0
yuri_base

Reverse engineering of gear, making a new copy of old equipment?

Recommended Posts

billvon

>In fact, if you can prove that a patent is insufficient for someone "skill in the art" to
>replicate the invention, you can have the patent invalidated.

Yes, that's the theory. In practice, companies put as little detail as possible in the patent. They do this because if they DID put enough detail in it to easily reproduce the invention, China would be building them within a few weeks.

And yes, you might be able to have it invalidated if you challenged it. It would, however, be a long court case, with one panel of "skilled in the art" folks claiming they could not have duplicated it, and another panel of "skilled in the art" folks claiming they COULD duplicate it. The folks that claim they could duplicate it, of course, often base their learnings on a reverse-engineered product rather than the patent itself, so the defense will claim that's how they got their knowledge.

11 months and 7 million dollars later, you might indeed be able to invalidate the patent. Most people don't have 7 million dollars and 11 months, which is why such patents are often as general as possible.

That's one of the reasons that patenting things is beginning to not be the primary way to protect IP. Indeed, if it's something that's a combination of microcode and ASIC design (i.e. very hard to reverse engineer) often companies don't even bother any more. They rely on the difficulty of the reverse engineering process to protect them - by the time the competition reverse engineers the product, they are on to their next generation.



Sure, but the USPTO requires a certain level of detail. They will reject an application if it is too broad. This is intentional as otherwise you could simply patent 'automobiles' or 'computers' which would create its own obvious problems. Typically the patent office wants to see the patent as detailed as physically possible, the manufacturer wants it as broad as possible and they meet in the middle somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have built jumpsuits, swoop shorts, dbags, pilot chutes, risers, wingsuits, and hundreds of parachutes... new designs/prototypes/and reverse engineered copies.... this is my opinion:

Most of the work is in [reverse] engineering it...

You will spend more time and money doing this than just buying a new properly build one.
when you buy a new suit, youre paying for the peace of mind in knowing its right and will do what its supposed to.

Large manufacturers buy materials in bulk and youre going to spend 2-5x as much for the same materials... if you can source them...(hardest part in my opinion)


once you have the templates, its much quicker... and then theres the legality of it. nobody can stop you from making your own copies, but as soon as something is sold or exchanged as a service, it starts becoming questionable... and i wouldnt fuck with it.....
I was that kid jumping out if his tree house with a bed sheet. My dad wouldn't let me use the ladder to try the roof...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

So Yuri. You'd be a happy customer buying a counterfeit copy of someone's invention.

And you see nothing wrong with copying someone else's invention and using for yourself.

Wow!



It is not counterfeit if it is not passed off as the original. If the design is not patented or copyrighted, what is the problem making a copy?

Existing skydive manufacturers do that all the time, changes in container design, canopy design, wingsuit design, all have points where key features were first put on one companies model, then showed up on competitors models.

For another example, the generic drug industry has saved many people a LOT of money by making out-of-patent copies of drugs. Are you the kind of person who insists on name-brand drugs, even if they are much more expensive?
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>You'd be a happy customer buying a counterfeit copy of someone's invention.

It's not counterfeit if the guy makes it himself and intentionally copies a design. It's just a copy.

>And you see nothing wrong with copying someone else's invention and using for
>yourself.

Most people have 3-ring releases on their rigs - even if the rig didn't come from UPT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"It's just a copy"...Yeah, why study; just look at the smart guy's test in the seat next to yours... steal his answers.



I think some of this "copy" stuff really depends on context, like stealing the test answers of someone else.

For example. I am currently restoring and rebuilding a 1948 RCAF Para-Rescue Technicians rig. Nobody knows of any complete rigs left in existence. Correspondence with the manufacturer even indicated that they no longer have an information on it or parts, etc. So I am left with old photos, and individual's experience to direct me how I can make as close to exact "copy" of the components I need.

I am copying someone else's work and taking there ideas. Should this be allowed? Anything wrong with what I am doing?

I don't feel what I am doing is wrong or unethical in anyway. I guess I could use the history aspect of it and argue that way but I don't think that I have to. It is a straight out copy of another design. This happens in museums a lot which some profit from and you could argue is for their use. Is that wrong? Just trying to get a feel on where you are coming from. I can see how this can be an issue as it has happened to friends of mine but that involved other companies using their design for their profit and not an individual using the design for their own use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

"It's just a copy"...Yeah, why study; just look at the smart guy's test in the seat next to yours... steal his answers.



Manufacturing is not testing. Everything everyone makes is based on something someone else made before. We would never make any progress at all and new ideas could not improve on old ones if that were wrong. Seriously, that's what teaching is. Should man invent controlled fire over and over again to stay pure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

"It's just a copy"...Yeah, why study; just look at the smart guy's test in the seat next to yours... steal his answers.



That is not a valid comparison. Cheating on a test is against the rules. The relevant comparison would be breaking into your competitors facility and stealing his research ideas before they see the light of day.

If an idea is not patentable, it is fair game, and we as consumers are better off for it. Ford buys a Honda car and tears it down to see what they can improve or use. I heard PD bought a Leia and tore it apart before building the Peregrine.

Sometimes one company as a single good idea, but the rest of the product or quality is not good. If a competitor can incorporate that and produce a superior product, the consumer wins. This happens ALL THE TIME.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Seth,

Quote

Ford buys a Honda car and tears it down to see what they can improve or use.



That is exactly what Ford did when they were trying to develop their own front-wheel drive cars. They bought a Honda Civic & began changing the parts with their own parts to see what would work & what would not work.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) Who built the first 1-pin reserve container? And what modern company does not make 1-pin reserve containers now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Lee,

Quote

I give.



A later version of the Piglet; followed by the Centaurus.

Only Jump Shack's Racer is a 2-pin that I know of.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) ETA My original post on this should have said 1-pin container mounted on your back. There were a number of 1-pin chest pack containers before the Piglet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Do you have a non-UPT rig? Does it have 3-ring releases on it? How do you feel about your theft?



The patent has expired.

While the patent was in force, other manufacturers paid Bill royalties for the use of his invention.

--Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The patent has expired.

While the patent was in force, other manufacturers paid Bill royalties for the use of his invention.



Yes, but very few things on h/c s, canopies, or wingsuits are patented. Three rings are not a typical example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

mark

***Do you have a non-UPT rig? Does it have 3-ring releases on it? How do you feel about your theft?



The patent has expired.

While the patent was in force, other manufacturers paid Bill royalties for the use of his invention.

--Mark


Invention? Most engineers will apply the ideas of others to get their result. In most cases, a better application than originally intended. Some engineers are of the "inventer" grade. I know balloon people that used a 3 ring device as a tether release back in the 1960's, long before its use on parachute harnesses. They got it from a WW 2 navy guy that saw it as a life raft release. There have been several times that I thought I had a new idea for something, just to find out that it was already thought of before. Don't get me wrong, the 3 ring release application was a perfect fit for releasing canopies. That has now lasted about 40 years. Is that it? What could be the next release? Even better. Start thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen


Quote

other manufacturers paid Bill royalties for the use of his invention.



I do not [know] of one who did. Can you give us some examples?



Bill occasionally quips that the reason for inventing a Skyhook was because the patent on the 3-ring was running out.

As for patent enforcement, you can read here on dz.com about Eric Fradet's vigorous enforcement of his MARD design, including forcing Mirage Systems to withdraw their DRX.

Also, with respect to patent enforcement and the Skyhook, it is no accident that all Skyhook systems (UPT, Sunpath, Aerodyne, etc.) include a Collins lanyard and a right-side RSL terminating with a curved closing pin, among other design features.

--Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dpreguy

"It's just a copy"...Yeah, why study; just look at the smart guy's test in the seat next to yours... steal his answers.



I will say there is something that feels different about a manufacturer copying an idea or feature from another vs. making an exact clone of a product.

Neither are necessarily against the "rules", but I would not view a reproduction of someones complete product as something I would be proud to own. I would rather see tweaks or incorporations of features, so that both competitors products offered a different experience.

I see what Yuri proposed as different than that, because he wanted to copy an out-of-production item.

And speaking of out-of-production copies, I watch Jeno Leno's Garage on Youtube now and then. Pretty cool that with a high-res 3D scanner and a 3D printer he can make copies of most auto-parts, very handy for restoring old cars.
It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curved closing pin on a sky hook? Have I missed some thing while I was off playing with rockets? Just checked the on line manual and the pictures still show it straight as an arrow.

Lee
Lee
lee@velocitysportswear.com
www.velocitysportswear.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RiggerLee

Curved closing pin on a sky hook? Have I missed some thing while I was off playing with rockets? Just checked the on line manual and the pictures still show it straight as an arrow.

Lee



I meant the marine-eye ripcord and 9-pin that closes the reserve.

--Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi qb1,

Quote

I know balloon people that used a 3 ring device as a tether release back in the 1960's, long before its use on parachute harnesses. They got it from a WW 2 navy guy that saw it as a life raft release.



And they were a little late to the show: 'an explanation of the principle of the lever.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0