jburka wrote:What's interesting to me about the Rev patent is that it controls multiple very different things: the layout, the bridle, the mesh, the handles
Surely not the same handle design that the Wright brothers used in 1899?
Bill Lancashire wrote:As a matter of interest, when does the 'Rev' patent expire?.
Stephen Hoath wrote:A while back a Frenchman called Alain Micquoux (spelling?) developed a quad kite with a split keel that flow as either a dual line or a quad kite depending on where you put your hands on the handles. I have been trying to find a reference to this on the web but can't.
Does anyone remember what it was called? or know of a link to information?
jr wrote:Surely not the same handle design that the Wright brothers used in 1899?
Zippy8 wrote:But it's still a Rev., isn't it Jeff ? Today's Gemini is quite a different beast too but it's still a Gemini.
Right. Your Gemini (and mine; one of my favorite kites) is still a Gemini -- a delta that happens to have two spines. Of course, that seems to have been an evolutionary dead-end, as Benson and Wardley have gone back to a more common layout for the Deep Space.I am arguing that your choice may have been artificially limited.
And I'm saying that as a flyer who flew on the east coast of the US throughout the 90s, the choice of quads was not artificially limited. The sheer quantity of non-Rev quads floating around back then was huge, whether Ultra, Deca, or otherwise. They were highly competitive in the SKCs of the day. And they all faded away. While I would probably agree with you that *today* the choices might be limited, this happened solely through market forces. People kept choosing Revs and the others went away.
I've currently got 6 decas in the house, along with a Peter Powell Omni, an Airbow, and a few other bizarre quads. What limited me to Revs?I understand the brand loyalty that Rev. have built up, I understand that there are people who don't like to hear anything in the way of criticism of their favourite kitemakers
This has nothing to do with brand loyalty, and Rev isn't my favorite kite manufacturer, though I do count Ben D'Antonio as a friend. This is about whether the company has had the fundamental right to protect their invention. And what I keep hearing is that this was unquestionably an invention of something new and different.
If people keep thinking that there's prior art (e.g. the quad-lined, handled Wright kite of 1899), the patent system allows for you to fight the patent and get it invalidated.I would love for someone as experienced in "the Quad space" as yourself to point out exactly how the Quadriphant, which was challenged by Rev. pretty damn aggressively, can be thought by any sane process to be a Rev. derivative.
The shape of the kite isn't derivative (especially as the Rev patent calls for substantially less sail area in the center of the kite). The bridle, however, is. If the designer (Nop? Or did he just republish it?) had found a different way to attach the lines and make the kite flyable, he might have been okay. As it was, he pulled the bridle almost directly from the Rev.Again I invite you to imagine "the Dual line space" if Tabor's patent had been used similarly.
sftonkin wrote:jburka wrote:...and all the others that have been named.
No, not all the others that have been named! (e.g. Quadriphant, Kamikaze Butterfly cannot export to the USA,......)
jburka wrote:jr wrote:Surely not the same handle design that the Wright brothers used in 1899?
Nope. Not the same handle design at all. The Wright Brothers used straight sticks, while the Rev patent calls for the handles to have two different angles in them. From a mechanical advantage standpoint, this is significantly different
jburka wrote:If people keep thinking that there's prior art (e.g. the quad-lined, handled Wright kite of 1899), the patent system allows for you to fight the patent and get it invalidated
My point still stands, though, that there have been a good number of revolutionary quad designs that Revolution has not gone after because they're don't infringe the patent. My comment about "all the others" was in direct response to the claim that Revolution only goes after kites that, "meet the condition 3<n<5 (where n is the number of lines)!"
Jason wrote:I'm not totally sold on the mechanical advantage of a bent handle. A bit like in the 70's when someone patented a bicycle crank with a 90 degree bend in the arm to improve leverage. It's totally pointless.