It honestly doesn't mean a whole lot. All another company would have to do is show that their tech is slightly different. It's also up to NS to defend the patent. The patent simply gives them legal exclusivity, it's still up to NS to find infringements and prove it. Doing so is extremely time consuming and expensive. The biggest thing it will do is keep other companies from referring to their tech as rocker and camber or R.C.

 

That if its not exactly the same nothing happens... Basically I don't think lib or Burton or anyone using rock/cam is going to get in trouble.

But it is good for NS. Now people can know that it was NS that "started" the hybrid design.

 

But it is good for NS. Now people can know that it was NS that "started" the hybrid design.

agreed. this is a great selling point for neversummer.

 

United States Patent: 7798514

At least one embodiment of the inventive technology relates to a snowboard having a lower surface that does not at any point along at least one specified portion thereof contact a horizontal surface underlying the snowboard when the snowboard is unweighted. Such portion(s) may be defined, at least in part, by one or more cambers. A rocker may be used to impart additional board performance benefits to a rider. Other embodiments may relate more specifically to the positioning of cambers relative to mount regions.

Seems like it covers just about any design with rocker and camber. But it's up to NS to pursue which seems like a big hassle.

 

Should be interesting to see if NS goes off like Libtech and Stepchild have. Then again it's kind of the American high quality hand-made exclusiveness that makes their boards special. One thing is for sure, they have no problem selling them, NS boards must have the lowest depreciation value.

 

It does seem pretty all inclusive to any kind of reverse camber. It specifically addresses Banana Tech (curved upwards), Burton V (v-shape), Capita Flatkick (flat section)...LOL Bataleon TBT might be free of this, not sure.

NS could be become the next bully in the block, next to Burton, of course.

 

NS could be become the next bully in the block, next to Burton, of course.

Then we'll see a massive influx of sudden hatred towards what is currently a highly respected brand even if their products remain top notch.

 

I don't know. I find it hard to believe that even if NS brings the heat that anyone will fall. You can't patent something you don't use. Burton throws another rocker section outside the camber. NS doesn't. I can see Lib getting out of it cause they start their camber under the binding insert where NS starts it just outside. From what I remember, Rome is the same as Lib making them possibly safe.

All in all, I don't think NS did this to take over the hybrid market. They did so in order to claim bragging rights for it. If they did take over, I think they would loose some of their loyal followers. Half the appeal of NS is that they are that smaller company fighting the bigger ones. What would happen to them if they became that big company?

But in the end this is all speculation, none of us are NS and none of us know what they're going to do.

 

You are old school if you remember when Burton tried to patent the snowboard and Lib Tech put out bumper stickers that said Boycott Burton because you can't patent fun.

 

NS can sell patents to other companies just like Lib Tech has with Mag Traction

 

From my understanding of it and I'm sure Vince will get on here. They did it as more of a way to protect themselves from some other company that had lawyers flexing their muscle at them. They just wanted to make sure it was protected so they could keep doing what they're doing and if a company wanted to use it they could. But I'll let Vince be the final authority on that.

 

That probably makes the most sense.

 

I'm a bit confused by all this. I work at a shop that has been selling lib for a long time now, and have been selling skate bananas since early 2007.
Some of the yellow bananas and all of the trs bananas had rocker between the bindings and a little camber on the ends since the day. I think somebody forgot to look closely at the first lib bananas. Those guys at lib are usually full of surprises.

So how can NS have a patent on something lib had on their boards in our shop from 2007. I still have my board here and am eyeing down the double camber from 2007.

I guess I don't how patents work. Can anybody out there explain how if lib invented it in 2007, somebody else can get a patent on lib's invention.:dunno:

 

Whoa whoa whoaaaaa!
Since this is your first post I will advise you not to talk about this forum's Jesus (Never Summer) like that... :laugh:

Lib Tech was the first company to put t-nuts in snowboards, so bow down all you other companies! Patent this! :cheeky4:

 

How does an evo hold up on the jumps in freeway?

 

It blows up into rainbows and stardust.

 

that's a real name, fuck I thought it was a reference to a cock in vagina joke. Dammit!

 

:laugh:

10 char

 

Rofl. That name is totally set up.

 

hahaha... I'm sure someone will get to the bottom of this... I'll be checking angrysnowboarder.com for updates

 

HAHA I emailed Vince about the patent tried calling Tracey, going to get something for you guys hopefully by tomorrow if not next week.

But fuck that name is as hilarious as this kid I went to summer camp with Benjamin Matthew Dover, yep Ben Dover.

 

it's much easier to get a patent than it is to defend it. if they were to try to sue anyone, i don't think they would be successful. other companies like lib tech were developing similar designs at the same time.

that said, i think it's pretty silly of them to patent anything in snowboards. their boards are an evolution of technology other board companies pioneered. if they were try to license it, then they should start paying royalties to every other company their products were evolved from. hopefully, they just wanted the bragging rights for marketing purposes.

 

PS... here's a brief explanation of how patents are declared invalid.

What Could Make My Patent Invalid?
A patent can be deemed invalid for a number of reasons. Usually, a patent will be found to be invalid during infringement cases where an accused infringer defends himself by claiming your patent is invalid. Some of the common reasons patents are found to be invalid are:

The invention was not actually patentable - if someone can bring evidence that your invention lacked the requisite novelty, utility, or non-obviousness required for a patent, the USPTO can declare your patent invalid.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/patent-duration.html

Other snowboard companies can argue the patent is invalid on two grounds. 1) It lacked novelty (other companies produced similar designs at the same time). 2) It was an obvious evolution. They could claim that it was an obvious solution to the lack of stability in reverse camber boards.

 

but that is actually harder to do than sueing for copyright infringement because u r a basically calling the US patent office ppl idiots and they will back up their reasons for allowing the patent to go through. remember that for patents to go through, it is publicly posted for like a year for anyone to challenge the validity. if no one challenges during this time frame, it is harder to do it later (not saying its impossible). it happens but it'll require even more legal cost.
bottom line is, intellectual property is a major part of business and economy in the capitalistic society we live in. it is a good way to protect and reward the innovators of respective industries. just because u can try to challenge the validity does not take away from the facts noted above

you're kind of all over the place. patents and copyrights are two different things. it wouldn't be difficult to argue the validity of a patent in court. it happens all the time. short of agreeing to pay a licensing fee or agreeing to stop manufacturing RC boards, that's their only option if they are sued.

for the companies that developed similar designs independently, there's no way in hell they're going to turn around and pay a fee to someone else or quit producing their boards. so they would challenge the patent's validity if sued. in all likelihood, never summer won't try to enforce it for this reason. if they did and it were declared invalid in court, not only would they lose the patent, they'd look like idiots.

 

Keep in mind, this is just for the rocker/camber design, not all rocker designs. NS was at least a year out before other companies started getting on this bandwagon. Yet C2 won a product innovation award after the fact NS had been producing RC for a year. Though I am intrigued by Phillip's (Mike's) statement about Banana's having slight camber on the tips of their boards originally. I didn't get on a banana in their first generation so maybe they did. Lib had certainly abandoned it before then.

Also, it is not the easiest thing to challenge a patent once it's granted. NS was able to prove they came up with something original. Just like Mervin did with Magne. Magne has been a very enforceable patent for Mervin and I suspect the RC patent will be for Neversummer if they choose to go that route. Mervin was also trying to snag the patent on this tech, so it does give NS a good degree of protection.

How much resistance you'll see on this is going to be interesting. Mervin has big bucks and big lawyers on their side, but even they don't want a big fight over it. If it gets to court, nothing is a sure thing. My guess is they would settle for a reasonable fee and only take it all they way to a court room show down if NS pressed it. I also think there is reasonable grounds to believe that NS is going to do not much in regards to their patent.

This of course is all hypothetical. It's not my business. If it was me, I'd try to get some ducats out of it, just like Mervin and Burton have for their proprietary designs. Nothing wrong with the small guy reaping some benefit. If it's a reasonable fee, the industry will probably play along.

 

Though I am intrigued by Phillip's (Mike's) statement about Banana's having slight camber on the tips of their boards originally. I didn't get on a banana in their first generation so maybe they did. Lib had certainly abandoned it before then.

mervin did release some BTX boards with a C2-style camber before they started marketing it

 

I really have no problem with real patents like this. You know it is a good idea when others copy it, and the innovator should get something out of it.

 

QFT...

1,2,3

 

I think NS should sell the right to use the patent to other companies just like Mervin has done with Magne Traction

It's either do that and the other companies play along like Kill is saying, or step up and enforce the patent.... Other companies will pay for the right to use the patent, I'm sure of it.

 

There's arguments to be made on both sides. If it comes down to it, it'll be up to a jury to decide. My own personal opinion is that's the way snowboard technology was going. They didn't invent the reverse camber board, which had stability issues. And this was probably an obvious solution. It sounds like Lib may have even beat them to the punch with the Skate Banana. Hopefully, it'll never come to a legal battle. I'd rather have as many companies as possible trying to improve their boards without worrying about being sued.

 

I'd rather have as many companies as possible trying to improve their boards without worrying about being sued.

That's just not how things work when a lot of money is involved....

 

By "settle" I mean that Mervin and others would pay a license fee. Just as Jones snowboards and other do for Magne.

Mervin may have used something similar in their first gen banana but they also clearly abandoned it for a awhile. It was also not nearly as radical as the NS design. Reading between the lines on Mike's post. I guess Mervin could use that initial design and have grounds to stand firm with that. I doubt it gives the results they would want either.

With patent's it's not always the guy who came up with the idea first, but it's the guy who got behind it as part of their business. Time and time again more than one person has come up with something similar but it's the guy who was most ready to roll with it that won. Pharmaceuticals have this sort of fight all the time.

I also don't really see a big fight brewing over this. At most Neversummer will probably ask a license fee for it. Just like Burton does with their binding systems, or Mervin with Magne. Neither one of those guys have had a problem getting other companies to play along, and gear costs didn't shoot through the roof either. Going to a lawsuit to get a company to stop doesn't make sense. No one wins in that case except for the lawyers.

 

I assume you mean layman's terms. Which ironically you are one. Anyway, that's not how civil cases work. In a civil case, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence. That is, the majority of evidence must be on your side. That's a far lower standard than a criminal case, or your assertion that it's analogous to instant replay. In instant replay, you need indisputable evidence (100% certainty). Here, the standard is more like 51%, if you want to look at it in those terms.

And what I'm saying in no way suggests that patents are worthless. I'm simply saying that in this instance, there's evidence to support the argument that their patent was either not unique or that it was an obvious next step. Never Summer has evidence on their side to argue the contrary. Until they attempt to enforce it, there's no way to know how strong their patent is. To try to argue the strength of it here on way or another is pointless.