FIRST THING BOSS IS DONE!!!!! Log Out | Topics | Search | Register | Edit Profile | User List
Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Moderators | Help/Instructions
WakeWorld Discussion Board » >> Boats, Accessories & Tow Vehicles Archive » Archive through November 17, 2003 » FIRST THING BOSS IS DONE!!!!! « Previous Next »
By LARRY LAW (larry_lover) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 1:02 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
THOSE GUYS ARE OUT OF BUSINESS.
LOVE CORRECT CRAFT

 
By Matt Cour (mcsammamish) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 1:15 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
No way? if it's true then you know others will be next, BOSS seemed to be one of the stronger companies. They have killer stuff, IMO.

I agree, Correct Craft has taken this one too far, I don't care how patent laws work, I can't believe they can justify the royalty from everyone. They really must be hurting with their loss of market share and cancelling the building of the new factory.

Who's got the inside scoop on BOSS? Gerry Nunn you out there stud?

 
By dane (greatdane) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 1:38 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I hate to see BOSS go. I love their products.

Yet, why do you blame it on CC?

How many old boats need towers?
How many new boats already have towers?

I would think a tower company would be dead unless they get an OEM deal.

Also, I understand that BOSS got dropped from COPES last year because of service issues.

Thus, I am not sure all of the blame goes towards CC and their patent royalties.

 
By LARRY LAW (larry_lover) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 1:40 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
JUST IF THE LATIN AMERICAN PRINCESS COULD PAY HIS BILLS THEY WOULD STILL BE IN BUSINESS. JUST THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LOST THEIR JOBS DUE TO HIS WISDOM.
 
By Wake Products (tahoe) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 2:03 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
If this is true that's very sad, they made some nice stuff. I don't think you can blame CC though. Sorry to hear you lost your job.
 
By ernist (ernie_mckn) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 6:01 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
did boss have any other contracts besides with calabria, and what happened with correct craft? im out of the loop i guess

 
By Thane Dogg (thane_dogg) on Saturday, August 30, 2003 - 6:30 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I guess I'm just too young to understand any of the jargon in Larry's posts.
 
By Monster Tower (monstertower) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:12 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I think the problem could have been years of building towers that they owed back payments of royalties on that was just to big of a number to come up with??? It's probably also a sign of a saturating market. Most niche markets resolve down to 2-4 key players over time and there are dozens (maybe many more) tower builders out there and more coming and going each year. It is certainly sad if they are going becuase their products are awesome, especially thier speakers which always impressed me.
 
By Turtle (turtle) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 6:29 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Can someone explain the royalties thing to me on towers?
 
By A. P. (bigdad) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 6:39 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Correct Craft was the first manufacturer to put a tower on thier boat. They patented the idea and had all other boat tower manufacturers pay them a royalty for every tower installed on a boat.
 
By wake_fun (wake_fun) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:36 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Boss knew about the tower patent along time ago. They knew the day would come when CC would come after them. I don't blame CC at all, I wish I had a patent on something that I could make people pay me for, I could retire then. It sucks though because I think the BOSS towers were one of the best ever made, in fact I talked to them at the boat show earlier this year about getting one for my boat. I guess that's out of the question now
 
By dane (greatdane) on Sunday, August 31, 2003 - 11:46 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
CC 2004 towers are very ugly.
All BOSS towers are very pretty.
CC should work a deal.
But NO, CC will never admit that they suck at some things.

 
By wake_fun (wake_fun) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 12:02 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Just like I said a long time ago in a previous discussion almost two months ago:


By wake_fun (wake_fun) on Thursday, July 10, 2003 - 8:08 am:

If I were CC I would team up with Boss and offer their towers as options on the all the SAN's...... They look awesome on there!


 
By Jeff (socalwakepunk) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 9:15 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
I didn't think much of the 2004 CC tower at first, but it has grown on me. Their 2nd gen towers (2000-2003) were probably the best looking, strongest, IMO. I could probably have the dealer install a 2003 CC tower on my new SAN, but I'm going with the 2004. Pictures don't do it justice, I think the looks will grow on people.
 
By ryanm (itsinthahole) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 7:01 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
anybody got proof to this story?? website is still up and loser larry is the only one reporting this
 
By Boats N Boards (hlboatsnboards) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 7:31 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
i just spoke to Rio on Friday and they were still shipping stuff out then...when did all this happen? surely it didn't happen on a holiday.

B

 
By andrew zarlengo (colorider) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 8:51 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I am putting this whole thing in the "rumor" catagory until somebody posts a link to 100% accurate information stating that they are out of business. Being that Dave Williams has the most sources for such information, I am sure he will post soon letting us all know if this is just B.S or truth.
 
By Chris Sontag (hyperlitenrd) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 9:09 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Im all for boss and we even have one of thier towers, but i saw this on wakeside.com

http://www.wakeside.com/miva/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=W&Product_Code=boss_pro_series&Product_Count=1&Category_Code=BTBO

 
By David Williams (wakeworld) on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 9:11 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
What I heard from a reliable source is that they tried to fight the patent and were not successful. Therefore, they are prohibited from selling any towers. However, they are still selling all their other accessories, so it doesn't look like they are out of business.
 
By andrew zarlengo (colorider) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 9:10 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Thank you Dave. Not being able to sell towers is much differant then being out of business.!!! This patent story is very interesting and it would be great to hear some FACTS, not rumors about the whole thing. There are many great tower companies out there and I would hate to see them go away.
 
By Chad Miranda (forwaken) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:16 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
David

I hate to start rumors so I am asking you who would know more, but I am hearing that there may be a second company getting started under a certain relatives name in which the towers will be very "similar" to boss. Let me know if you hear or know anything.

Chad

 
By Whit (whit) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 3:23 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
How much of the $55K someone spends on a Nautique do you think goes to pay lawyers?
 
By Rio Morales (riothepimp) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 3:30 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Hey Guys what do you want to know, I have been the only one fighting this for a while everybody caves in and pays which fuels the fire against the Bossman and everybody else, for the small tower company it is easier just to pay, they have no capital to fight it and if they did they would fight for what they beleive in, how many people honestly beleive that CC was the first to invent the tower, knowing this would you pay them, I'm doing this for all tower manufactures out there its easy to cave in.

The Bossman

 
By wake_fun (wake_fun) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:03 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Rio "Hey Guys what do you want to know"

I think everyone wants to know exactly what is CC asking for, money wise or percent wise per tower?

Does the fee go back to the very first tower a company made?

How many towers would BOSS have to back pay for?

If you can't answer any of the above I can understand that. I have no idea how much money BOSS would have to pay out, but you guys make some of the best towers out there and it would suck to lose you as an option..........Unless Chad Miranda is right above

 
By dodge (triplexracing) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:18 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
i dont see how someone can patent the concept of putting a tower on a boat. i understand if they were coying the same shape of someone elses tower.
 
By Rio Morales (riothepimp) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 6:52 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
No, Chad is wrong, I am fighting this straight up and if the dollar amount is important to you well they want 7.5% for every tower sold and yes the fee does go back to the very first tower you ever sold this is why the new and small manufactures will just join CC instead of support what is right, back royalty fees are over 165,000.00 dollars not including Lawyer fees. Boss Accessories is in business to provide the best tower and accessories in the market and just have fun doin it this Lawyer just a thorn in everyone side.

The Bossman

 
By Boats N Boards (hlboatsnboards) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:02 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
if CC was the first or not, they still own the patent on this correct? Therefor like it or not, a royalty HAS to be paid to stay legal. That is the entire purpose of a patent....right?

B

 
By wake_fun (wake_fun) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:11 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Rio,
Thanks for the info. You are the first one, I believe, to tell us all what exactly CC wants. I can see how a small or new tower business would just join since they have no backpay or hardly any at all.

 
By Tim Krutz (timmy) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:36 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post

too bad some fishing boat company did not have a wider patent. it would probably be expired by now and CC wouldn't have been able to get a patent.

 
By David Mason (rocketman) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:38 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I know a lot of CC owners out there will dispute this and probably bash me, but here it goes anyway. Don't get me wrong, I think they make great boats, but the whole CC tower patent thing is a joke. They sued Atlantic Towers a while back for making wakeboarding towers, thus infringing on their patent. Atlantic has been making towers for years, but it was geared towards fishing (I don't understand that totally, but I've seen a load of them on fishing boats). CC put their patent on a tower for use in wakeboarding. I think the patent is bogus, because the tower on a boat concept falls under what I understand to be "prior art" that is Atlantic Towers had already made a boat tower, they just didn't patent it. If prior art is shown to exist, it cannot be patented (so I understand). So Atlantic Towers starts making towers for fishing and wakeboarding, and CC gets all mad, because they could be stealing profits. I think there was an article posted by Wakeworld a while back (I searched, but couldn't find it- sorry) which stated that WW was happy that CC won the court case, claiming that the jury understands "innovation" and giving credit where credit is due. Way to stand up for the companies who advertise on this site. CC just copied Atlantic Towers (prior art) and put a patent on it. That is not what I would call innovation. I understand that a patent protects people who come up with an original and innovative idea, and it should. But when a boat tower already existed, that is not right.

I think that Monster Tower, Boss (I know you two manufacturers read this board), Titan, ECI, Atlantic, and every tower manufacturer needs to team up and beat CC (I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure they could all pitch in and fight it). Another idea would be to market them as fishing towers in the wakeboarding magazines since CC has a patent for "wakeboarding" towers. You can't help it if people buy your fishing towers and use them for wakeboarding, right?

 
By Tim Krutz (timmy) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 7:51 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
just leave a pre drilled hole for the tow spool and sell the tow spool separately as a marker line spool or somethingor some sort of passive windlass or pulley.

and make sure to have rod holders that the user coult unbolt.

(Message edited by timmy on September 02, 2003)

 
By Greg Davis (vortech347) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 8:40 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Until you guys understand patent law and how businesses protect their designs I think it's wrong to bash a company for looking out for their own interests.

Companies in every industry patent ideas and are given certain legal rights by doing so. If another company produces a product that falls under that patent they are required by law to do so under permission of the patent holding company.

Like it or not that is how it is. That is how patent law works. Otherwise, why would any company spend thousands or even millions to design new products when they could just wait till something comes along and just copy it?

 
By Barry (barry) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 9:08 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
_________________________________________________
Until you guys understand patent law and how businesses protect their designs I think it's wrong to bash a company for looking out for their own interests.
_________________________________________________

Greg, I disagree.. Protecting interests is much different then trying to patent the wheel.
CC is greedy and I think that's going to turn a lot of people off. I blame CC for taking advantage of the seemingly lax patent description criteria.. I can't believe that the U.S patent office allowed such a broad definition to tie everyone else up.

Greed: Excessively desirous of acquiring or possessing, especially wishing to possess more than what one needs or deserves.

That last sentence is the clincher.

B-

 
By Ryan M. (h20jnky) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:23 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I hate greed......
You'd think that a company with the patent for wakeboard towers would spend some of their mountain of royalties to design a halfway decent tower or even their own bimini?
Aesthetically and functionally useless! Unless of course you like your bimini and speakers 2 feet above your head while driving. Oh and lets take a look at that roomy (walk-thru?) open bow....
Hard to believe it's run by such a devout religiously influenced family..... Sounds like the 700 Club is thankful for the invention of the wakeboard tower though. At least they know their portion of the royalty check(s) is in the mail!

 
By Bob (bob) on Tuesday, September 02, 2003 - 11:47 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
What Tim said, you would sell them as radar arches or fishing (cobia)towers and just bolt on the tow spool, wallah a wakeboard tower. Sorry Greg i disagree with you, since fishing towers have been around for way longer then wakeboarding and wakeboarders just stole the idea from fisherman so who is in the right, not CC since they only put the tower on a different boat and didnt actually invent the tower idea.
Tower manufacturers should ban together and just dont advertise it as a wakeboard tower im sure this happens in many areas of industry. CC is preventing the expansion of the wakeboarding industry. So what about the mom and pop welding shops all over the country side who build fishing and radar arches and then the occasional wakeboard tower, how is cc gonna collect from them?????????????

 
By David Williams (wakeworld) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:53 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
David Mason, you are incorrect. WakeWorld never stated that we were "happy that CC won the court case, claiming that the jury understands "innovation" and giving credit where credit is due."

We have never commented on this case mostly because we don't know enough about it to do so and do not have the resources to do the proper research to put anything together on it.

I believe the item you are referring to is one of the following Correct Craft press releases:

3/5/03: Correct Craft Tower Patent Upheld
1/3/00: Correct Craft Patents Flight Control Tower

 
By Chad Miranda (forwaken) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 5:34 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Thank you for clearing me up Rio
 
By Boats N Boards (hlboatsnboards) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 6:17 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Are you people debating the fact that CC should or should not even have a patent or the fact that Boss decided not to pay it and now are feeling the pains from that?

Its one debate to say CC had the first tower...but they were the one's to patent that idea. Is it there fault that nobody took it upon themselves to dot hat before? A patent on a tower does seems a bit ridiculous to me. However, its theres, Boss most likely knew that they should be paying a royalty and did not. Is Rio fighting the fact that he didn't have to pay or fighting the fact that CC shouldnt' have that patent? If fighting for CC not having that patent, I would think he is a little late...should have thought about that years ago when the patent was pending still.

Bill

 
By Greg Davis (vortech347) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 6:46 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Barry,

Tige' owns a patent on the TAPS system and it's just a modification of a Bennett trim tab. Supra had wake plates on their boat before Tige' came out with TAPS. Is it wrong for Tige' to own a design patent? Notice that nobody is putting plates on the backs of their boats? Probably because Tige' would go after them for royalties and it's not a necessary item on a wakeboard boat. If it was a necessity to have a wake plate on the back of a wakeboard boat to be competitive then everyone would be paying Tige' a royalty.

Big corporations spend millions designing new products and they patent them to protect their interests and help recoup research costs.

It's not greed, it's self preservation. Just remember that a court decided that CC's patent was valid. For you and me to sit here and argue the validity is silly. We are not lawyers and do not know business law well enough to pass judgement on anybody.

Just remember that 7.5% of a $1,000 tower is only $75. If a company like Boss goes out of business for not paying such a small royalty then they have no one to blame but themselves.

 
By Joe (joe_788) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 7:15 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
----------------------------------------
It's not greed, it's self preservation. Just remember that a court decided that CC's patent was valid. For you and me to sit here and argue the validity is silly. We are not lawyers and do not know business law well enough to pass judgement on anybody.
------------------------------------------

It's not silly to sit here and argue the validity. CC did not invent the wakeboard tower, so why should they be able to patent it?

 
By Duane (nvsairwarrior) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 7:18 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Rio,
Thanks for the information first hand. What I'm still not clear on is whether or not BOSS Accessories will continue as a company. Yes the patent is only on the towers but I am making the assumption that CC is not going to allow the royalty debt go unpaid. Or, are they willing to just inforce a court order for you to stop making more towers and allow you to continue on? Can you clarify this for us?

Duane

 
By Barry (barry) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 7:50 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Greg, I agree with everything you said.. accept this:
_________________________________________________
Big corporations spend millions designing new products and they patent them to protect their interests and help recoup research costs.
_________________________________________________

Here's why, CC wasn't the brains behind designing towers, they simply took an existing product(Atlantic)and modified it to be used to perform a different task. Yet they're claiming innovation!
Again, it's not unlike trying to patent the wheel because you've changed it from a 4-lug car to an 8-lug bus.

I think that's what everyone is so upset about. They didn't invent it, they stole it and tied everyone else up.

 
By Barry (barry) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 7:55 am:    Edit Post Delete Post

Yeah, 7.5% of a 1000.00 tower is 75.00... here's the problem, most towers are pushing two grand and 7.5% of that is 150.00. Guess who pays for CC's greed? Yep, you and me! That 2k tower now costs us 2150.00.

also, Boss isn't out of business(from what I understand), they're just refusing to sell towers. I hope it's simply because they refuse to give CC *any* future money!

B-

(Message edited by Barry on September 03, 2003)

 
By Grant (whitechocolate) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 8:01 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Does anyone think that patens Sometime Help innovation, In that People have to redesign and not copy a current design to get around current paten. I understand that some patens are so tight that it's almost imposable to get around the pattern and royalty. What was the "Rumor" with Master Craft adding a light to their towers and calling the tower a Light Bar! To get around the tower paten???
 
By David Mason (rocketman) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 8:03 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
David of WW,

Sorry for bashing the site. I see that it was the CC guy that said that statement, and not you guys. My bad- sorry.

As far as validity of the patent, could a patent lawyer please speak up and enlighten us about the concept of "prior art?" I tried to up above, but I'm sure I butchered the language of the law in trying to do so.

 
By Rio Morales (riothepimp) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 8:13 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Hey Greg, the taps are still being installed on supras boats the trim tab is just in another place close to the steering wheel and it is not the 75.00 it is the principal, ( ford does not receive roayaltys from chevy for building trucks this is like putting a patend on a wheel ) Boss is still going strong and has negotiated several international markets for distribution the corporation is not going anywhere, like I said we are in business to supply the best product on the market for all the people who want the best.

You Guys have a great day.

TheBossman

 
By Tim Krutz (timmy) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 8:17 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
grant, patents are good, but not when they do it on an existing product. other question is, how long is this patent good for?
 
By Jeff (socalwakepunk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 8:44 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
If not CC, then who? Lets face it, CC brought the tower to wakeboarding. If that hadn't have happened, we would all either be riding behind extended pylons, and Skylon or Air Boom or somebody else would have patented that, or somebody else would have crossed a tower over for use in our sport, and again, somebody else would have went for the patent.

Maybe somethings should not be patented, however, maybe it was not greed that drove CC to patent the tower. Maybe it was fear of someone else doing it, then CC would have to pay royalties to some one else. Think about it.

(Message edited by socalwakepunk on September 03, 2003)

 
By Jeff (socalwakepunk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 9:31 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
BTW - in 1997, when I was looking at a new boat, I asked the general manager of the local dealership, which was coincidently owned by the same person who owns one of the largest wakeboard accessory (pylons/barefoot booms)manufacturing outfits, if they would be building towers for their boats. The answer I got was "No way. At $1800 for the option (CorrectCraft), the average rider will never go for it. Too expensive. We'll stick with the pylons". A year later, there were several different towers on the market, including one by the above manufacturer, which is OEM on several boats now.

Also, I think that if greed was the real motivation here, CC would have either priced the royalty to be way too expensive, or just not have licensed anyone at all to manufacture towers under the patent. That way if you wanted a boat with a tower, you would have had to purchase a Nautique. ????

 
By Greg Davis (vortech347) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 9:41 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Rio,

Think maybe Supra and Tige' have some sort of agreement or that Supra's wake plate did not fall under Tige's patent.

I'm not trying to defend CC, just stating that sitting here on this site bashing a company for patenting a new idea is silly. It doesn't matter who invented it, it matters who patented it.

A court of law granted and upheld their patent. What part of that does everyone not understand?

 
By MATT (mattbob) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 10:42 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Patents only last like 7 years. It should be up after this year and then CC can go F%&K themselves. It pissed me off when we bought our boat and on the invoice we were charged like $150 for "tower licensing fees."
Gregg - CC has every legal right to uphold their patent. It's just the fact that they shouldn't have it.
Jeff - If CC didn't let anyone else build towers then they couldn't collect the royalties.
I think a nice move would be for people to order their SAN's without towers and then buy a quality tower from an aftermarket company for a fraction of the cost.

 
By Cunning Linguist (jro) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:05 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Remember people, CC BOUGHT the patent from a partnership in Florida. THEY were the ones that patented it not CC. CC DID NOT invent it. Also, I think patents have a 20-25 yr lifespan.
 
By jason zdun (jzwake) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:16 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
The whole thing with CC's patent sucks in my opinion. If that is also your opinion why don't you refrain from purchasing a Correct Craft Product. I recently sold my 2000 SAN and plan on purchasing a new boat for 2004. I have leaned away from getting another CC due to the more expensive prices. Now since good wakeboarding accessory companies are having problems due to correct craft I will Vow not to buy a SAN until the patent is expired or they lessen the cost of licensing it. Want to stick it to CC, don;t buy thier boat. 1 SAN = $50,000ish thats alot of tower royalties.
 
By TY-one-on (typhoon) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 11:30 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
i love the boss stuff, but they were on the spendy side and it is getting very competitive out there. there are many other tower manufacturers that have very nice towers for less money also.
 
By LARRY LAW (larry_lover) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:41 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
I think cc is doing the right thing. Boss should just pay and move on it like fighting the bank it just doesnt happen
 
By TJ (gifford) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 12:50 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Who owns the patent on Biminis, Binding lube,
wakeboards........I hope it's not CC!!!

 
By David Mason (rocketman) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 1:27 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Does CC have a patent on integrated ballast systems? If so, I guess they'll go after everybody for that one also. That one is innovation in my opinion, as well as their TWC on the Pro Air Nautiques. Those two ideas deserve patents, because CC developed them on their own nickel. The towers, which are just a copy from fishing boats, are definitely not patent worthy.

I'm amazed that they can take something that already existed aka prior art (towers on boats), change the application (wakeboarding instead of fishing), and patent it. To illustate with something no less extreme, let's take a boat (which used to be used for fishing and skiing), change the application (wakeboarding), and patent it. Then we can have a patent on a wakeboarding boat. That way no other manufacturer can claim their boat can be used for wakeboarding without paying royalties. Sound rediculous? Well, that's because it is!!

I'm still hoping some patent lawyeres will speak up. Anyone, anyone??

 
By LARRY LAW (larry_lover) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 1:48 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
They do have a patent on tanks along the floor laying flat thats why everyone turns them sideways.
 
By P-nizzle-fo-shisel (pnizzlefoshisel) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 3:00 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Larry Lover- Where do you develop these ridiculous claims, and what credibility do you have that would give anyone the thought you were doing more than blowing smoke out of your ass?

You post all this hype about the X Star and how Malibu is far less a boat, in another thread and then start this thread with “love Correct Craft” and “Boss is done”????

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as though you lost your job at Boss and still have built up animosity? I don’t see any other reason why you would start a post just to bash Boss and have no facts or solid information (I would love to hear your version of how they are “out of business”)?

I agree with the majority opinion; Boss makes the best tower out there and the CC tower doesn’t hold a thread next to the Boss towers. Last I checked Boss was on their way to surf expo (www.surfexpo.com) and that’s the last thing I would do if I were out of business.

So Larry, please explain your nonsense.

 
By LARRY LAW (larry_lover) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 3:14 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Sure but will they be selling towers. I never said they have a bad product, as I recall I like their towers. Thats why I said they sould pay the money and move on.
 
By Jeff (socalwakepunk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 6:03 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Matt, you missed the point. If CC didn't let anyone else build towers, sure they would not be able to collect royalties. They would only be able to collect any customer who would want a boat with a tower on it.
 
By Jeff (socalwakepunk) on Wednesday, September 03, 2003 - 6:06 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
"Boss makes the best tower out there and the CC tower doesn’t hold a thread next to the Boss towers"

In your opinion, P-nizzle

 
By Levi Cress (levi) on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:24 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
If I remember correctly, the patent was awarded in a court with a jury. It would have been interesting to sit in on that jury duty. I guess to them it must have been reasonable to award the patent based on the facts presented?
 
By Levi Cress (levi) on Thursday, September 04, 2003 - 10:26 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
If I remember correctly, the patent was awarded in a court with a jury. It would have been interesting to sit in on that jury duty. I guess to them it must have been reasonable to award the patent based on the facts presented?
 
By Rio Morales (riothepimp) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 8:43 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Big Reward for LARRY LAWs ip address or where abouts.

The Boss

 
By Cunning Linguist (jro) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 9:52 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Patents aren't awarded in court, the enforcement of patents are ruled upon by the courts
 
By Matt Hill (mthill77) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:11 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
United States Patent 6,044,788
Larson , et al. April 4, 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water sports performance system and method


Abstract
Aerial characteristics in a wakeboard performance are improved with a vessel having a skeletal frame including starboard and port rigid vertical support structures fitted to opposing sides of the vessel with a horizontal bridging portion extending between the structures for attaching a tow rope. Further, ballast tanks are fitted onboard and only aft amidships of the vessel, at or above the waterline. The ballast tanks are filled with water during movement of the vessel using a water scoop which extracts water from the body of water upon which the vessel operates and forces the water into the ballast tanks during movement of the vessel through the body of water, weighting down the stern, thus lowering the vessel into the body of water and affecting the wake created by the vessel. By controlling the amount of water carried by the tanks, a desirable wake is formed for use by the performer. The weighting is controlled by controlling air venting to the ballast tanks. The tanks are emptied while the vessel is stopped, permitting them to drain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Larson; Borden M. (Orlando, FL); Snook; William N. (Orlando, FL)
Assignee: Correct Craft, Inc. (Orlando, FL)
Appl. No.: 037172
Filed: March 9, 1998

 
By Matt Hill (mthill77) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 10:12 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
United States Patent 6,192,819
Larson , et al. February 27, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water sport towing apparatus


Abstract
The aerial performance characteristics of a performer using a water sport implement such as a wakeboard is enhanced by a towing apparatus which includes vertical supports rigidly attached starboard and port side gunwales of the vessel at a location generally outboard an operator station. A frame including rigid U-shaped bridging supports transversely extends across the beam of the vessel. The frame is pivotally fitted to a forward portion of the vertical supports for rotation from an operating position to a stored position on the deck of the vessel. The U-shaped bridging supports extend substantially above the level of the operator station. One of the U-shaped bridging supports is readily removably attached to the vertical support. A ball assembly is carried by detachable ends of the frame, while a socket assembly is carried by the vertical support. A shaft extends through the socket and has one end threaded for engaging a threaded bore of the ball. An opposing end of the shaft includes a knob for manipulating the shaft into and out of engagement with the ball for readily removable attachment of the ball with the socket and thus the frame with the vertical supports. As a result, the frame can be rotated downwardly onto the deck of the vessel, reducing the elevation of the vessel for passing underneath a bridge or into a garage when being carried by a trailer. A tow rope is attached to a horizontally extending bridging support portion for towing the performer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Larson; Borden M. (Orlando, FL); Snook; William N. (Orlando, FL)
Assignee: Correct Craft, Inc. (Orlando, FL)
Appl. No.: 399683
Filed: September 21, 1999

 
By Shawn (csquared) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:28 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
This is such a tired thread. All of the comments about how patenting tower is like patenting a wheel simply illustrate a lack of understanding of the patent process. ANYONE could have submitted the same patent as the inventors listed on the CC patent. To think that Mastercraft, Atlantic, Malibu or anyone else didn't patent the tower out of some philanthropic interest in the sport of wakeboarding is just plain naive.

If you really want to be upset at the patent process, consider this:

Comapanies hold hundreds of patents on the specific DNA sequences of the individual genes in your body. And it's not just one patent. Patents are typically awarded for the gene sequence, it's function, and any therapeutic protocols. The company certainly didn't invent the DNA sequence, but they did recognize it's commercial potential and protected it for their benefit. These types of activities are more likely to have an affect on your life and health than any patent on a toy.

From an earlier post (and not meaning to pick on the person who posted it)

Here's why, CC wasn't the brains behind designing towers, they simply took an existing product(Atlantic)and modified it to be used to perform a different task. Yet they're claiming innovation!

Ummm....That's a pretty good defination OF innovation

"Again, it's not unlike trying to patent the wheel because you've changed it from a 4-lug car to an 8-lug bus."

A wheel design is certainly patentable and there are lots of them out there.

"I think that's what everyone is so upset about. They didn't invent it, they stole it and tied everyone else up."}}

They BOUGHT it and have since provided a very inexpensive and fair royalty process. 7.5% is NOTHING. Contact some software and pharmaceutical companies and ask about their royalty process. You'll find that there is usually a six to seven figure buy in followed by 20-50% royalty fees. If all correct craft is charging is 7.5% of all tower's sold, they are probably just covering their enforcement costs. How many towers are sold a year??





 
By Chris Sontag (hyperlitenrd) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 11:43 am:    Edit Post Delete Post
Thank you matt for posting the actual doc.
 
By Barry (barry) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 1:37 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
You win!

B-

(Message edited by Barry on September 05, 2003)

 
By Barry (barry) on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 1:40 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Sorry, forgot the smiley...


:-)

 
By matt broad (mattbroad) on Saturday, September 06, 2003 - 1:42 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
If you enough time and interest follow this link to the actual patent, but be warned that this is very dense material and it will take several beers to get all the way through it. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=RE37,823&OS=RE37,823&RS=RE37,823.

Then consider the following basic concepts of patent law:

1. A patent only protects the literal "claims" in the patent itself, so to really understand what rights CC owns, read the numnbered claims in the patent.

2. A patent provides ownership of the invention stated in the claims, even if the owner does not make a product actually conforming to the claim. Patent Lawyers earn their money by drafting the wording of the claims as broadly as possible while staying within the requirement that the claims must not already be patented, in the public domain, or obvious. We all could probably argue forever whether the tower patent was obvious, but the PTO clearly took CC's side on that argument.

3. Don't blame CC if their patent appears to cover something that other companies previously produced or invented. It is the job of the US Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO) to decide if the patent application describes a new invention or not.

4. You can be sure in this case that this was hotly contested by other companies in the PTO when CC first filed, which is why the CC patent is a "reissue" patent.

5. IMO, we all have to remember that towboat manufacturing is a very specialized and competitive business, and all the boat companies have to make money to survive. So, they all use every business and legal tool available to try to gain an advantage on the competition. We riders ultimately benefit because competition drives innovation, which makes boats better and holds the cost down (I know that's hard to believe sometimes).

6. This is not new. In addition to the tower, our boats all have hundreds of patented components the mfr purchases from suppliers with a built-in surcharge for patent rights.

7. The basic term of a patent is 20 years (someone asked).

Sorry for the long post. It just seems like an injection of actual facts could clear up a lot on this ol' thread.

Matt

 
By Jeremy Martin (jeremy2210) on Monday, September 08, 2003 - 10:20 pm:    Edit Post Delete Post
Do you think I could patent a wooden swim deck off the back of a boat? hmm...
 
Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions Administration
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
WakeSpace is owned by eWake, Inc.
Copyright © 1996 - 2008, All Rights Reserved.
WakeSpace@WakeWorld.com