Lotus/Hope/British Cycling... stolen design?

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Pastashop

everyday user / consumer of patented tech that never would have gotten off the ground if it weren’t for limited protection offered by patents to the innovator.

I think this assumption represents a lack of imagination.

[Pastashop]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

I think this assumption represents a lack of imagination.

I am very much on the same page with you regarding bike configuration choices, but quite on the opposite side of the spectrum wrt the IP discussion. Without getting into a lot of personal details, I can assure you that the nexus of imagination, technical chops, and resource allocation / investment is more functional with the patent system in place, *in my experience*, than without.

EDIT: Maybe you want to open up a related debate about copyright protection?.. 🤣

[bicycletricycle]

I am sure you have a huge amount of directly applicable experience in this realm, I have no reason to question that. I have some experience but it sounds like less than you.

My point is that people invested in a particular system are often the worst at imagining a world without it.

The assurance you are providing cannot in fact actually be made and just like every other argument one can find experienced experts to suite one's tastes.

I know the current system has both positive and negative outcomes. I believe we would have better outcomes on average without it and would support a slow sun setting of it's "protections".

You disagree which is ok

Also, quick side note. the motivation for this position is not entirely utilitarian. That is to say, even if it could be proved to have worse outcomes I would still not support the state handing out temporary monopolies.

Originally Posted by Pastashop

I am very much on the same page with you regarding bike configuration choices, but quite on the opposite side of the spectrum wrt the IP discussion. Without getting into a lot of personal details, I can assure you that the nexus of imagination, technical chops, and resource allocation / investment is more functional with the patent system in place, *in my experience*, than without.

EDIT: Maybe you want to open up a related debate about copyright protection?.. ������

[Idris Icabod]

The claim has "the joining portion (37) is part of handlebars (41) which are made in a single piece with said fork (32) and on which grip elements (42) are provided".

Without looking too extremely at the Lotus bike, it looks like the bars are connected on the steerer?

[unterhausen]

They patented integrated stem/handlebars? That's like the computer patent for xor in graphics. You couldn't read an introductory graphics programming book without finding that method.

The fact that patent offices make no effort to find prior art is a real downside to the current patent system. I know they occasionally turn down patents, but I'm not sure why.

[Pastashop]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

The fact that patent offices make no effort to find prior art is a real downside to the current patent system. I know they occasionally turn down patents, but I'm not sure why.

Sadly, the default mode of operation for a patent examiner is essentially based on linguistic overlaps between different patents / prior art as basis of rejection of a given patent application. Whether the concepts, materials, physical principles are actually applicable is very much a "down the road" kind of approach to adjudication. Hard to fault the examiners: they're underpaid and overworked, etc. I don't like that aspect of the system – it sometimes / often forces one into a pursuit of linguistic contortions in order to overcome a lack of domain knowledge or insufficient grasp of physical principles, etc. on the part of the legal system. If you really want to improve the system, IMO, make sure your lawyers, judges, and a "jury of peers" have a modicum of technical knowledge / skill.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by Pastashop

If you really want to improve the system, IMO, make sure your lawyers, judges, and a "jury of peers" have a modicum of technical knowledge / skill.

Same advice is given for all failing government institutions, Always seems unrealistic to me. If you want them to be better they need different incentives. Perhaps some way to introduce some skin in the game for the people involved. Personal liability for improperly awarding a patent might motivate them to do a better job, that or perhaps some type of competitive system.

[bicycletricycle]

I recently have had to design around multiple ridiculous patents, one basically was a patent for a self threading screw and the other was for a regular planetary gear mechanism. They were able to add enough fancy talk and diagrams to make them sound novel. Meanwhile this garbage keeps competition out of the space through the threat of lawfare.

Originally Posted by unterhausen

They patented integrated stem/handlebars? That's like the computer patent for xor in graphics. You couldn't read an introductory graphics programming book without finding that method.

The fact that patent offices make no effort to find prior art is a real downside to the current patent system. I know they occasionally turn down patents, but I'm not sure why.