Four Bar Kerfuffle

cooldad

To save paying royalties.

bennett_346

The patent is a different one for use on bicycles and doesn't apply to motorised bikes, and vice versa. What's your point?

paul.skibum

bennett_346 wrote:

The patent is a different one for use on bicycles and doesn't apply to motorised bikes, and vice versa. What's your point?

I think that is his point - why is the bike one a different patent for essentially the same set up. I dotn care but that is the question.

nicklouse

cyd190468 wrote:

That is indeed my point. Only in America can you patent an existing item for a subtly new use. That's why Specialized never went for an international patent on FSR. It was considered unpatentable anywhere outside the US as it already existed.

they did not restrict is to the USA only. try reading it.

Clank

nicklouse wrote:

they did not restrict is to the USA only. try reading it.

This one?

Nothing in there that resembles the back end on an Augusta or a BMW (working on the principle that you can't patent a 'concept', on the means of realis'ng that concept).

YeehaaMcgee

cyd190468 wrote:

Can some one explain to me why there are soooo many US patents on slight variations of what we all know as a four bar linkage. All of them (maestro, DW, Horst, whatever) are slight variations of a parallelogram motorcycle rear end that has been in use since the early fifties. It was designed as a way to stop shaft drive bikes moving up and down at the rear with acceleration and braking forces. (It keeps the rear end active when you speed up or slow down) Sound familiar?

Basically, it's because if someone doesn't patent their design, Specialized will do it for them, and charge them a royalty for the privilege to use their own design.
Which is why many are campaigning against the rather broken US Patent system.

I didn't know any motorcycles used linkage suspension systems though, as I've only ever seen single pivots, with suspension actuated shock.

stubs

The general point is true patent law in the US does seem very odd. I am surprised no one has tried to patent the wheel or a plastic box with rounded corners.

YeehaaMcgee

Someone DID try to patent a box with rounded corners.

supersonic

DW and Maestro maybe a bar, but the kinematics are vastly different from a Horst.

doodoo_voodoo

When reading a patent application, the most important section is the Claims (normally located at the back of the document). These define the scope of protection that is being sought. This scope of protection must be defined in a way that is both novel an inventive over any similar devices that are already known.

Novelty is more straghtforward to show that inventiveness. Let's take bikes as an example. Now, bear with me here, let's imagine that nobody had ever thought to paint a bike red, and I for the first time come up with the idea that I could paint my hitherto black bike red. The new red bike is novel, as no-one had ever thought to paint a bike red before. However, it is not inventive, as it is pretty obvious that you can paint a bike red, and it has no clear advantageous effect.

Now, lets say that I have surprisingly found that in fact my new red bike is twice as fast for half the effort when compared with bikes that are not painted red. I now can argue that in fact my red bike is inventive because it is suprising and non-obvious that a red bike would be so much faster and more efficient than any other colour of bike.

Of course, this is all nonsense as we all know that red bikes are faster...

Whilst a patent may seem to relate to known technology, very often the claims will relate to a specific technical feature of a product that makes the product novel and which gives the product an advantage, and therefore is arguably inventive.

Also, there is a big difference between a patent application and a granted patent. Many patent applications are refused rather than granted as the claimed "invention" is not deemed to meet the requirements for patentability. Often because it is not novel or inventive.

YeehaaMcgee

So, that's how Audi manage to patent every nut and bolt on their cars, because they've never been used on the (new Audi vehicle of your choice) before?

doodoo_voodoo

^ If the new nut or bolt has a non-obvious advantageous effect, then yes. However, if it is simply using a known nut or bolt on a new car, then no.

YeehaaMcgee

What about just "novel use", as in "nobody ever thought of using these brake discs on an Audi A# before"?

doodoo_voodoo

A novel use of a known bit of kit can be patented, but it is normally difficult to convince the patent offices that the novel use is also inventive.

If the brake discs were for another car and you simply chose to now use them with a different car then that would likely not be patentable for the reason that it would be obvious to use brake discs for one car with another car. If there was some surprising technical effect in using the known brake discs on the new car, then there may be an argument for patentability, but it seems unlikely.

ilovedirt

supersonic wrote:

DW and Maestro maybe a bar, but the kinematics are vastly different from a Horst.

What is the difference between DW and Maestro? They look to be the same to me...

Though obviously they're both very different to a Horst/FSR setup.

And also, 4-bar is different to faux-bar yes? As in Horst, FSR, DW, Maestro are all types of 4-bar linkage, but faux-bar describes a single pivot with linkage arrangement, EG pretty much any Kona you can find? I'm just asking as that one has always confused me...

And then Santa Cruz's VPP is something totally different again?

benpinnick

They are in principle the same, but the lengths/angles/kinematics/anti-squat is different (*marketing BS). DW holds a patent on a very narrow range of twin-link set up. Both came well after the first incarnations hit the UK scene.

ilovedirt

Ah ok, so it's not only the type of linkage, but where the pivots are in relation to each other?

YeehaaMcgee

Doodoo, do you have any sense of humour, or do you always take everything literally and at face value?

doodoo_voodoo

I didn't infer any satire from your previous posts; they read to me as bona fide queries.

YeehaaMcgee

Wow.

doodoo_voodoo

Intellectual property and fun don't mix.

benpinnick

ilovedirt wrote:

Ah ok, so it's not only the type of linkage, but where the pivots are in relation to each other?

Its actually a patent (or patents) as I understand it on controlling the axle path. The actual pivot placement is not patented.

YeehaaMcgee

benpinnick wrote:

ilovedirt wrote:

Ah ok, so it's not only the type of linkage, but where the pivots are in relation to each other?

Its actually a patent (or patents) as I understand it on controlling the axle path. The actual pivot placement is not patented.

of course not, otherwise the patent would be invalidated every time you moved the bike

leaflite

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

the patent would be invalidated every time you moved the bike

Which is why there are so many different patents on the same thing

Daz555

cyd190468 wrote:

Can some one explain to me why there are soooo many US patents..

Thread can end right there. US patent system is a complete joke (some other countries are not far behind).

ilovedirt

I'm sure I read that pivot placement is part of the FSR patent...

supersonic

ilovedirt wrote:

supersonic wrote:

DW and Maestro maybe a bar, but the kinematics are vastly different from a Horst.

What is the difference between DW and Maestro? They look to be the same to me...

Though obviously they're both very different to a Horst/FSR setup.

And also, 4-bar is different to faux-bar yes? As in Horst, FSR, DW, Maestro are all types of 4-bar linkage, but faux-bar describes a single pivot with linkage arrangement, EG pretty much any Kona you can find? I'm just asking as that one has always confused me...

And then Santa Cruz's VPP is something totally different again?

It's not just the basic 'has four bars', but what they achieve - levels of anti squat, braking effects, pedal feedback, axle paths, instant centre migration, leverage ratios - and combinations of these. Download Linkage to see the differences.

The Horst link (which was seen way before Spesh patented it) was first seen in the early 90s, and on a bike was unique. Specialized patented it in about 1997.

Clank

From a PM I've just picked up,

cyd190468 wrote:

Subject: Four Bar Kerfuffle

Clank wrote:

nicklouse wrote:

they did not restrict is to the USA only. try reading it.

This one?

Nothing in there that resembles the back end on an Augusta or a BMW (working on the principle that you can't patent a 'concept', on the means of realis'ng that concept).

If you move the seat stay pivot down the back nearer the axle its exactly the same as the MV Agusta in the link I posted (Parallelogramo)

They're quite different, and here's why. The shock positioning, as well as all the pivot points and link length ratios are different. Therefore the entire geometry and actuation/wheel path kinematics and damping characteristics, are likewise different. You're focussing too much on 'concept' (which to be fair, you have got pretty much nailed) and not enough on the 'realisation'. As they say, the devil is in the detail.

I'd rather the discussion was kept in the public arena, but it's nice to know my posts get read!

I do like the meccano idea, though. You never know what you might come up with!

On another note, the earliest patent covering a coil-based suspension system for a bicycle I've found so far, dates back to 1899 - looked remarkabley like a Pro-flex Animal! (please tell me I'm not the only that remembers them :oops: ) There was one from 1895, but that seemed to use flexible couplings.

YeehaaMcgee

When I first got a full suspension mtb, the old fella across the road was amazed, and enthralled by it. He was an engineery type, doing up old motorcycles and the like, including fabricating his own parts for them.
Anyway, after poking it, riding it, weighing it up etc, he excitedly hobbled off to his garage before re emerging after a short while with very old drawings he'd been working on before being called to go to war. Turns out he was designing - and had just started trying to build, an off road bicycle, with front and rear suspension in the pre war days!

stubs

Spotted a bike this morning chained outside a shop. It was an old bike going by the components late 80s Shimano Dx groupset and Weinamann wheels. Skinny steel frame with a four bar back end but instead of a shock it had a giant rubber band in the same position as a Scott genius behind the seatpost obviously working as a pull shock. Looked very interesting and never seen anything like it, unfortunately didnt have my phone with me so couldnt take a shot drove past half hour later but it had gone. Couldnt see any damping on it so must be like riding a pogo stick unless there is some form of friction damping. Amazing how things have progressed in just 20 odd years.

VWsurfbum

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

When I first got a full suspension mtb, the old fella across the road was amazed, and enthralled by it. He was an engineery type, doing up old motorcycles and the like, including fabricating his own parts for them.
Anyway, after poking it, riding it, weighing it up etc, he excitedly hobbled off to his garage before re emerging after a short while with very old drawings he'd been working on before being called to go to war. Turns out he was designing - and had just started trying to build, an off road bicycle, with front and rear suspension in the pre war days!

My Grandad was like that, always had designed or made things before they came out. Old people are cool 8)