Sport, Trick and Freestyle Kite Flying Forum

Moderators: Craig, Davey, SpOoC

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9
 
User avatar
711jrp
Posts: 953
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:32 pm
Location: Next door to a crackhouse

Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:37 pm

Your turn in the barrel this week is it sailor?

Looks like you both need some personal stress relief but then again it might be a bit too much stress relief....
Pete
Fivers are alive
50% of the dognappers
 
User avatar
Stone in Shoe Bob
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:17 pm
Location: Leighton Buzzard

Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:53 pm

711jrp wrote:
Sod off Bob you're a proper Image
711jrp wrote:
Your turn in the barrel this week is it sailor?

Looks like you both need some personal stress relief but then again it might be a bit too much stress relief....

There’s nothing like a bit of intelligent debate and that is noting like intelligent debate, couldn’t you be having more fun pulling the heads of your Lego men?
Stone in Shoe Bob
Friend and supporter of Kiteworld
Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you - not because they are nice, but because you are.
 
User avatar
Jest_of_EVE
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:48 pm
Location: The exact opposite side of the planet to New Zealand - Bummer!

Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:57 pm

couldn’t you be having more fun pulling the heads of your Lego men?


Isn't that Keith (Mr.Bleepy)?

Mark

Oi! Oi! Oi!
 
User avatar
711jrp
Posts: 953
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:32 pm
Location: Next door to a crackhouse

Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:14 pm

Stone in Shoe Bob wrote:
711jrp wrote:
Sod off Bob you're a proper Image
711jrp wrote:
Your turn in the barrel this week is it sailor?

Looks like you both need some personal stress relief but then again it might be a bit too much stress relief....

There’s nothing like a bit of intelligent debate and that is noting like intelligent debate, couldn’t you be having more fun pulling the heads of your Lego men?


I'll leave that till tomorrow, I'm having tooo much fun dicking around with you two Richard heads.

The ironic thing is as Ive been playing with you two Ive been beavering away on the Pfaff knocking out a couple of B series vents that I'm going to deliver at the jolly up tomorrow it just makes me smile every time I steal something.
Pete
Fivers are alive
50% of the dognappers
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:01 am

Ooooohoooohhoooo.... kaaaaayyyy :? This is going well, isn't it ? :doubt:

A few points to clarify:-

1) this isn't about anybody's finances. At all. It really isn't. No. It's about patents. Wow ! I just got the strongest sense of deja-vu there.
2) Kumquats - it's a term of... endearment... coined amongst some of my friends when one of us misoverheard (OK, not strictly a real word) the phrase "some quads". It can mean both "quadline kite" and "quadline kite flyer". I guess you had to be there.
3) the linked to patent awarded to Joe Hadzicki is his to use commercially or not as he sees fit. Or at least it was until it expired recently. If he had wished to make it so that he was the only man on the planet who could ever fly this type of kite, that's within his rights. No argument from me.

With that all in mind.... :dontgetit:

The catalyst for this oh-so-regretted-but-there's-no-going-back-now thread was Troy Gunn, well known US flyer, attempting to put up for sale a 6 stack of commercially made Revolution 1.5 rip-offs on GWTW and getting the smack-down handed to him (not by Frazer, oddly enough. Is he ill ?) over patents. Personally I'd have worried more about other issues but....

Revolution repeatedly wielded their patent like a club over anyone who tried to innovate and develop their initial design in complete contrast to the manner in which it was handled with respect to dual line kites. This stifled competition and pretty much ensured their own marketplace monopoly. Look at the figures for quadline STACK comps. - all drawn with a "Rev." 'cos there has been virtually no mainstream alternative. When even an elephant's head is attracting their attention, you can pretty much conclude a certain level of "aggressiveness" in their stance.

Now =; do you really want to argue that this hasn't been bad for the development of kites and kiting ? Do you really think that the initial design of quadline kites sprung forth already completely formed and incapable of improvement ? Or even variety ? I, for one, simply find that inconceivable.

Again, this is their right to behave in this manner and to exploit matters for their own benefit. And so they have. A fact, apparently, to be celebrated at the Bristol Kite Festival.

But don't you dyed-in-the-wool quadliners ever wish to stare at something else ? Even the patent application spoke of challenging "the kite flyer's skill and imagination". Just so long as they don't imagine flying anything other than a Rev™ ?

Mike.
 
sailor99
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:51 pm

Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:38 am

Got the clarification. Thanks. Thought you were bringing up the millions with some purpose in mind, and as you say you had to be there to understand the kumquat(d) comment. They were the only comments of yours that anyone had a problem with I think.


Zippy8 wrote:
Now =; do you really want to argue that this hasn't been bad for the development of kites and kiting ? Do you really think that the initial design of quadline kites sprung forth already completely formed and incapable of improvement ? Or even variety ? I, for one, simply find that inconceivable.




No I wouldn't want to argue that because the patent certainly has not encouraged innovation, although the low demand for quads probably had an impact too. I can see a role for patents, but to give the same patent length to some drug (that has taken millions of dollars to develop and years of cutting edge research) as to a kite seems absurd. And to have granted a patent that was so wide that it nearly covered all kites, jet airliners, four wheeled vehicles......Hum. Personally I would have preferred to see the rev protected in its ESSENTIAL details for a few (say 5) years, then free competition.I personally think this would not only have encouraged innovation and development but a vastly improved level of quality (have you seen rev stitching!) and decent customer service for all of us who live outside the US.
 
sailor99
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2007 1:51 pm

Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:40 am

PS - I think the second patent is up in about 16 months (ISTBC). What then...... Improvement I hope
 
Andy S
King of FA
Posts: 9266
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:53 am
Location: In my house
Contact:

Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:49 am

If the Hadzicki brothers don't like us talking about it, then I'm sure they'll have their pet lawyers onto us soon enough.
 
User avatar
kitejan
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:52 pm
Location: Sheffield, UK
Contact:

Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:39 pm

Ahh the joyous Revolution patent issue....

Much as I love flying Rev's I too have been wondering exactly what Revolution have been doing - is the 1.5 (or B series if you wish) really the peak of quad line design? Have we arrived?

Somehow I doubt it, and maybe, just maybe, now the patents have/will be expiring we shall see some interesting developments. Certainly the Germans seem to have had some nice ideas with the Knockout and the Kamikazee Buterfly (would love to have both of those) - as well as others.

As for the personal 'knock off' - well most (i.e. all but 1) of the Revs I fly are my own copies of an original Rev Exp (OK I'm still using the Rev spars at the moment - but one day I will try Skyshark). I must admit to having thought about it long and hard when I made the first one, but decided to do it anyway - patents or not :-) - My final position was, and possibly still is, personal use fine - commercial not fine.

I must say the kite world does display amazing mixed messages over this - on one hand lots and lots of freely available plans, resources, help etc to make you Rev knock off - but on the other lots of "just dont do it - ever" comments (as I found out when I (foolishly) asked for help over on rec.kites.....).

Jan

PS What, in a nut shell, is in the 2 Rev patents?
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Topic Author
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Mon Aug 04, 2008 6:04 am

kitejan wrote:
is the 1.5 (or B series if you wish) really the peak of quad line design? Have we arrived?

Doesn't it seem unlikely ? In how many fields of endeavour is the first go the be-all-and-end-all ? I don't recall many riders cresting the L'Alpe d'Huez on a Penny Farthing, I prefer MP3s over wax cylinders and even RyanAir would chafe at the idea of using Wright Flyers.

now the patents have/will be expiring we shall see some interesting developments.

There always have been, it's just that making them a commercial viability has always been a tricky proposition. TBH my view is that by making "the Rev." the default for what a quadline is that getting flyers to accept something other is very difficult. How many people tried an AirBow and dismissed because it didn't fly like a Rev. (which might have been the point, after all) ?

Let's be honest, you could timewarp a Neo's Omega (what Rev. was called before it was Rev.) into now and it'd blend right in, rather than looking like a relic.

My final position was, and possibly still is, personal use fine - commercial not fine.

That's great. But, as in the example I posted, that hasn't been the position of the patent holder. "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." They don't want you to make your own quadline kites, never mind Rev. knock offs, they want you to buy theirs and theirs alone. And just copying the Rev. design is a) legally wrong b) lazy.

When I first saw these kites I seem to recall thinking "interesting, but the next version will hopefully look better" (or somesuch, it was a long time ago). But they haven't bothered with "the next version". It's just a bit sad that all it takes to get the quadline flyers excited is a few extra panels on The Same Damn Kite, year after year. I really cannot imagine the same scenario if Dan Tabor had taken the same, restrictive approach and in 2008 all that dualliners had to look forward to was "the Hawaiian Team Kite - now with one half Basic, one half Chevron."

And I note with interest that Revolution were quite happy to avail themselves of Tabor's patented ideas for their dualline kite, the Dodd Gross-designed Phase 2, but seemed ill-inclined to match his generosity.

What, in a nut shell, is in the 2 Rev patents?

You can read them here and here. Or here to find all references to them.

Mike.
 
User avatar
misterbleepy
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 2863
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: near Newquay, Cornwall
Contact:

Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:54 am

Jest_of_EVE wrote:
couldn’t you be having more fun pulling the heads of your Lego men?


Isn't that Keith (Mr.Bleepy)?

Mark


naaah - I just crack them open

Image
Keith B
--
Kite Tricks mind map

bleep bleep bleep
 
User avatar
Ian Newham
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1232
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Notts/Derby UK
Contact:

Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:48 pm

kitejan wrote:
I must say the kite world does display amazing mixed messages over this - on one hand lots and lots of freely available plans, resources, help etc to make you Rev knock off - but on the other lots of "just dont do it - ever" comments


Maybe the mixed messages are down to some, who would normally defend the designs of any maker, being pissed of at the way they wield these patent to the detriment of innovation. I wouldn't normally advocate knocking off someones designs but they deserve all the rip-offs they get when they use the patent e.g. to halt production of the Quadraflex[1] and in the Quadriphant example Mike cited. Both kites which are substantially different from the Rev.


[1] The Quadraflex had 2 LE's crossed so how did this part of the Rev patent cover that?
6. A kite-like flying device having a double V shaped sail connected to a supporting frame, the supporting frame including a leading edge support member connected to left *and* right vertical struts...
 
User avatar
sftonkin
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1957
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:43 am
Location: Fordingbridge
Contact:

Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:15 pm

sailor99 wrote:
I can see a role for patents, but to give the same patent length to some drug (that has taken millions of dollars to develop and years of cutting edge research) as to a kite seems absurd.


We're talking septic corporate mentality here. Essentially the same "ethos" that is trying to patent the genetic code of naturally occurring plants that have been used medicinally for centuries or more in order to stop competitors using it. Sick.
 
User avatar
Slow Dog
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Rugby

Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:20 pm

Zippy8 wrote:
kitejan wrote:

My final position was, and possibly still is, personal use fine - commercial not fine.

That's great. But, as in the example I posted, that hasn't been the position of the patent holder. "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." They don't want you to make your own quadline kites, never mind Rev. knock offs, they want you to buy theirs and theirs alone. And just copying the Rev. design is a) legally wrong b) lazy.


In UK Patent Law, you're allowed to make a copy "privately and for purposes
which are not commercial" or "for experimental purposes relating to the subject-matter of the invention" (Patents act 1977, section 60(5)). It's most likely the same in the States, given one of the purposes of patents is to spread the knowledge of inventions. So that company statement is just a bluff. Which kinda backs Zippy's point, I suppose.

Note the Kamikaze Butterfly is also patented...

As for the Rev, well, it's a genuine invention no-one had done before. It's only twenty years. 'Tis nothing, really. Seems fair to me. And despite all the carping, how many places can we point to demonstrate how to make money in the Kite business?
 
Andy S
King of FA
Posts: 9266
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:53 am
Location: In my house
Contact:

Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Slow Dog wrote:
Note the Kamikaze Butterfly is also patented...


Of course it is, but I wonder how rabidly they protect those patents. Interestingly I note it's for sale to European customers only. Care to hazard a guess why you couldn't buy it if you were in the USA?

can we point to demonstrate how to make money in the Kite business?


Despite the rather entertaining interlude regarding millionaires that wasn't the original thrust of the thread, as far as I can see.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9