Why Trek dropped Rolf?
Demian Godon
Bontrager hoops?
Matt O'Toole
"Demian Godon" <dgo...@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:qGtk8.423$KP.4...@monger.newsread.com...
> Anyone know why Trek dropped Rolf? Was it simply to go with their
in-house
> Bontrager hoops?
Probably. Then they don't have to pay Rolf a royalty. Plus, Bontrager's
name might be just as "bankable."
Matt O.
Demian Godon
still surprised given all the hype (co-marketing) around Rolf from Trek.
"Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com> wrote in message
news:t2uk8.1506$Zr3.6...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Chet Liew
i heard more than one version of the story but many are along the lines of
this. rolf wanted trek to sue shimano for infringement with the pair spoke
design of the new shimano wheelsets. trek did not want to do this for
obvious reasons.
i'm sure there were other reasons.
"Demian Godon" <dgo...@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:qGtk8.423$KP.4...@monger.newsread.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
http://www.chainreaction.com/rolf.htm
--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReaction.com
"Demian Godon" <dgo...@adobe.com> wrote in message
news:qGtk8.423$KP.4...@monger.newsread.com...
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Anyone know why Trek dropped Rolf? Was it simply to go with their
>> in-house Bontrager hoops?
> Probably. Then they don't have to pay Rolf a royalty. Plus,
> Bontrager's name might be just as "bankable."
What bothers me is that the Rolf patent is basically invalid because
this method was used on bicycles marketed in 1869, a long time before
Shimano, Campagnolo, or Rolf. Pictures are contained in "The Bicycle"
by Pryor Dodge.
http://users.aol.com/pryordodge/bicyclebook.html
We saw that picture here on a web site of the Ink Group that made a
Bicycle Calendar from 12 of Dodge's Pages. The Ink Group web site has
been closed for a few weeks now, the calendar being for 2001.
Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
Alan Fishman
Looks like you can get them w Campy parts in the Project One program.
Alan
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:_owk8.15634$cZ3.3232388256@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
Mike Jacoubowsky
available only for Shimano.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Alan Fishman" <aefi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WIKk8.160395$Hu6.36...@typhoon.neo.rr.com...
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Probably. Then they don't have to pay Rolf a royalty. Plus,
>>> Bontrager's name might be just as "bankable."
>> What bothers me is that the Rolf patent is basically invalid
>> because this method was used on bicycles marketed in 1869, a long
>> time before Shimano, Campagnolo, or Rolf. Pictures are contained
>> in "The Bicycle" by Pryor Dodge.
> That is the problem with the US-style patent granting system. The
> patent is granted and then must be challenged in court, at some
> expense.
The problem here is that the patent examiner did not do an adequate
search of "prior art" before granting the patent. There should be
experts in each field of endeavor to handle such patents or at least
and advisor who can point to the appropriate historic documents.
The same goes for saddles with slots and holes in them that were
popular at the advent of the chain driven bicycle. Dodge's book also
shows an ancient drive system recently patented by Alenax.
> Apparently, in some countries in Europe, the patent proposal is
> publicly challenged before granting. Prior art would then become
> apparent before the patent is granted.
I doubt it. Besides, that would take forever and a day.
John Everett
wrote:
>Anyone know why Trek dropped Rolf? Was it simply to go with their in-house
>Bontrager hoops?
I have a friend who used to be an engineer at Trek and was in fact the
Project Engineer who worked with Rolf Dietrich on the development of
the Rolf wheels. We were talking about Rolf just the other day and he
told me Trek didn't drop Rolf but in fact Rolf left Trek to pursue
"other ventures". Rolf apparently made so much in royalties that he
can now afford to be a bit of an entrepreneurial dilettante.
My friend also guessed that the continuing royalties were a major
incentive for Trek to change their preferred wheels.
BTW, I've tried to get this friend of mine to participate here on
several occasions. He'd make a real contribution but I guess r.b.t is
not high on his priority list. :-(
jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
Todd Kuzma
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org at jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote on
3/16/02 11:49 AM:
> The problem here is that the patent examiner did not do an adequate
> search of "prior art" before granting the patent. There should be
> experts in each field of endeavor to handle such patents or at least
> and advisor who can point to the appropriate historic documents.
>
> The same goes for saddles with slots and holes in them that were
> popular at the advent of the chain driven bicycle. Dodge's book also
> shows an ancient drive system recently patented by Alenax.
We've discussed this before, Jobst, and I still don't follow you. Both the
Rolf patents and the Specialized Body Geometry saddle patents had
applications submitted WITH all the relevant prior art. Are you saying that
the patent examiner just didn't look at it?
Once again, I will point out that these patent applications are easily found
on the internet and that they include all the prior art that everyone keeps
referring to. These applications also provide an ample description of how
their design differs from the earlier designs.
Instead of simply repeating these accusations, why not take a look at the
applications and explain precisely how they are invalid. Just saying that
"it's been done before" is not adequate.
Todd Kuzma
Heron Bicycles
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL 815-223-1776
http://www.heronbicycles.com
http://www.tullios.com
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> The problem here is that the patent examiner did not do an adequate
>> search of "prior art" before granting the patent. There should be
>> experts in each field of endeavor to handle such patents or at
>> least and advisor who can point to the appropriate historic
>> documents.
>> The same goes for saddles with slots and holes in them that were
>> popular at the advent of the chain driven bicycle. Dodge's book
>> also shows an ancient drive system recently patented by Alenax.
> We've discussed this before, Jobst, and I still don't follow you.
> Both the Rolf patents and the Specialized Body Geometry saddle
> patents had applications submitted WITH all the relevant prior art.
> Are you saying that the patent examiner just didn't look at it?
> Once again, I will point out that these patent applications are
> easily found on the internet and that they include all the prior art
> that everyone keeps referring to. These applications also provide
> an ample description of how their design differs from the earlier
> designs.
Maybe you can explain how a paired spoke wheel, one with left and
right spokes reaching the rim in close proximity or even side by side
in Rolf's wheel is any different from one that was sold more than 100
years ago. It has been done before and claiming specific benefits
does not make this wheel any different. In fact there was most likely
no patent issued then so the design of the wheel rests on its own
merit... that it did not have or we would all have been on these
wheels long ago. I have the Rolf Patent and find nothing in it that
is defensible against the earlier wheel.
> Instead of simply repeating these accusations, why not take a look
> at the applications and explain precisely how they are invalid.
> Just saying that "it's been done before" is not adequate.
The same goes for saddles with slots and holes in them. Just because
newer ones claim benefits based on current medical claims doesn't make
the saddle new and different from prior art. To claim new benefits is
not a basis for a patent.
If you can explain what you are alluding to in your defense of these
patents it might be more convincing.
Jay Beattie
<jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:GALk8.4693$44.3...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> William Burrow writes:
>
> >>> Probably. Then they don't have to pay Rolf a royalty. Plus,
> >>> Bontrager's name might be just as "bankable."
>
> >> What bothers me is that the Rolf patent is basically invalid
> >> because this method was used on bicycles marketed in 1869, a long
> >> time before Shimano, Campagnolo, or Rolf. Pictures are contained
> >> in "The Bicycle" by Pryor Dodge.
>
> > That is the problem with the US-style patent granting system. The
> > patent is granted and then must be challenged in court, at some
> > expense.
>
> The problem here is that the patent examiner did not do an adequate
> search of "prior art" before granting the patent. There should be
> experts in each field of endeavor to handle such patents or at least
> and advisor who can point to the appropriate historic documents.
>
> The same goes for saddles with slots and holes in them that were
> popular at the advent of the chain driven bicycle. Dodge's book also
> shows an ancient drive system recently patented by Alenax.
Even experts can't find all "prior art" which could be a single copy of PhD
thesis sitting somewhere on a library shelf. That was not the case with the
Rolf wheel, but I do feel some sympathy for the patent examiner. I don't do
patent work, but I think the USPO uses a text-based search engine which
would not pick up pictures. Perhaps the prevailing wisdom at the USPO is
that the complaint/re-examination process will ferret out the obvious and
prior art patents. As I read the statutes, you do not need to file a court
case to challenge a patent anymore and can request reexamination for about
$2500.-- Jay Beattie.
Todd Kuzma
> If you can explain what you are alluding to in your defense of these
> patents it might be more convincing.
No, what you are asking is for me to do your research for you. Rolf wheels
and Specialized Body Geometry saddles have been issued multiple patents, and
their patent applications contain relevant prior art WITH explanations of
how their patents differ from earlier designs.
YOU have made the claim that these patents are invalid. Thus, the burden of
proof falls on you to prove your claim.
What "I am alluding to" is that these designs are different than earlier
designs despite the fact that they appear to be similar at first glance.
The Rolf design in particular involves 4 patents and 54 pages of application
material (not including the referenced prior art). Believe it or not, these
documents say a bit more than "a paired spoke wheel, one with left and
right spokes reaching the rim in close proximity or even side by side" as
you put it.
I, personally, am not a fan of the Rolf design. However, I do have some
degree of confidence in the validity of his patents given the review of
prior art provided the patent examiner. I'm not ready to agree with your
overly-simplified analysis and absolute refusal to conduct any of your own
research to back your claims.
None the less, I will toss you a bone and provide one example of how Rolf
claims his design differs from previous art:
". . . the spokes in a given flange of a hub according to the present
invention are all secured to the hub flanges at substantially the same axial
location relative to the axis of rotation of the hub or have spoke elbows
which are all at substantially the same axial location relative to the axis
of rotation of the hub. As a consequence, the dish of the wheel is reduced,
thereby reducing the tension differential between the proximate spokes and
the opposed spokes."
The application goes on to state that the previous designs had spokes that
were axially offset where the Rolf design does not. If you feel that this
is an invalid distinction, please tell us why. If you do a good job, maybe
you can do your own research and tell us why the rest of the distinctions
listed in those 54 pages are invalid.
Alex Rodriguez
>
>Anyone know why Trek dropped Rolf? Was it simply to go with their in-house
>Bontrager hoops?
My guess would be money. Rolf would get a fee for every wheel sold. If
Trek switched to their own house brand, no more royalties to pay.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Gary Young
> YOU have made the claim that these patents are invalid. Thus, the burden of
> proof falls on you to prove your claim.
I'm not an expert on patents, but it does seem to me that Jobst has
staked out a position that is at least plausible -- because of prior
art, the patents are valid on paper but wouldn't stand up in a court
of law. Therefore, competitors feel safe to ignore them, even though
they won't go to the trouble and expense of formally invalidating
them. (After all, why should they, unless Rolf sues them?)
Jobst's argument makes sense of the fact that Shimano, Bontrager/Trek,
and I believe Campagnolo have all introduced some variation of the
Rolf pair-spoked wheel. Perhaps Trek is still paying royalties to
Rolf, but then the question remains why they parted ways with Rolf in
the first place.
> None the less, I will toss you a bone and provide one example of how Rolf
> claims his design differs from previous art:
>
> ". . . the spokes in a given flange of a hub according to the present
> invention are all secured to the hub flanges at substantially the same axial
> location relative to the axis of rotation of the hub or have spoke elbows
> which are all at substantially the same axial location relative to the axis
> of rotation of the hub. As a consequence, the dish of the wheel is reduced,
> thereby reducing the tension differential between the proximate spokes and
> the opposed spokes."
>
> The application goes on to state that the previous designs had spokes that
> were axially offset where the Rolf design does not. If you feel that this
> is an invalid distinction, please tell us why. If you do a good job, maybe
> you can do your own research and tell us why the rest of the distinctions
> listed in those 54 pages are invalid.
To the extent the patents depend on these relatively minor differences
to be valid, aren't they lacking in bite? A few slight differences and
you're free and clear. That seems to have been Shimano's thinking.
Don't you end up in the same place -- the basic innovation that
everyone associates with Rolf -- paired spokes -- is indefensible
standing by itself?
Alex Rodriguez
jeve...@earthlink.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.net says...
>I have a friend who used to be an engineer at Trek and was in fact the
>Project Engineer who worked with Rolf Dietrich on the development of
>the Rolf wheels. We were talking about Rolf just the other day and he
>told me Trek didn't drop Rolf but in fact Rolf left Trek to pursue
>"other ventures". Rolf apparently made so much in royalties that he
>can now afford to be a bit of an entrepreneurial dilettante.
I don't see why he would drop Trek. I'm sure Trek would have agreed to
continue to pay him to use his name without his involvement. It probably
would have been less, but in the numbers that Treks sells, I'm sure it
is still big bucks.
Todd Kuzma
garyy...@hotmail.com wrote on 3/18/02 12:04 PM:
> Todd Kuzma <tul...@TheRamp.net> wrote in message
> news:<B8BA4772.D776%tul...@TheRamp.net>...
>> YOU have made the claim that these patents are invalid. Thus, the burden of
>> proof falls on you to prove your claim.
>
> I'm not an expert on patents, but it does seem to me that Jobst has
> staked out a position that is at least plausible -- because of prior
> art, the patents are valid on paper but wouldn't stand up in a court
> of law.
Still, the burden of proof is on him. He consistently claims that the Rolf
and Specialized patents are invalid. They may be, but he has yet to
demonstrate why except to point out that there is similar prior art. When I
point out that the applications review this prior art and explain how the
current patent differs, he goes mysteriously silent. Instead, he wants me
to explain the differences to him. My argument is that if he wants to claim
that the patents are invalid, he has the burden to show how. If Jobst were
a competing manufacturer making such public claims, he would likely have to
answer in court rather than on rec.bikes.
> To the extent the patents depend on these relatively minor differences
> to be valid, aren't they lacking in bite? A few slight differences and
> you're free and clear.
Well, that's the nature of patent law today. Most patents are small steps,
minor improvements on existing technology. Very few are giant leaps.
Specialized holds the patent on the Horst link and 4-bar rear suspension. A
number of companies have been able to produce a 4-bar linkage without the
Horst link and thus avoid the patent. However, all of these designs have
some compromise: either added weight and complexity or reduced performance.
That is the value of the patent to Specialized. Yes, there are
work-arounds, but they all have some associated cost.
Yes, Campy has produced paired spoke wheels, but the spokes are arranged in
groups of 3 rather than 2 as Rolf does (there is prior art for wheels with
spokes grouped in 3s as well). Shimano used a different method of attaching
the spokes to the rim. Each has their own way to circumvent the Rolf
patents.
Dave Blake
> Still, the burden of proof is on him. He consistently claims
> that the Rolf and Specialized patents are invalid. They may
> be, but he has yet to demonstrate why except to point out that
> there is similar prior art. When I point out that the
> applications review this prior art and explain how the current
> patent differs, he goes mysteriously silent.
I am guessing that Jobst knows WAY more prior art than
Specialized or Rolf do, simply because he has a strong
interest in the historical development of bicycling
designs. Bicycles were the hottest area of innovation in
transportation in the late 1800s, and this is the time period
in which most of the prior art may be found.
Now consider the counter-intuitive. Rolf has found a way
to make bicycle wheels better - after a kazillion engineers
have spent more than a century working on them, without any
improvement in the technology related to hubs or wheels that
would be critical to his invention. Merely by the power of his
creative genius, he has improved things that others have
strained against for a century without seeing.
This is a difficult pill to swallow.
It is somehow our perverse patent system that is similarly
ignorant of these designs that allows someone like Rolf to
re-invent the wheel, literally, and get exclusive claims on the
design. Because it is easier to pay him than to fight the patent,
he gets rich.
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
terry morse
> The problem here is that the patent examiner did not do an adequate
> search of "prior art" before granting the patent. There should be
> experts in each field of endeavor to handle such patents or at least
> and advisor who can point to the appropriate historic documents.
Prior art searches are time consuming and expensive; patent examiners
are overworked, underpaid, and under pressure to approve the backlog of
patent applications. They simply don't have the time.
As a result, all the time and money is spent during patent litigation.
--
terry morse
Palo Alto, CA
http://www.terrymorse.com/bike/
tullio
> I am guessing that Jobst knows WAY more prior art than
> Specialized or Rolf do, simply because he has a strong
> interest in the historical development of bicycling
> designs. Bicycles were the hottest area of innovation in
> transportation in the late 1800s, and this is the time period
> in which most of the prior art may be found.
Jobst hasn't provided any details so I don't know if he is claiming that
there is prior art BEYOND what is already in the Rolf and Specialized
patent applications. Review the Rolf patent applications. They review
a number of previous designs that incorporate paired spokes.
> Now consider the counter-intuitive. Rolf has found a way
> to make bicycle wheels better - after a kazillion engineers
> have spent more than a century working on them, without any
> improvement in the technology related to hubs or wheels that
> would be critical to his invention.
Nobody ever said that something had to be "better" to be granted a
patent.
> It is somehow our perverse patent system that is similarly
> ignorant of these designs that allows someone like Rolf to
> re-invent the wheel, literally, and get exclusive claims on the
> design.
You are making the same claim as Jobst, and, similarly, you ignore the
fact that the previous designs are reviewed in the patent applications.
So, how is the patent system ignorant of them?
> Because it is easier to pay him than to fight the patent,
> he gets rich.
>
Who is paying him for what? Who wants to fight the patent? In any
case, if someone wishes to challenge the validity of the patent, the
burden is on him or her to make the case. Rolf and Specialized already
did their homework to research prior art and review it in their
applications. If that is incorrect or inadequate, it is up to the
challenger to show why. I'm still waiting.
Todd Kuzma
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> No, what you are asking is for me to do your research for you. Rolf
> wheels and Specialized Body Geometry saddles have been issued
> multiple patents, and their patent applications contain relevant
> prior art WITH explanations of how their patents differ from earlier
> designs.
> YOU have made the claim that these patents are invalid. Thus, the
> burden of proof falls on you to prove your claim.
> What "I am alluding to" is that these designs are different than
> earlier designs despite the fact that they appear to be similar at
> first glance. The Rolf design in particular involves 4 patents and
> 54 pages of application material (not including the referenced prior
> art). Believe it or not, these documents say a bit more than "a
> paired spoke wheel, one with left and right spokes reaching the rim
> in close proximity or even side by side" as you put it.
I didn't use those terms but there is prior art of the Rolf patented
design, both side-by-side spokes and in tandem. The Starley brothers
also made such a wheel. All of this occurred before 1900.
I have my information from the original Rolf patent that describes his
design as new while it exactly what is prior art that can be found in
historical books. I don't understand why you are so adamant in
defense of these old designs that were discarded long ago. You go at
this matter as though you had a stake in the products, that my
comments are about these gimmicks are a personal attack.
Kraig Willett
Rev-x. I don't recall that this concept was patented with this wheel,
but Mr. Dietrich did threaten to sue Spinergy at one point over the
issue.
As far as I know, the suit never came to fruition. Maybe it was because
he knew that he didn't have a valid claim.
In my experience, which is similar to others who have already posted,
patents are given for marginal claims that can be easily circumvented
or are superseded by prior art. It comes down to whether or not
you have the cash, or desire, to prove it in a court of law.
=============================
Kraig Willett
K-dub Enterprises
Product Evaluation/Testing
Technical Writing
Market Surveys
=============================
Tom Paterson
>Rolf has found a way
>to make bicycle wheels better - after a kazillion engineers
>have spent more than a century working on them, without any
>improvement in the technology related to hubs or wheels that
>would be critical to his invention. Merely by the power of his
>creative genius, he has improved things that others have
>strained against for a century without seeing.
>
>This is a difficult pill to swallow.
To the contrary: I would applaud, possibly with dollars, if I knew how Rolfs
were better. Weight? Aero? Long-term dependability?
TIA, Tom Paterson
Richard Brockie
> No, what you are asking is for me to do your research for you. Rolf wheels
> and Specialized Body Geometry saddles have been issued multiple patents, and
> their patent applications contain relevant prior art WITH explanations of
> how their patents differ from earlier designs.
However, unless the patent examiner is very thorough, the examples of
prior art, which may be incomplete, may be convincing enough to ensure
the granting of the patent.
> YOU have made the claim that these patents are invalid. Thus, the burden of
> proof falls on you to prove your claim.
>
> What "I am alluding to" is that these designs are different than earlier
> designs despite the fact that they appear to be similar at first glance.
> The Rolf design in particular involves 4 patents and 54 pages of application
> material (not including the referenced prior art). Believe it or not, these
> documents say a bit more than "a paired spoke wheel, one with left and
> right spokes reaching the rim in close proximity or even side by side" as
> you put it.
I am in the process of submitting my first patent, and let me say that I
was astounded, yes, astounded by the manner in which my 2-page
disclosure has ballooned into something like 30 pages, courtesy of the
patent attorney. And this is only a reasonably minor and probably not
particularly useful variation on a manufacturing process. The point
being that volume is no indication of quality of thoroughness.
> I, personally, am not a fan of the Rolf design. However, I do have some
> degree of confidence in the validity of his patents given the review of
> prior art provided the patent examiner. I'm not ready to agree with your
> overly-simplified analysis and absolute refusal to conduct any of your own
> research to back your claims.
>
> None the less, I will toss you a bone and provide one example of how Rolf
> claims his design differs from previous art:
>
> ". . . the spokes in a given flange of a hub according to the present
> invention are all secured to the hub flanges at substantially the same axial
> location relative to the axis of rotation of the hub or have spoke elbows
> which are all at substantially the same axial location relative to the axis
> of rotation of the hub. As a consequence, the dish of the wheel is reduced,
> thereby reducing the tension differential between the proximate spokes and
> the opposed spokes."
Ack, a personal hate - "differential" used in place of "difference".
--
R.
<> Richard Brockie "Categorical statements
<> The tall blond one. always cause trouble."
<> richard...@yahoo.com
<> http://members.telocity.com/~richard_brockie/
tullio
> I didn't use those terms but there is prior art of the Rolf patented
> design, both side-by-side spokes and in tandem. The Starley brothers
> also made such a wheel. All of this occurred before 1900.
You said that you had a copy of the Rolf patents, correct? Well, if so,
you can see that they review no less than 13 US patents from before
1900. They also review a number after 1900 and a number from overseas.
Stating that there is similar prior art does not invalidate the patent.
It merely means that the applicant must provide a review and show how the
current design differs.
> I don't understand why you are so adamant in
> defense of these old designs that were discarded long ago. You go at
> this matter as though you had a stake in the products, that my
> comments are about these gimmicks are a personal attack.
No, I am adamant in my defense of these patents because you repeatedly
attack these companies yet are armed with no data. As I have explained
time and time again, existence of prior art does not invalidate a patent.
You feel free to make these attacks, yet you can't be bothered to do any
actual research. Apparently, you can't even be bothered to READ the
patents which you say that have in your possession.
Before dragging someone's good name through the mud, you would think that
would take the time to get the facts. However, you don't feel the need
to do that, and here's why:
You are an intellectual bully. You are undoubtedly smart. Your
knowledge of the subject matter is fairly extensive, and apparently, one
of the few joys you have in this world is to lord your knowledge over
others. You attack, berate, and talk down to everyone that you converse
with in this forum. This includes PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOU!! Overall,
you seem to be a fairly unpleasant person without a sense of humor, and I
don't think that my picture of you is unique. Ask around.
You feel it is not worth your energy to conduct any research. After all,
the knowledge you possess off of the top of your head should be good
enough to dispatch the morons on rec.bikes, correct?
I was really expecting you to disappear into the shadows on this subject
as you have during other debates when it came apparent that your victory
was not going to be so easy. Yet, you've returned to the discussion but
only to repeat what you have said since the beginning. Except that now,
you have added the name of Starley brothers. Here are some other names
for you to check out. They are the names and patents researched by Rolf
in preparing his applications. Perhaps you could do him the courtesy of
reviewing his work before you continue to slam him.
U.S. Patent Documents
303503 Aug., 1884 Gallor.
337223 Mar., 1886 Williams.
339550 Apr., 1886 Hudson.
365091 Jun., 1887 Owen 301/58.
444430 Jan., 1891 Gedge.
452046 May., 1891 Mather.
452649 May., 1891 Powell.
478918 Jul., 1892 Cannon.
543310 Jul., 1895 Laube.
560509 May., 1896 Libbey.
582486 May., 1897 Rowe 301/61.
671778 Apr., 1901 Sams.
705121 Jul., 1902 Newton.
725014 Apr., 1903 Westover.
886565 May., 1908 Williams et al.
1064066 Jun., 1913 Funk 301/96.
1160203 Nov., 1915 Wagenhorst 301/56.
1450064 Mar., 1923 Dodds.
1475161 Nov., 1923 Wagenhorst 301/56.
1476780 Dec., 1923 van Meter 301/56.
1795574 Mar., 1931 Olson 301/55.
2937905 May., 1960 Altenburger 301/58.
3008770 Nov., 1961 Mueller 301/58.
4300804 Nov., 1981 Hasebe 301/56.
4583787 Apr., 1986 Michelotti 301/58.
4626036 Dec., 1986 Hinsberg et al. 301/59.
4729605 Mar., 1988 Imao et al. 301/104.
4844552 Jul., 1989 Tsygankov et al. 301/64.
5061013 Oct., 1991 Hed et al. 301/63.
5104199 Apr., 1992 Schlanger 301/64.
Foreign Patent Documents
425730 Jun., 1911 FR 301/104.
874167 Jul., 1942 FR 301/97.
1019285 Jan., 1953 FR.
2378642 Sep., 1978 FR 301/58.
398372 Jan., 1923 DE 301/55.
583902 Aug., 1933 DE 301/58.
0155602 Jun., 1982 DE 301/97.
0077302 Mar., 1990 JP 301/55.
16340 Jan., 1886 GB 301/97.
4449 Mar., 1894 GB 301/55.
13973 Jun., 1896 GB 301/55.
22441 Sep., 1897 GB 301/59.
19499 Jan., 1899 GB 301/55.
9844 Jan., 1910 GB 301/55.
854546 Nov., 1960 GB 301/97.
Plus, some more:
U.S. Patent Documents
478394 Jul., 1892 Bretz 301/56.
605208 Jun., 1898 Skarin 301/56.
1388021 Aug., 1921 Budd 301/59.
4090737 May., 1978 Jensen 301/59.
5626401 May., 1997 Terry, Sr. et al. 301/59.
Foreign Patent Documents
479141 Feb., 1916 FR 301/59.
2 324 471 Apr., 1977 FR.
68439 Aug., 1951 NL 301/59.
697357 Nov., 1979
This should give you a good start. After this, we can get to work on the
Specialized Body Geometry patents that bother you so much.
Todd Kuzma
tullio
> However, unless the patent examiner is very thorough, the examples of
> prior art, which may be incomplete, may be convincing enough to ensure
> the granting of the patent.
Yes, I agree. However, if you feel that a granted patent is invalid, it is your
burden to show proof. Otherwise, it would seem that ALL patents should simply be
considered invalid. How does an applicant prove that there is no missing prior
art in his or her review? It can't be done.
Todd Kuzma
Richard Brockie
The role of the patent office should be to ensure that people do not
patent prior art, meaning that subsequent resorts to litigation are
infrequent. However, in an industry as small as the bicycle industry,
the costs of actually bringing the action are prohibitive.
Even in the high-tech world, where patents are actively sought,
competing companies have cross-licencing agreements. This means that
even though one company patents a design or process, others are still
free to use it. The benefit of having the patent is basically industrial
kudos. Inventions are not generally talked about outside companies until
the company can get a time to market advantage and are able to exploit
being first with the new invention.
Dave Blake
> The role of the patent office should be to ensure that people do not
> patent prior art, meaning that subsequent resorts to litigation are
> infrequent. However, in an industry as small as the bicycle industry,
> the costs of actually bringing the action are prohibitive.
The role of the patent office is ensuring that non-obvious
inventions are granted a limited time monopoly in the commercial market.
The existence of prior art can make any patent obvious or redundant,
and it frequently does. This is the true measure; given the prior art
that existed, is the invention really non-obvious.
Many people like Rolf are entrepreneurs taking advantage of patent
examiners, and not true inventers. Lots of money is made that way.
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
Hanker
patent law (very controversial, look at the software world) back to
why Truck dropped Rolf. Which would be marketing, not engineering or
patent law. Someone said it's a good thing that these wheels are safe
to ride on, and I agree with that.
The copius amounts of money truck is spending on color advertisements
and printed catalogs would make one guess that their intent is to sell
alot of 'em. However, we know they aren't "better" nor are they
original.
ad...@columbia.edu (Alex Rodriguez) wrote in message news:<a75a04$mdr$5...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>...
TheMobe
>Trek switched to their own house brand, no >more royalties to pay.
line and ended up paying RD lots of cash...more
than the Burkes felt comfortable with.
With 18mos or so to go on the Trek license of Rolf wheels, Trek began to
negotiate a new agreement and played hardball with Rolf.
He resisted the far lower royalty computation in the new contract and so Trek
changed tactics and went after his patent. Despite his
legal warchest, RD couldn't compete with Trek & their in-house counsel and
after racking up
$250K in legal fees, RD cried "uncle" and he & Trek worked out an "exit
strategy"...Bontrager
wheels were designed from the get-go to
cleverly ape Rolf design yet not be "inside"
RD's patents...
Todd Kuzma
> I have my information from the original Rolf patent that describes his
> design as new while it exactly what is prior art that can be found in
> historical books.
If we use your standards, then we can conclude that a couple of your own
patents are invalid.
First, you have a patent on a menu command system for viewing and
programming bicycle computers. This patent was applied for in 1996. Gee, I
distinctly recall being able to scroll through multiple screens on nearly
every computer I used prior to 1996. Invalid.
Second, you have a patent for a bicycle shoe design that uses a non-elastic
strap to connect the heel and ball of the foot. This strap is intended to
keep the show from flexing on the pedal up-stroke. Prior art exists for
this as well. Plus, do you really believe that this strap does anything
beneficial? Are you actually arguing that cyclists lose energy from shoe
flex during the upstroke? Invalid.
Third, as a bonus, your buddies at Avocet have a recent patent on a mountain
bike saddle with a downward sloping rear. Been there, done that. Prior
art. Invalid.
I also noted that none of these three patents had as much research or review
of prior art as had the Specialized and Rolf patents. In fact, the review
of prior art was pretty much non-existent except for the listing of some
patent numbers. If we were to judge validity of the patent solely on the
quality of the information provided in the application, your patents would
be tossed out long before those of Specialized or Rolf.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> I have my information from the original Rolf patent that describes
>> his design as new while it exactly what is prior art that can be
>> found in historical books.
> If we use your standards, then we can conclude that a couple of your
> own patents are invalid.
> First, you have a patent on a menu command system for viewing and
> programming bicycle computers. This patent was applied for in 1996.
> Gee, I distinctly recall being able to scroll through multiple
> screens on nearly every computer I used prior to 1996. Invalid.
You may not have read the details or claims of the patent. It is not
about viewing, but rather for configuring the menu of displayed
functions, the selection and their sequence of appearance. Current
Cyclometers have more capability than can be conveniently displayed to
a bicyclist, especially when moving. For this reason, this method
enables users to configure their instrument with many functions to
show only the items of interest while riding, without losing data from
functions not displayed. Functions not shown can be viewed by a
review feature. It is the method that is patented, not the
programming of a micro processor, which is obviously prior art.
The process can be accomplished with as few as two buttons with such
simplicity that first time users have done this without the aid of a
manual once the method is explained.
> Second, you have a patent for a bicycle shoe design that uses a
> non-elastic strap to connect the heel and ball of the foot. This
> strap is intended to keep the show from flexing on the pedal
> up-stroke. Prior art exists for this as well. Plus, do you really
> believe that this strap does anything beneficial? Are you actually
> arguing that cyclists lose energy from shoe flex during the
> upstroke? Invalid.
You may not have been riding in those days, but the most common
complaint with bicycling shoes was a stretched heel cup, so that
pulling up on the pedal was significantly impaired by the foot tending
to pull out of the shoe. The heel strap anchored at the cleat, went
in a straight line, up and around the heel cup. This enabled the use
of lightweight shoes without stretch. When Avocet got out of the shoe
business they allowed the method to be used by several bicycle shoe
companies to their benefit. There was no prior art found in this
concept.
> Third, as a bonus, your buddies at Avocet have a recent patent on a
> mountain bike saddle with a downward sloping rear. Been there, done
> that. Prior art. Invalid.
That may be. I know nothing about that. I am not an employee of
Avocet, only a friend of the owner of the company a former bicycle
racer. My bicycle endeavors are an avocation without remuneration.
> I also noted that none of these three patents had as much research
> or review of prior art as had the Specialized and Rolf patents. In
> fact, the review of prior art was pretty much non-existent except
> for the listing of some patent numbers. If we were to judge
> validity of the patent solely on the quality of the information
> provided in the application, your patents would be tossed out long
> before those of Specialized or Rolf.
The reason that the patents you defend have so much prior art listed
is that there is lots of it. The field was well covered by others,
thereby presenting a mine field through which these patents had to
find a path. As you see from the list on the Rolf patent, (that you
present with the implication that you researched and read all of them)
there was much prior art that needed to be considered when applying
for yet another variation on the same theme.
I think you'll find that the two Cyclometer/Altimeter patents are a
clear departure from prior art and are easier to defend than the ones
you find novel. Elevation hysteresis is a necessary feature for
accumulating elevation gain/loss, both in Cyclometers and the Vertech
wristwatches. I find that the significance becomes apparent only when
used because most technical readers of the patent are not aware how
hysteresis effect on accumulation and that it is essential. The same
goes for the configuring of the instrument using the normal complement
of control buttons.
The patents I received at Hewlett Packard and the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center are more obscure but represent important advances
in those fields.
tullio
> You may not have read the details or claims of the patent. It is not
> about viewing, but rather for configuring the menu of displayed
> functions, the selection and their sequence of appearance.
This was my point. Yes, I did read the details of the patent, but I
oversimplified it in order to argue that it was invalid due to prior
art. Your patent is not a revolutionary change but an evolutionary one
based upoin existing technology and software. This is also true of the
Rolf and Specialized patents. If you oversimply them by labeling them
"paired spoke wheels" and "fart slots," it is easy to say that they
simply rehash prior art. It was easy for me to claim that your patents
were a rehash of prior art because I chose to ignore the details. Those
details are what distinguishes new patents from prior art in most cases.
Todd Kuzma
Mike Jacoubowsky
> was astounded, yes, astounded by the manner in which my 2-page
> disclosure has ballooned into something like 30 pages, courtesy of the
> patent attorney. And this is only a reasonably minor and probably not
> particularly useful variation on a manufacturing process. The point
> being that volume is no indication of quality of thoroughness.
Congrats to our first alumnus, as far as I know, to get a patent! Let me
know when it goes through. We can celebrate on Pacific Grade.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Jay W. Beattie
TREK was a party to a patent or trademark law suit, it is obvious that
it outsources its intellectual property work, just as it outsource its
liability work. Inhouse counsel was not crushing anyone. In fact, I
could not find a filed case involving TREK and Rolf. If Rolf paid
$250K without a lawsuit being filed, he got ripped off. Perhaps it
paid that much to respond to a patent challenge at the USPO, but I
doubt it. The earlier post about the patent being no good, and Rolf
attempting to bargain as though it were, probably is closer to the
mark. Frankly, like Jobst has said a million times, the patent was
shaky. I couldn't imagine why anyone would pay to license it. Also,
that Bontrager wheels were designed to "ape" Rolf wheels is true for
Shimano and every other not-so-novel paired spoke wheel. "Aping" is
not a patent violation, it is a fact of commercial life -- just look
at all the holey saddles, hydration bags, water bottle cages, OS
aluminum frames (hey, Klein lost that one over a decade ago). -- Jay
Beattie.
"TheMobe" <the...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020319111118...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Jay W. Beattie
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:nwXl8.17897$%Q1.769...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> > I am in the process of submitting my first patent, and let me say
that I
> > was astounded, yes, astounded by the manner in which my 2-page
> > disclosure has ballooned into something like 30 pages, courtesy of
the
> > patent attorney. And this is only a reasonably minor and probably
not
> > particularly useful variation on a manufacturing process. The
point
> > being that volume is no indication of quality of thoroughness.
>
> Congrats to our first alumnus, as far as I know, to get a patent!
Let me
> know when it goes through. We can celebrate on Pacific Grade.
Pacific Grade? Did he patent an anti-gravity device? -- Jay Beattie.
Doug Taylor
>. Frankly, like Jobst has said a million times, the patent was
>shaky.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Examples of Appeal to Authority
Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a
woman should have a right to her own body."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is
always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right,
after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work
on cold fusion."
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe
him."
Bill and Jane are arguing about the validity of the Rolf patent:
Bill: "I believe that the patent is valid. After all, it was issued by
the United State Patent Office."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Jobst Brandt says that the patent is
shaky. He has to be right, after all, he is the world's foremost
authority on The Bicycle Wheel."
Bill: "I've never heard of Jobst Brandt. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the engineer that wrote The Book and holds the world
record for the most authoritative sounding posts on the subject of
bicycles, bicycling, and bicycle wheels on rec.bicycle.tech."
Bill: "I see. Is he a patent lawyer or a federal judge? Does he have
any expertise in the field of patent law?"
Jane: "I don't know. He holds a bunch of patents, and he's a world
famous expert (just ask him), so I believe him."
--dt
Brillig
news:kprj9u4e4f4tcs9rp...@4ax.com:
> "Jay W. Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote:
>
>>. Frankly, like Jobst has said a million times, the patent was
>>shaky.
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
>
> Examples of Appeal to Authority
>
Ahhh! "Appeal to Authority" is only a fallacy if the authority being cited
is *not* an actual authority on the subject. Citing an authority (who is
indeed an authority on the subject matter in question) is valid argument.
Are you saying that Jobst is not an authority on bicycle wheels, or that he
is not an authority on patents?
~
Brillig
Change yipee to yahoo to reply
David Damerell
>The same goes for saddles with slots and holes in them. Just because
>newer ones claim benefits based on current medical claims doesn't make
>the saddle new and different from prior art. To claim new benefits is
>not a basis for a patent.
It's worth noting that IBM, in particular, have turned patenting the same
thing twice or three times running into a fine art, by producing something
that is nominally a new development based on their old patent (but still
covers anything useful you might want to do.) Arithmetic coding is a
never-dying IBM patent, AIR.
The reason I mention this is as evidence that pulling the wool over the
eyes of patent examiners is not so hard...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Dave Blake
> It's worth noting that IBM, in particular, have turned patenting the
> same thing twice or three times running into a fine art, by producing
> something that is nominally a new development based on their old
> patent (but still covers anything useful you might want to do.)
> Arithmetic coding is a never-dying IBM patent, AIR.
> The reason I mention this is as evidence that pulling the wool over
> the eyes of patent examiners is not so hard...
There is a rant on this topic, but I am gonna stick to the condensed
version.
Companies act to make themselves money.
Patents are useful only in exacting money from others who want to use an
invention, or preventing them from using it.
The company seeks to establish a patent to either a) monopolize a market
or b) put a toll up on the market for all to pay.
The patent doesn't have to be an advance, or creative, or anything. It
just needs to pass the patent examiner criteria, which is any
invention that is non-obvious from prior art.
Even if a patent is not really non-obvious or an advance, a company can
use it to exact tolls from others who will find the toll less expensive
than fighting the patent. Only when the toll is too great will the
patent be fought. Thus there is a fine art not only to getting patents,
but in charging appropriate amounts for their usage such that no one
bothers to fight it. Some people make themselves a LOT of money by
skillfully being awarded patents and then walking the fine line of
charging as much as possible for its use without crossing over into the
domain of people actually challenging the patent.
In some places (not the US) there is a public commentary period before a
patent is granted. This places the inventor's secret in public for
assessment before a patent may be granted, which has pluses and minuses
(not a secret anymore, but much more exposed for prior art).
Lots and lots and lots of patents would be overturned if there were
good enough reason to challenge them. I don't think anyone, especially
people who have patents, thinks this is false. But this is the US system
as it currently exists. So it is no surprise to find someone finds
Rolf's patents could be overturned if sufficiently challenged.
A lot of patents are that way. Patents are not really a good definition
of invention, anyway. A better definition would be a post-hoc measure
of how widespread the invention is used after it expires into public
domain.
--
Dave Blake
dbl...@phy.ucsf.edu
Mike Jacoubowsky
Good one. But almost not far off the mark, since I believe his graduate
degree is in some sort of astro-physics.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Jay W. Beattie" <jbea...@lindsayhart.com> wrote in message
news:3c98...@news.nwlink.com...
Gary Young
> You are making the same claim as Jobst, and, similarly, you ignore the
> fact that the previous designs are reviewed in the patent applications.
> So, how is the patent system ignorant of them?
I've just been looking at Rolf's 1995 patent (#5,445,439), and
although several patents listed as references turn out to be
paired-spoked designs if you go to the bother of looking them up,
you'd never know that from reading the text of the application.
Furthermore, the patent seems to be very broadly worded to encompass
all paired-spoke designs (i.e., it doesn't seem to rely on
combinations of features or minor variations from prior art). Does
Rolf distinguish his design from these precursers in a later patent?
If so, is there any validity to this 1995 patent (which I believe is
the one Jobst is referring to)? In the application, Rolf makes much of
his dubious-sounding theory that paired spokes eliminate shimmy. Is
paired-spokes-to-eliminate-shimmy novel enough to make this patent
valid vis-a-vis designs using paired-spokes for some other reason?