An ambitious folder.

3Guardsmen said:
Care to explain how knifenuts, asking questions and trying to look out for the best interest of a knifemaker, and a damn good one at that, is "crying wolf?":confused:

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Simple, because quite a few people have already claimed that the design was stolen (of the stabilizer), or that if it really was the Hinderer stabilizer that they wouldn't buy one etc etc, even before the designer got around to answering questions.
 
LX_Emergency said:
Simple, because quite a few people have already claimed that the design was stolen (of the stabilizer), or that if it really was the Hinderer stabilizer that they wouldn't buy one etc etc, even before the designer got around to answering questions.
Click to expand...


We've heard from Rick who, I think rightly, believes this is simply a modification of his invention and an infringement on his IP.

We've heard from the manufacturer that has rightly signaled that he is not bound by a US patent (though whoever sells the product here is), but that he wishes to work in good faith with Hinderer --- which is the best solution.

A good result does not mean folks were wrong to recognize the potential infringement and say they won't buy if Rick was gonna get screwed.

I think it's great this community looks out for each other's interests. :thumbup:
 
Rhind64 said:
Basically this is a unauthorized Hinderer Lockbar Stabilizer....whats the saying? if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck (or something like that haha)..come on people..my Lockbar stabilizer has been on thousands of knives for many years, with my knives and my AUTHORIZED users Strider knives,ZT knives and Kershaw.!

Rick Hinderer
Click to expand...

Should have read the previous post a bit more, I guess.
 
Last edited:
I must agree with Stab by logic... This is the next (and superior) generation of the Hinderer stablizor.
 
stabman said:
Yours doesn't rotate, or lock the bar in position.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Read the thread again closely and you'll see that you are mistaken. Rick patented a version of his stabilizer that does lock the bar in position as shown in the drawings of the patent effer linked above.

This was discussed at length, and right here in this thread, already...
 
This has been an interesting thread.

Neat looking knife I think , wouldnt mind having one myself someday.

Looks like the OP/Lionsteel and Mr. Hinderer will work this out on their own as they should.

It would be ridiculous for this thread to go the way of too many other threads and turn into an flame/arguement on who is right , etc etc.

Let's all just sit back and take a deep breath :)


Tostig
 
stabman said:
Yours doesn't rotate, or lock the bar in position.
If this rotoblock thing DOES rotate to lock the bar in position, then the fact that it is round and fulfills one of the functions that your design does is not enough to cry foul.
Click to expand...

Charlie Mike said:
I must agree with Stab by logic... This is the next (and superior) generation of the Hinderer stablizor.
Click to expand...

It truly amazes me that some people seem incapable of actually READING the information that has been provided before making a comment that makes them look very ignorant!:rolleyes:

JCaswell said:
A quick (2 minute) patent search yielded this, which looks like it may be quite relevant:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Y-ydAAAAEBAJ&dq=hinderer&rview=1

It's a device of Rick's that, best I can tell, functions the same as the Robo Lock (same basic idea, at least).

This would be a concern in addition to any earlier Hinderer Stabilizer claims the Robo Lock might 'read-on'.
Click to expand...
 
As long as everything is sorted out with Rick then I'm ok. If not I will have to bow out. I didn't really read the whole thread before asking to be put on the list. Just saw the pictures and got excited :P
 
as far as i know all one has to do is change a design by 20% to not infringe on a patent if im wrong on this let me know

lee
 
brooksknives said:
as far as i know all one has to do is change a design by 20% to not infringe on a patent if im wrong on this let me know

lee
Click to expand...

You are probably wrong. What is 20%? How would you change the Hinderer lockbar stabilizer by 20%? That doesn't really mean anything or make any since.
 
Last edited:
brooksknives said:
as far as i know all one has to do is change a design by 20% to not infringe on a patent if im wrong on this let me know

lee
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

I defined infringement earlier but here goes again ...

Infringement occurs when an item embodies all the limitations in at least one of the patent's claims.

So let's say there are 11 claims in a given utility patent. If any one of those claims is fully embodied by at least some aspect of your product, you are infringing. It doesn't matter if you've added a bunch of function. Improving someone else's invention does not invalidate their patent.
You could change it around until it's hardly recognizable as the same item, but if it still meets the limitation of (is fully described by, or is an embodiment of) any one claim, it's infringing.
 
3Guardsmen said:
It truly amazes me that some people seem incapable of actually READING the information that has been provided before making a comment that makes them look very ignorant!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Edited due to not caring enough about the subject.
 
Last edited:
JCaswell said:
You are wrong.

I defined infringement earlier but here goes again ...

Infringement occurs when an item embodies all the limitations in at least one of the patent's claims.

So let's say there are 11 claims in a given utility patent. If any one of those claims is fully embodied by at least some aspect of your product, you are infringing. It doesn't matter if you've added a bunch of function. Improving someone else's invention does not invalidate their patent.
You could change it around until it's hardly recognizable as the same item, but if it still meets the limitation of (is fully described by, or is an embodiment of) any one claim, it's infringing.
Click to expand...

thank you for that info i was always led to believe what i had stated early on it is nice to be able to have a better understanding of how a patent works

lee
 
brooksknives said:
thank you for that info i was always led to believe what i had stated early on it is nice to be able to have a better understanding of how a patent works

lee
Click to expand...

No problem.:)
You were probably told that by someone confusing Design Patents with Utility Patents.
Design Patents are intended primarily for aesthetic designs, artwork, patterns -- (maybe an alloy wheel-spoke design or something) and don't protect a mechanical invention.
Design patents are easy to get and are weak. Utility Patents are much more difficult and expensive and can be quite strong if written well.

Some people make the mistake of getting a design patent for a device. Of course any slight change is usually enough to invalidate the Design Patent, so it's pretty worthless for this sort of thing.
 
These is what my lawyers said to me.
I am writing here in order to understand better the situation.
I write again that in any case I would like have Mr. Hinderer on board in this project, I hope that he will answer me soon.

There are three different situation:
1) Prevent over extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade
2) Stabilizer the lockbar when the blade is open
3) Locking the lockbar when the blade is open

Point number 1:
There are no patent for this point.
There are different way that are used in order to prevent the over extension of the lockbar. Some company use the clip, someone use the handle and other a screw.
Rotoblock use a mechanism fixed by a screw.

Point 2
There are no patent for this point
Hinderer has developed a clever idea, Lockbar stabilizer
http://www.usualsuspect.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80395
Stabilizer the lockbar by filling the gap between the lockbar and the fix part of the handle/frame.
It is not patent.
Rotoblock: does not care about it. There is nothing that make this works.

Point 3
There are several patent and ideas that want locks the blade in the open position.

Hinderer invented a Camlock, the patent is this one: (it is not the Stabilizer Lockbar or one of its extension owing to the fact that it is not patent)
Inventor: Rick Hinderer
Assignees: Mentor Group, LLC
N° 7.305.768 B2
US Patent
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Y-...rce=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

In this patent there are 19 claims. All of them explain how the cam works.
There is a semi circular wheel with a sloped portion fixed on the lockbar. This semi-circular wheel that may be rotated in order to engaged the fixed body portion locking the lockbar when the blade is in open position. It does not prevent the over extension of the lockbar.

Rotoblock: lock the lockbar when the blade is in open position. It is not patentable the purpose
It do not use sloped wheel. It do not use cam wheel. It is not fixed on the lockbar. The mechanism do not engaged the fixed body portion of the handle.
The purpose is the same, locking the liner in the blade open position… like several patent, not only Hinderer.
It is not patentable the purpose (there are so many patents now that you can not do it any more) but the way you get it

SORRY FOR LONG MESSAGE
 
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top