http://www.google.com/patents/US6206749 is the original YYJ patent for the Spinfaktor design. Rick Brough produces a really nice PDF for us at yoyomuseum.com that lists all of the patents : http://www.yoyomuseum.com/uploads/PDF/PatentList.pdf
2 Likes
As I remember from my read of the patent; this is the correct interpretation. Why the Triad is in violation is not clear. But I believe you are right about the denser material being on the rims.
The short parts of your post that aren’t completely condescending but attempt to “educate” people about patents reads like something from a history book for 4th graders.
Believe it or not, there are actually people who know what they’re talking about (e.g., economists, historians, lawyers) who have many many problems with American patent law. It’s not a debate of “the experts” vs. everyone else. It’s more like “experts with certain philosophical views” vs. “experts with different philosophical views,” plus throw in a good measure of idiots on both sides.
[quote=“yoyodoc,post:74,topic:66131”]
This is one of the cheesiest, goofiest, and most arrogant series of claims I’ve ever seen on a forum, which in itself says a lot.
I responded.
Eat me.
No matter which side of the debate you’re on (if you’re on a side at all), you gotta applaud the wit here! 
Thanks, that was quite helpful… and that PDF is now saved on my computer for further referencing. 
1 Like
So the Genesis SS dropped in North America, with steel weight rims.
The patent just applies to putting them in a specific place (the best place). You can put weight rings in less ideal places. Patents tend to be really, really specific. YYJ probably could have patented other weight ring models if they’d thought about it.
I feel like onedrop is more hipsters + yoyos. Jk onedrop is the pinnacle of American yoyoing due to the way they produce and advertise their products. I also think that onedrop will cater to more Japanese players in the future due to the amount of OD users that are popping up there. That’s just my opinion though.
I believe that it is when the weight rings touch the ground when you set on a flat surface.
A whole other patent, but when does the 5a one end?
[quote=“modman10,post:90,topic:66131”]
Well Steve Brown filed patent # 6,371,824 on April 28, 2000. The standard patent term in the U.S. is 20 years. So other companies can sell counterweights after April 28, 2020, assuming no extensions are granted.
People should read the patent. It’s funny how technical it makes the idea of 5A sound, when really it surmounts to “Attach an object to tied end of yoyo string.”
If I’d stumbled across the idea of 5A play (wasn’t throwing then so not possible, but theoretically) I never would have thought to patent something so simple. That makes me either a lot dumber or less greedy than Steve Brown. I probably would have just made a thread on a forum somewhere and said “Hey, I figured out if you drill a hole in a die and attach it to a yoyo string you can do a lot of new tricks!”
I don’t think it’s “greedy” to file a patent. But just to get some clarification: my understanding is that when a “COMPANY” files for a patent, it is actually typically required to submit via authorship of individual contributors. It’s not “Duncan is applying for a patent,” it is “Steve Brown is applying for a patent”, where Steve Brown is an employee of Duncan and Duncan has contracts in place claiming ownership of patents filed by employees during their tenure.
It may well have been Steve’s idea to patent it (don’t know, don’t care), but it may also have been someone at the company.
I don’t think I’m coming to an actual point like, “Don’t hate Steve for it” (because I’m fine either way… I love Steve regardless of whose idea it was to patent counterweights) but rather, I’m just making sure that there’s a general understanding of how these things work.
His name’s on the patent. That’s all I’m going by but you could be right.
And I don’t think filing patents is greedy per se, just trivial patents that will have a damaging effect on productivity in that sector.
The sad part is that Steve may have filed the patent to protect 5A. If the idea is truly worthy of a patent; then if Mr. Brown did not do it; someone else would.
The problem with patents and yo-yo’s is that there is not enough money in the industry to gauge the validity of patents. There are not enough yo-yo sales to even get a lawyer into a courtroom to examine the prior-art; or obvious-art arguments that can be used to challenge the validity of an issued patent.
Is 5A truly a unique idea worthy of a patent? I suspect so. Is the “denser material placed on the rims” worthy of a patent? I suspect not. The courts, however, will never decide the case because no one will spend the money to challenge a patent that generates little money.
This is where our patent system breaks down. The system easily issues patents on the assumption that marginal patents will be litigated and the validity determined by a legal battle between interested parties. In yoyo, this is not the case. Once issued, even silly patents will stand because of lack of monetary incentive for litigation. In these rare cases, the system can actually impede innovation through the early suppression of worthy ideas.
If the patent is “silly” and there is no monetary incentive to fight for the idea (little money to be made from the idea), how would such a silly patent stand in the way of innovation and suppress worthy ideas? Was the point that something silly and not very profitable could stand in the way of innovation and suppress worthy ideas? Just looking for clarification on that point.
If so, I disagree. We are free to make anything we wish, but we may or may not be free to sell it everywhere. Those who cannot sell things here, can sell elsewhere and so on. So, the creation and expansion of things “innovation” is still possible while awaiting the expiration of a patent, or utilizing other options. That is, if the idea wasn’t silly to begin with. And, if it was so silly, no one would want to be bothered with the idea anyway is my guess.
I meant it in the broadest sense. Patents in software are often accused of stifling innovation since so many ideas are patented that some worthy ideas are not pursued due to baseless fear of patent infringement.
The innovation that you are speaking to does not require capital. Most ideas, however, do. When there are conflicting patents; or the idea itself is not patentable; venture-capital will not flow. Few individuals or companies will “innovate” while awaiting their chance to monetize it. Without a return; the idea is useless to business.
I see YoyoGeezer’s point… but I have to admit, I’m more aligned with TA’s perspective.
I work for a software company that was using some patented code. We had to pay a license that was based on a royalty model… rather than flat rate, it was based on a percentage of sales. We had one particularly large sale that required a LOT of legwork to get the deal done. That’s money spent in the sales cycle and engineering cycles (we had SOME code licensed, but the rest we had to develop!). By the time the royalties were paid out, we more or less broke even. Yes, we still made our “share”, but that covered the other expenses.
So, the core development team wrote replacement code, the first version of which was hammered out pretty much over a weekend (with no bells and whistles) that could serve the same function as the code it was replacing. The same function, but it took an almost entirely different approach and was therefore not infringing upon the patent.
As it turns out, the replacement code is actually more efficient and has allowed our company to have bragging rights on the cutting edge of the technology we develop, since we now offer the most efficient technology in our sphere.
Circling back around, though, I DO see how patents can also create roadblocks… not totally dismissing Geezer’s perspective. Just sharing an example of being forced into innovation and having it turn out for the better in every regard.
I see the points made above, but I will reply to Yoyogeezer directly just because I wrote most of this before the other reply. I believe in “survival of the fittest” in business, as you can tell. When the “little guy” hits a road block, he has to be that much more clever about getting over it, around it, or create his own so called road blocks for others. There are too many self made millionaires or rags to riches stories for me to cut businesses any slack. So, typically, I do not in this regard.
In the yo-yo context, companies that cannot sell in the United States might potentially be able to sell in other markets throughout the entire world. I recognize that we are a sought after market for our buying power. I agree that fear of a infringing a patent is usually “baseless,” but I think that any company that cannot move on, or recognize other options, does not belong in business in the first place. Not everyone with a talent for making things belongs in the world of business. A company when confronted with a patent should:
- Create a different idea and patent it.
- Create and innovate while awaiting the patent expiration, then release the product.
- License the idea from the patent holder, and conduct business as usual.
- Choose another market, and do business there instead.
I think there are too many options for anyone in business to feel stifled to any great extent. I think those that cannot choose one of those options above and be satisfied, do not belong in business in the first place.
You stated that:
“Few individuals or companies will “innovate” while awaiting their chance to monetize it. Without a return; the idea is useless to business.”
First, my position is, why wait? They can likely pay the licensing fee, or choose another market, and move forward. In terms of capital, a business that will not invest in an idea upfront, based on a document that is sure to expire at some point, has probably determined the following anyway:
- The idea is not worth the wait; or
- There are other better ideas to pursue in that time; or
- The idea was really never worth the capital to invest in it in the first place; or
- They are too stubborn to pay a licensing fee;
- If they paid the licensing fee, the profits would not be as desirable to them.
I’ll stop the list there, but reasons to invest or not invest in something, in my opinion, have really little to do with a patent, but more to do with other factors about whether the product is really worth what it costs to make it come to life. I think those considerations are made in business anyway, for other reasons, regardless of a patent issue.
The cost of creating and selling a product, and choosing it’s market is just part of business with or without a patent. Many ideas die because of their cost, when there is no patent or licensing fee to pay. My opinion is that companies should stop using a patent as an excuse, take advantage of available options (licensing/other markets/simply wait and innovate), and move on. I usually see what I call the “patent excuse” as a self defeating way for businesses to compensate for lack of other new ideas to drive their business, lack of confidence to market and sell a product after paying a licensing fee, or just about “ego” and typical jealousy of not being the business in “control” of an idea, even temporarily.
You stated that the innovation I speak of does not require capital. But, I believe it does require capital. All ideas that are actually prototyped, tested, made in short run but never sold for immediate return, cost the business something and required some capital for it to be made. Sometimes the cost of making a prototype of the idea is the first clue that the product should not be on the market. It is an important stage in the process. So, by innovation, I mean companies are free to prototype ideas now based on the patent holder’s idea, and the expense of that prototyping can be a return…later (see reply above). Business is about investing in an idea now for later, and if it’s not worth the investment, the company made that decision on their own. It’s not the fault of a patent holder. But again, if the idea is worth it, pay the licensing fee and make the money now, don’t wait.
I also think that even without an immediate monetary return, an idea is not “useless to business.” It might be at the beginning stage that one idea fails, but the knowledge gained from that failure helps build on knowledge in the future about what will or will not work. In business, the return is not always monetary and easily quantifiable. Knowledge about what works, or not, is always an asset in business.
Thanks for clarifying, but that’s my take on it. That was even too deep to go in a zone. 
OD for sure.
You know I’m right here, don’t you?
7 Likes
Yes, don’t care.