New Passau Leg Pads 2018

[bunnyman666]

4 hours ago, kedjlng3 said:

So anybody know if Pete Smith stopped paying patent fees, or did Passau just go out and do the ultimate scumbag move?

Patents are actually hard to enforce. They are only as good as your lawyers and even then, you are paying a fair bit of money to enforce the patents. You have to be ready to go to court. Remember, too, that you can change a few elements on a design and many judges will call the new design “original”.

Example: Fender has been suing over peg head shapes for a very long time, but still have not successfully sued over unique guitar body shapes. The peg head has such a unique shape that you pay a license fee to reproduce it, but you can change subtle details on the body and you would not have to pay a licensing fee to produce it.  Nobody pays a license fee for the bodies, in fact. Fender will ruin your life if they catch you making peg head decals, by the way. That is how much they spend on their lawyers.

[jeff da goalie]

what exactly is patented that you think Passau stole?  

[Teezle]

18 minutes ago, jeff da goalie said:

what exactly is patented that you think Passau stole?  

If I had to guess, I'd say the bindingless boot, which looks similar to the one on my old G2s. But even if the outside look is the same, if they arrived at it by different methods/construction/etc there shouldn't be any issue. I can't remember if the warrior bindingless boot was patented or only "patent pending" when I had them.

[bunnyman666]

14 minutes ago, Teezle said:

If I had to guess, I'd say the bindingless boot, which looks similar to the one on my old G2s. But even if the outside look is the same, if they arrived at it by different methods/construction/etc there shouldn't be any issue. I can't remember if the warrior bindingless boot was patented or only "patent pending" when I had them.

But frankly, the bindingless boot is the same construction method as the bindingless blocker and the bindingless cuff on a player glove. If there was a patent for that, that patent would have run out years ago. The “bindingless” construction is merely a method of joining the seams. A leather jacket is bindingless. A suit jacket is bindingless. So many items were built being sewn inside out long, long ago. Couches are bindingless, as well. 

A strapping system is different, but again, we’re talking about something that can do one thing, be be executed in several ways. Unless it is a DIRECT rip off, it is hard to sell that someone took your idea for themselves. 

[cwarnar]

Passau is actually the LAST company that would flat out rip off another company.

They refuse to do copycat graphic designs.  And if you look across all lines many are doing one off parts that the customer and market demands (bungee toes, elastic strapping, etc)

Next time you float float click bait maybe back up your allegations

[bunnyman666]

25 minutes ago, cwarnar said:

Passau is actually the LAST company that would flat out rip off another company.

They refuse to do copycat graphic designs.  And if you look across all lines many are doing one off parts that the customer and market demands (bungee toes, elastic strapping, etc)

Next time you float float click bait maybe back up your allegations

They are pretty innovative on their own and I agree 100% with your statements.

[coopaloop1234]

26 minutes ago, cwarnar said:

Passau is actually the LAST company that would flat out rip off another company.

Just because Passau isn't Battram doesn't mean there isn't a possibility of them borrowing ideas or methods that could be seen as copying a patent. Who knows, they may have already and gotten away with it. /shrug.

[cwarnar]

51 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Just because Passau isn't Battram doesn't mean there isn't a possibility of them borrowing ideas or methods that could be seen as copying a patent. Who knows, they may have already and gotten away with it. /shrug.

I don't doubt it for a second. Hockey is a copycat business.  Goalie equipment is likely worst than most.

[kedjlng3]

18 hours ago, cwarnar said:

Passau is actually the LAST company that would flat out rip off another company.

They refuse to do copycat graphic designs.  And if you look across all lines many are doing one off parts that the customer and market demands (bungee toes, elastic strapping, etc)

Next time you float float click bait maybe back up your allegations

It's not clickbait. The bindingness design that Passau brought out *is* identical to Pete Smith's patented design from the SP6000 line and then brought to Warrior- it even has the segmented jenpro by the boot. 

I'm aware that many are doing one-offs. I've ordered Passau pads with a smart strap design.

18 hours ago, bunnyman666 said:

But frankly, the bindingless boot is the same construction method as the bindingless blocker and the bindingless cuff on a player glove. If there was a patent for that, that patent would have run out years ago. The “bindingless” construction is merely a method of joining the seams. A leather jacket is bindingless. A suit jacket is bindingless. So many items were built being sewn inside out long, long ago. Couches are bindingless, as well. 

A strapping system is different, but again, we’re talking about something that can do one thing, be be executed in several ways. Unless it is a DIRECT rip off, it is hard to sell that someone took your idea for themselves. 

Believe me, I'm aware that the construction method of a bindingness product is the same. But the construction method of a general bindingness design is neither here nor there. Let's be clear- the reason for a bindingness boot design is that it'll reduce wear, rotate easier, and slide better. Given that the design (appears) to be identical, the features are identical, and the benefits are identical leads to the following conclusion: it's the same thing as patented by Pete Smith.

I'm sure there's some people thinking "fine, it's okay if it's the same thing as Pete Smith's design. Patent laws are tricky, and if they managed to work around it, fair play". I disagree with that line of thinking as there doesn't seem to be anything different from it Passau's version than Smith's. As well, it's a completely unique design which no company has ever attempted to publicly try. I call BS that the sole thing that has dissuaded any of the big companies of using this design that it's too labour intensive. 

******* Couple things to note 
1) I do not know if Pete stopped paying for the patent. Given that the SP 6000 was released in 2008 with US patents lasting for minimum 20 years I doubt the patent has ended, but it is possible.
2) (As Bunnyman noted)- Does Warrior care to enforce this is an issue on it's own.
3) Passau as a brand tries to stay honest. I understand, and respect(ed) it. When I played, I had everything Passau. But if you're going to copy one of the biggest recent innovations- that nobody else has copied in 11 years- yes, you should be called out for it. 

[bunnyman666]

3 hours ago, kedjlng3 said:

It's not clickbait. The bindingness design that Passau brought out *is* identical to Pete Smith's patented design from the SP6000 line and then brought to Warrior- it even has the segmented jenpro by the boot. 

I'm aware that many are doing one-offs. I've ordered Passau pads with a smart strap design.

Believe me, I'm aware that the construction method of a bindingness product is the same. But the construction method of a general bindingness design is neither here nor there. Let's be clear- the reason for a bindingness boot design is that it'll reduce wear, rotate easier, and slide better. Given that the design (appears) to be identical, the features are identical, and the benefits are identical leads to the following conclusion: it's the same thing as patented by Pete Smith.

I'm sure there's some people thinking "fine, it's okay if it's the same thing as Pete Smith's design. Patent laws are tricky, and if they managed to work around it, fair play". I disagree with that line of thinking as there doesn't seem to be anything different from it Passau's version than Smith's. As well, it's a completely unique design which no company has ever attempted to publicly try. I call BS that the sole thing that has dissuaded any of the big companies of using this design that it's too labour intensive. 

******* Couple things to note 
1) I do not know if Pete stopped paying for the patent. Given that the SP 6000 was released in 2008 with US patents lasting for minimum 20 years I doubt the patent has ended, but it is possible.
2) (As Bunnyman noted)- Does Warrior care to enforce this is an issue on it's own.
3) Passau as a brand tries to stay honest. I understand, and respect(ed) it. When I played, I had everything Passau. But if you're going to copy one of the biggest recent innovations- that nobody else has copied in 11 years- yes, you should be called out for it. 
 

The purpose of a common design feature being used for a new purpose is a tricky sell for some judges and patent attorneys. Please note that I am neither a lawyer nor play one on television, but had my own designs that I was trying to sell. I had a buddy shopping my handlebar design at the big  bike show back in ‘07. It was ripped off pretty handily (as it was shown the very next year), but their claim was that they were working on it as the same time. Of course when same buddy saw the copy cat’s, there were a few design elements missing that actually made it less of a solid design. Neither of us got my design to market. I had sent a C&D letter, in which it was rebuffed handily as they had an ARMY of lawyers. The joke was on them ‘cos the construction of said handlebar was going to cost more than they wanted to spend. 

But rip offs can be subtle or blatant and so many times nothing comes of it unless it significantly injures the party who was copied. If anyone would have the resources to sue Passau into the stone ages, it would be Warrior/New Balance. For all we know, there could be a licensing agreement in place for use of the bindingless boot. But usually, it takes many years for anything to come of a patent infringement. Sometimes they are abandoned because designs evolve and they are suing over the past. But if there was injury, all bets are off.

So many times, a product will be produced as a patent pending item and is ripped off the entire time it was awaiting the patent to be awarded. Pete Smith was rare in having an item have its patent. Patents take years and years of research to argue that your new design is, in fact, original. I do know of a special case where a design was produced whilst the patent was pending and ripped off by several companies. One company was so interested in still producing this design (as it was a BLATANT rip off) that they paid a retroactive licensing fee  (for items sold during patent pending phase) in order to still produce the product in question. The saddest thing was that the company who had awarded the licenses did not survive long after their product was awarded the patent. The company who paid the retroactive license fee still produces the item to this day. 

[Ross]

Does anyone actually know the patent number of the bingless boot patent?

If an object is patented but the patent number is not displayed on the object then infringement only happens when you are made aware of the actual patent. 

I’ve searched but the only patent I can find with Pete Smith as the inventor is for a knee joint on a leg pad.

[bunnyman666]

3 minutes ago, Ross said:

Does anyone actually know the patent number of the bingless boot patent?

If an object is patented but the patent number is not displayed on the object then infringement only happens when you are made aware of the actual patent. 

I’ve searched but the only patent I can find with Pete Smith as the inventor is for a knee joint on a leg pad.

You know what? You are correct. Never seen a patent number on a Smith Warrior pad. I’ve seen it on a pair of TPS Icecap pads, but not a Warrior pad. 

Patent fees are not paid continuously. Once you’ve been awarded the patent, it is yours for the specific time period. But as I have said- many don’t even pursue patents because by the time you get one, you have literally moved onto the next fad/phase in design.

[Ross]

Found a couple more patents for Pete Smith https://patents.google.com/?q=goalie&inventor=Peter+smith&oq=Peter+smith+goalie+

The thing to note when looking at patents is the only thing that matters is the claims. An item only infringes if it has all the elements listed in a claim.