# Never Summer gets patent for RC Tech



## Qball (Jun 22, 2010)

Rocker & Camber snowboard patent goes to NS! | Never Summer Industries


> Never Summer is happy to announce that the Rocker & Camber design we introduced to the snowboard industry (R.C. Technology) is now a patented design (US Patent No. 7798514). We are extremely proud of our engineering team for pioneering this unique board geometry and incorporating it into the world of high performance snowboards. Truly setting Never Summer apart, we are once again excited to be a part of this revolutionary time in snowboarding. Thanks to all who have supported NS, older die-hard fans and new ones!


Great to hear these guys are getting the recognition they deserve as the innovators of the design. What does this mean for other companies that have started using similar tech?


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

It honestly doesn't mean a whole lot. All another company would have to do is show that their tech is slightly different. It's also up to NS to defend the patent. The patent simply gives them legal exclusivity, it's still up to NS to find infringements and prove it. Doing so is extremely time consuming and expensive. The biggest thing it will do is keep other companies from referring to their tech as rocker and camber or R.C.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

That if its not exactly the same nothing happens... Basically I don't think lib or Burton or anyone using rock/cam is going to get in trouble.

But it is good for NS. Now people can know that it was NS that "started" the hybrid design.


----------



## Qball (Jun 22, 2010)

United States Patent: 7798514



> At least one embodiment of the inventive technology relates to a snowboard having a lower surface that does not at any point along at least one specified portion thereof contact a horizontal surface underlying the snowboard when the snowboard is unweighted. Such portion(s) may be defined, at least in part, by one or more cambers. A rocker may be used to impart additional board performance benefits to a rider. Other embodiments may relate more specifically to the positioning of cambers relative to mount regions.


Seems like it covers just about any design with rocker and camber. But it's up to NS to pursue which seems like a big hassle.


----------



## SPAZ (May 2, 2009)

Nivek said:


> But it is good for NS. Now people can know that it was NS that "started" the hybrid design.


agreed. this is a great selling point for neversummer.


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

Should be interesting to see if NS goes off like Libtech and Stepchild have. Then again it's kind of the American high quality hand-made exclusiveness that makes their boards special. One thing is for sure, they have no problem selling them, NS boards must have the lowest depreciation value.


----------



## jimster716 (Feb 11, 2009)

It does seem pretty all inclusive to any kind of reverse camber. It specifically addresses Banana Tech (curved upwards), Burton V (v-shape), Capita Flatkick (flat section)...LOL Bataleon TBT might be free of this, not sure.

NS could be become the next bully in the block, next to Burton, of course.


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

I don't know. I find it hard to believe that even if NS brings the heat that anyone will fall. You can't patent something you don't use. Burton throws another rocker section outside the camber. NS doesn't. I can see Lib getting out of it cause they start their camber under the binding insert where NS starts it just outside. From what I remember, Rome is the same as Lib making them possibly safe.

All in all, I don't think NS did this to take over the hybrid market. They did so in order to claim bragging rights for it. If they did take over, I think they would loose some of their loyal followers. Half the appeal of NS is that they are that smaller company fighting the bigger ones. What would happen to them if they became that big company?

But in the end this is all speculation, none of us are NS and none of us know what they're going to do.


----------



## Lstarrasl (Mar 26, 2010)

You are old school if you remember when Burton tried to patent the snowboard and Lib Tech put out bumper stickers that said Boycott Burton because you can't patent fun.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

NS can sell patents to other companies just like Lib Tech has with Mag Traction


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

From my understanding of it and I'm sure Vince will get on here. They did it as more of a way to protect themselves from some other company that had lawyers flexing their muscle at them. They just wanted to make sure it was protected so they could keep doing what they're doing and if a company wanted to use it they could. But I'll let Vince be the final authority on that.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

jimster716 said:


> NS could be become the next bully in the block, next to Burton, of course.


Then we'll see a massive influx of sudden hatred towards what is currently a highly respected brand even if their products remain top notch.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> From my understanding of it and I'm sure Vince will get on here. They did it as more of a way to protect themselves from some other company that had lawyers flexing their muscle at them. They just wanted to make sure it was protected so they could keep doing what they're doing and if a company wanted to use it they could. But I'll let Vince be the final authority on that.


That probably makes the most sense.


----------



## Phillip Hergash (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm a bit confused by all this. I work at a shop that has been selling lib for a long time now, and have been selling skate bananas since early 2007.
Some of the yellow bananas and all of the trs bananas had rocker between the bindings and a little camber on the ends since the day. I think somebody forgot to look closely at the first lib bananas. Those guys at lib are usually full of surprises. 

So how can NS have a patent on something lib had on their boards in our shop from 2007. I still have my board here and am eyeing down the double camber from 2007.

I guess I don't how patents work. Can anybody out there explain how if lib invented it in 2007, somebody else can get a patent on lib's invention.:dunno:


----------



## Lstarrasl (Mar 26, 2010)

Phillip Hergash said:


> I'm a bit confused by all this. I work at a shop that has been selling lib for a long time now, and have been selling skate bananas since early 2007.
> Some of the yellow bananas and all of the trs bananas had rocker between the bindings and a little camber on the ends since the day. I think somebody forgot to look closely at the first lib bananas. Those guys at lib are usually full of surprises.
> 
> So how can NS have a patent on something lib had on their boards in our shop from 2007. I still have my board here and am eyeing down the double camber from 2007.
> ...



Whoa whoa whoaaaaa!
Since this is your first post I will advise you not to talk about this forum's Jesus (Never Summer) like that... :laugh:

Lib Tech was the first company to put t-nuts in snowboards, so bow down all you other companies! Patent this! :cheeky4:


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

Lstarrasl said:


> Whoa whoa whoaaaaa!
> Since this is your first post I will advise you not to talk about this forum's Jesus (Never Summer) like that... :laugh:


Burn the NonBeliever! :laugh:


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Phillip Hergash said:


> I'm a bit confused by all this. I work at a shop that has been selling lib for a long time now, and have been selling skate bananas since early 2007.
> Some of the yellow bananas and all of the trs bananas had rocker between the bindings and a little camber on the ends since the day. I think somebody forgot to look closely at the first lib bananas. Those guys at lib are usually full of surprises.
> 
> So how can NS have a patent on something lib had on their boards in our shop from 2007. I still have my board here and am eyeing down the double camber from 2007.
> ...


How come your email address for this profile is _______? That you mike?


*edit, the user did not have this email on their public profile. kc*


----------



## foCofasho (Dec 16, 2009)

How does an evo hold up on the jumps in freeway?


----------



## Nivek (Jan 24, 2008)

It blows up into rainbows and stardust.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> How come your email address for this profile is _______? That you mike?


...or the Mayor of Carlsborg WA, Phillip Hergash, who honored Mervin Manufacturing in 2009 with its own road “Banana Way”











*Edit, removed email from quotes, KC*


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

that's a real name, fuck I thought it was a reference to a cock in vagina joke. Dammit!


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> that's a real name, fuck I thought it was a reference to a cock in vagina joke. Dammit!


:laugh:

10 char


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

Rofl. That name is totally set up.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

hahaha... I'm sure someone will get to the bottom of this... I'll be checking angrysnowboarder.com for updates


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

HAHA I emailed Vince about the patent tried calling Tracey, going to get something for you guys hopefully by tomorrow if not next week. 

But fuck that name is as hilarious as this kid I went to summer camp with Benjamin Matthew Dover, yep Ben Dover.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

it's much easier to get a patent than it is to defend it. if they were to try to sue anyone, i don't think they would be successful. other companies like lib tech were developing similar designs at the same time.

that said, i think it's pretty silly of them to patent anything in snowboards. their boards are an evolution of technology other board companies pioneered. if they were try to license it, then they should start paying royalties to every other company their products were evolved from. hopefully, they just wanted the bragging rights for marketing purposes.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> i agree that it is hard to sue someone successfully. however, just because others are developing similar designs at the same time does NOT mean they can not get sued. u can start just 1 months after mine but if i successfully obtained my patent then you can not use my design period. the fact u started almost same time as me is irrelevant.
> instead, your argument would be that your design is significantly different from mine or creatively unique in another way. those would be your arguments, not that we both developed at the same time...


actually, if another company is sued for patent infringement they can challenge the validity of the patent in the first place. if they can show that the patented a technology was not unique to them, the patent can be declared invalid.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

PS... here's a brief explanation of how patents are declared invalid.



> What Could Make My Patent Invalid?
> A patent can be deemed invalid for a number of reasons. Usually, a patent will be found to be invalid during infringement cases where an accused infringer defends himself by claiming your patent is invalid. Some of the common reasons patents are found to be invalid are:
> 
> The invention was not actually patentable - if someone can bring evidence that your invention lacked the requisite novelty, utility, or non-obviousness required for a patent, the USPTO can declare your patent invalid.


http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/patent-duration.html

Other snowboard companies can argue the patent is invalid on two grounds. 1) It lacked novelty (other companies produced similar designs at the same time). 2) It was an obvious evolution. They could claim that it was an obvious solution to the lack of stability in reverse camber boards.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

> but that is actually harder to do than sueing for copyright infringement because u r a basically calling the US patent office ppl idiots and they will back up their reasons for allowing the patent to go through. remember that for patents to go through, it is publicly posted for like a year for anyone to challenge the validity. if no one challenges during this time frame, it is harder to do it later (not saying its impossible). it happens but it'll require even more legal cost.
> bottom line is, intellectual property is a major part of business and economy in the capitalistic society we live in. it is a good way to protect and reward the innovators of respective industries. just because u can try to challenge the validity does not take away from the facts noted above


you're kind of all over the place. patents and copyrights are two different things. it wouldn't be difficult to argue the validity of a patent in court. it happens all the time. short of agreeing to pay a licensing fee or agreeing to stop manufacturing RC boards, that's their only option if they are sued. 

for the companies that developed similar designs independently, there's no way in hell they're going to turn around and pay a fee to someone else or quit producing their boards. so they would challenge the patent's validity if sued. in all likelihood, never summer won't try to enforce it for this reason. if they did and it were declared invalid in court, not only would they lose the patent, they'd look like idiots.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Keep in mind, this is just for the rocker/camber design, not all rocker designs. NS was at least a year out before other companies started getting on this bandwagon. Yet C2 won a product innovation award after the fact NS had been producing RC for a year. Though I am intrigued by Phillip's (Mike's) statement about Banana's having slight camber on the tips of their boards originally. I didn't get on a banana in their first generation so maybe they did. Lib had certainly abandoned it before then.

Also, it is not the easiest thing to challenge a patent once it's granted. NS was able to prove they came up with something original. Just like Mervin did with Magne. Magne has been a very enforceable patent for Mervin and I suspect the RC patent will be for Neversummer if they choose to go that route. Mervin was also trying to snag the patent on this tech, so it does give NS a good degree of protection. 

How much resistance you'll see on this is going to be interesting. Mervin has big bucks and big lawyers on their side, but even they don't want a big fight over it. If it gets to court, nothing is a sure thing. My guess is they would settle for a reasonable fee and only take it all they way to a court room show down if NS pressed it. I also think there is reasonable grounds to believe that NS is going to do not much in regards to their patent. 

This of course is all hypothetical. It's not my business. If it was me, I'd try to get some ducats out of it, just like Mervin and Burton have for their proprietary designs. Nothing wrong with the small guy reaping some benefit. If it's a reasonable fee, the industry will probably play along.


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

I really have no problem with real patents like this. You know it is a good idea when others copy it, and the innovator should get something out of it.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Zee said:


> I really have no problem with real patents like this. You know it is a good idea when others copy it, and the innovator should get something out of it.


QFT...

1,2,3


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

I think NS should sell the right to use the patent to other companies just like Mervin has done with Magne Traction

It's either do that and the other companies play along like Kill is saying, or step up and enforce the patent.... Other companies will pay for the right to use the patent, I'm sure of it.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

There's arguments to be made on both sides. If it comes down to it, it'll be up to a jury to decide. My own personal opinion is that's the way snowboard technology was going. They didn't invent the reverse camber board, which had stability issues. And this was probably an obvious solution. It sounds like Lib may have even beat them to the punch with the Skate Banana. Hopefully, it'll never come to a legal battle. I'd rather have as many companies as possible trying to improve their boards without worrying about being sued.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

vote4pedro said:


> I'd rather have as many companies as possible trying to improve their boards without worrying about being sued.


That's just not how things work when a lot of money is involved....


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Milo303 said:


> That's just not how things work when a lot of money is involved....


Obviously. I also hope for world peace and daily morning BJs, but it doesn't always work out


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

By "settle" I mean that Mervin and others would pay a license fee. Just as Jones snowboards and other do for Magne. 

Mervin may have used something similar in their first gen banana but they also clearly abandoned it for a awhile. It was also not nearly as radical as the NS design. Reading between the lines on Mike's post. I guess Mervin could use that initial design and have grounds to stand firm with that. I doubt it gives the results they would want either. 

With patent's it's not always the guy who came up with the idea first, but it's the guy who got behind it as part of their business. Time and time again more than one person has come up with something similar but it's the guy who was most ready to roll with it that won. Pharmaceuticals have this sort of fight all the time. 

I also don't really see a big fight brewing over this. At most Neversummer will probably ask a license fee for it. Just like Burton does with their binding systems, or Mervin with Magne. Neither one of those guys have had a problem getting other companies to play along, and gear costs didn't shoot through the roof either. Going to a lawsuit to get a company to stop doesn't make sense. No one wins in that case except for the lawyers.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I rode one of the first 50 skate bananas when they first were able to be demo'd those things were bent in the center only, tips were as flat as a pancake and the board rode like shit.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> put it in laments terms. i kind of compare ur challenge to patent's validity to instant replay
> you have to have overwhelming evidence to over turn the decision already made. except in this case, this decision was not an instant judgement call. it is something that has been decided on over several yrs of research, documentation and challenges ....etc


I assume you mean layman's terms. Which ironically you are one. Anyway, that's not how civil cases work. In a civil case, the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence. That is, the majority of evidence must be on your side. That's a far lower standard than a criminal case, or your assertion that it's analogous to instant replay. In instant replay, you need indisputable evidence (100% certainty). Here, the standard is more like 51%, if you want to look at it in those terms. 

And what I'm saying in no way suggests that patents are worthless. I'm simply saying that in this instance, there's evidence to support the argument that their patent was either not unique or that it was an obvious next step. Never Summer has evidence on their side to argue the contrary. Until they attempt to enforce it, there's no way to know how strong their patent is. To try to argue the strength of it here on way or another is pointless.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

The fact that they got the patent is pretty strong. The burden to prove otherwise will fall on the plaintiffs.


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

Nothing wrong with getting a royalty for something like this... it is a legitimate and significant design change from the original reverse rocker. 

Other legitimate snowbaording patents that I can think of... 3D Inserts, TBT, Karakoram, Voile. With the exception of 3D, all of these moved the sport forward, and had they not been patented, the originator of them would likely have been crushed and sent into oblivian. That being said, NS buoilds one hell of a board, so I dont see them going away, patent or not. It is the ONLY board I will buy at full price....

Unlike the most successful patent troll ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_Inc.
I read that NTP patent, it was pretty flimsy, and in technology the concepts are so much easier than actually implementing. I think RIM set a bad precedent by paying them off.


----------



## extra0 (Jan 16, 2010)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I rode one of the first 50 skate bananas when they first were able to be demo'd those things were bent in the center only, tips were as flat as a pancake and the board rode like shit.


interesting how lib slowly kept morphing that original design to what is now, essentially, RC...but kept selling the tweaked models as BTX. Once they got it close to Never Summer's design, they claimed it "C2".

wonder if NS will try/be able to get lib to buy a license for their (finally) patented tech


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> The fact that they got the patent is pretty strong. The burden to prove otherwise will fall on the plaintiffs.


The plaintiff in this case would be Never Summer. They're the ones who would sue in order to defend their patent. But the burden of proof is the same for either side. Whoever the jury believes has the stronger argument, even if it's just slightly stronger for one side or the other, will win the case.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Excuse me you are right. It would fall on the defendants if NS brought a suit forward. You are right. Neversummer would have to prove they have a patent (easy) and that the defendants were using their tech. 

The patent holder is going to have at least initially the stronger hand. I just don't see this as being an easy one for other companies to weasel out of. As I said, the chances are no one wants this to go to a court room because at that point anything can happen. Worst case for Neversummer is that their patent is viewed invalid. Worst case for say Mervin (or Burton, Rome, whomever) is that they are ordered to pay millions of dollars in restitution. Of course legal fees will be huge and I believe in civil suits, if you lose, most of the time you end up paying the other sides lawyers fees too.

My guess is if Neversummer asks for a fee they will get it, unless it's unreasonable.


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> My guess is if Neversummer asks for a fee they will get it, unless it's unreasonable.


Moral of this whole thing. Never Summer does not strike me as a super cut throat company that will go after the most they can possibly get, like some other companies might...


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I agree. As a company they are not going for the gold like big B. They are focused on running a successful, sustainable company, not rapid growth and a huge market share.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Most patent disputes are settled with a licensing fee when there's clear evidence that the company with the patent was solely responsible for developing the technology. I'm not sure if that's the case here. The companies involved would have much more information than we do. If other companies were legitimately developing something similar, then they should have the documentation and testimony to back it up if they're sued. I think it would depend how strongly they feel about it. If they did follow Never Summer's lead, they'd likely agree to a licensing fee. But if they believe they got there on their own, they'd probably fight it. Ego and pride come into play as much as money here.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

That's a decent summation of what could happen here.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Actually they're going to have me enforce patent disputes I start by mocking the company on my site, then escalate it with death threats from the owner, finally I just break their knee caps.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> once again, u speak of which u do not understand. its easy to copy & paste a line out of a page but do u know anything about this particular patent case? if not, do u care to b educated or do u want to continue talking like a fool?
> 
> in a lawsuit, the party w/ the patent is at an advantage. ESPECIALLY when the wording of the lawsuit specifically addresses what is RC and C2 falls directly underneath this verbiage.
> 
> ...


I've been polite humoring your ignorance, but your childish outbursts are wearing thin. You obviously don't have even a basic understanding of law. You didn't know what grounds a patent could be challenged on. You didn't know the standard of proof in a civil dispute. And you don't understand the patent process. 

When a patent is submitted, there is currently no thorough means for the patent to be challenged by third parties. The benefit of the doubt is given to the individual or company applying for the patent with the understanding that it can later be reversed in court. 

Many companies, particularly high-tech companies like Cisco, are currently pushing for patent reform law to allow questionable patents to be thoroughly challenged within the Patent and Trademark Office. They want to avoid the cost of litigation later. The flip side of this is that individuals and smaller companies prefer to keep it the way it is. They fear that if larger companies are able challenge their patents before they're issued, they'll overwhelm the process and effectively bully them out of the market.

If you want to learn more about patent law, I can direct you to some sites to read. If you want to keep pretending you know what you're talking about, by all means keep pulling shit out of your ass. It's good for a laugh


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

You guys can piss all over each other for all I care, have a blast. I think the fact of the matter is that it will never get to the lawsuit stage. Like others have said I see them using it as a bragging right for sales, and maybe to make a little money off of licensing fees. NeverSummer is not a multi-national conglomerate run by stockholders who could care less about the product. It's not Burton. I just don't see them freaking out and chancing everything by enacting a bunch of lawsuits against companies bigger then them.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

HoboMaster said:


> You guys can piss all over each other for all I care, have a blast. I think the fact of the matter is that it will never get to the lawsuit stage. Like others have said I see them using it as a bragging right for sales, and maybe to make a little money off of licensing fees. NeverSummer is not a multi-national conglomerate run by stockholders who could care less about the product. It's not Burton. I just don't see them freaking out and chancing everything by enacting a bunch of lawsuits against companies bigger then them.


I agree. There's a good chance that they patented it for bragging rights and marketing. They also may have done it in part to protect themselves so that bigger companies can't turn around and file a similar patent and try to push them around. If they have a rock solid case, they may try to pursue licensing. But they don't sound like the kind of company that wants to start suing everybody.


----------



## jpb3 (Nov 29, 2009)

Holy shit, I had no idea their were so many patent lawyers on this board! IMO NS fkin rocks and so does Lib but I guess pretty soon we'll start seeing stickers with the Lib stick boy pissing on the NS eagle/falcon 

P.S. Phillip Hergash is fkin hilarious, and I mean HILARIOUS!


----------



## Milo303 (Apr 6, 2009)

jpb3 said:


> I guess pretty soon we'll start seeing stickers with the Lib stick boy pissing on the NS eagle/falcon


That made me laugh ( =

Nice post


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I got a tape measure if you guys need it.


----------



## Snowfox (Dec 26, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I got a tape measure if you guys need it.


You need to be able to see something to measure it...


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> u r so ignorant i cant even begin to fathom where u get ur ridiculous ideas from. of COURSE patents can be challenged prior to be approved. i've been in this process hundreds of times and some internet thug who googles and read a few sites try to tell me what i've personally done otherwise? lmao :laugh::laugh::laugh:


Your main problem is you're an idiot. Your other problem is you don't realize just how much of an idiot you are. 

I'll give you a clue. Not that you'll understand a word I say. But I'll do it anyway for my own amusement. 

Once again, when a patent is submitted, there is currently no thorough means for the patent to be challenged by third parties.

The key word here is thorough. Under current patent law, it is entirely up to the patent examiner to research the patent's claim. He or she must find any prior examples of similar technology and determine if the invention was obvious or not. With about half a million patent applications submitted every year, there is currently a 3-year backlog and patent examiners can only dedicate a few hours to each case. Adding to their difficulty, they cover a broad range of patent applications and generally are not experts in the field in which they must make a determination.

The US patent office recently undertook a pilot project testing a peer review process where experts could weigh in and challenge a patent before it is awarded. It began in 2007 and ended last year. A limited number of patent applications went through this process, allowing greater third party challenges, but it still had its limitations.

Third parties could submit examples of prior art, but they could not directly argue their case to the patent examiner. The patent applicant however could, giving them an advantage. 

The process also focused mainly on prior technology with little focus on whether or not the submission was obvious. 

Because patent examiners are overworked with limited resources to do their work, thousands of bad patents are issued every year that are later overturned in court.

I realize there may be several words in my post you don't understand. Thorough being among them. I'd suggest you try dictionary.com for the more difficult ones. For bonus points, write them out in crayon and stick them on the fridge. Your mom will be proud her special boy is working on his vocabulary :thumbsup:


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> Though I am intrigued by Phillip's (Mike's) statement about Banana's having slight camber on the tips of their boards originally. I didn't get on a banana in their first generation so maybe they did. Lib had certainly abandoned it before then.


mervin did release some BTX boards with a C2-style camber before they started marketing it


----------



## fattrav (Feb 21, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I got a tape measure if you guys need it.


I have a feeling that a tape measure wont work. And to tie in the whole patent thing, this may be of more use...

Method for measuring vagina dimensions - Patent 3938504


----------



## john doe (Nov 6, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> u r so ignorant i cant even begin to fathom where u get ur ridiculous ideas from. of COURSE patents can be challenged prior to be approved. i've been in this process hundreds of times and some internet thug who googles and read a few sites try to tell me what i've personally done otherwise? lmao :laugh::laugh::laugh:





vote4pedro said:


> Your main problem is you're an idiot. Your other problem is you don't realize just how much of an idiot you are.
> 
> I'll give you a clue. Not that you'll understand a word I say. But I'll do it anyway for my own amusement.
> 
> ...


I always tend to side with the guy that doesn't use r and u as words and can remember to capitalize the first word in a sentance.


----------



## little devil (Aug 18, 2009)

For the love of fuck, wait till n.s. says what this means to them.

I think it must mean alot, looking at the sticker that came on my board it says "pat. pending"

Plus its prorbably alot of money to patent somthing like a snowboard design.

I just cant wait till Vince or Angry post somthing up. See what n.s. wants to do with it. 

Who the fuck knows. Clearly legend and pedro..... dumbfucks


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

We can all say what we want but it does appear Legends was there during the patent process. I got a feeling his summary of what is going on is way more accurate and on point than any of us.

Sounds like Mervin is going to keep on fighting this. For a company that is hell of happy to make people pay a license fee to them, they sure will not pay one out to anyone. Look at their crappy splitboard for example.

Ultimately, barring the challenge process, it's up to Neversummer to decide how they want to proceed with this. I don't think even they really know where they want to go. Hence the reason you haven't seen any statement from Vman or any others on the matters. This is the type of thing that it's going to take months, probably years for it to completely shake out.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

legallyillegal said:


> mervin did release some BTX boards with a C2-style camber before they started marketing it


I'm sure they did. When is the question? Did they release these boards before Neversummer was working on or had released their RC stuff? My understanding is that the original release of the banana was not a C2 board. More along the lines of K2's flatline tech at the nose/tail.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

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 (Nov 24, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> In the end, you just got to hope that all of this should be for the "betterment" of the sport and not to stuff the pockets of litigation teams.


This is my major concern about this situation. I really don't feel that any company should patent a camber design. It's just too widespread and is something that came about naturally. I mean, Shane McConkey didn't go all wild and try to patent anything for his rocker skis. I still say he is the one that opened our eyes to what rocker profiles can do on skis and snowboards.

I understand patents for very unique designs like MTX and ICS/EST, but not things like camber profiles. Maybe if the camber profile is radical like making it resemble a squiggly line perhaps.

We just don't know for sure where this NS patent is going to lead. We do not know the type of stir it is going to cause. Licensing, legal objections, etc... none of this is any good for the riders. It's expensive.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Don't forget Leo that Mervin tried to patent this same tech. 

As far as Shane and rocker tech. Don't forget the K2 Gyrator was a late 80's early 90's board back in the day with a full rocker profile. We just didn't catch on back then.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Don't forget Leo that Mervin tried to patent this same tech.
> 
> As far as Shane and rocker tech. Don't forget the K2 Gyrator was a late 80's early 90's board back in the day with a full rocker profile. We just didn't catch on back then.


Yea, rocker was definitely around prior to Shane. I still think he is the one that opened our eyes to it though. I pretty much blew up after he showed what it can do for a rider.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeah, Shane a good proponent for rocker profiles. Also, back in the day when the Gyrator came out, we were still fighting for resort access. Not exactly the spot for what was a pure powder stick.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

john doe said:


> I always tend to side with the guy that doesn't use r and u as words and can remember to capitalize the first word in a sentance.


Good point :thumbsup:


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

vote4pedro said:


> Good point :thumbsup:


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


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> Just because i say that "apples are green" and "apples are red" doesn't make me an expert on apples. Anyone can state basic facts found off the internet. I'm asking if you know anything about this particular case? If you don't, then STFU because you sound like a internet kid quoting a thesaurus or dictionary to make himself look smart.
> 
> First of all, there are more than one way to challenge pending patents. What you have referred to is just one option where only the examiner or the party holding the patent can file an interference proceeding. Any patent lawyer with any real world experience would know other options by which to protest. This is where your Googling can only go so far son :laugh:. You do realize that Mervin has patent pending applications in the same space right? Patent owners may alert an examiner to the existence of interfering claims in a pending application. Just because you can't initiate interference proceedings doesn't mean you are not entitled to call the examiners attention to claims in a pending application that interfere with your issued patent.
> 
> ...



Third parties are allowed to submit examples of prior art for patent examiners to review. When this occurs, the examiner will look at what was submitted. If they believe it has merit, they will reject the application temporarily, giving the applicant an opportunity to clarify or modify their application regarding the points of concern. The third party which raised the concern is not allowed to counter argue the modified application, giving the applicant a distinct advantage.

The same is true of the reexamination process. A third part may request a review of the patent if they are able to provide newly discovered examples of prior art that were not considered in the original examination process. If they attempt to resubmit the same examples as before, their request will be denied. So again, the applicant has the advantage. 

Also, third parties are only allowed to submit prior art in regards to the novelty or originality of the patent request. They are not allowed to argue the obviousness of the design. Their only opportunity to do this will be in a courtroom if they are sued.

Looking at Never Summer's patent request, it was initially rejected then approved after it was modified. In all likelihood, Mervin submitted prior art that the request infringed on and NS modified their request to comply. As of today, no request for reexamination has been accepted. Mervin may have requested one, but if they're simply resubmitting the same prior art, their request will in all likelihood be denied. If NS then attempts to defend their patent against Mervin, this will end up in court.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Leo said:


> 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 noticed that too. But he still has a point


----------



## extra0 (Jan 16, 2010)

legallyillegal said:


> mervin did release some BTX boards with a C2-style camber before they started marketing it





killclimbz said:


> I'm sure they did. When is the question? Did they release these boards before Neversummer was working on or had released their RC stuff? My understanding is that the original release of the banana was not a C2 board. More along the lines of K2's flatline tech at the nose/tail.


mervin definitely started morphing their rocker design way after NS came out with RC. The "banana" marketing/buzzword was already so popular with the fan-boys, they just kept selling the newer shapes as BTX. Interesting, it wasn't until about the time they knew Travis Rice was going to endorse the new shape that they changed the name to C2.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

legends6spd said:


> no offense "john doe" but in my line of work where i'm in the court proceedings or @ client site i'm on my blackberry 90% of the time and using r and u and non-cap is a habit that is not going away any time soon
> don't judge a book by its cover simply because i'm trying to be efficent :cheeky4:


It's a little late to pretend you're a lawyer. You didn't know on what grounds a patent's validity could be challenged. You didn't know the standard of proof in a civil dispute. You confused patents with copyrights. You even confused "laments" with "layman's." Perhaps you want us to believe you fetch coffee for a lawyer. Either way, I'm not impressed. Most likely, you're a pimple faced kid posting garbage while you search for more man on man action to beat off to. A word of advice. Stay in school, keep off drugs and maybe one day you'll be an unemployed douchebag with a law degree. No law school worth attending would have you. But hey, there are all kinds of law schools :thumbsup:


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Will you two put your dicks back in your pants neither of you two know jack shit about what you're talking about and it's just become an ego stroking contest on who can get the last word in. I'll tell you right now it'll be me and you'll both cry. In other news read this and see how Mervin is dealing with shit EasyLoungin | Mervin Patent Update


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Leo said:


> This is my major concern about this situation. I really don't feel that any company should patent a camber design. * It's just too widespread and is something that came about naturally. * I mean, Shane McConkey didn't go all wild and try to patent anything for his rocker skis. I still say he is the one that opened our eyes to what rocker profiles can do on skis and snowboards.
> 
> I understand patents for very unique designs like MTX and ICS/EST, but not things like camber profiles. Maybe if the camber profile is radical like making it resemble a squiggly line perhaps.
> 
> We just don't know for sure where this NS patent is going to lead. We do not know the type of stir it is going to cause. Licensing, legal objections, etc... none of this is any good for the riders. It's expensive.


That will probably be the strongest argument against their patent. You can't patent an obvious design. While the patent is pending, third parties can only submit existing designs to argue the proposed patent is not unique. They're not able to argue that that's where the technology was heading anyway. Now that the patent was approved, if NS sues Mervin for infringement they'll be able to argue that in court. If they're successful, the patent will be declared invalid. NS could then appeal the court's decision, but an appeal is not a new trial. They would have to show that there was an error in the court proceedings, which is rare. 

Personally, I don't think it'll go that far. I think they did it marketing purposes and to protect themselves. Mervin can't sue them for patent infringement when NS is the one holding the patent. I don't know much about Mervin's culture, but they sound like the more litigious company here, so it was probably a good idea.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Wow, Mervin is a little butt hurt on this one aren't they? 

Now I am going to hypothesize here.

1. Mervin did put in a for a patent on their Banana rocker before they even started marketing it. So I don't doubt they were in years before Neversummer. I am also reading between the lines here that they really didn't apply for the rocker/camber combo. Maybe tried to amend it on their original request for patent?

2. They were able to challenge it and lost. Bummer.

3. If they do win on later appeals they are definitely going to try to stick it to the industry.

I also like how everyone thinks this patent relates to all types of rocker. It's just a rocker/camber combo. I believe Mervin may have something with the flat camber between the feet and rockered nose. This is not the design that Neversummer is using. Not sure how you would have rocker/camber with flat between the feet, but if that is what C2 is, then you can probably argue it's a different design. 

One thing is for sure, this shit is going to being shaking out for a good number of years. Funny how the other companies that are doing a rocker/camber combo are keeping pretty quiet about this. Mervin does look like they are going to try to bully on this one.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Wow, Mervin is a little butt hurt on this one aren't they?
> 
> Now I am going to hypothesize here.
> 
> ...



NS's patent includes two drawings. The picture on the left is their design unweighted. You can see it has a rocker design between the bindings. The picture on the right is when it's weighted. So Mervin is being a bit misleading when they say it's flat between the bindings.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

No worries man. I get it that you had an inside view to these proceedings and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Pretty much everything I have said is conjecture. I do not represent the operations of either of these companies. Sure I like Neversummer, I have a split from them. I'm sure Neversummer had to use some tactics that Mervin found hard to swallow. 

From my view, it looks like an awful lot like the small guy stood up for himself and won. Now Mervin is embarrassed and looking to get back. Something that could really blow up in their face. Besides for the announcement, from which on the forums came from members, not Neversummer, they haven't been on here gloating, blowing their horn, etc. Only Mervin has come back to "defend" themselves when they truly haven't been attacked yet. Except for not getting the patent, all the noise has been from us. Same thing at EL. 

It is time to let this dog lie for a bit. Sure sounds like another round is coming.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

vote4pedro said:


> NS's patent includes two drawings. The picture on the left is their design unweighted. You can see it has a rocker design between the bindings. The picture on the right is when it's weighted. So Mervin is being a bit misleading when they say it's flat between the bindings.


I was just perusing the images on the patent. Good post.


----------



## john doe (Nov 6, 2009)

Leo said:


> 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 (Jan 16, 2010)

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 (Aug 18, 2009)

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 (Sep 21, 2010)

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 (Aug 10, 2007)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Jan 2, 2009)

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


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

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 (Jun 22, 2010)

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 (Sep 21, 2010)

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 (Aug 14, 2007)

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 (Nov 24, 2009)

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 (Mar 1, 2008)

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 (Aug 10, 2007)

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 (Nov 24, 2009)

crazyface said:


> 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 (Sep 21, 2010)

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 (Nov 24, 2009)

Toddler said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2010)

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



Leo said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

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 (Jan 11, 2010)

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



Leo said:


> 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.


----------



## little devil (Aug 18, 2009)

Mervin- you cant patent fun, yet that seems what they might wanna do?

From easy loungin

"7. Is Mervin's patent relevant to NS and other brands with rocker between the feet?

Yes!"


Comming from a brand that has there mag patented and selling it to other brands, Is it such a stretch to think they want to infact patent fun?

Pretty funny

You cant patent fun, but we can patent stuff that makes it funner.


----------



## little devil (Aug 18, 2009)

Also could it be n.s. decided to patent it just to save there ass from that corporation. 

If its there's, there good. If its not there paying.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

JonesyMalone said:


> This is not to start a flame-war
> -J


No worries. I wasn't a part of that huge debate about legalities and what not. I outright stated that I know nothing of patent laws. Only a general idea from things I have gathered.

I was just here to say it's going to suck major booty hole if NS tries to drop the hammer on other companies. I doubt they will, but still. They are kind of setting that tone. As of now, it's purely speculation.


----------



## little devil (Aug 18, 2009)

Leo said:


> They are kind of setting that tone.


How? By not addressing this issue? Or the one post on their site.

Or is it mervin's easy lougin post that is setting a tone.


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

This thread is like reading a chalkboard with the same sentence written over and over again, except each is in a different font. Blahhhhhhhh.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

little devil said:


> How? By not addressing this issue? Or the one post on their site.
> 
> Or is it mervin's easy lougin post that is setting a tone.


Not addressing the issue and just plain patenting hybrid rocker shapes.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Leo said:


> Not addressing the issue and just plain patenting hybrid rocker shapes.


Leo, if they didn't Mervin would of. They were already trying too, and they are still pursuing the original banana design. If Mervin had of got the patent you can bet your left nut they would be demanding a license fee already. All the hype on this is Mervin being scared that they will have to pay a license fee for which they would have been all too happy to charge. So far Neversummer made the announcement and hasn't done shit.

Saying there isn't a history on putting a patent on camber profiles isn't true either. The reverse camber patent for skis proves that. I also remember Shane making some mention of it in an interview somewhere, and that basically it was a non issue as the patent had expired by the time he was really pushing for rocker skis. 

We should probably sit back. If Big B or Mervin had of got this legal notice would have already been served to everyone who made a rocker camber profile board. Don't doubt it. Let's see how NS handles it.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Leo, if they didn't Mervin would of. They were already trying too, and they are still pursuing the original banana design. If Mervin had of got the patent you can bet your left nut they would be demanding a license fee already. All the hype on this is Mervin being scared that they will have to pay a license fee for which they would have been all too happy to charge. So far Neversummer made the announcement and hasn't done shit.
> 
> Saying there isn't a history on putting a patent on camber profiles isn't true either. The reverse camber patent for skis proves that. I also remember Shane making some mention of it in an interview somewhere, and that basically it was a non issue as the patent had expired by the time he was really pushing for rocker skis.
> 
> We should probably sit back. If Big B or Mervin had of got this legal notice would have already been served to everyone who made a rocker camber profile board. Don't doubt it. Let's see how NS handles it.


Yea, I understand. I'm just saying NS or Mervin or B patenting camber profiles is BS. I'm not hating on NS. I'm hating that the industry is even getting patents on camber profiles. Magnetraction... understandable. ICS, understandable. Vario grip.... understandable.

It's just my rant about the state of the snowboard tech industry.

In the end, it's not going to make me hate any of the above companies. I'll still want to try an NS really badly and I'll still get Burton and Mervin gear if not for quality, to just piss off haters and draw negative attention to myself


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I getcha. It does some the is precedent set about putting a patent on camber profiles. So overall, this seems like a wise choice for a small company like Neversummer to do. We can say all we want about it, but the fact is all of these companies are in it to make money in some fashion.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> I getcha. It does some the is precedent set about putting a patent on camber profiles. So overall, this seems like a wise choice for a small company like Neversummer to do. We can say all we want about it, but the fact is all of these companies are in it to make money in some fashion.


And they are succeeding because I can't fucking stop buying gear that I don't need


----------



## The Chairman (Aug 17, 2009)

*Official Statement from NS*

This is an official statement from NS owners Tim and Tracey Canaday. 


On September 21, 2010 Never Summer Industries, Inc. was awarded a patent for its rocker and camber snowboard design. Our patent is the result of a Never Summer research and design team that spent countless hours trying to improve the performance and ride-ability of snowboards to enhance the snowboarding experience. We’re pleased to see not only the US Patent Office, but also the snowboarding public, recognize Never Summer’s innovative achievement.
It appears that Mervin Manufacturing is also about to receive their own patent for their banana. We’re happy for them and wish them success.

So it really is an exciting time for snowboarders. With all these patented improvements they’ll now have a choice between Never Summer’s high-performance rocker and camber design, countless camber and flat-camber designs, or a banana.

Tracey Canaday
Never Summer Industries, Inc.


----------



## The Chairman (Aug 17, 2009)

Leo said:


> Yea, I understand. I'm just saying NS or Mervin or B patenting camber profiles is BS. I'm not hating on NS. I'm hating that the industry is even getting patents on camber profiles. Magnetraction... understandable. ICS, understandable. Vario grip.... understandable.
> 
> It's just my rant about the state of the snowboard tech industry.
> 
> In the end, it's not going to make me hate any of the above companies. I'll still want to try an NS really badly and I'll still get Burton and Mervin gear if not for quality, to just piss off haters and draw negative attention to myself


Hey Leo,

Can you or anyone even confirm that Mervin actually has a patent on Magnetraction? I've never seen a patent #.


----------



## InfiniteEclipse (Jan 2, 2009)

Vman said:


> This is an official statement from NS owners Tim and Tracey Canaday.
> 
> 
> On September 21, 2010 Never Summer Industries, Inc. was awarded a patent for its rocker and camber snowboard design.


On my birthday... can't help but feel I had something to do with it. You're welcome


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

Vman said:


> This is an official statement from NS owners Tim and Tracey Canaday.
> 
> 
> On September 21, 2010 Never Summer Industries, Inc. was awarded a patent for its rocker and camber snowboard design. Our patent is the result of a Never Summer research and design team that spent countless hours trying to improve the performance and ride-ability of snowboards to enhance the snowboarding experience. We’re pleased to see not only the US Patent Office, but also the snowboarding public, recognize Never Summer’s innovative achievement.
> ...


And like I thought, 13 pages of spew were created over fucking Nothing.


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

Vman said:


> It appears that Mervin Manufacturing is also about to receive their own patent for their banana. We’re happy for them and wish them success.
> 
> So it really is an exciting time for snowboarders. With all these patented improvements they’ll now have a choice between Never Summer’s high-performance rocker and camber design, countless camber and flat-camber designs, or a banana.
> 
> ...



Never Summer’s high-performance rocker . . . some other cambers . . . or "a banana".

ROFLMAO.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

For what it's worth, someone at Mervin sent me a PM about this thread. I won't repost it because it was private. But I will say he said they have no intention of suing anyone. It sounds like they genuinely believe they were the first to come up with a hybrid rocker/camber design and just want the recognition. Personally, I think they both developed similar designs independently. It's a natural evolution. So they both deserve credit for their hard work. Hopefully, they'll put this BS behind them and concentrate on making their boards even better.


----------



## Snowfox (Dec 26, 2009)

vote4pedro said:


> For what it's worth, someone at Mervin sent me a PM about this thread. I won't repost it because it was private. But I will say he said they have no intention of suing anyone. It sounds like they genuinely believe they were the first to come up with a hybrid rocker/camber design and just want the recognition. Personally, I think they both developed similar designs independently. It's a natural evolution. So they both deserve credit for their hard work. Hopefully, they'll put this BS behind them and concentrate on making their boards even better.


"Of course I have absolutely no intention of suing you (until I determine it's profitable)."

Edit: I would like to mention this isn't meant toward a specific company, it's just how things usually work.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Vman said:


> Hey Leo,
> 
> Can you or anyone even confirm that Mervin actually has a patent on Magnetraction? I've never seen a patent #.


I can't find any patent number but there are a few web articles saying that Mervin has a patent on Magne Traction under Quicksilver. Like this one here. Seems that maybe one is out there, or maybe it's still just patent pending? No idea. We know they license it to some other companies, so there must be some meat to the patent rumor.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

And thanks for posting up the statement from Tim and Tracey.


----------



## Cr0_Reps_Smit (Jun 27, 2009)

yea i was wondering when vman was gonna chime in and clear everything up


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Snowfox said:


> "Of course I have absolutely no intention of suing you (until I determine it's profitable)."
> 
> Edit: I would like to mention this isn't meant toward a specific company, it's just how things usually work.


I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. A lot of people are bashing them. Maybe it's deserved. Maybe not. Personally, I haven't seen anything worth all the ill will.


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

vote4pedro said:


> I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. A lot of people are bashing them. Maybe it's deserved. Maybe not. Personally, I haven't seen anything worth all the ill will.


I think it's sad that we live in a world now where the first thing everyone expects when someone obtains a patent is for them to go sue crazy in an attempt to make a lot of Moneiz.
:dunno:

Just isn't the type of company NS appears to be.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

vote4pedro said:


> I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. A lot of people are bashing them. Maybe it's deserved. Maybe not. Personally, I haven't seen anything worth all the ill will.


Yeah, I can't really get all over Mervin on this one. They were upset, and I guess after so many years of being the "innovator" in the industry, missing out on this one looks like it stung a little. If they play nice and I expect Neversummer to do the same, I have no problem with them. Mervin has done some fun stuff that did ignite the industry. Their pushing of rocker designs really stoked the fire. Magne Traction was thinking way out of the box, etc. So contrary to earlier posts I don't really hate on Mervin. I do like Neversummer, but it's for many other reasons than just the big vs small guy thing.


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

Vote4Pedro, it's pretty clear from the patent pictures that Inca came up with it before Mervin, even if they didn't consider their boards as having rocker between the cambered areas. So Inca's patent is good protection for Mervin's C2. 

I believe the guy working at Mervin was told they didn't plan to sue other companies. I'm also confident that if they'd been able to patent C2, they would have sent letters out to Burton and Nitro and others saying, "You're using and marketing a board profile that we have patented. Please either stop or contact us about a licensing agreement." That would have been the smart thing for them to do. Not sure if NS can do that, and no idea if they would like to if they can.

My guess is that we'll see 3 groups of Hybrid rocker camber boards:

1) The never-patented CamRock types with camber between the bindings and rocker outside: Rossignol, Rome, Omni's Signal, Yes.... (I bought one for my wife since it's a lot like rock-flat-rock with a little extra flat basing stability.)
2) The previously patented Inca, C2/Burton Flying V/Nitro Gull Wing types, with the camber starting somewhere before the inserts end, and flat or rocker outside and between. 
3) The RC hybrids from NS where the camber starts after the inserts.
Buy what you like!


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

My take on it is Mervin believes they came up with it first and they're upset NS is getting all the credit. On the flip side, I think NS thinks they came up with it first. It's entirely possible they both came up with it independently. If you start with the same problem, rocker stability, it makes sense that you would come up with a similar solution.


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

I thought Mervin got an award for coming up with it first??? Maybe the industry is questioning if they deserved it now and that's why they're bothered by this. Most of us here only care if the companies are going to be uncool about this. Based on the number of posters on this thread and the size of the industry, my calculations indicate 99.8% of consumers won't know or care about this issue.

(Full disclosure: My calculations have a margin of error of +.2 and -99.8%. I have no conflicts of interest since I'm a 42 y/old fart who rides like a wimp, has no friends at either company, will never be sponsored, and owns both a Lib and a NS snowboard.)


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Mervin got an award for the C2 design for the 09/10 season for which Neversummer had already been using the design the previous season. Part of the reason for the push for the patent from NS. Regardless of who developed it first, NS was the first to market with it, but they were largely ignored after the C2 announcement. Industry politics, blah, blah, blah...


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

Mervin is saying their 2006 TRS Banana was the first RC design. I don't know enough about it to know if this is true. Did NS produce a RC board before 2006? Or was the TRS Banana not really a RC hybrid?


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Now it's the TRS? Interesting. First it was the Banana. I have no idea, we'd have to see the board. Really though? No mention of doing the rock camber thing on a production board, then go gung ho with it just a few years later? Sounds fishy to me.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I believe that the 06 season was when Neversummer was playing with the design, but I am pretty sure it wasn't on the market.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I did a quick search on the 2006 TRS. A few reviews out there to be found. Strangely, none talk about any sort of hybrid camber. It's banana, has magne, and gets positive reviews. You'd think there would be some mention of the camber profile other than banana. I believe I demo'd that board at Loveland and I don't remember the Lib guys talking about any tweaked camber design on it either. But I will give credit for this add I found for the 06 TRS.









Looks like a winner to me...


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

They said they didn't market it as a rocker/camber hybrid because no one would know what that meant. They didn't want to confuse the consumers. I've been googling it and from what I can find, it was the all mountain version of the banana, so there could be some truth to it. If anyone has one laying around somewhere, it should be pretty easy to settle it.


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> I did a quick search on the 2006 TRS. A few reviews out there to be found. Strangely, none talk about any sort of hybrid camber. It's banana, has magne, and gets positive reviews. You'd think there would be some mention of the camber profile other than banana. I believe I demo'd that board at Loveland and I don't remember the Lib guys talking about any tweaked camber design on it either. But I will give credit for this add I found for the 06 TRS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd ride it :thumbsup:


----------



## HoboMaster (May 16, 2010)

vote4pedro said:


> I'd ride it :thumbsup:


Which one? :laugh:


----------



## vote4pedro (Dec 28, 2009)

HoboMaster said:


> Which one? :laugh:


Do I have to pick only one?


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

They both look like fun rides. 

I can't believe there isn't some mention of it by someone somewhere. It's notable. I believe BA rode the 06 TRS, he's great with picking up the nuances on board designs. Maybe he'll weigh in on it. I certainly don't remember being anything but the banana design.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Fuck 06 that was like 500 plus boards ago the review of that TRS would have been on snowboard.com and is probably long since gone. Even if I have it saved on my old P.C. I'm not digging that thing out. Near as I can tell though I don't remember the boards being anything but center reverse for the first few years that I rode them. Even when I got my hands on a skatebanana the year before they became production models it was center. I just don't remember it ever having camber anywhere in it because the boards would wash out all over and you'd rely on the mtx to grip and save your ass.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

> 06/07 164w Lib Tech TRS with Mt and Rome 390’s. Now I still stick to my guns that MT is a try before you buy. This MT wasn’t as defined as others that I’ve taken out so laying carves were fine unless I really pushed it then it would just stall out. The flex is amazing on this board so poppy and really absorbent yet not a lot of chatter. I liked riding it on heel edge and grabbing the toe edge like an old school skateboarder and just riding with it. Switch was super easy on this and popping off rollers was great. I was flinging this around with no problems.
> 
> 06/07 157 Lib TRS with Rome 390’s. You can definitely rip on the mountain with this. I’d put it more free riding freestyle than just all mountain freestyle. Great edge hold and decent flex. Great pop and just a fun board for cruising around hitting everything in my path.


10characterslol

haha found this little gem


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

BAHAHAHA love that photo of Joe so funny nice find too.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

Vman said:


> Hey Leo,
> 
> Can you or anyone even confirm that Mervin actually has a patent on Magnetraction? I've never seen a patent #.


No no, I wasn't talking about actual patents. I'm speaking hypothetically. Meaning that I would understand patents for designs like that.

Those types of designs aren't an evolution in snowboard tech. They are innovations. I strongly believe that camber profiles are an evolution. Patenting evolution in my opinion is not ideal. I'm not knocking you guys at all. I'm dying to try your snowboards. The company I work for only carries your longboards unfortunately 

Honestly, I don't hate you guys whatsoever for getting a patent. I completely understand that this is how the industry is right now. If not you, then someone else right? So I actually applaud you guys for the patent. I have yet to hear a single complaint about your quality so I'm sure it's well deserved.

What bothers me is the state of the industry that I pointed out. I just wish no company would pursue patents on camber profiles. Not Mervin, not Burton, and not NeverSummer. But hey, the world isn't perfect. And the snowboarding industry is always trying to compete with each other on these types of dealings. So it might as well be granted to a company that has a very, very good reputation.

I'm just saying, imagine Burton receiving a patent for camber profiles. I guarantee all these people would be bashing the B.


----------



## JonesyMalone (Jan 11, 2010)

FYI check the link below for an interesting discussion on invalidating patents. I'm not speculating of course, but finding legal recourse and learning about this unwieldy patent system is pretty neat. Microsoft is trying to get out of a $290M judgement and injunction request. A lot of companies are teaming up in support of MS. I don't mean to stir up arguments of whether this would happen in the snowboard industry - and I really don't care as long as they keep making boards.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/strange-bedfellows-eff-apache-back-microsoft-in-patent-dispute.ars


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

The Never Summer/Mervin Rocker Patent Debate and the debate continues


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> The Never Summer/Mervin Rocker Patent Debate and the debate continues


Nice read. I like how Tim Canaday (I think it was him in the interview) straight up said Mervin copied NS with the C2. Equally interesting is the pizza for patent on Mervin's side and how Mike said he had a conversation with Tim about ReCurve while Tim says it was the lawyers.


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

I think it was actually Tracey. I have a photo of Mike Olson talking to NS in the NS booth at SIA. I'll have to dig it up.


----------



## Leo (Nov 24, 2009)

BurtonAvenger said:


> I think it was actually Tracey. I have a photo of Mike Olson talking to NS in the NS booth at SIA. I'll have to dig it up.


Interesting. Then you will have evidence that NS lied about something... this is getting really interesting now... well not the patent thing. The war between these two haha.

Who wants to see Burton get in on this and claim that the Flying-V was in the works long before Mervin and NS's tech???


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I'd rather they just drop it and let sleeping dogs lie myself. 

It was definitely the lawyers that contacted Neversummer. They got a cease and desist. Owners don't have those served. As far as Tim and Mike talking, it could of happened. The interview was from Tracey's perspective.


----------



## Toddler (Sep 21, 2010)

Seems like they should agree not to contest any patents and charge each other one pizza for every thousand boards sold.
Does Never Summer charge pizza rates for MTX?


----------



## BurtonAvenger (Aug 14, 2007)

Fuck it they both should send me pizza cause 1. I'm hungry and 2. I like pizza then I'll write something that ego strokes everyone involved and will talk about rainbows ejaculating from the penis's being waved around in this conflict. It'll be glorious. MMMM pizza.


----------

