Welp... looks like there is now such a thing as "replica" eeBrakes...

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by rice rocket

Here's the patent printed on the brake. There's so much legalese and overall text volume in here, I'm not even sure what they've patented.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US...oq=US8066103B2

sample text

The constellation of elements that make up the above-noted embodiment of the invention are typically coupled to the various additional elements such as those that are illustrated in the description and associated drawings.

Actually, that link is for Craig Edwards' 4th patent, which is for a brake shoe (brake pad holder), not a brake caliper. Who knew brake shoes were made up of constellations?

[madsciencenow]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Actually, that link is for Craig Edwards' 4th patent, which is for a brake shoe (brake pad holder), not a brake caliper. Who knew brake shoes were made up of constellations?

I was just about to say the same.

In answer to the earlier comment, if you want to know what the patent covers, read the issued claims.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by madsciencenow

I was just about to say the same.

In answer to the earlier comment, if you want to know what the patent covers, read the issued claims.

.. and remember that the claims may or may not be valid (many patents that have been issued have later been found to be invalid).

As above, the first portion of a patent, which includes descriptions and drawings, are just reference information. The only part of the patent which carries any weight are the claims. The typical way to write claims is to write the first claim(s) as broadly as possible, to cover as many possible embodiments as possible. Following claims are then written with more specific details: In the I case the first claims are so broad that they encompass prior inventions (and thus are not valid claims), the hope is that the more specific aspects in following claims are new and unique. The following claims may also contain alternative embodiments, to plug up any potential loopholes in the previous claims.

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

Craig Edwards, founder of EE Brakes, has 3 patents on linkage brakes:

1 9,211,935 Bicycle brake assembly
2 8,297,415 Light weight bicycle brake assembly
3 8,096,392 Light weight bicycle brake assembly

Whether the Bontrager brakes are covered by any of the these patents is down to the details. Prior art includes dual pivot direct mount brakes, brakes with linkages, and dual pivot direct mount brakes with linkages. So the EE brakes patents can only cover specific details of dual pivot linkage brakes that are unique to EE brakes. You'd have to look more closely at the patents (and the prior art) to determine if the Bontrager brakes are covered under the EE brake patents.

I just looked at the first patent. It's expired for failure to pay the maintenance fee. The other two are still valid.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I just looked at the first patent. It's expired for failure to pay the maintenance fee. The other two are still valid.

Interesting. So I guess it is possible that Bontrager could be using the IP from the first patent, without having to license it for Edwards/EE brakes. It's also possible (but less likely) that the Alibaba "EE brakes" are in the same situation. I say "less likely", because if the Alibaba brakes are copies or the same as current EE brakes, then they would likely be using features from the most recent patents. Again, you'd have to look at the details of the brakes and patents to know for sure.

It makes you wonder if Edwards/EE brakes/Cane Creek has gotten into a mess of their own making by not keeping on top of patent maintenance.

[corkycalvin]

Originally Posted by krooj

My aliexpress "EE" brakes are currently clearing customs in LA, so they might be here next week. Very curious to see how these compare with the genuine ones.

We expect a full on review, before and after installation.

[MikeD]

I wonder if Shimano patented the dual pivot caliper brake? It didn't seem too long after that SRAM and Campy (yes, OldP) copied that design. I can't tell what's unique about the eebrake, other than it looks different. With the dual pivot brake, it's pretty obvious.

[krooj]

Originally Posted by corkycalvin

We expect a full on review, before and after installation.

Deal. Assume they killed me if you hear nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I wonder if Shimano patented the dual pivot caliper brake? It didn't seem too long after that SRAM and Campy (yes, OldP) copied that design. I can't tell what's unique about the eebrake, other than it looks different. With the dual pivot brake, it's pretty obvious.

Shimano didn't patent the dual pivot brake for the same reason they didn't patent the slant parallelogram derailleur and a number of other innovations - because they didn't invent it. Like other inventions (like the slant parallelogram derailleur) they waited for the patent to expire before making dual pivot brakes.

The first commercially available dual pivot brakes were the Altenburger Synchron from the 1970s:




The most unique feature of the EE brake is the linkage used to actuate it. There also some other interesting features like the quick release system (unhooking one of the links in the linage) and the centering adjustment screw.

[corkycalvin]

Cool! Thanks

Originally Posted by krooj

Deal. Assume they killed me if you hear nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[krooj]

The brakes arrived yesterday and I'll get some pics up, but some first impressions after having compared the real ones with these:

* CNC machining is "rougher" on the fakes - they look like a different CNC process or that the real ones have gone through additional machining and finishing
* The front (as weighed) is ~4g heavier without pad holders
* Centering adjustment screw and cam roller are inferior quality on the fakes
* Roller "arm" has a lot more lateral play on the fake
* Boxes are missing things included in the real brakes, like pads and washers
* Etched identifying numbers look "wrong"

I want to reach out to Cane Creek to see what the deal is with these, because if they're 100% fake, it's a very good fake, but given how small the differences are, I think what's happening here could be the result of CC leaving unfinished dead inventory with their OEM. I do have some serious questions about safety of using these brake, since the brake design removes so much material: do we even know the quality of billet that these things were machined from? No. Will the fixing hardware hold up? Who knows? Is my S/O thrilled with this experiment? No!

[belopsky]

Why would you bother CC to ask about these when they’re fake?

[AngryScientist]

Way to go with supporting theft of intellectual property, counterfeiting and crooked business practices.



sickening IMO.

[nmrt]

i, for one, am glad that the poster above bought it and kinda analyzed it. while i never considered buy this replica, based on the poster's findings, i hope many would-be-buyers would now stay away from these fakes, not only for the moral high ground but also from a safety perspective.

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

Way to go with supporting theft of intellectual property, counterfeiting and crooked business practices.



sickening IMO.

[belopsky]

Originally Posted by nmrt

i, for one, am glad that the poster above bought it and kinda analyzed it. while i never considered buy this replica, based on the poster's findings, i hope many would-be-buyers would now stay away from these fakes, not only for the moral high ground but also from a safety perspective.

Agreed