Jump to content

Welcome to TheMalibuCrew!

As a guest, you are welcome to poke around and view the majority of the content that we have to offer, but in order to post, search, contact members, and get full use out of the website you will need to Register for an Account. It's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the TheMalibuCrew Family today!

Tige agrees to pay Malibu for use of delayed convergence


TallRedRider

Recommended Posts

I think it is ridiculous too.

Another example here.  There is a highway called M-22 that travels along the Lake Michigan shoreline, small towns, orchards, very picturesque.  A store opened and called themselves M-22, and they sell a ton of stuff branded with a road sign of M-22.  Along comes another store this year, and does the same for M-119.  Well, the M-22 guys come along and are suing them, saying that they own the branding to highways in Michigan or something like that.  So stupid.  "We created this brand, and and marketed it to what it is today..." blah blah blah, was their story, when in reality (to me) the road M-22 branded itself and it is silly that they think they can own it.

M-22 rant over.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

I guess you haven't seen the new wakecraft 24' boat?

slide2.png

Wasn't wake craft started by a former Malibu guy? Makes sense why it looks so similar 

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, TenTwentyOne said:

BRB......... Mounting a wing on my pickup and Filing a patent for downforce.....

I'm with you, Falko. And nothing against Bu, but I hope they spend more $$ chasing these lawsuits, than they are able to recover. It's not like any company blatantly ripped off the idea of surfgate. Lawsuits, like this, just cost us money, and prevent the smaller companies from developing new innovations, that keep the big guys on their toes with their own innovations. It's just a pissing contest, and IMO, doesn't show well for the general attitude of the higher-ups in Malibu.

Whatever happened to healthy competition, and a desire to improve ones own product to stay ahead of the pack.

 

just the opinion of one business owner that has intellectual property get copied all the time....... And I have never filed a suit in my life. I go in the next day, and push forward.

Im an engineer with a lot of background in patents and am not sure why this is an arguement.  Yes, others had something on the market but it clearly wasnt what surfgate was thats why Malibu sales shot up.  Everyone else copied the idea and now they have to pay for it.  Thats the point of a patent.  If you paid the $$ to get a patent, why not protect it?  Whats the point of a patent if you dont want to protect it?  Some patents are extremely weak and easy to get around, but that all depends on how they are written.  If Nautique really wrote something in their tower patent that said 4 points, youd be an idiot to not have 2 or 6 mounting points to get around it.  Why include that detail?

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, asp13 said:

Wasn't wake craft started by a former Malibu guy? Makes sense why it looks so similar 

Just went to their web site.. been in business since 1969... it actually looks like a new supreme or centurion minus the surfgate

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, asp13 said:

Wasn't wake craft started by a former Malibu guy? Makes sense why it looks so similar 

Early Flightcraft guy, before Malibu bought Flightcraft.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, 05hammerhead said:

Im an engineer with a lot of background in patents and am not sure why this is an arguement.  Yes, others had something on the market but it clearly wasnt what surfgate was thats why Malibu sales shot up.  Everyone else copied the idea and now they have to pay for it.  Thats the point of a patent.  If you paid the $$ to get a patent, why not protect it?  Whats the point of a patent if you dont want to protect it?  Some patents are extremely weak and easy to get around, but that all depends on how they are written.  If Nautique really wrote something in their tower patent that said 4 points, youd be an idiot to not have 2 or 6 mounting points to get around it.  Why include that detail?

I think the difference is the way the device works.  Malibu device makes boat crawl sideways a little, where a tab mounted on the bottom makes the boat list. 

Personally, I think it sounds like Malibu may be turning into greedy corporate bastards trying to strong arm everyone into buying into their patent infringement tactic.  No way a lenco tab on the bottom is the same as surfgate.  If that's the case, then they need to go after commercial fishing vessels as well.  How about bass boats with the fin on the motor....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Just now, 05hammerhead said:

  Everyone else copied the idea and now they have to pay for it.  Thats the point of a patent.  If you paid the $$ to get a patent, why not protect it? 

Who copied it, though, really? (Besides wakecraft I guess)

IMO, nobody copied it. Delayed convergence for surfing, was not a new idea. Everyone was listing their boats to get delayed convergence, then MC added tabs to aid in delayed convergence (I know trim tabs were not a new idea on an inboard at the time, but mc was first to be specifically adding them to help with surfing, and marketed them as such), then Malibu launched a better working innovation for delaying convergence, then Nautique also launched a better working (better than MC) version about a month later, and then everybody and their brother came up with some sort of system to aid in delaying convergence to produce a wave without listing the boat. If anything, most of the other systems are like the MC system, and not a single one is like surfgate.

 

delayed convergence was not a new idea. That has always been the way to get a wave behind the boat. Sideways mounting of trim tabs, to get that delayed convergence, was a new idea........ And I don't see how anyone copied that at all.....

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, shawndoggy said:

Not true at all!  Sanger had MC beat by YEARS.  http://www.wakeworld.com/forum/showthread.php?t=632602

Touché SD!

 

I knew Sanger had tabs, but didn't remember them marketing them for surfing. I thought they were just marketed for trim and ride quality. I should have researched it more!

 

doesnt really change my point in the grand scheme of things though...... Actually just solidifies it more...... :cheers:

 

 

Edited by TenTwentyOne
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Who copied it, though, really? (Besides wakecraft I guess)

IMO, nobody copied it. Delayed convergence for surfing, was not a new idea. Everyone was listing their boats to get delayed convergence, then MC added tabs to aid in delayed convergence (I know trim tabs were not a new idea on an inboard at the time, but mc was first to be specifically adding them to help with surfing, and marketed them as such), then Malibu launched a better working innovation for delaying convergence, then Nautique also launched a better working (better than MC) version about a month later, and then everybody and their brother came up with some sort of system to aid in delaying convergence to produce a wave without listing the boat. If anything, most of the other systems are like the MC system, and not a single one is like surfgate.

 

delayed convergence was not a new idea. That has always been the way to get a wave behind the boat. Sideways mounting of trim tabs, to get that delayed convergence, was a new idea........ And I don't see how anyone copied that at all.....

hence the reason for the patent and standing behind it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, TenTwentyOne said:

BRB......... Mounting a wing on my pickup and Filing a patent for downforce.....

I'm with you, Falko. And nothing against Bu, but I hope they spend more $$ chasing these lawsuits, than they are able to recover. It's not like any company blatantly ripped off the idea of surfgate. Lawsuits, like this, just cost us money, and prevent the smaller companies from developing new innovations, that keep the big guys on their toes with their own innovations. It's just a pissing contest, and IMO, doesn't show well for the general attitude of the higher-ups in Malibu.

Whatever happened to healthy competition, and a desire to improve ones own product to stay ahead of the pack.

 

just the opinion of one business owner that has intellectual property get copied all the time....... And I have never filed a suit in my life. I go in the next day, and push forward.

The "higher ups" at Malibu have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.  Failure to exploit your own and/or failure to enforce a company's intellectual property rights could be a basis for removal of officers, employees, and directors.  It's America, not India, and which is why our intellectual property safeguards is the envy of the world and has made countless millionaires.  It's because of, not in spite of, our vigorous IP protection laws that America creates what it does both in terms of wealth and innovation.  

IF you don't want to enforce your IP rights, that's your choice.  There's hardly the least bit of moral or ethical dilemma if you chose to do so, however.  

Edited by 85 Barefoot
  • Like 2
Link to comment

@85 Barefoot- I have no disagreement with your point.  My disagreement lies solely with bringing suit for different design innovations that provide the same result. Not for copying IP.

the same higher ups that have a responsibility to protect IP, also have the responsibility of developing their own IP to design innovations in order to remain competitive in the industry.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, 23LSVOwner said:

It's all going to depend on how much money MC is willing to spend fighting it.

Fun fact, the lawsuit filed by Malibu happened right BEFORE Mastercraft went public. Word is, the looming lawsuit filing was simply to drive the IPO down

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Who copied it, though, really? (Besides wakecraft I guess)

IMO, nobody copied it. Delayed convergence for surfing, was not a new idea. Everyone was listing their boats to get delayed convergence, then MC added tabs to aid in delayed convergence (I know trim tabs were not a new idea on an inboard at the time, but mc was first to be specifically adding them to help with surfing, and marketed them as such), then Malibu launched a better working innovation for delaying convergence, then Nautique also launched a better working (better than MC) version about a month later, and then everybody and their brother came up with some sort of system to aid in delaying convergence to produce a wave without listing the boat. If anything, most of the other systems are like the MC system, and not a single one is like surfgate.

 

delayed convergence was not a new idea. That has always been the way to get a wave behind the boat. Sideways mounting of trim tabs, to get that delayed convergence, was a new idea........ And I don't see how anyone copied that at all.....

NSS uses the exact same philosophy, a tab comes out the side of the boat (yes I know it goes down also). I am not a patent lawyer.. nor have I studied law.. but from my understanding..Patent law is designed to encourage inventors to disclose their new technology to the world by offering the incentive of a limited-time monopoly on the technology. This limited-time term of patent is 20 years from the earliest patent application filing date (but this term can be extended via patent term adjustment). After the patent term expires, the new technology enters the public domain and is free for anyone to use. as a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others from using a new technology. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.[1] 

A patent is there to protect your investment that you spent on R&D.. It gives you time to make a ROI before others "compete" you with it... Next.. Malibu is not preventing the competition from designing their own.. they have to pay a royalty for using a device that causes wave convergence.. Furthermore.. listing a boat is not a device that causes wave convergence.. therefore listing is not covered as it is not a device "non-obvious"... 

Nautique was sued right at the time they marketed it... and yes... it is very similar.. especially in what the patent protects.:

  • Surfgate System – Malibu / Axis – Brake Style
    A set of wake plates that sit on the sides of the boat and flange outward, slowing down one side of the boat and causing the boat to crab.

    Nautique Surf System – Nautique – Brake Style
    A plate deploys out the back end of the boat at a 90 degree angle from the hull, slowing down one side of the boat and causing the boat to crab.

Most companies do pay other companies royalties for use of invention by another company... 

If Sanger of MC would have patented theirs first, then they would be the ones now suing for royalties from everyone else....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Delayed convergence for surfing, was not a new idea. Everyone was listing their boats to get delayed convergence,

My basic understanding of delayed convergence (which is just as likely wrong as right), was that if you slow down/force out the water moving past one side of the boat, then the water coming off the other side of the boat has a tendency to roll up and over the delayed wake.  On the other hand, leaning the boat just makes the hole on one side of the boat deeper than the other, so that the wake from that side is taller, and can roll over the other side.  Listed wakes meet at the same central point, one is just larger.  Gated wakes meet at offcenter, unequal points behind the boat.

Nautique's NSS system clearly tries to delay the water coming off one side of the boat.  That seems like delayed convergence.

Straight trim tabs just create a lean, so no delayed convergence.  However, if you put slots under your trim tabs to direct the water outward and slow it down, that could result in delayed convergence.

That all begs the question of whether you could patent "delayed convergence" anyway (I am not a patent lawyer).  My understanding is that generally, method patents cover the method of producing a result, not the result itself.  The "method" however, is usually described n the broadest language practical, so there is often plenty to litigate about.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, TenTwentyOne said:

@85 Barefoot- I have no disagreement with your point.  My disagreement lies solely with bringing suit for different design innovations that provide the same result. Not for copying IP.

the same higher ups that have a responsibility to protect IP, also have the responsibility of developing their own IP to design innovations in order to remain competitive in the industry.

Oh, OK, so Malibu is expected to be the benevolent arbiters as to what is and what is not infringing on their IP based on "the same results" and defer to competitors' copying?  No they're not.  That is not what made or will make this country great again.  Just because somebody can create another OS to get on the internet does not mean they're not infringing on Microsoft.  The corollaries are endless.  Our "free market" is exceptional because it is powerfully governed by laws that arguably defer to innovators, not copy cats.  I mean no disrespect to other companies and their hard-working people, but I have zero issue with Malibu's (if it is) scorched earth protection of the most relevant wakeboat revolution in history.  Competitors would all, and many have, done the exact same, as they should.  This is chess not checkers, involving big boy (and girl?) publicly traded companies who make $100,000 luxury items differentiated by the smallest of factors.  They do not nor should not exist to make buyers happy with low prices while their competitors rip them off.  It's a free market and if people are willing to pay for a product that has IP defense costs built in, so be it.

Even arguing ipso facto that the trim plates were really the predecessors to surfgate is laughable.  Everyone in the industry knows it was the first of its kind.  Suggesting Malibu has somehow rested on their laurels and/or not "developing their own IP" is ridiculous.  There have been no bigger innovations to wake sports than the wedge and surf gate.  Accept it or don't, that's a fact.  Give 'em hell Jack.

Edited by 85 Barefoot
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, motoring said:

Confuses me too and I pay a patent lawyer on a regular basis to both write patents and maintain them in force.  They have their own language.  Well worth the cost IMHO - but we do carefully consider whether inventions are patent-able, and whether it is worth it to pay for the application process, before we get the lawyers involved.

What is interesting, and germane, in this case is that there can be a patent on the creation of delayed convergence - yet there can also be later patents by different parties on ways to create that delayed convergence that are basically worthless if they do not get permission from the holder of the original divergence creation patent.  It appears that the subsequent patents may just be a way for MB, Master Craft, etc, to compete with each other - but only after they get permission from Malibu to use their device to create the divergence.  Conceivably, if some other company comes up with a better (than surfgate) means of creating delayed convergence, then they could license that to Malibu.

 

Link to comment

Also... On a side note... Many inventors make their money by royalties only... MB, centurion, ski supreme, etc all pay Mike Murphy royalties for his purevert... Si is it wrong for him to collect royalties on ramfill? Same case scenario... Different than purevert... But same outcome

Link to comment
6 hours ago, kerpluxal said:

Also... On a side note... Many inventors make their money by royalties only... MB, centurion, ski supreme, etc all pay Mike Murphy royalties for his purevert... Si is it wrong for him to collect royalties on ramfill? Same case scenario... Different than purevert... But same outcome

Heck no and a perfect example of how "the big boys" don't dominate nor stifle "smaller companies' " innovation as 1021 suggests.

Link to comment

@85 Barefoot- I won't argue your point. It is a "chicken or the egg" type argument IMO. Your view is certainly a valid one. I just have a different opinion on protecting the actual design innovation, or protecting the desired results. I feel like the latter prevents new/better ideas, and prevents further design innovation.

 

No doubt that surfgate was a major breakthrough in the wakeboat industry. It wasn't necessarily a new idea, but it was the first that worked entirely as intended. Definitely agree that it is one of the biggest wake innovations of all time. That said, I don't agree about the wedge. If there is one thing that I have never missed from my Malibu days, it is the wedge. There is a reason that nobody has ever copied it...... Sure, its nifty, but it was never a #gamechanger. The wakeboard tower was definitely a much bigger deal.....

Link to comment
Just now, TenTwentyOne said:

@85 Barefoot- I won't argue your point. It is a "chicken or the egg" type argument IMO. Your view is certainly a valid one. I just have a different opinion on protecting the actual design innovation, or protecting the desired results. I feel like the latter prevents new/better ideas, and prevents further design innovation.

 

No doubt that surfgate was a major breakthrough in the wakeboat industry. It wasn't necessarily a new idea, but it was the first that worked entirely as intended. Definitely agree that it is one of the biggest wake innovations of all time. That said, I don't agree about the wedge. If there is one thing that I have never missed from my Malibu days, it is the wedge. There is a reason that nobody has ever copied it...... Sure, its nifty, but it was never a #gamechanger. The wakeboard tower was definitely a much bigger deal.....

Fortunately for the wealthy innovators out there, your opinion, while you're entitled to it, isn't the law.

Actually, it was attempted to be copied.  Centurion did so.  I don't know if you were around in 1998 when it came out, it was absolutely game changing.  And like surfgate, it's patented, so the "lack of" copycats is not an indictment of its appeal and utility.  If you didn't like it, that's fine.  I'll stand by assertion it was a revolutionary innovation.  Towers didn't accomplish anything that a skylon wasn't, it just looked better and provided storage.  Elevated towpoints were not revolutionized by the tower.  

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, 85 Barefoot said:

Fortunately for the wealthy innovators out there, your opinion, while you're entitled to it, isn't the law.

Actually, it was attempted to be copied.  Centurion did so.  I don't know if you were around in 1998 when it came out, it was absolutely game changing.  And like surfgate, it's patented, so the "lack of" copycats is not an indictment of its appeal and utility.  If you didn't like it, that's fine.  I'll stand by assertion it was a revolutionary innovation.  Towers didn't accomplish anything that a skylon wasn't, it just looked better and provided storage.  Elevated towpoints were not revolutionized by the tower.  

Neither is your opinion........ Plenty of patent law that protects a specific design idea, process, machine, etc., that provides a desired result. Yet, nothing that I saw, that protects the basic physics of the desired result.

Surfgate- Gamechanger that everyone needed to develop an idea to compete with.

Wedge- Nifty idea, but didn't need to be copied to stay competitive.

Tower- Nifty idea that did need to be copied to stay competitive. Nobody would want a skylon in the middle of their Vdrive boat, and a lack of board storage.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...