far more advanced than anything else at the time. They had mentioned that they had needed some help with the software side of the project. I said ok, let’s make it happen.
I then contacted my dad, because he is a world class computer programmer and math squid and we assessed the difficulty of the software side. We decided it could be done.
So I went back to Hawaii, but then a month and a half later, I was living on the Gold Coast working on the software. My dad stayed in Hawaii but we worked closely with Miki making sure the software talked to the machine’s controller correctly. We also worked closely with the shapers making sure the software gave them all the tools they needed and was intuitive from their perspective.
Questions
After I talked to miki a few times I went to the gold coast to check out the machine and make a decision, after seeing the machine I was sold, they designed me a board in ten minutes and then cut it. It was perfect. I put my down payment on it right away. To me it was jimmy and his dad were responsible for this way ahead of its time surfboard program, miki was the man who invented the machine with feedback from Nev about the cuts. This is what I was told. When I asked miki about delivery he told me it was going to start speeding up because this guy mike was going to start helping him build machines but mike had a lot of stuff to get in order before he could start. This was still 2004. My point is how can mike even claim he has patens on this machine. The machine I have is identical to the machine that cut my board in 2004, my machine was delivered in 2005. this was miki’s design from scratch before jimmy or mike were involved (that is what jimmy said in the info above) I want to know from aku shaper, even if miki is guilty of said accusations still how can you claim that it is right to manufacture the same machine.
Jimmy and Ralph are responsible for a genius program, miki is responsible for a genius machine, and mike was paid to build the machine. Am I correct or wrong. This is not an attack on jimmy, he has always answered my questions on programs and any type of upgrade. I am good friends with miki that is true. I am just speaking my mind and would appreciate if jimmy could answer these questions.
Thanks matt ambrose
If Miki has patent pending, can you make a machine that are (even in part) covered by the patent pending? I think the short answer is no, because the patent pending has you covered until the you are granted patent. You cannot break a patent pending any more than you can break the actual patent. The reason for this is getting a patent takes time. If you challenge the patent application, you need to prove that it has all been covered in full by patents in the past.
Secondly, if Miki has patent applications for the machine, how can Mike claim: “The design and IP of the current APS3000 machine is owned by me, any copy of these designs would be a breach of Copyright Law and legal proceedings are currently being taken against Michael Langenbach for both theft and breaches of copyright.” Why would you need to file a new patent at all if he owns the copyright?
If Miki has patent pending, can you make a machine that are (even in part) covered by the patent pending? I think the short answer is no, because the patent pending has you covered until the you are granted patent. You cannot break a patent pending any more than you can break the actual patent. The reason for this is getting a patent takes time. If you challenge the patent application, you need to prove that it has all been covered in full by patents in the past.
Secondly, if Miki has patent applications for the machine, how can Mike claim: “The design and IP of the current APS3000 machine is owned by me, any copy of these designs would be a breach of Copyright Law and legal proceedings are currently being taken against Michael Langenbach for both theft and breaches of copyright.” Why would you need to file a new patent at all if he owns the copyright?
Alot of wrong assumptions above.
I can apply for a patent to the invention of the wheel and it doesnt stop or preclude anybody
from making their own during the next 12,18 months that it takes for the application to get reviewed.
Patent Pending is just your application waiting for its review. Its not a published finding in any database.
This also applies to a new product or legititimate novel invention also.
BUT, if I design a new object, file for a patent, market and sell my product with ‘patent pending’ applied(printed on the packaging, in the ads).
Then, after I receive the patent, I could apply some law and lawyers to those who ignored the ‘caution’ sign of patent pending.
Assuming , of course, that my patents are sufficiently strong to warrant this, and if they are not and my product or revenue stream is strong, I just
may use lawyering and money to attempt to weaken the competition or maybe not.
Anyone ‘KNOW’ any different?
I’ve read books on Patents and applied for one.
Dont know everything though.
Spot on Hal. I’m working on a patent right now and from what I’ve read, patent protection works exactly as you’ve described. Being granted a patent simply gives the patent owner the right to take potential infringements to court. If the judge upholds your patent, your golden. If not, the patent is worthless. Not uncommon these days with how many weak patents are making it through the USPTO.
I think this is a problem with different patent laws. In Norway you won’t get a patent pending if you apply for a patent that is fully covered by other patents or is already in general use(in other words, if someone else have invented the wheel and produced it, you cannot apply for a patent for it). You need to prove that it is significantly different from any other patents in the field when you file the application. Much easier to get a patent in the US, but possibly harder to make use of it.
regards,
Håvard
Sorry, who’s Nev?
Probably Nev Hyman??
Ah ha, now I get it…
Nev’s been a busy boy lately…check this out…
WHEN veteran Gold Coast surfboard builder Nev Hyman was starting a new hi-tech, robotic manufacturing facility, he asked some of his well-heeled friends to come on board as investors.
Along for the ride into what Hyman regards as the future of surfboard making are former Billabong CEO Matthew Perrin, ex-Billabong general manager Dougall Walker and golfers Adam Scott and Ian Baker-Finch.
The five are among the men behind Firewire Surfboards, which aims to become one of the world’s largest surfboard manufacturers, with factories in Australia, Asia and the US.
For more than 40 years, most surfboards have been hand-shaped from polyurethane foam coated with toxic polyester resin. But Firewire is using high-density foam, epoxy resin and balsa to mass-produce boards it says are lighter, stronger, faster and more environmentally friendly.
“There is a better way to make surfboards, and we believe we’ve found it,” Mr Hyman said at the opening of the company’s West Burleigh headquarters yesterday.
A traditional surfboard shaper for most of the past 33 years, Mr Hyman joined forces with the man he calls the “mad professor” of surfboard manufacturing, West Australian Bert Berger, who developed the epoxy production process.
Using his global industry contacts, Mr Hyman established Firewire which will take on the world’s largest boardmaker, Cobra in Thailand, in the billion-dollar market.
Like Mr Perrin – who controversially cashed out of Billabong in 2002 for almost $100 million – Mr Walker has been in semi-retirement since leaving the surfwear giant two years ago with a wad of cash and shares.
But impressed by the business plan and “revolutionary” product, he and Mr Perrin decided to invest “a fair bit” of their Billabong fortunes in Firewire.
He said the company aimed to produce between 30,000 and 50,000 surfboards over the next 12 months “which will give us a 5 per cent share of the global market”.
The company’s global push is being helped by some of the world’s top surfers, including seven-time world champion Kelly Slater and WA star Taj Burrow, who are riding Firewire boards.
Starting to sound like “Days of our Lives” here…
What matters more than who’s name is on a patent, is who it’s assigned to. My name is on many patents, but most of them were assigned to others for an agreed to compensation deal.
For example - I used to invent toys for Mattel, among other toy companies. Patents for the toys would be applied for in my name. Mattel and I would enter into a royalty agreement, where they defined my compensation - percentage of gross sales. In return, I’d assign the patent to them for $1. Once that happened the concept would belong to them, and not me.
This is a fairly standard practice. Just because you invented it doesn’t mean you own the idea forever. If you assign your rights to someone else, they own those rights unless they break the contract - then you can sue to get the rights back.
I’m not implying right or wrong, or slinging mud on this thread… just clarifying how intelectual property deals work.
Haavard, as long as you have an open patent application you can use the phrase “Patent pending” regardless of the chances of the patent being approved. This is often done as a scare tactic to keep others out of the market in the early stages while the patent applicant grabs market share. Yes you need to prove that the item being patented is novel (hasn’t been done before), useful (will actually enhance life in some way), and non-obvious (isn’t just the next logical step from existing prior art). The catch is that the patent is in pending status until someone at the patent office actually reviews and researches your patent (which normally won’t happen for 10 - 15 months from the application date at least here in the US). Add to that the option to appeal the decision if the patent is denied and you can scare people off with “patent pending” for years.
Hey Losos sounds like you know a lot about paten law, If I am correct you are Ryan Mohr who works for jimmy, Ralph, and mike of Aku Shaper as a web designer-programmer. If jimmy does not want to answer my question that is fine, maybe you can answer the real question I asked, that is if someone like Miki spent a lot of time inventing a cutting machine for surfboards from scratch. Then years after that someone like mike who builds these machines for your production tries to paten this design. Without all the legal explanation about paten law, is this right to do, or should you design something else from scratch to go with your ground breaking surfboard design program, that would make most sense to me, if you want to compete with Miki’s machine and you own a great program then you should make a great machine yourself.
Thanks Matt Ambrose
Jimmy,
I have waited for your response since we spoke on the phone, after I read your initial post regarding “ We are no longer able to work with Michael Langenbach “
Like the others , I have many questions. First I would like to thank you and your father for creating the APS3000 design software. You have made a great contribution to those of us that use it today and those who will benefit from it tomorrow. You have always taken my calls and have always listened to my outer limit software upgrade requests.
Thank you…
A little recall.
We were led to believe that Miki invented the APS3000 as she sits today.
It was our understanding that you and your father created the software for the system and had nothing to do with the actual design of the machine nor the secret cutting head/fast hold down mechanism, overall appearance of the machine.
I do recall Miki speaking of Mike Rikard. I also remember another Father and son team that was involved at the time we put down our deposit ( Nev was still involved ) . Our machine was ordered in October of 04, and showed up in Aug of 05. I believe it was US machine # 3 behind San Diego 1, and the San Clemente machine. I recall learning of Mike having to move his family to the Gold Coast which took quite some time and seemed to be 5-6 month’s after our initial deposit was cashed.
Our buying decision was based on your commitment to further developing a shaper friendly software that included free software upgrades, and it’s ability to work seamlessly with the APS3000 shaping machine network. It was our understanding that it was in the spirit of supporting small manufacturers, that would assist and cultivate local shapers and their surf community ( While Asia has been a knockin )
The reason behind 1-4
Internal company disputes happen all the time. Regardless of who did what and when. The initial post based on the information provided by you truly appeared like a hostile takeover. This action did nothing but create ( FUD) fear uncertainty and doubt. Many invested lots of blood, sweat, and money into their cutting centers/business. The post that was submitted not only created this uncertainty for machine owners but in many cases for their current and potential customers.
If what you say is true you have every right to get what is rightfully yours. If money is owed then money should be paid ( Miki Cooking the books ). That is a simple fix. What I do not understand is why you are now selling the APS3000 under the new name AKU-SHAPER. You are attempting to sell something that has been developed by someone else ( patents or not, this is what we were led to believe) . If I’m wrong please correct me. You have every right to sell a machine that works homogeneously with your software. If so it should be Mike Rikard’s or your own design. Not the APS3000MIKI design that has been labeled “ Miki’s creation “ If Miki did truly invent this technology I’m sure tons of money was invested into research and development. Therefore the APS3000 design should remain his own, patent or not. If this is true the right thing to do would be to offer a royalty payment to help absorb his R and D cost " If he agrees ", or simply design your own machine and go to market. Anything else would appear the intention all along was to capatalize on Miki’s lifes work. If you choose to emulate the APS3000 this could create a competitive situation ( same machine, same cutter, same fast hold ) there no doubt will be a machine war, naturally someone will have to sell a machine for less which could devastate some legacy APS machine owners. ( A less expensive machine will provide advantages for new customers hurting the APS3000 early adopters that have paid dearly and contributed to some of the research, development and upgrades. ( No one appreciates being guinee pigs, especially when it costs alot of money )
I could go on and on. It is easy to attack someone’s character to try to validate ones decisions. Character positive or negative should be left aside until facts that affect the many are revealed.
I think it would help if you expressed your intentions. Put it all out there. Whatever your intentions or reasons are, silence is damming. I would have expected a detailed support plan, software upgrade action items, and outreach to all that could be affected before a post like that went public…
Intentions please… For
and
Again I do not attack you, your character, decisions or actions. I feel it important that your intentions be made public as your decisions could affect others that have heavily invested in the APS3000 project.
Good Luck, Kind regards.
Mike…
well that makes sense Mike
heads up we are all listening
If I am correct you are Ryan Mohr who works for jimmy, Ralph, and mike of Aku Shaper as a web designer-programmer.
Yeah, that’s correct. I’ve been working with Jimmy on the aps3000/akushaper website since early last year.
if someone like Miki spent a lot of time inventing a cutting machine for surfboards from scratch. Then years after that someone like mike who builds these machines for your production tries to paten this design.
Everything I know about patent law is from research I have done for patent applications of my own. I don’t know any of the details regarding the machine patents owned my Miki or Mike, apart from Miki’s patent application that he’s shared with us on swaylocks. With that said, I’ve worked as a machinist in a CNC machine shop and I’ve taken three years of CNC courses throughout high school and college. In no way am I an expert, but I’ve seen my fair share of machine setups. Breaking it down:
For any surfboard CNC machine you’ll need your three axes: X (length), Y (width), and Z (thickness). Fourth and fifth axes are common in CNC machines but I’ve yet to see one used in production for surfboards. With those three axes you’ve got a choice: do you want the cutting head to move and the board to remain stationary, the board to move and the cutting head to remain stationary, or a combination of the two? The APS3000 design stands out because it was one of the first shaping machines to use a combination of the two (new for surfboards but done many times before in the CNC industry). For those that haven’t seen the machine in operation, Y and Z are handled by the movement of the cutting head, while X is handled by the board moving back and forth across the long track. By doing so, you minimize the amount of momentum in the axis making the fastest and longest cuts (instead of throwing the entire cutting unit back and forth, you’re now only moving a blank and a few minor support legs. costs some space but if you’ve got space who cares?). This type of optimization is also an industry standard in CNC machines, regardless of whether or not it had been done in the surfboard shaping industry before.
Take the machine below, and move the table instead of the cutting head and you’ve got the APS3000 drive system (throw in the angle grinder and a blank support system and you’ve got yourself an expensive and heavy version of the APS3000).
As far as the blank support system, vacuum cups have long been a standard in CNC machines and were used previously in surfboard shaping machines. Take a look at the 3DM. The APS3000 design simplified the vacuum supports. Enough so to be patentable? Not sure, but simply removing a few support legs and vacuum cups would not be enough. An ingenious way of registering the blanks on the machine? That might be patentable, but I’m not convinced the APS3000 blank support system has that. Stock stops have long been common in the CNC industry.
As far as the machines looking the same, take cars as an example. On the body level, looks like there are thousands of options and that each model is significantly different. Take off the body and what are you left with? For the most part, an engine, chassis, drive system, and four wheels. The difference lies in the details of those components, not in the exterior look. I’d argue the same for shaping machines, and in that respect the new Aku Shaper machine is not the same as the APS3000 machine.
Reply To
On the body level, looks like there are thousands of options and that each model is significantly different. Take off the body and what are you left with? For the most part, an engine, chassis, drive system, and four wheels. The difference lies in the details of those components, not in the exterior look. I’d argue the same for shaping machines, and in that respect the new Aku Shaper machine is not the same as the APS3000 machine.
Still, even if you remove the body, the components of the car is covered with thousands of patents…
FWIW with the quick glance I had on the patent application I think if Miki is granted the patent, you will be in trouble if you are making a machine that 1)Moves the blank (which is not common in CNC for anything bigger than printed circuit boards) 2)Uses an ‘angle grinder’ cutter(which is not common in CNC machines AFAIK and certainly not for cutting foam at this rate) 3)Uses a similar blank holding system(No other surfboard shaping machine manufacturers seem to think that less is more). It looks like it is as broad and ambiguous as a patent must be to cover as much ground as possible(Lawyer stuff. Those guys can spend a whole day just formulating a single sentence in a patent application just for this purpose). If you do build a similar machine and the patent is granted you are going to spend considerable time in court(at least if Miki wants to). Secondly, there are copyright issues. Miki claim to have the machine ready in March 2000, however Mike starts his company in 2001 and claim to have copyright and IP? Miki started with profilers in 1984 and has experience with shaping machines ever since, Mike has worked with the automotive and medical industry until he forms his new company to design and manufacture shaping machines in 2001. Right now the few pictures of the aku shaper looks like a blueprint of the APS3000 just made out of steel, it certainly does not look like a new design. Is changing the material the machine is built of enough to get around patent/copyright issues?
I wonder what the motivation for cooking the books was for Miki. Anyway, if someone was cooking the books in my company, they would be fired in five seconds flat, certainly be removed from the board of directors(if they where there in the first place) and taken to court.
I wonder what Mike was thinking when he removed the machines from the factory. I bet they both told each other to go to hell, however removing the machines from the factory, finishing them without Miki knowing and then having the guts to ask him to pay for it really is something.
And I wonder if you are in a company together, why is Miki paying for the machines? Isn’t the company supposed to pay for them?
Haavard, reading Mike’s statement on the following page should clear up some of the issues regarding the five machines that were “stolen”: http://aps3000.com/formerly_known_as_aps3000.php
Careful about your statements. Miki knew full well that Mike was finishing the machines. Mike is not necessarily asking Miki to pay for them. By paying the deposit on the machines, Miki has the right to purchase them if he still wants to. Mike is just giving him the option to exercise that right.
It’s just a who do you want to believe game: http://www.aps3000miki.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=39