Fractured Axel

how disappointing.

Ben,
What is your position at Revolution? It is unusual for someone to openly speak on behalf of their company unless they're in some sort of PR role or senior management.

Was your first post intended to steer the conversation toward the Chinese knock offs in the hope that we would all rally around Revolution GWTW style, thus deflecting attention from the stifling of innovation?

Don't interpret my cynicism as hostile, I'd genuinely like to hear Revolution's side of the patent debate but you seem to be backing away at the moment, please carry on.

Yup real disapointing, you dont even know who ben is, wastin his time in the funnyfarm, praps you clever sods could innovate the spark plug too, patents do not stifle innovation thats crap nothin stoppin you innovating eney thing if you are clever enough to do it check uk patent law praps you just aint up to it

NEX wrote:

Yup real disapointing, you dont even know who ben is, wastin his time in the funnyfarm, praps you clever sods could innovate the spark plug too, patents do not stifle innovation thats crap nothin stoppin you innovating eney thing if you are clever enough to do it check uk patent law praps you just aint up to it

Yep, that's true, innovate away - but if you display the results in a public place, or put them into production, then......

NEX wrote:

you don't even know who Ben is

We know who Ben D'Antonio is well enough. I for one would appreciate his comments on all matters quadline.

Perhaps you clever sods could innovate the spark plug too

I believe there is prior art on that particular innovation so no patent would be forthcoming.

patents do not stifle innovation that's crap nothing stopping you innovating anything

I refer you again to the legal posting made at Revolution's.... request.... in American Kite after the Quadriphant plan was published:- "The company further advises that the construction, use and/or sale of the quadline kite following the plans, instructions and suggestions contained in the article, whether for commercial distribution or personal use might be an infringement of the company's patent rights."

Commercial use - fair enough. But quite how you square the enforcement of patent rights against the individual to not infringing innovation - that's beyond me. Kindly elucidate. I await education.

Mike.

jr wrote:

Ok, I'll make this one a little easier :

http://www.first-to-fly.com/Adventure%20Images/Kite/Climbing%20kite.jpg

Oh Jim, you're so gullible, that is so obviously a fake. There's no way they had colour jpegs back in 1899

Who makes all the teams and pairs and display teams revs? None of them seem to have the Revolution logo on them. Or are they allowed because it's promoting the product?

Zippy8 wrote:

quite how you square the enforcement of patent rights against the individual to not infringing innovation - that's beyond me.

Nex claims patents don't stop innovation. Your example doesn't counter that. That's Revolution making a hollow legal threat - a lie, if you will - to stifle innovation.

NEX wrote:

Yup real disapointing, you dont even know who ben is, wastin his time in the funnyfarm, praps you clever sods could innovate the spark plug too, patents do not stifle innovation thats crap nothin stoppin you innovating eney thing if you are clever enough to do it check uk patent law praps you just aint up to it

Do not feed the troll

Jason wrote:

Who makes all the teams and pairs and display teams revs? None of them seem to have the Revolution logo on them. Or are they allowed because it's promoting the product?

What, like these ones, Jason?

http://www.fracturedaxel.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... php?t=6494

http://www.fracturedaxel.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... php?t=6493

As for the Flying Squad's new designs, they were designed by Bazzer and finished off at the Revolution factory so come from a "Rev-approved source" (I think this was discussed in depth on one of the 'other' forums )

Would be interesting to find out what Revolution's actual position is, whether "..following the plans ... or personal use .. might be an infringement of the company's patent rights.." means you must not make your own for personal use, or whether if you do (which is obviously prevalent looking at lots of worldwide quad teams!) they will just turn a blind eye, as long as you're not doing it commercially!

Hezz

hezz wrote:

Would be interesting to find out what Revolution's actual position is, whether "..following the plans ... or personal use .. might be an infringement of the company's patent rights.." means you must not make your own for personal use, or whether if you do (which is obviously prevalent looking at lots of worldwide quad teams!) they will just turn a blind eye, as long as you're not doing it commercially!

Hezz

Yep - would be interesting to actually know one way or the other... although would cause a number of us "OK for personal use" people a number of issues if it was must not!

Jan

hezz wrote:

Jason wrote:

Who makes all the teams and pairs and display teams revs? None of them seem to have the Revolution logo on them. Or are they allowed because it's promoting the product?

What, like these ones, Jason?

http://www.fracturedaxel.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... php?t=6494

http://www.fracturedaxel.co.uk/phpBB2/v ... php?t=6493

Ha ha. Yes! Just like them. However I would like to just add that as I've over the years owned a silly number of Revs, think it was up to 16 at one point, I don't feel too guilty as Revolution have had a fair chunk of my money over the years, plus all the extra sparsets and handles, and a lot of this was back in the days when Revolution stuff was £xtortionate. The spar prices back then make Aerostuff look cheap. Mine were also I have so say finished to a far higher standard too, all the stitching was where it was supposed to be and all the panels were the right way round and of the right material. Half Icarex and half polyester EXP anyone?

[quote="Zippy8
Commercial use - fair enough. But quite how you square the enforcement of patent rights against the individual to not infringing innovation - that's beyond me. Kindly elucidate. I await education.
Mike.[/quote]
Firstly I may not be entirely unbiased in this discussion as I am rather partial to the Revolution in all it's forms.

However, two things spring to mind. Firstly the Porsche 911 has been pretty much the same thing for years and years. They may use better materials etc now but basically it is the same. This is not because cars cannot be better it is just that it is really really good at what it does, there is still a big demand for what it does and so it continues to be what it is. (sorry that was a bit of a mouthful)

Secondly, NASA spent $millions and $millions developing a writing utensil that would work in the zero G of space, the Russians took a pencil!

I don't think the patent has stiffled developement. In the days of old we quite often quad lined our dual line kites, why has this not been developed? There was that 3 line kite flown from a joystick, Alan Miquox (?) from France developed a split centred dual line/quad line kite that was AWESOME.etc etc. I think the reason we have not seen the multitude of variations is that there just hasn't been the need or demand.

I can change an entire frame set in about 1 minute, I get hte same performance from 1mph to 30+mph with 2 or 3 kites. I don't get towed around the field on a windy day. When flying team I have more moves available than I can think of. As an idividual I have fine control that keeps me practicing for hours.

So why has no one spent hours and hours developing something new? Maybe it is beause other people have no qualms about stealing their ideas and hard work, maybe it's becuase the Rev is the perfect design (I may not agree with that statement) or maybe that the plus points on the Revolution design far outway all the effort and work needed to come up with something that does something different?

Did Revolution try and influence the Airbow? How many Airbows have been sold and are still flown? It is a great kite that does a whole raft of new things but why don't we see any?

Sorry for the length of the reply but it is a very interesting topic with lots of points to consider. Having said that, there are some fantastic kite builders and designers on this forum lets see what we can come up with.

Let's start by looking at what the design requirements are..

1) Must not look like a Rev..

your turn

Stephen Hoath wrote:

Secondly, NASA spent $millions and $millions developing a writing utensil that would work in the zero G of space, the Russians took a pencil!

Er, no they didn't, but you can still buy one for £14.95: http://www.fisherspacepens.co.uk/acatalog/History_of_the_Space_Pen.html

Stephen Hoath wrote:

1) Must not look like a Rev..

Or an elephant.

jr wrote:

Stephen Hoath wrote:

1) Must not look like a Rev..

Or an elephant.

is it allowed to look like a pig?

Did Revolution try and influence the Airbow? How many Airbows have been sold and are still flown? It is a great kite that does a whole raft of new things but why don't we see any?

I think that Rev flyers kind of shunned it for not being Rev-enough.

The other side is that it was perhaps not tricky enough to entice the sport kite crowd. Although it can be made to trick impressively, you need Goff skill or SL7 determination.

I still have mine and it's staying put. But as you say, it isn't flown often.

Mark