Court Issues Ruling In Split Pivot Lawsuit

Dec 16, 2013
by Mike Kazimer  
According to Bicycle Retailer and Industry News (BRAIN), a Wisconsin judge has ruled that Trek's Active Brake Pivot technology does not infringe on Dave Weagle's Split Pivot suspension patent. Weagle had filed the suit in September, 2012, alleging that Trek willfully infringed patents 7,717,212 and 8,002,301. The article says that regarding patent '301, the judge "found enough difference in leverage ratio curves to rule Trek did not infringe on this Split Pivot patent." Regarding patent '212, there was no infringement, "because the rear shocks Trek uses do not closely conform to the shocks Split Pivot describes in the patent." Dave Weagle intends to appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Court.

photo
Although they share a similar design, a judge has ruled that Trek's ABP suspension design does not infringe on the Split Pivot patents.


Full Article

Posted In:
Industry News


Author Info:
mikekazimer avatar

Member since Feb 1, 2009
1,719 articles

218 Comments
  • 400 3
 would of been more entertaining if the judge came to a split decision....
  • 7 32
flag richierocket (Dec 16, 2013 at 21:48) (Below Threshold)
 Finally, we can end this discussion and TREK won't end up in prision...
  • 10 2
 first Watergate now Waterloo...
  • 24 23
 Looks like a session?
  • 9 11
 I see what you did there!
  • 13 1
 Judge rides a Trek!
  • 3 0
 nvm, he still have giant to fight.
  • 6 4
 We all eat food, we all go to the toilet as a result. I think I'm going to take weagle's stance and patent how we eat and crap (can you hear the sarcasm in my post!?!) it's sad that an individual who came to notoriety and has been responsible for such innovation in the industry (evil bikes, e13 components, etc, etc) and was once the underdog, now seems to be himseld stifling innovation and progression through such a vague patent. Major negative props to the man. Madee want to sell my evil now
  • 1 0
 Your way off.....
  • 137 17
 Weagle got robbed!
  • 45 11
 I hope he gets what is rightly his, not the first time he's been screwed by a large bike company...
  • 25 33
flag Nate-Clark (Dec 16, 2013 at 18:52) (Below Threshold)
 Trek just f*cks over everyone!
  • 51 9
 Except Specialized.
  • 22 66
flag wuzupjosh (Dec 16, 2013 at 19:26) (Below Threshold)
 spec is bad thats why
  • 31 33
 ^^^^^ Idiot ^^^^^
  • 10 68
flag wuzupjosh (Dec 16, 2013 at 21:02) (Below Threshold)
 shut up bro
  • 31 16
 Granted the patent was pretty stupid in the first place, because it is arguably holding back the evolution of suspension designs
  • 43 14
 Bike suspension patents are bullshit. Rehash of century old vehicle technologies. Plenty of other ways to differentiate bikes, no need for patent protection here. Nothing really innovative.
  • 49 20
 Having a patent on a f*cking pivot is a joke anyway " oh hey I invented that pivot that's mine " what a load of bullshit
  • 24 0
 Maybe I don't understand something but on the Split Pivot site, the patent has 18th of May 2010 date on it ( split-pivot.com/Weagle%20Split%20Pivot%20Patent%207717212.pdf ). As far as i remember Trek had the ABP and Full Floater on their bikes (eg. Remedy) from 2008/9. Now, i'm no bicycle designer but i assume that designing a bike doesn't take 5min but is a lengthy process.

Also, I know that D W is a clever guy but he's not the only person in the world capable of inventing a suspension system that works, right? If the system like ABP/Full Floater or Split pivot is technically a good idea i'm sure that a clued up engineer that's into this stuff could work it out. Is it really Trek's (or any big companies for that matter) fault that they can chuck big resources at their R&D and get there before somebody else? In my opinion this puts the bar higher and cause more ambitious and innovative designs to be created.

At the end, we all get a better product to ride...
  • 28 6
 Patents are there to protect intellectual property. If Weagle spends years designing a new suspension design and then a company rips it off.. how do you think he's going to feel? He leases his designs out for a period of time; like he did with Iron Horse. They didn't renew the lease and subsequently lost the plot. Devinci is simply leasing the split pivot design from him, they aren't the only company using it. 'Holding back the evolution of suspension' - it's not like we're trying to go to the moon here.

It's his livelihood at the end of the day so good luck to him if he really believes that Trek has infringed on his patent.

Bigburd - actually no, I can't be arsed to reply to that.
  • 17 1
 Jezzah that's the thing, he did not spend years coming up with a concentric pivot. It's been done, and it's the only thing similar between split pivot and abp. Frankly, everybody should be able to use concentric pivots I agree that patents on this type of stuff hinder's the progression of design. What really makes the Trek bikes rip IMO is the Full-Floater shock design. Im sure that Weagle's patent includes leverage ratio and shock placement because you can not simply patent the notion of a concentric pivot. I think this whole thing is insane.
  • 8 0
 @jezzah: If Weagle spent years not really innovating anything, but just coming up with a patentable version of a known concept - by applying it to a bicycle, it is his problem.
  • 5 11
flag hamncheez (Dec 17, 2013 at 9:32) (Below Threshold)
 patents cause far more harm than good. Get rid of them!
  • 12 0
 just throwing this out there.. apple try to patent the rectangle
  • 24 7
 Every time somebody get sued, we ALL lose a little freedom, because in part, insurance companies listen and then make coverage more expensive or unavailable. Freedom is something we should protect fiercely. I'm not a fan of people who throw law suits around all of the time. They are the reason it's so hard to get insurance for running DH Hills in Ontario and the reason Blue Mountain had to remove all of their jumps. Law suits also had an effect on the Closing of DH at Calabogie peaks. Man up Weagle, money isn't everything. Actually earn some respect rather that using the courts to get it or trying to buy it, and that will take you a long long way. Be a citizen.
  • 4 3
 I wish I could give foghorn1 more rep points.
  • 3 0
 It is an evil practice, sometimes fair, but often just lawyers and lazy greedy folks stealing money.
  • 14 0
 Weagle didn't get robbed. He's carefully cultivated the embattled inventor persona in the industry while leveraging his patents for license fees from several companies. If he can successfully license his intellectual property, more power to him. But he plays the game and knows it well. Trek is not a bad company just because they have enough resources to fight a full leagle battle and don't feel the need to license technology not covered by Weagle's patents.
  • 1 0
 On the link that @samsquamsh posted; Weagle's patent was filed in 2006, as far as I know Trek did not make any bike with ABP until 2008.
  • 3 2
 There should be no patents on bikes. Every person should own a bike and took care of it by law. And the law would state that anybody who patents a bike part/bike, should be punished by removing hes bike from him permanently, so the rest of the world would laugh at his sorry ass.
When one says patents encourage innovation, it means they only understand the logic of monopoly, nothing else. Bikes are overpriced, and it should be the half of the price for the very best models.
Majority of the bikes if done in Asia, so why not remove the whole patent shit, lower the prices, and let each town/city has a few bike manufacturers.
Riders would be happy, innovation would flourish, and only sad
  • 1 0
 lol..
  • 3 0
 Weagle did not get robbed, these are both patents which should be thrown out on the grounds of both prior art and the obvious nature of the design.
  • 54 20
 who cares!!! go ride your bike!
  • 11 6
 Dis man speaks wisely
  • 6 5
 No joke. So many sue happy's out there.
  • 31 65
flag WAKIdesigns (Dec 17, 2013 at 1:02) (Below Threshold)
 Parabiker - are you sure can you live up to that sentence?

Oh you are 17... learn your wee wee control first before you teach daddies how to spend their time. Someone like us commenting and whining has to pay your "teenage overheads" so that you can whine instead of working and bouncing toddlers on your thigh. About that wee wee - remember: longer relationships are better training camps than few short ones, party sex is particularly not a good mean of deliberate practice it is also not as good as spiritual shag. Watch out with masterbation! If you do it every two or three days it will prolong your intercourse but also improve the quality of the sperm increasing your chance to become a dad. Oh and remember about the pineapple and off course: NO asparagus! - very important!
  • 19 0
 wut?
  • 12 8
 Hahahaha love you waki ^_^
  • 8 3
 Waki... it clearly states he's 19 not 17! you should probably read his profile properly.....
  • 13 14
 davehayz93 - Oh, so that was your biggest problem with my troll-post?

Remember: if you feel like this is going to be the party or a date where you might score - stay away from the asparagus!
  • 12 1
 Well after reading a few lines I couldn't be assed reading the rest.. because all your posts are the same old bullshit! unlucky.
  • 14 27
flag WAKIdesigns (Dec 17, 2013 at 5:13) (Below Threshold)
 I have a sexual advice for you as well: if you are about to shag a sheep, then put it against the edge of the mountain - it pushes back better!
  • 13 2
 Wheyy classic, I can see you're a true geographical guy, 'oh look.. the Welsh flag, that must mean he fucks sheep'... thanks for the sexual advice, just too let you know you don't actually have to reply again, the 1st comment you made already made you look like a massive cock but i'm guessing you already know that judging by the small pathetic comments your making because you have no defence.
  • 7 16
flag WAKIdesigns (Dec 17, 2013 at 5:27) (Below Threshold)
 I am just messing with you... Jeeez fkn Henry the 8th. Thank Billy Conolly for educating people in the world about races inhabiting the British Islands.
  • 7 4
 Waki's original point, classically obscured by his sense of humor, still stands. This matters a lot in some circles. To the people who don't care, I apologize for holding you down and making you read it.
  • 6 3
 WTF??? LMFAO!!!!
  • 2 3
 Best response ever Parabiker. PB needs people who can laugh at stuff instead of getting mad.
  • 5 11
flag WAKIdesigns (Dec 17, 2013 at 7:36) (Below Threshold)
 Parabiker, with all the honesty, it was nothing against you personally, I was just taking a pixx at that frequently repeated argument: just go out and ride Big Grin Until some under-age insecure guy from around Cardiff came by, I am surprised he didn't go: "Cadwch Cymru yn lan. Danfonwch y sbwriel i Loegr!"
  • 4 1
 no i was never mad, i just posted that last night and no one responded and i wake up today and people are getting all butthurt over dumb shit i find it funny!!!!!
  • 3 4
 I'm riding your mom because she looks like a trek session. There I win, stupidest thing ever!
  • 1 0
 I take it back.. you're not a geographical guy after all. because Cardiff's on the other end of Wales from where I live, im sure you checked my profile so you knew how old I was, at the same time checked where I was from.. Damn you retard Wiki... also you just said 'Keep Wales coast. Refuse to England Send the' which makes no sense...
  • 2 0
 No I did not wiki you, the Welsh flag next to your username was the only thing I got a clue from. And with all the respect - who cares in which part of Wales do you live, when most of people barely care in which part of Europe Wales is located. Go up north and learn some humour yer wee beige wiener.
  • 1 0
 Your English is just a bad as your Welsh, no wonder it made no sense, put your head in your hands.
  • 2 0
 Im not getting any sht for my English from a native English speaker, especially from UK. People in US at least learn some Spanish you can't even order coffee in other language. Oh and BTW my English got worse after I learned Swedish. Go put on your wellies with fronts streched by goats legs, you Bum pot
  • 1 1
 Are you even trying?
  • 2 1
 You are the very best example that the rumours about limited gene pool are true. I'm off...
  • 2 1
 Is there any way to unsubscribe from these comments? This is old
  • 1 1
 yeah, hit unsubscribe on your dash right after you delete a comment.
  • 24 0
 im no legal guru, but having just attempted to wade through all the legalese bullshit of both weagles and treks patents relating to split pivot designs, i tend to agree with the judges ruling. Not because of some small discrepancy with leverage ratios or pivot placements here or there, but more because it seems to me that the trek patent is simply trying to describe their own specific suspension design, in an attempt to stop blatant forgeries, while weagles patent seems intent on being as wide ranging (and therefor vague) as possible, in order to cover as many different incarnations of a rear suspension system with a (unpatentable) concentric rear axle pivot. trek seem to be trying to protect and validate the many hours and dollars they will have undoubtedly put into their own specific version of the design, while weagle seems to be trying to extract as many dollars as possible, from as many designs as possible, to validate the hours he put into deciding a concentric rear axle pivot would make for a pretty sweet component in many rear suspension designs. No disrespect to weagle here, he has brought many good ideas to the sport, but the fact is, in my eyes, his patent was intended to be vague, in order to catch other designers out. He tried to play the system. trek played it better in focussing solely on what they could prove was their operational design, and they caught weagle out. Not the conclusion i expected to reach when i started to read the patents....
  • 3 0
 agree 100% here
  • 2 0
 Exactly right - Weagles patents are written to look as broadly applicable as possible (e.g., figures of suspension linkages clearly available in the industry before his designs), but they ultimately cover very narrow suspension designs/performance.

By the way, his own interviews cut against broad patent coverage - he's always emphasizing that very minor changes have major impacts on his suspension designs. Several of his patents seek to protect suspension configurations that provide a very specific type of suspension behavior. Yet, with slight changes to pivot placement, linkage placement and length, etc., you can arrive at viable suspension designs that fall well outside his contribution.
  • 25 8
 I really want to know what made the court think that they were different. To the naked eye they look nearly identical
  • 24 2
 "The judge's ruling was based on differing leverage ratios and shock technology used in each suspension design. Weagle plans to appeal."

That's from Vital.
  • 3 0
 clic on the first link
  • 121 8
 The difference is .. The judge rides a trek
  • 65 2
 l wonder where you find a judge with enough knowledge of leverage ratios to make an important decision on them.
  • 20 3
 All the patents, Split Pivot's and Treks's, describe differences in shock mounting and implementation in a suspension system using a concentric pivot at the axle. Of course what's pictured in the article is the concentric pivot, which is not what's being contested.
  • 12 8
 Obviously neither of them invented a concentric rear axle pivot. According to that review of the Orbea enduro bike a couple of weeks back, it was first patented 120 years ago. Patents are a load of shit anyway, thankfully a view shared by most of Asia. Try telling a Chinese factory owner he's infinging on your patent and see how far you get ha ha ha! Patents kill innovation. They themselves deserve to be killed.
  • 5 2
 But I do believe the Weagster tried to sell his idea to Trek, who copied it and changed it enough to avoid his patents, and also falsified documents which were later used as evidence to prove they started their project before Weagle's was released or whatever. I mean, how hard is it to write the wrong date on a drawing, or change the date on a digital camera?
  • 6 1
 ...or the date on a prescription for cortisone cream for saddle sores?
  • 8 0
 @ mnorris122: You may be surprised, but most judges ruling on patent cases do have a lot of clue.
  • 6 4
 This is a load of crap, they are nearly identical. both are single pivot, both have concentric pivots for the rocker... leverage ratios have nothing to do with it, hell the session and the fuel are both the so called ABP yet have massively different leverage ratio and so called shock technologies.... I really hope Dave wins this one
  • 2 0
 Patent judges are versed in law as well as engineering they don't pull your everyday traffic judge in on matters like this... Ie traffic judge... That leverage ratio is 2.71 and his is a 2.72 therefore different... Don't know if that helps any....
  • 6 1
 Here is where I get confused: leverage ratios are product of leverage, a measurement that varies from model to model with lengths of stays and placement of pivots. By this ruling is the judge saying that if Wilson and the Session have the same leverage ratios then they are infringing on each other? Does it matter how they got the ratios? Does he think you can patent a chainstay length? The only thing patented here is pivot placement.
I see the appeal succeding.
I would rather see the patent expired. If small manufacturers could use the DW they might find ways to improve on it.
  • 5 0
 @Iamamodel... exactly. A piece of paper with a date written it by a human doesn't prove anything. Trek copied, but it wasn't an original idea anyway, so they actually unwittingly copied an unoriginal idea that shouldn't have been given a patent anyway, and the only reason it was was because DW had to pay a lot to do so. Same as the Armstrong debacle. Tygart hunted Armstrong like a dog because he needed to in order to justify his own position and keep up with the mortgage payments on his massive lakeside property and his daughter's SLS AMG.
  • 6 1
 A quick note on patents and innovation: There are a number of people on this thread kicking and screaming and insisting that patents stifle innovation. The very nature of patents requires and encourages innovation. In order to receive a patent, DW needed to demonstrate that his split pivot system was an innovation beyond prior art. The same is true (or should be) of any patent. If an idea is patented, competitors can either license the idea (Turner, DeVinci, Iron Horse, etc) or innovate. As the age old adage says, necessity is the mother of all invention. Patents necessitate and encourage innovation by protecting inventions from unlicensed copying.
  • 5 1
 Patents do not stifle innovation. Abuse of patents, weak patents, patent trolls, incessant litigation stifle innovation.
  • 4 0
 Patents prevent innovation that too closely resembles previous art without a license. In other words: I can't build on your foundation without paying you. Sounds reasonable, and it is for a while. Just not for decades on end.

The argument that patents encourage innovation is an old one that has been debunked pretty thoroughly by the rise of open source software. How good would android be if they were the only source for apps? There would be about as many as you can get for Blackberry. Instead you can choose from millions. In Android's case it is profitable to encourage innovation without excessive copyrights. It is a win win since they make more money and we get more apps.

Bike companies aren't so lucky. They would lose money, but we would get way more options. Small producers would do things Trek and DW never dreamed of since they wouldn't have to license the stuff.
Prices would drop too, since to make a bike you wouldn't have to buy rights, just parts. You sick of $10,000 bikes?

Disney died, but people who had nothing to do with his genius continue to sell Mickey Mouse.
Hardware patents make phones cost hundreds.
Sons of Anarchy rips off Shakespeare and people call it good TV, but watch them try to rip off Tolkien or Marvel Comics (not half as good as The Bard) and soon heads will roll.

Patents keep big boys in charge of the game without innovating significantly. Apple is trying that route now. I bet you they are just like HP in ten years: all but dead.
  • 3 0
 Open development platforms are hardly proof that patents stifle innovation.
  • 2 0
 They are a good start. Considering how much effort it would take to build anything new when your only way forward with a new design is to go to a big company to sell it. That puts all the pressure on the big companies to determine if something is quality before they start production, due to cost of licensing, instead of leaving it to the market to determine if something was worth selling.
  • 2 0
 There is a reasonable balance to be had with various intellectual property laws. Stop extending copyright indefinitely (Mickey Mouse law). Stop software patents - anything that a few engineers can come up in a few days just by doing their work shuold not be patentable. Limit patentability of application of old technology to a new field, like most of the bike suspension patents..

There are essentially open source bike suspension designs out there, including multilink ones. And Horst link is now out of the woods. Dave Weagle patents bug me as they are full of generic crap, and he is not afraid to sue people.

But there is nothing wrong with protecting appearance, or brand, or even an exact suspension tune of a bike - if it is narrow and specific enough. Looks like this case makes a precedent.
  • 2 0
 I agree to most of that^, up until exact suspension tune. It sounds like patenting a hair do to me. The part is exactly 2.3cm to the left. . .
Nah. How you get the tune: special dampers etcetera, sure. The tune itself? Then we will see: his shock can't have platform because mine does. I invented that! LAW SUIT!!!!
  • 2 0
 Probably minor details like that, if you really want to be protected from exact cloning by Chinese can be handled by design patents. Yes, those of the infamous Apple's square tablet design, but with a bike that can be fairly harmless. Hard to strike a balance, but to be honest the current situation is not the end of the world.
  • 3 0
 No, the end of the world would be a meteor the size of Manhattan smashing through the earth's crust, throwing gassified rock into the air that flash burns us all to death. This is not that.
  • 13 0
 If the patents go into shock type, then Treks DRCV shock and floating pivot is what likely made them different enough for the judge to decide that way.
  • 4 1
 what floating pivot ?? they are both single pivots; chainstays connects both frame and wheel, hence the ''single'' pivot. VPP, FSR, MAESTRO etc... have that so called ''floating pivot'' not ABP or SPLIT.
  • 4 0
 Trek's design has the shock's bottom mount being connected to the chainstay, not the frame
  • 4 0
 By floating pivot, he meant floating shock mount.
  • 1 0
 yeah I realized it after... sorry
  • 6 1
 Regardless if he wins or not. Or is a good guy or a bad guy. It does suck that he went to a company they turn him down and just randomly come up with something that is almost identical the very next day. Just put yourself in his shoes, you would be pissed.
  • 2 0
 That' how big companies become big they're clever and they know how to play the game!
  • 1 0
 There was a great Hollywood film a few years ago about a guy who invented the windshield wiper, went to Ford to sell the idea, and Ford screwed him, did exactly what Seanstdenis and Dexta write. I don't want to spoil the film's ending but it ends up being a lifelong court drama about windshield wipers. Still good though.
  • 1 0
 It happened the same with the Sony Walkman, that was "invented" by a Brazilian and them Sony copied... But the guy won some years ago some money from Sony
  • 1 0
 Greatest film ever lol

lifelong court drama about windshield wipers......don't get me excited too much hahaha
  • 1 0
 Hahaha @Elanto don't be so prejudgmental Big Grin Gravity is a movie where for 80% of the time you watch Sandra Bullock floating in space in her space suit , yet the movie is bloody amazing. Other movie like that is "Murder in Venice" which is a movie about a guy in a fkng gondola boat.
  • 11 1
 Fight, fight, fight....
  • 17 6
 Don't say "fight" too many times like I did. I had an effin pink bike administrator send me a warning because he didn't like how I cut and paste fight about 50 times. He sed 3 times is the max. Hahaha!! Whadeva!!
  • 7 1
 Good thing he only said fight 3 times than...
  • 7 0
 Candy man ... candyman .. can... nah fuck that just incase !
  • 4 0
 I am against patenting every single little thing in this industry! It hinders development, if all companies could use all the designs and patented mechanisms they could always add onto it or make improvements therefore leading the development of the industry on! Sadly most of these companies are only interested in the money
  • 13 5
 a wisconsin judge, eh? isn't trek's HQ located in wisconsin?....
  • 10 0
 That would be one of the proper forum's to bring an action against Trek being that their principal place of business is within that state.
  • 1 0
 In Watertown, WI
  • 1 0
 You have to start the case where the crime was committed, right?
  • 2 0
 There are a variety of ways of determining the proper forum to bring an action. Even though Trek may have its principal place of business in WI and perhaps be incorporated in Delaware, one wouldn't be limited to bringing an action in those two forums. If Trek conducts a substantial amount of it's business in other states or at least whichever state Weagle is from, then those states could exercise long arm jurisdiction and require Trek to be sued in their state. However, the moving party, Weagle, may have opted for WI because he felt the laws are plaintiff friendly and there would be less civil procedure work in bringing an action against Trek in its home state.
  • 5 1
 Dispite from this trek story - Does nobody wonder why D.W. was never hired for good salary by some big brand but his name often appears in lawsuit stories sometimes?
Did anybody work with him personally? I guess not.
Why his he always good and the big ones always bad. I just don't get it. If D.W. wouls always be the nicest and best, why didn't he join a big name yet forever?
Don't get me wrong guys, I'm neither on Trek's nor Weagle's side. But sometimes it seems to me Weagle appears same often on court like the so called bad and evil big ones.
  • 6 0
 The funny thing is that they are both probably re-hashed designs from 1927 like much of the stuff out there.
  • 7 0
 A bit more clicking reveals a bit more info:

"But while the concentric pivot is the most noticeable feature of both designs, in itself the pivot is not even patentable — that innovation dates to the early 20th or even late 19th century. The Trek and Split Pivot patents differ in the ways the rear suspension linkages connect to the front triangle and the shock."

Source: www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2012/09/07/weagle-sues-trek-over-suspension-patent#.Uq_jjxS4aP8
  • 7 1
 What about Maestro and DW link?
  • 14 3
 The DW stands for Dave Weagle.
  • 13 2
 There is more difference between maestro and DW link. DW has an entire link that is inverted compared to Maestro. Santa Cruz's VPP is closer to DW but still quite different in link travel. These however, are exactly the same linkage design. If small differences in shock leverage differentiated suspension no one would ever have to pay specialized for horst link, as no one has the exact same ratio or pattern. I think Dave got robbed on this one.
  • 3 0
 I believe its the rotation of the pivots that is in question. in DW and maestro both of the links rotate clockwise, where in vpp the top link move counterclockwise. I'm pretty sure he is in a law suit with Giant... thats why I ask.
  • 14 41
flag dirteveryday (Dec 16, 2013 at 18:06) (Below Threshold)
 DW= Dick Weed.

Don't like him or one single one of his designs or products. Hope he has to get a real job now.

Note to internet users: If you are a moronic douche bag, stay off the forums and keep your mouth shut so no one knows and you will go much further.

I think Wiggle needs to go work for Specialized, then together they can start suing every company who tries to put round wheels on their bikes.
  • 2 0
 I know the VPP patents specifically cover counter-rotating links (i.e. the upper and lower links rotating in opposite directions)
  • 1 6
flag wuzupjosh (Dec 16, 2013 at 19:31) (Below Threshold)
 wow bud u should do some research cuz dw and specialized are wuite a bit different in how the go about things im partial to dw anyway because i havnt liked one specialized ive seen with suspension ever but this is crappy for him
  • 7 2
 @ dirteveryday Haters gonna hate.

Hope Dave gets a different ruling from the Federal Court. He played an important part in the engineering progression of the sport and deserves to reap the rewards. Trek can really go and come up with another design, their ABP is getting stale anyways. Or else they can just pay DW a royalty.
  • 2 1
 fight fight fight sue everyone in the business
  • 4 0
 Sometimes I actually wonder how important he really is to the industry, especially when you hear/read an interview of him. Each time he talks about one of his products, he says there was nothing good before and then he did something.... He did good stuffs for sure (particularly think of E13, and I'm in love with the Devinci Wilson), but he's also very good at claiming he's good!
Anyway, discussions about the ruling is probably irrelevant as most of us did not read both patents. I read the DW link one, and I can say I wouldn't be afraid to make a bike company with bikes sporting dual links. Patents are to vague (DW) or too restrictive and not even followed anymore by the companies holding them (ex: S-shape wheel path on Santa Cruz VPP)
If I understand the guys want to protect an invention, I find it very annoying when something not new is patented (concentric pivot are not new) just with some additional trickery to make it valid to the patent office. I wonder what will be the position of SRAM for instance with their thick thin pattern for chainrings, also something really old, but patented with some extra details. Wait and see.
  • 3 5
 EnduroManiac - it's simple - he needs to justify his existence and pump up his market value - I'm pretty sure mos of us would do that in his positionBig Grin

Ehh, these patents are screwed up as there are very few reasonable ways to connect the rear wheel to the front triangle... I think patents prevent many talented small frame builders from getting into the business. After all, whoever says whatever it is not that complicated to make a bicycle frame.
  • 1 0
 Totally agree. Or at least it limits the spectrum of those small brands as those patents are usually US only (I think CAN as well). Small brands would not enter these markets for the simple reason it would cost them too much time and money to prove they are not infringing those patents.
  • 1 0
 Dw link and mondraker's zero suspesion is the same
  • 2 0
 Mondraker's Zero and Giant's Maestro are even more similar I think. But yeah it goes the same direction.

Whatever what would be really funny would be to patent the claims they make, I mean the marketing ones! Because all of them always make the same claims:
_ more efficient pedaling
_ more sensitivity
_ bottomless feeling
_ Stiffer
_ Lighter...

Strangely enough nobody ever said "more fun". Maybe we don't realize that's why we ride in the first place.
  • 2 0
 @Waki, EnduroManiac Patents main purpose is to create barriers to entry for those who are trying to steal one's intellectual property. In a capitalist market this leads to more innovation and lowers the prices for consumers. If there is a welder in some garage who has got a new innovative design that can be successful than he can enter the market by all means, but it has to be carried out properly. Here are some examples of small innovative bike companies: Knolly, Banshee, Cove, Evil to name the few. So I don't see what the big deal is. Innovators have the right to protect their intellectual property. If we didn't have patents than a lot of us, i.e. consumers would be unhappy because every bike could be built by some half ass manufacturer in China for a margin of a real quality product.
  • 1 0
 Leading to more innovation: agree. As one design is locked, other will have to invent new ones. On the other hand there are no thousand ways to make a bike suspension that would not be overly complicated. So if all new design would get patented you would get stuck to one brand per design, and that would really suck.
Lowering price: patent = monopoly so how could it lower the price? That's non-sense. License fee may be? Ah no it's not gonna help lowering prices.
As for your innovative brands, Banshee and Cove their design is actually covered by the patent description of DW- Link. And Evil has it's own patented design, made by... Weagle.
And sorry to open your eyes, but some China's manufacturers don't give a shit about patents, SOME (we shouldn't put all chinese in the same basket) already don't mind copying or even counterfacting. And you should be able to make a difference between a quality product and a non-quality product by something else than its price tag.
  • 1 0
 someguy - you speak of patents in general, I speak of patents in bicycle industry, exclusive MTB segments in particular - a bike is a bloody simple thing sold in small quantities, not a biotech prothesis, new kind of clutch for a car or a velcro 3.0 gecko strap that will be used in trillions of products.

Patents last too long and should expire much quicker. Half pof them are ridiculous because most of them are nearly identical and instead of patent protecting intellectual rights we have a stupid rule evading. Mondraker, Giant, Banshee - this is the same suspension thing, some small details differ. As I said: there are limited ways of connecting rear wheel to the front traingle - inventing something new can turn out real stupid - look at Evil UNdead frame or latest Commencals or Scott Voltage - WTF is that? Pure bollocks driven by the patent firewall. For instance I want to start a small production and I cannot be happier for FSR to expire, that is one of the best industry news I heard this year. Thanks to that I can provide an alternative,

Then what is your problem with "Chinese" manufacturers "stealing" designs? - I say, you produce it there then deal with your sht! Why a manufacturer should be forbidden to do the same thing on his own hand? I think there should be a law saying that after producing certain number of units of a thig you own right to produce it on your own. And as EnduroManiac says they don't give a damn anyways.
  • 2 0
 @WAKI I agree that patents shouldn't last along time, just enough time for the designer to reap the rewards of his work. And you are probably right about there being only so many ways to connect a wheel to the front triangle, Im not an engineer though.

That being said, I would rather give my money to the company that had the design for a while and had perfected their design and manufacturing to produce an excellent quality product. Specialized is one company I trust, since they put in the time and money into R&D to perfect their designs. Norco used FSR for a while as well so I don't think smaller companies are really that disadvantaged due to patents.

Evil's Revolt was a floating pivot by DW, and the Undead/Uprising is the single pivot. I happen to think the Evil Revolt was a unique looking bike just like the new Scott Voltage. I think patents force companies to come up with a more creative designs and that's the whole point.
  • 3 0
 Evil's Revolt and Undead are pretty much (if not exactly) identical except for the material. Call them as you want but they are single pivots with a (very) complicated linker. And I guess that's what bothers Waki: some brands come up with some fancy patents just because they think they are going to bring something from marketing standpoint. Even brands with a stupid single pivot + linker as basic as you can imagine show up with a ridiculous acronym that they can boast as a proof of development... (exception: the one of Transition for their last Covert). In new bike presentation brands without acronym for their suspension find the need to justify themselves for it!!
And then you'll hear "it allows us to tune the curve of the suspension...." yeah right, like any smartly designed single pivot with linker... So why did they make it complicated? To look good? The Evil looks particularly fancy I must admit, including the linkage but that surely is an example of useless complexity.
  • 1 0
 Evil Revolt is not "identical" to Undead/Uprising. The bottom shock mount mount is located on the rear triangle and not in the front triangle like the Undead. I heard it is suppose to create a floating pivot design and not single pivot.
Some people like their single pivots complicated. If others like a beaten down design of an Orange Patriot than that's their problem.
Yes there is a lot of marketing involved today in biking industry but that is identical to any other industry. Ever built your own PC rig, there is millions of options to choose from for you PC spec. Every company claims they are DA SHIT.

PS I though COCK & BALLS were real engineering acronyms Wink
  • 1 0
 The only thing I can see different between Revolt and Undead is they put the shock upside down on the Undead. Is that what you mean? It may slightly lower gravity center. Else nothing.
All I'm saying is some linkage are extremely complicated without reason. I'm not saying all bikes should look like an Orange! But a single pivot and a smart linkage give excellent control on suspension (less fanciness on wheel path like any dual link name it VPP DW or whatever). Less complications are more reliability and less maintenance. I think the funny small linkage of the Revolt suffered some reliability issues for instance. Could be random, ok. Don't get me wrong here, I have no hate for Evil bikes, and I find them the sexiest (with Intense).
  • 1 0
 I think all Evil bikes look absolutely awesome, and the suspension design is the main reason for it to be so. However this suspension is one of the issues that make it such a structural failure. Latest Commencal bikes look super cool as well BUT they have plenty of issues that are inherent to the suspension like Meta series having air shock shaft exposed to all sort of stuff coming off the rear wheel. I guess it is the case of look good taking over function, which can be observed in all sorts of designs, from coffee pots to sport cars. And off course there is nothig wrong with that.

I agree that to some extent patents do motivate people to innovate more, but I honestly believe that the best designers have this internal pride to do something on their own, even if there were no patent limitations. There is a thin line between insipration and plagiarism, but in my short experience as an architect, the mix of persistence, genuine creativity and insipration is what makes the best designs. Apple - anybody? Gravity dropper - first to really make it, but it was the KS and Reverb that stole the show. No matter how much we hate it, cause it smells of stealing, we must acknowledge the fact that it takes a special mind to take some idea to it's full potential and the original inventor is not necessarily the very man to do it. At the same time, whenever we get to hooked up on some reference project in the office, and we mimmick it, it never comes out well, because it is our implementation of someone's genuine thought, and his work had a different context and set of circumstances. You have to start somewhere though, you have to do the work of learning on classics, and that first step is very hard when you have big boys telling you that you cannot do this and that. I say that at least in bicycle design, patents should not last longer than 10 years, just as you say @someguy - so that the inventor or developer gets some part of his investment back.
  • 1 0
 That discussion has been a great food for thought - thanks guys Big Grin
  • 1 0
 Yeah WAKI, nice discussion.

@ EnduroManiac To follow up on the Evil bikes discussion. Here is a link to Interview with Evil's owner describing manufacturing problems with Revolt frame. I think most of the problems that killed the Revolt were due to poor vendor in China.
www.nsmb.com/5211-the-untold-story-of-absolute-evil

But the difference between Revolt and Undead is that on Revolt the bottom end of the shock is attached to the swing arm and on the Undead it is attached to the front triangle. So on Undead it is a single pivot and the shock is actuated by the linkages. On the Revolt it is a bit more complex.

Some good close up images here:

Revolt: www.thebikelist.co.uk/evil/revolt-dh-frame-2011
Undead: fanatikbike.com/product/evil-undead-frame-9927.htm
  • 1 0
 It's a bit easy to blame the manufacturer. I guess both have their part in the story. And I think so even more as you seem to be right about shock mount (though it's really hard to see on the Undead pics, but I had missed that info). I think the main issue they had were some rear triangle breaking (the tiny links are not so big of a deal to substitute). Might be the reason why they moved the shock mounting position on the undead? Or one of several reasons. Nevermind the floating shock, the Revolt is a pure (beautiful) single pivot with linker (plus with a totally unified rear triangle).
I wish I could try one of those beauties...
  • 6 1
 Someone is getting screwed. Pretty much a design that was new a few years ago and look identical. Hum.
  • 3 1
 Ha haha. I read through all the comments and it amazes me how opinionated people are without even looking at the patent lol. I mean..."they look the same"! It's not about what they look like lol. It's about how they function and what other hardware is included. iamamodel - you have hit the nail on the head (and bothered to read lol)

Personally we I think we could do without this sort of thing...I can understand why he is pissed but then you gotta say...just maybe he should have been more prudent when putting his patent together. The last thing WE want though as the customers is for companies to start bickering over ambiguous patents (alas Apple / Samsung) as it only hurts the sport by restricting innovation and pushes prices up as companies try to recoup the cost of ridiculous court cases and payouts.

Now...it's a sunny crisp morning so I'm gonna go give my Trek a good thrashing Smile
  • 2 1
 Great Day here in the UK - Unexpected sunny Winter days whooo !!!! Smile
  • 3 0
 Devinci did win the World Cup series this year.... thats what really matters in the end... keep wining races, keep selling bikes.... unless big money takes over your contract and you don't podium all season.....
  • 1 0
 Haaaaaa I see what you did there.
  • 2 0
 The whole concept of the split pivot is to achieve the same function as the FSR suspension system, only it is a design more complex and difficult to manufacture; the function of which being to use the seatstay and rocker link as a brake-arm, directing kinetic energy from the braking process transversely into the rocker link/frame and dissipating the force, instead of this force adding preload to the suspension by adding torque to the chainstay.

For the concept to work best the axis of the rear section of the rocker link would be positioned perpendicular to the seatstay, giving most effective force transfer into the frame [as is found in Brake therapy's active braking linkage system]. However DW's design does not feature a 90 degree angled rocker and instead uses a compromised angle to also attain better pedalling through mechanical inefficiency in the linkage [by having the rocker at an angle to the seatstay that resists natural movement of the linkage] - a feature prevalent in all of DW's linkage designs known as a built in pedal platform.

As such DW's design has no footing as practically every faux bar and FSR system in existence uses the same principle and has a similar angle between the seatstay and rocker link rear-section to achieve pedalling efficiency, DW's design cannot go up against all of these; and the split pivot aspect only helps counter the brake 'dive' component, and you simply can't patent an axled pivot, as such a feature is found in millions of applications all over the world.

I believe there is no argument for DW's design patent, you simply can't patent common sense linkage principles, especially not so broadly as he tried to in his patent, the entire concept isn't even applicable to motorbikes or vehicles despite him trying to include them in his patent.
  • 2 0
 This is the best comment I think I have ever read on pinkbike. These are both variants on a design which probably pre-dates Trek or DW and both are patents which should be thrown out on grounds of prior art and the obvious nature of the design.
  • 7 1
 meh, shut up and ride DW
  • 7 4
 Dave Weagle, go home your rich enough as is. We all know you make a nice little commission off each DW and Split Pivot. Go ride a damn bike
  • 4 0
 *You're.
  • 1 0
 a douch
  • 1 0
 To be honest, there are so many suspension designs out there that visually look the same, how original can you be when it comes to the general design? If you connect the chain stay to the seat stay at the rear axle, it's going to look like the split pivot design. Look at the '301 patent. Figure 11 looks like a Trek with the floating shock, 13 looks like Knolly, new Kona Process, or old Specialized SX Trail designs, and 15 is similar to a Specialized Demo. It's all in the details of how exactly they're set up, where the pivots are placed. For example, while the Demo design looks like figure 15, but the rear axle doesn't go through the point where the seat stays and chain stays are actually connected together. I'm not taking sides here, just saying that it takes an engineering analysis to figure out if Trek did actually steal the design.
  • 6 0
 Dw is a cock
  • 6 4
 Haha. DW needs to give this lawsuit a rest. He didn't invent split pivot nor is it his invention. Trek was selling ABP before DW split pivot even came to light. Trek should be suing Dave for infringement.
  • 2 1
 "found enough difference in leverage ratio curves to rule Trek did not infringe on this Split Pivot patent."
Isn't it the point of Split Pivot? To allow for a lot of changes in leverage ratio by just slightly moving the components or shock?
  • 1 0
 They did a pretty poor job giving us information in this article... They say the shock and leverage ratios were decidedly different... so show us! That way I can make an educated conclusion of whether or not Weagle has a valid complaint. Don't picture the concentric pivots, the part that is exactly the same. In other news, it's not surprising that the side with more money won... more often than not, that's how things wrap up.
  • 2 1
 Good. Our patent system is being abused and bike suspension is a perfect example of that abuse. This current situation is that innovation is being stifled and the majority of inventors are getting screwed over while a handful of people enjoy an unjust but government provided monopoly. Even if you agree with the original stated goals of patents, or even the modern justification, the patent system is not promoting those goals. The public good is not served, innovation is hindered, and people have harder time earning money off of hard work. Instead we're left with a situation in which lawyers and legally adept people grow rich at the expense of absolutely everything else. Patents now rarely have anything to do with innovation or the the promotion of innovation. They are now just a legal game in which scientific progress, public good and fairness are no longer relevant. Seriously. This isn't an extremist opinion. This is the sentiment of a large percentage of people, even in united states. To verify this, check out articles or comments on pretty much any tech website. Their writers and readers know that the system is counter productive. The tide of public opinion is turning. Slowly, but it is turning.
  • 3 2
 Yes, that is an extremist opinion and extremely wrong. Patents and patent applications help drive innovation in many fields, and they support the funding of innumerable, innovative start-ups in this country and around the world.

My question for you is who do you think is abusing the system in this scenario? Having read his patents, my view is Weagle is a hold-up man. He is abusing the system to get payouts from small companies, but the large companies are not willing to fold to his tactics. Has he made contributions? Maybe, but they merit narrow patent protection, at best.
  • 1 0
 You disagree with the opinion, but it isn't extremist. A good percentage of the planet, perhaps even most of the planet, holds that opinion. Without at least acknowledging that fact, it is difficult to even discuss the topic. Don't let your own opinion blind you to the fact that a large number of people hold an opposing opinion.

Who is abusing patents in regard to suspension technology? My take is that all patents based upon pivot placement should be invalid. All pivot placement patents fail the non-obvious test in my opinion.
  • 2 0
 You said patents "are now just a legal game in which scientific progress, public good and fairness are no longer relevant." Many people might share your opinion, but that doesn't mean you're not at the extreme end of the debate (or that you're well informed or correct). I have worked with patents and with small and large companies in several different technology sectors for the better part of 20 years. That your view is extreme is not my opinon - it is fact. You are at an extreme end of the debate. At the other end are many people that feel patent systems should be strengthened, and in the middle falls what is likely the majority - those who recognize the value of and need for patent systems, but who also recognize or accept the need for change when the facts show a change is needed.

And, sorry, but most people on the planet couldn't accurately define what a patent is or how to determine what rights a patent provides. So, I have my doubts that "perhaps even most of the planet" shares your categorical views.

I have worked with companies responsible for products that improve the lives of millions of people around the world (from clean tech, to semiconductor tech, to pharmaceuticals and medical devices). Their innovation is driven by a desire to solve a problem, create a better product, improve lives, etc., and patent protection is a key factor to generating the resources needed to bring their innovations to market. Patent protection is a primary factor in achieving a return on resources invested for product development and in generating the profits needed to reinvest in R&D. It is part of the foundation that drives US innovation, creates continually improving and sometimes life saving products, and supports millions of jobs. I see some "scientific progress, public good and fairness" in those results.
  • 1 0
 It's just rule of the jungle; a good big one will beat a good little one. Weagle had over again. I wonder if Devinci will bother to continue paying him for the Split Pivot license?
Had the shoes been on the other feet, you bet your backside Trek would have put Weagle in court, and probably won.
  • 5 0
 Who cares
  • 1 0
 not me, im just about riding the bikes, this is their shit to argue about.
  • 4 0
 Last I checked ABP has been around far longer than Dave Weagle.
  • 1 0
 ohhh look, more humans arguing about shit... I hope dave weagle makes a TON of money and then allows everybody to use his suspension design... its a win win. humans need to fight though.
  • 1 0
 So many clueless people commenting. No company or person is going to spend time and money bringing a new idea or invention to fruition, if someone else can just take it and under cut you.
  • 1 0
 Well they sould take also Orbea to court because they are using this system too ! lol on there new rallon ( It's the only thing they did not copy from Cannondale Jekyll )
  • 1 1
 I am not surprised that a WI judge ruled in favor of Trek. Trek is just down the road from the capitol and I am sure no Trek money went into the decision at all. But it is what it is, I will keep pedaling.
  • 1 0
 Weagle could have chosen to file his lawsuit in just about any state in the country. Remember - he sued Trek. As a plaintiff filing a lawsuit in a federal court, you have wide discretion. Weagle lost because, after weighing the evidence, the court decided he did not successfully prove infringement. And he can appeal to a court that sits in D.C. with no state connections for much less than he just spent.
  • 3 0
 I see Norco taking specialized to court.
  • 2 1
 what for?
  • 3 0
 Sarcasm and trolling....
  • 4 1
 Well i have both and i like the design
  • 1 0
 I'd like to hear what the end result of this will be when he takes it to the federal courts! It sucks that Dave got shut down by a major company
  • 1 0
 The court was a federal court. State courts can't handle patent infringement suits.
  • 2 0
 if who invented the bicycle, have registered the patent, none of this would happen
  • 1 0
 I don't know why the judge ruled in Treks favor. All Dave needed was this picture: ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb7136239/p5pb7136239.jpg
  • 2 0
 Dave weagle infringes on every arrogant dick that came before him... did he patent that? NO! BOOM!
  • 2 0
 whos the first guy that thought about suspending a bike?? I wonder if they cry infringement every time a bike is made...
  • 2 0
 so what is the real difference between them? some info would be great!
  • 3 0
 I think its a "who came up with it first?" problem... not a "is it similar?" problem.
  • 1 0
 ah... i see
  • 1 0
 Holy cow! ABP Rules. Wtf is split pivot anyways. DW = Devinci Wilson? Haha.
  • 5 4
 They seriously look the same.
  • 1 0
 What is the advantage of a split pivot design anyways?
  • 1 0
 Suspension remains active under braking? Im not sure though
  • 2 0
 Can't patent that shit
  • 7 8
 I would never support any of the big 3 companies. They all do a lot of bullying and then try to make their stuff seem better with all their propietary garbage.
  • 8 1
 Like it or the not Spec and Trek do more good than bad for cycling.
  • 4 0
 Weagle is the one doing the bullying in this case. He's always throwing ugly law suits at people.
  • 3 1
 Ride SantaCruz
  • 1 0
 Why? They just bought Outlands VPP patent.
  • 1 0
 And don't use them anymore! S-shaped wheel path on any recent bike? Not seen!
  • 1 0
 And All of a sudden were all qualified engineers/barristers.
  • 1 0
 I ride a hardtail, less is more. nuff said, lol Big Grin
  • 2 1
 meh
  • 1 2
 Trek and Specialized be messing up, too bad they will always be around due to the large amounts of money they make
  • 6 7
 Pinkbbikers who support Weakly should not buy any Trek products.
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.050265
Mobile Version of Website