[john doe]

Except that John Doe is criticizing someone's grammar all the while spelling "sentance" incorrectly :laugh:

Sorry, I just couldn't resist pointing that out

I left that in there as an ironic joke. I swear to god I did.

 

[extra0]

mervin's design is so close to NS. One of the differences appears to be NS has the binding placed on the edge of the camber, giving a slight, but naturally canted footbed.

Saying they had C2 on the first "bananas" is a self-serving lie. That statement is in mervin's best interest and most consumers wouldn't challenge it. Maybe some had an extremely minimal "C2" as a production flaw, but, as BurtonAvenger said, those first "bananas" were crap.

Pretty lame mervin is whining about NS filing for a patent so late, when, imo, mervin copied the design and immediately tried get it patented first...and failed (karma?). Let's not act like stealing designs and getting them patented before the original is something new.

They didn't throw out a new name because the tech wasn't developed enough when NS already had RC finished. Even if it had been finished, the banana hype was still selling hot.

Probably none of this bs matters in the long run, but those of us who were paying attention during the "rocker revolution" several years ago know what's up.

 

[little devil]

My apologies legend, I stopped reading your and pedros posts after u guys were getting into it. After reading killclimbs I realized I missed something worth reading. Pretty crazy.

Hope all goes well for N.S.

 

[Toddler]

I have 3 snowboards, a Burton, a Lib, and a NS (alphabetical order), so I have nothing against any of these companies. I like all of them, although I am going to sell the Lib since it's my least favorite.

Anyway, on another thread I saw Mervin's response to the NS patent where they seem to claim they filed first. All I could find was this:

(WO/2008/137448) SNOWBOARD

which seems to try and patent rocker or reverse camber snowboards, but not a mixed rocker camber board. The discussion on prior art does mention a snowboard with camber under each foot (Inca I guess), and this thread or another indicated NS also reference that patent in their application.

It seems to my non-legal mind that putting the camber out beyond the inserts is not a completely obvious variation on what Inca did, so I suppose it might be patent worthy. But the banana rocker patent doesn't seem worthy of a patent. Flat boards are just boards without camber. Rocker boards are just a progression to lift the ends.

Adding camber under the feet to increase grip like Inca tried seems reasonably clever to me, and while RC is a little different, C2 really doesn't seem to be since it's under the inserts, like on the Inca. Really, both RC and C2 seem like obvious variations that may be novel enough to skirt a design patent, but not a well written utility patent.

Does anyone know if Inca patented their design? Also, can someone direct me to the text of the NS patent online, and to the patent Mervin claims will cover C2?

Thanks,
Todd

 

[killclimbz]

No idea if Inca put a patent in or not. I believe Inca has camber between the feet and rocker at the tip/tail though. Pretty much the opposite of the NS design. So even if they did patent it, it's different enough. Word is, Mervin put in for the patent on Banana rocker and that is the one they tried to argue was in before NS put in for rocker camber. Again, a different design.

Just google US Patents and you can enter Neversummer's patent number to download the text and designs. It's a rather boring read quite frankly.

 

[Qball]

This is claim one from the NS Patent

1. A snowboard, comprising: a first tip section at a first end of said snowboard and a second tip section at a second end of said snowboard; and an intermediate longitudinal section between said first and second tip sections, wherein said first tip section has a first tip section terminus and said second tip section has a second tip section terminus, wherein said intermediate longitudinal section includes a first intermediate section half in contact with said first tip section and a second intermediate section half in contact with said second tip section, wherein at least a part of said first intermediate section half has a lower surface that defines a first camber and at least a part of said second intermediate section half has a lower surface that defines a second camber, wherein said first camber has two first camber ends and one of said first camber ends is closer to said first tip section than is the other of said first camber ends, wherein said second camber has two second camber ends and one of said second camber ends is closer to said second tip section than is the other of said second camber ends, wherein, from and including said first tip section terminus to and including said one of said first camber ends that is closer to said first tip section defines a first snowboard portion, wherein, from and including said second tip section terminus to and including said one of said second camber ends that is closer to said second tip section defines a second snowboard portion, and wherein said first snowboard portion does not at any point contact a horizontal surface underlying said snowboard when said snowboard is unweighted.

Head explodes, wherein, head implodes, wherein, fuck.

 

[InfiniteEclipse]

It be easier to describe it as going up and down and up and down, said snowboard.

 

[Toddler]

Clean your monitor. Exploding heads ...

Believe it or not, when I drew a line and marked it up as I read that claim, I wound up with something like the NS cambers at the end drawing.
Although I did get confused near the end by some part one of second tip...part section. It seems wrong, but hopefully that was just me
and NS made sure it was right when they wrote it. Odd thing is that claim doesn't seem to define the camber as starting after the inserts, which means it
could cover Inca or C2 as well as RC. Don't think NS can patent the Inca design.

Todd

 

[Qball]

I think Mervin is just butt hurt because NS decided to really push the design, regardless of who first came up with it. Mervin says they had it first but didn't market it because they didnt think the snowboard world was ready. Hey, you snooze you lose. Think of it like this..So back in the day this guy named Merv invents this new thing called Ice Cream. He loves the stuff and he and his family enjoy it all the time, but he decides to not tell anyone else about it because he doesn't think are ready for such an amazing thing. Now there's this other guy, named Ness, down the street who has also discovered Ice Cream. He decides that it's so good, he has to share with the rest of the world. So he spends all his time making and selling his ice cream to all the people in the town. Well the Merv finds out and declares that he was infact the first. So they ask the people of town who do they believe is the true inventor, and of course they all say Ness. Afterall, he was the one that first told them about it and sold it too them.

 

[Toddler]

Smart companies don't add special features that could improve sales without letting the buyer know they are there.
Smart companies that like to patent ideas and charge royalties don't incorporate patentable ideas that could improve sales without telling potential buyers the ideas are there and without filing a patent.

Mervin is a smart company, but they've sort of stuck their foot in their mouth here trying to appear more creative than they were. I'd be very surprised if Mervin's banana rocker patent could withstand any court battles since Volant marketed a reverse camber or rocker ski back in 2001.

So standard camber and standard rocker were out in production on skis before they were on snowboards. Combinations of camber and rocker may not have been.

If someone is selling bicycles with wheels, it'd be hard to patent the idea of putting wheels on a motorcycle. But you might be able to patent training wheels for added stability if nobody else marketed them.

To me, it seems like Mervin is trying to patent the wheel again, but NS's patent is on something smaller and newer. Of course now that I've said that, every time I ride my Evo-R, I'm going to think of it as having training wheels

 

[BurtonAvenger]

Inca's design is more like Nitro's Gullwing. Camber zones right under foot making a slight u between the feet. Inca just never labeled that area as reverse, Nitro does.

Now if you want to see some real thoughts on the bullshit I did an interview with Buoloco.com about it. Avran LeFeber from Angrynowboarder.com talks about Patents Mervin Versus Never Summer | Buoloco

 

[Leo]

That was a good interview and I agree with your points.

I really don't like the idea of patenting camber profiles. This isn't some unique technology. Camber profile tweaks occurred naturally. Tech like Burton's 3D hole pattern and ICS or Mervin's Magnetraction is understandable patent-wise. These three technologies aren't something that all snowboarding companies would have gravitated towards naturally.

Messing with different camber profiles is a very obvious progression in snowboarding tech. Nobody should be patenting that.

 

[crazyface]

i think the whole "Didn't want to label the pickle W camber as "C2"" was to not confuse consumers. lib came out with the skate banana in 07 and R.C. came out teh next year correct? if lib was working on and had developed C2 they didnt want to have 2 completely new techs come out the same or 1 year apart. it would confuse consumers. therefore they could have just decided to wait 2-3 years for btx to become established to officially release their newer design C2BTX.

reversing camber very obvious? sure, but why did so many companies suddenly have reverse camber in a 1-2 season span?

 

[killclimbz]

Don't forget that Mervin wanted to patent reverse camber and this tech. Pretty sure they planned to license it too.

Been a lot of "much ado about nothing". So far Neversummer hasn't done much.

Interesting thing I found with a quick google search. Looks like reverse camber ski's were patented in 1982. Patent number 4343485. So someone way back when thought it was fun from Indiana of all places? Funny that this shape didn't take off until the last decade when Shane pushed it and the patent was up.

 

[Leo]

reversing camber very obvious? sure, but why did so many companies suddenly have reverse camber in a 1-2 season span?

That can be attributed to consumers. More often than not, people are resistant to change especially if they are already comfortable with current offerings. It takes time to build up reputations in these types of situations. In the reverse camber world, there has been a recent influx of new snowboarders in the past couple of years. More and more riders were on reverse camber boards. Word got around... and the tech worked!

That's why you saw what seemed to be a sudden and drastic change in favor of rocker boards. In the ski world, Shane McConkey was the spokesperson for rockered skis. He is arguably one of the reasons rockers became popular with snowboarders as well.

It's sort of like what's going on with Burton's ICS boards. The first few boards with it were pretty much avoided like the plague. Now I'm slowly starting to see people come around to it as more and more riders demo it more than once.

Year 1: "Eww, ICS is just another evil Burton business ploy"

Year 2: "Oh, more Burton boards are starting to have it"

Year 3: "Just tried it out, actually not that bad. Not my cup of tea still, but not as bad as I thought"

Who knows... in a couple of more years we might be seeing a lot more ICS supporters. Mind you, the rocker thing is a much bigger scale than the ICS thing I used as an example.

The camber profile issue is natural in that it wasn't a group of R&D people sitting down and going "What can we do to change the game? What can we do that is so different and unique? What can we design that will be unique?"

It was more probably like, "Okay, what different types of shapes can we try out with rocker technology? Where should we place the camber? Underfoot? Outside of the feet? Between the feet?"

See the difference here? Of course this is just a theory of mine. Maybe NeverSummer did sit down and think that they were inventing something unique and revolutionary. I just personally don't think that was the case.

 

[Toddler]

Leo, I agree that rocker is too obvious to patent, especially since it was being produced in '01 if not before.
I'm not sure that all combinations of camber and rocker are so obvious that they don't deserve a patent although NS's patent is far too broad to stand up.

Avran, I don't think patents or patent battles will negatively affect consumers in a significant way. If I pay $2 or even $10 more for a board with magnetraction, it's not going to change the sport. But the fact that a company can get protection for their innovation and hard work, and then make money off it like Lib has ... well that will inspire other manufacturers to innovate. Without that incentive, it's easier to copy than to innovate, and even patents spur more innovation (eg, NS finding a way around magnetraction)
Todd

edit: Did Mervin site that 1982 patent in their application?

 

[Leo]

I'm not sure that all combinations of camber and rocker are so obvious that they don't deserve a patent although NS's patent is far too broad to stand up.

I agree with that statement to an extent. There will definitely be some craziness out there. I know Forum has some madness going on with their board tech and camber profiles. Still, I see that as more of a "What types of shapes can we try out" more than "What unique technology could we design to make us stand out."

Like Burton's S shape rocker. That's pretty weird and out there too. Nothing worth patenting in my opinion. What makes more sense to me patent-wise is some breakthrough innovation in the camber creating process. Maybe like a really efficient machine process design that makes shaping boards super easy and consistent.

 

[JonesyMalone]

Sorry for being pedantic (and don't mean to be trite nor insulting), but I am reminded of this comic:

Leo, I'd like to mention a few points that if not wrong, may warrant some clarification.

Some of the best evidence for invalidating a patent (and in the engineering world, a best practice) is to provide date/witness for all drawings and notations for a design. Sure, multiple people arrive at multiple designs independently (Hell, Leibniz and Newton invented calculus at the same time on different continents) - but in terms of real-world evidence to prior art, this is the best way. If a company hasn't done this, then it's their own failure in properly documenting their design process. (+1 for NS)

With regards to "[getting] their final (working) design", this isn't a necessity. Prototypes, and working copies are by no means a necessity in patenting. Patents can be as abstract as business models or user interfaces - or as specific as means for a circuit that equalizes greyscale in digital pictures. None of those things have to be an immediately manufacturable design. (+1 for NS)

You do touch on an interesting nuance though: whether a company chooses to take a design to the patent office. Some criteria have been mentioned such as prior art. But realistically there are other considerations - such as the detectability of infringements. For something at such a macro level as snowboard shape- this is easy, and therefore an excellent candidate for patenting as opposed to maintaining a trade secret. (+1 for NS, -1 for other companies)

And of course, as mentioned before - a new idea should be non-obvious (referred to in previous posts as revolutionary vs evolutionary). The general rule of thumb is: could anyone with a reasonable understanding of the subject matter, in that industry, come up with the exact same idea at the same time. (+1 for others)

-J

I was always under the impression that patents are first come first serve (generally speaking) so long as it isn't something that is widely available already. I'm sure there have been multiple instances when two people/companies invented very similar products/designs simultaneously albeit completely separate from each other.

So with NS's case, wouldn't this mean they were granted the patent because they were the first ones to effectively get their final (working) design to the market? So this would mean that Lib Tech has no case against this patent because their final design, C2, came after NS's RC.

I mean, if that's not the case... couldn't I claim that I came up with Post-its before 3M because I used to use stick glue notes all over my room prior to Post-its (example, I didn't really do that lol)?

Yikes... patent laws are confusing.

 

[Leo]

Thanks for the insight. I'm still pretty confused though.

So by what you're saying, patenting snowboard shapes is a good candidate?

So by that explanation, it is a good candidate to patent (on paper). In reality, I believe it's complete BS to patent something like that even though it's possible to do so. It's just an obvious evolution in snowboard tech to me. In my eyes, this situation is no better than when Burton tried to patent snowboards.

 

[JonesyMalone]

Leo - I'm with you from a real-world (and friendly competition) standpoint. I personally think shape-patenting is a terrible idea that stifles innovation, and that all the board makers ought to stick with trademarks for their specific implementation. Worst case, I'd like to see the patents used for marketing - not revenue generation.

The point of my +1/-1 markups for NS though, is that from a straight business perspective, I sure as hell would try to patent if I was in their position. Whether a patent ruling is overturned or not, the thing that matters is to get your name out to the people.

A further note - these patents try to be written as broadly as humanly possible. As soon as you put hard limits on the implementation (for example, camber angles aren't mentioned, nor are widths etc), the patent can be worked around by anyone who patents a different angle for their implementation. The fun part is coming up with a broad design, and then get patents on the implementations.

However, for further reading I would suggest hitting the web and searching on Apple patents for some of their industrial design and UI features. Some of the most obvious things you've ever heard of - but they decided to put it on paper first. This is not to start a flame-war, however, just to point out a high-visibility example of when companies patent obvious stuff (with very recent precedents being set for fighting it). A converse thing to look at would be patents from IBM and HP that may never see the light of day like the Apple designs, but are still patented because they're new and unique and some time in the future a use may be found.

-J

Thanks for the insight. I'm still pretty confused though.

So by what you're saying, patenting snowboard shapes is a good candidate?

So by that explanation, it is a good candidate to patent (on paper). In reality, I believe it's complete BS to patent something like that even though it's possible to do so. It's just an obvious evolution in snowboard tech to me. In my eyes, this situation is no better than when Burton tried to patent snowboards.