Licencing the Skyhook?

[riggermick 6]

Quote

Tom,
You beat me to the Mark Hewitt system.

Good post!

Blue ones,
MEL

BTW, where is mr Hewitt these days? I remember him back in the 80's @ Perris he was one of "the valley boys" (San Fernando that is).


Mick.

[Kris 0]

Quote

Still a bit dubious though, both for the price and that they increased production capacity last year. Dotcom economics died in 2001.

Nope, it's not dotcom economics. If I'm not mistaken, RWS earns their money on replacement parts and *drumroll* Tandem systems.

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[BKR 0]

Quote

Quote

He does licencing it, but it doesn't have any value in a trial because of the previous one made several years ago.

US Patent Office:

"If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries."


Even if the systems were exactly the same, which I doubt, it appears Mr. Fradet forfeited his rights to the system by not taking action years ago.

Sparky

If you can proove that the final use of your system was the same, the licencing will not be valid. When you apply for a patent you (the applicant) must be sure that this patent request doesn't not already exist. This was the case with the hip ring developped by RI. This application was already used by Russian many decades ago and the patent lost its value.

Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

[BillLockwood 0]

Your statements have no merit of law. The patent is valid and has standing in the courts. Until you can cite a ruling otherwise, anything further that you have to say about this issue is irrelevant.

[rasmack 0]

Quote

If you can proove that the final use of your system was the same, the licencing will not be valid...

BS. You patent the implementation. There are probably several different patented can-openers out there.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[masterrigger1 2]

Mick,
I was wondering the same thing!!
Anyone know?

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[BKR 0]

Quote

Your statements have no merit of law. The patent is valid and has standing in the courts. Until you can cite a ruling otherwise, anything further that you have to say about this issue is irrelevant.

Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention , or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.


Is this enough infos for you? This is exactly why it, normally, couldn't be pattended.

Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

[NickDG 23]

>>BTW, where is mr Hewitt these days? I remember him back in the 80's @ Perris he was one of "the valley boys" (San Fernando that is).<<

I saw Mark three nights ago in Perris. Like all of us he's getting a little older, but the original bad boy of BASE is still the same and no mellowing has taken place here. We talked for an hour catching each other up and what he says and thinks about some of today's BASE jumpers is better left unsaid, except to say he had me rolling on the floor in tears of laughter . . .

NickD BASE 194

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

Your statements have no merit of law. The patent is valid and has standing in the courts. Until you can cite a ruling otherwise, anything further that you have to say about this issue is irrelevant.

Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention , or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “ the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .”

In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries.


Is this enough infos for you? This is exactly why it, normally, couldn't be pattended.

Did you read what you posted? It is the same thing I posted in post #25.

If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost.

Did this guy apply for a patent with one year of unveiling of his invention? If not, he is out of luck by your own posting.

Sparky

If you are going to use the bold and underline features, learn how to turn them off.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[rasmack 0]

Quote

Did this guy apply for a patent with one year of unveiling of his invention? If not, he is out of luck by your own posting.

Doesn't matter. If the two systems were truly identical implementations the Skyhook patent would be invalid (prior art). However, from this thread it seems that the two implementations are indeed different. The Skyhook is thus an original invention patented by Mr. Booth and it is his to do with as he chooses.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[BKR 0]

Thank you to have understand what I pointed concerning patent. Both system work exactly the same way and have exactly the same purpose. The only difference is on the material used to make it works. Because of these reason it cannot, normally patented. The problem is coming from the organisation in charge of patents, they do not care of this and just think about making money with their fees. They do not take any responsability for patents they give, even if invention cannot been patented.
To answer to mjosparky, I am not a webmaster and mainly in English, try to do the same in a foreign language and you will see. Please stay cool with foreign people who tried to give infos to a nice thread.
Regards

Jérôme Bunker
Basik Air Concept
www.basik.fr
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Le-Luc-France/BASIK-AIR-CONCEPT/172133350468

[USPA 0]

The systems work differently. The parafun system worked (as i understand it) with a pin and a stiffener near the freebag. The skyhook system works completly different. The effects both systems have are (almost) the same, but they do it in different ways. THIS can be patented, like someone else said in the thread, there a different pattented can-openers. Also if you are computer save, HD-DVD and blu-ray do exactly the same (in your comparison), but they are 2 different patents.

The trouble with skydiving; If you stink at it and continue to jump, you'll die. If you're good at it and continue to jump, you'll see a lot of friends die...

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Quote

Did this guy apply for a patent with one year of unveiling of his invention? If not, he is out of luck by your own posting.

Doesn't matter. If the two systems were truly identical implementations the Skyhook patent would be invalid (prior art). However, from this thread it seems that the two implementations are indeed different. The Skyhook is thus an original invention patented by Mr. Booth and it is his to do with as he chooses.

"If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost."

If Eric Fradet did not apply for a patent within one year of displaying his device he lost the right to a patent.

These are not my words, they are quoted from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Go tell them it doesn't matter.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[billbooth 10]

I've been working on the Skyhook concept (Main Assisted Reserve Deployment) for over 20 years now. Check out the Skyhook video for a test from the early '80's. In the course of getting to the actual final product, I tried several different designs, including some similar to Eric's and Mark's, but was never completely happy with any of them. When I finally solved all the problems, finished the design, and applied for the Skyhook patent, I of course included information on the Sorcerer rig, Eric Fradet's method, and several other ways to accomplish the same thing in the application. The Skyhook patent has been allowed, and I will license it sometime in the future.

The same thing happened with the 3-ring. Before and (mostly) after I introduced it, many competing designs were offered. The 3-ring survives simply because it worked better than the others. I believe (well, at least hope) that the Skyhook will share a similar future.

[masterrigger1 2]

Bill,
Thanks for the reply!

MEL

Skyworks Parachute Service, LLC
www.Skyworksparachuteservice.com

[mjosparky 3]

Well, I guess that settles that.
Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[rasmack 0]

Dude, we agree. We are just talking about two different things. I was merely saying that if the Skyhook really was identical to that-other-system, noone would be able to patent it. Not Eric Fradet (too late) and not Bill Booth (prior art). Luckily this is an irrelevant discussion.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[slotperfect 7]

Quote

Luckily this is an irrelevant discussion.

A long but useful diversion. Thanks to you all for keeping it civil.

Now that the patent issue has been completely laid on the table, let's get the thread back on track - talking about licensing the Skyhook to put it on other rigs.

Arrive Safely

John

[Dolph 0]

Yeah, back on topic. I want a skyhook in my Odyssey. Please.

I understand Mr Booth's thinking about establishing a firm reputation for the Skyhook before it's bastardised by other manufacturers much like the three rings.

It ought to be possible to get a rough time table though. RWS knows how many rigs they sell a year. Malfunction rate is generally known. Of course stochastic variables associated with consumer confidence are hard to know.

Anyway, given what we know, what is a bid on a time table for Skyhook licensing?

[MB38 0]

Is there a way - when writing out the terms of a license - to explicitly require that certain specifications be duplicated identically or not at all?

For example, the three-ring system is mechanically simple - big rings always like to work. But change some specifications up for mini rings and loose tolerances can suddenly cause big issues. The Skyhook is not nearly as simple... with so many more essential parts and specifications, any thoughtful modification by a manufacturer could fubar the whole thing. Can one legally prevent this? Make the Skyhook just like this or don't make it at all?

I really don't know what I'm talking about.

[riggermick 6]

Quote

Is there a way - when writing out the terms of a license - to explicitly require that certain specifications be duplicated identically or not at all?

For example, the three-ring system is mechanically simple - big rings always like to work. But change some specifications up for mini rings and loose tolerances can suddenly cause big issues. The Skyhook is not nearly as simple... with so many more essential parts and specifications, any thoughtful modification by a manufacturer could fubar the whole thing. Can one legally prevent this? Make the Skyhook just like this or don't make it at all?

Quick answer NO, But realisticly if you want the licence, you will build it as stated. However ......Over time "bastardizations" of the original will (sometimes unfortunataly) overcome the originial design, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the "not so better". Right now we're all on the fence to see how this latest "itteration of the art" will play out. It's a very expensive propisition to Re-drop an existing system to include the Sky Hook in a currently "approved design". There you have it.


Mick.

[crazydiver 0]

Quote

I believe that RWS actually loses money on every sport rig sold.

This would be ridiculous to produce sport rigs if this was the case. I heard the radio show. What he was saying was that he doesn't make near as much as a canopy manufacturer could because canopies are chonstantly changing and poeple are downsizing and they wear out after a while, where as containers are good for multiple downsize progressiona and outlast the canopies...therefore reducing hte number of replacements that they sell.

Cheers,
Travis