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!

Sign in to follow this  
23LSVOwner

MC setteled the lawsuit with Malibu over wake convergence technology

Recommended Posts

bamaboy

So who's the next victim?  Supra?  

Share this post


Link to post
bamabonners

F'n Malibu.  This was just ridiculous.  They strong armed the competition into finally just paying up to make them shut up.  

Edited by bamabonners

Share this post


Link to post
Fman

So Malibu has a win win going...even when a Mastercraft rolls off the line they cheer.  Reminds me of how Samsung builds 40% of the components in the iphone:)

Obviously whoever did the Malibu patents covered all basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Cole2001

I thought tige and Malibu have some sort of  license agreement, not sure on the details. Malibu states that correct craft does as well, does that mean centurion is covered now? 

Share this post


Link to post
85 Barefoot
21 minutes ago, Cole2001 said:

I thought tige and Malibu have some sort of  license agreement, not sure on the details. Malibu states that correct craft does as well, does that mean centurion is covered now? 

Depends on the scope of the agreement, but not necessarily.  I've seen that NSS is licensed not "any correct craft brand wake divergent system", etc.

Edited by 85 Barefoot

Share this post


Link to post
kerpluxal
23 minutes ago, Cole2001 said:

I thought tige and Malibu have some sort of  license agreement, not sure on the details. Malibu states that correct craft does as well, does that mean centurion is covered now? 

You are correct... The factory rep from Tige took us out in the RZ???? that was released this year.. I forgot how much per unit.. but Tige does pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne
25 minutes ago, Brett B said:

 

Bulls***. Malibu invested the time and money to create a new technology and protected their intellectual property through patents in accordance will all US laws and standards. This is what every single company that strives on innovation does, especially in a competitive market where you either grow or die.

MC was infringing on that IP and they gambled that Malibu’s patent wasn’t very strong and/or they wouldn't pursue legal action. Remember the competing surf systems came out after Malibu had filed their patent (giving them the early priority date), but before the patent was issued. So MC and CC couldn't see what was in it when they started selling their own systems. MC lost that gamble and had to pay up just like CC. If Malibu cannot receive a ROI for their R&D investment, where is the business case for future investment in new innovations?

If MC thought they had a chance at prevailing they would not have settled. The truth is they didn't. I have quite a bit of experience with patents on new technology developments. Malibu's patent was very well written with broad coverage on the usage of delayed convergence making the case for MC very very weak. Which is likely exactly what a patent lawyer told MC with even a cursory review.

It doesn’t take much money to get that sort of an assessment from an attorney specializing in IP, probably only $5-10k. Any business would have gone through that process before deciding on a course of action that tied them to licensing fees for years to come. Just like Malibu’s patent lawyers did before deciding to pursue litigation.

Malibu understood the importance of what they had developed and protected it accordingly by investing the money for a very strong IP position, just like CC did with their patent on towers years ago. Good for them.

Except......the patent wasn't filed before the release of competing surf systems. Technically MC already had one, it just didn't work as well because the tabs weren't big enough. They definitely needed to dial it in, but that exact system is still being used today by SC and others. Gen2 is still a shaping modification on the original setup........... but even if that wanted to be argued, Malibu didn't even have the patent filed before the launch of NSS, much less have it approved and published. They drafted it after the fact........ and that is what is annoying to me about it.

Not to mention, MC gen 2 was already developed and being demoed before the publication of the patent as well.

MC and CC had these systems on boats before they would have ever known about any patent (MC was still testing and demoing to customers at the factory at the time). They were late to the punch and got burned by it, but they definitely didn't go forward in time, see the filed patent, decide they were going to ignore it, and design a system anyway.......

Share this post


Link to post
bamabonners
23 minutes ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Except......the patent wasn't filed before the release of competing surf systems. Technically MC already had one, it just didn't work as well because the tabs weren't big enough. They definitely needed to dial it in, but that exact system is still being used today by SC and others. Gen2 is still a shaping modification on the original setup........... but even if that wanted to be argued, Malibu didn't even have the patent filed before the launch of NSS, much less have it approved and published. They drafted it after the fact........ and that is what is annoying to me about it.

Not to mention, MC gen 2 was already developed and being demoed before the publication of the patent as well.

MC and CC had these systems on boats before they would have ever known about any patent (MC was still testing and demoing to customers at the factory at the time). They were late to the punch and got burned by it, but they definitely didn't go forward in time, see the filed patent, decide they were going to ignore it, and design a system anyway.......

 

exactly my point.  I think Malibu decided to to patent delayed convergence AFTER other makers were already doing it.  To me, it looks like they were trying to stifle competition or make a little more money off of the competition by patenting the science behind it instead of patenting their product to achieve it.  To me, it just looks dirty.  This is just my opinion, of course, and I am no patent lawyer.  

It would be like GE deciding to patent emitting light instead of patenting a new type of light bulb that emits light.  

Of course, without a patent lawyer or more insight into the case...this is all just speculation.

I get it though, companies must protect their patents.  My company does this every day....  You have to protect your ideas.  

 

Edited by bamabonners

Share this post


Link to post
minnmarker
21 minutes ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Except......the patent wasn't filed before the release of competing surf systems. Technically MC already had one, it just didn't work as well because the tabs weren't big enough. They definitely needed to dial it in, but that exact system is still being used today by SC and others. Gen2 is still a shaping modification on the original setup........... but even if that wanted to be argued, Malibu didn't even have the patent filed before the launch of NSS, much less have it approved and published. They drafted it after the fact........ and that is what is annoying to me about it.

Not to mention, MC gen 2 was already developed and being demoed before the publication of the patent as well.

MC and CC had these systems on boats before they would have ever known about any patent (MC was still testing and demoing to customers at the factory at the time). They were late to the punch and got burned by it, but they definitely didn't go forward in time, see the filed patent, decide they were going to ignore it, and design a system anyway.......

Whatever MC had prior to Malibu's filing it must not have been within the scope of Malibu's claims otherwise it would have been prior art and invalidated part or all of Malibu's patent.  I'm sure MC had lots of dated engineering drawings etc. presented during discovery and the lawyers (and practice judges, etc.) did not think they represented prior art of Malibu's patent claims.  Anyone know the patent number?

Share this post


Link to post
racer808

So are all the suckgate companies going to be next?  Surprised we haven't heard more cease letters being sent out to these guys.

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne
29 minutes ago, Brett B said:

 

If you guys are going to continue making unfounded and incorrect claims like this, it would serve you well to actually read the patent and understand the patent process. Your theory of Malibu patenting the idea after the competitors were doing it is dead wrong.

Don't take my word for it, the patent has it in writing.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8539897B1/en?assignee=malibu+boats

The priority filing date clearly shows 9/16/11 based on the provisional application for use of delayed convergence being filed at that time.

The MC priority date for their Gen 2 tabs, the one that lists convergence as the method, is a full 2 YEARS after that date.

 

A short time researching info on the prior applications didn't show anything on specifics of "delayed convergence". Only details on a proposed design of a surf system...... maybe I missed it....... but the final filing definitely changed it up with a very clear description on the additional claims for delayed convergence. Whereas it seemed like older filings focused more on system design, and other systems didn't infringe.

i admit, I don't have time to try to find all the info on previous filings, but it seemed like the difference to me, and why a new filing was made after NSS came out..... followed by an immediate lawsuit as soon as the patent was approved. 

Either way, I guess it doesn't matter at this point. 

And just FYI, every method of creating a surf wave involves delayed convergence. That is the exact thing that causes the wave to form. Listing a boat with ballast  causes delayed convergence. Listing it with tabs causes delayed convergence. Dog tracking the boat causes delayed convergence. Redirecting flow causes delayed convergence.

Share this post


Link to post
Brett B
3 hours ago, TenTwentyOne said:

Except......the patent wasn't filed before the release of competing surf systems.

Malibu didn't even have the patent filed before the launch of NSS

 

So, I noticed you glossed right over this, and then tried to spin up a different position that is also meaningless. Can you admit when you are wrong?

Same question to bama. If you are going to make those kinds of ridiculous claims, can you actually admit that you are wrong when the facts are laid out for you?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Stevo
22 minutes ago, bamaboy said:

Gotta pay for all those warranty claims somehow!

 

I kid.  I kid.

???

Share this post


Link to post
TenTwentyOne
Just now, Brett B said:

 

So, I noticed you glossed right over this, and then tried to spin up a different position that is also meaningless. Can you admit when you are wrong?

Same question to bama. If you are going to make those kinds of ridiculous claims, can you actually admit that you are wrong when the facts are laid out for you?

 

Patent file date= original date that particular patent was filed........ "priority filing date" has nothing to do with that exact patent filing. It has to do with previous filings of a similar nature, which didn't seem to include a blanket on delayed convergence. It seems this latest filing was submitted in order to supersede the previous filings, and to include delayed convergence.

i don't have a problem admitting you are right, but I'm not wrong either. Malibu did have a patent on a specific design of surf system prior to the others. I'm not arguing that. Surfgate was patented........ but I can't find how they had anything about delayed convergence before the march 2013 filing. It seems to me that they originally assumed that patenting the design of surfgate would cover them, but didn't realize there was going to be completely different designs launched to perform the same duty. Once they did, they decided it would be a good idea to update the application with coverage on delayed convergence, before someone else did.

And who knows, I could be completely wrong. I'm just saying that is what it seems to me, with the info that is readily available.

Share this post


Link to post
ahopkinsVTX

So of company A and company B each come up with similar idea and design at the same general time then produce for a year. After a year no patent has been filed so company B does. What stops them from going after company A and any other company that infringes on it?

Share this post


Link to post
bamaboy
1 hour ago, Brett B said:

 

Same question to bama. If you are going to make those kinds of ridiculous claims, can you actually admit that you are wrong when the facts are laid out for you?

 

This guy definitely times his ballast. 

Fwiw, I have no issues with the settlement. Malibu came out with it first. Malibu wins. End of story

 

#gamechanger

 

Edited by bamaboy

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...