ROCKER: What company owns the right to it?

There are a lot of board and equipment technologies that other companies copy if they are successful.
Burton has “pressure distribution edges” which I think are now called “frost bite edges”, which takes the Lib Tech Magne traction and personalizes it to Burton.. but it’s the same idea…

But EVERYONE is doing some kind of rocker or camber hybrid these days. Who owns the rights to it?
We credit Lib Tech with being the first, but really Inca board company was shunned years ago for what they called “dual camber” and it had 2 camber arch, one under each foot… but still this wasnt rocker. Rocker was used in wakeboarding, where of course camber would have been counter productive…. So, the technology develops….

So, Mervin(libtech and GNU) applies for a patent on the rocker / bananna camber…
but Never Summer does as well.
Libtech’s patent request is currently in the “approved” category, but it’s not completed… they dont have a patent number for it.
BUT Never Summer’s patent request got passed and they have a patent number assigned!

Why has Lib Tech’s request taken so long? So, does this mean that Never Summer will get the rights to Rocker tech? will everyone using rocker have to pay to the owner / company that holds the patent in order to use the tech?

it’s an interesting discussion.

See this article:
http://business.transworld.net/48585/features/the-never-summermervin-rocker-patent-debate/
it is called “Smoothing The Never Summer/Mervin Rocker Patent Debate”

and read this interview with Mike Olson from Lib Tech:
http://business.transworld.net/48672/uncategorized/mervin-mfg-co-founder-on-rocker-patents/

and then read this article with Tracey Canaday from Never Summer:
http://business.transworld.net/48611/uncategorized/never-summer-co-founder-on-rockercamber-patent/

I’m curious how this will develop…

See with other companies that have exclusive rights to something… like Burton’s 3-hold disc pattern. No one can make discs to fit bindings with the 3-hole design, nor can they make a board with the 3-hole pattern. Physics tells us that a triangle is stronger than a square… but if so, no one can benefit from it unless they par Burton royalties, because they patented it.

See also Lib Tech’s Magne traction… other companies that use Magne traction, and call it that, are paying money to Mervin for using it… but if you make something similar yet different, you avoid patent infringement, but put your company at risk for being sued.

Rocker came from wakeboarding?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Um no, I think you will find surfboards have incorporated rocker for a lot longer than wakeboards, back in the 50’s etc.  There was even an early 90’s board by Greg Webber called a banana ridden by that great what if of the surfing world, Shane Herring.  I doubt Greg ever patented the name or design but it would be interesting if the case could be made across sports by a talented lawyer.

Not being a patent expert my comments may be wildly innaccurate but I dont see patents as being the failsafe key to a companies IP that some think it is.  The original concept can be improved upon, I’m kinda liking Bataleons concept of rocker from what I have seen and read.  It could be argued that they took Lib Techs original design and improved upon it to a point where it is different to the patent.  Lib Tech if and when they get a patent number could argue in court that Bataleon only came up with their design on the shoulders of Lib Techs patent.  In a situation like that court preceedings would be based on the risk reward ratio. 

In other words, how much would Lib Tech be likely to make from a favourable ruling, would it be enough to cover the straight up financial costs and the secondary costs of time, effort and stress.  IMO in patent law cases it’s a lot like divorce, only the lawyers really win.

other companies do make discs to fit the 3D hole pattern

I missed the surf board rocker part.
I admit I dont know much at all about surfing.
That was a statement about rocker and how it is evident in wakeboarding, I shouldnt have said “It came from” wakeboarding. but that wakeboarding uses rocker… any way.

When you read over the articles I provided links to, it doesnt seem that there will be any real legal problems across the snow industry but of course there always could be.
Newer summer’s patent is for a camber… not under the bindings, but what seems like, between the binding and the nose. with a rocker in between.

I forget which patent I was reading, but one states anything about a rocker shape between mounting bolts…. well, heck that’s almost everyone.
Another detail which is interesting… is that Libtech states in their patent statement… basically any board shape that allows the nose and tail of the board to raise up off the surface when unweighting the board…

I dont know how any legal battle would go down over patents when there is such minor differences.
like BEFORE the binding holes, AT the binding holes, of AFTER…
how about, well, it’s not rocker there, technically it’s flat there, and it is rocker just past it… the possibilities are endless, but eventually someone will sue someone I guess.