Super User Grey Wolf Posted May 2, 2010 Super User Posted May 2, 2010 Such is business , life goes on. We will survive.
River Rat316 Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 So anyone who makes a beaver type bait is being sued? That's ridiculous. This is the first time i've seen this thread and link but I think it's funny. This is the fishing industry, everyone copies one another. A company isn't going to let a highly successful lure go without being reproduced to some extent. As far as those being sued, what about bass pro, and gambler? They both make a beaver style bait but I didn't see their names on the list. I'm sure there are others who aren't on the list also. This is about patent rights, I agree it always doesn't seem right but think about it if you invented something (yes different lure styles are inventions) wouldn't you want the rights to the profit also? Otherwise what is your incentive to go out and make new things? We owe a great deal of what we use now to the patent system, if not for patent rights new products would not be hitting the market. Someone also mentioned deep pockets, it probably took a couple years to raise the funds to actually enforce the patent, its not uncommon for patent enforcement to hit 6 figures and it takes time for a small business to get this pile of cash. Companies like bass pro also pay a royalty to the original company when they do a direct knock off, so companies always have that option if they want to knock off a patented product. If you want to talk about patents that are not right, look at Terminator spinnerbaits, they patented Titanium wire, to me that doesn't seem right.
Super User K_Mac Posted May 2, 2010 Super User Posted May 2, 2010 So anyone who makes a beaver type bait is being sued? That's ridiculous. This is the first time i've seen this thread and link but I think it's funny. This is the fishing industry, everyone copies one another. A company isn't going to let a highly successful lure go without being reproduced to some extent. As far as those being sued, what about bass pro, and gambler? They both make a beaver style bait but I didn't see their names on the list. I'm sure there are others who aren't on the list also. This is about patent rights, I agree it always doesn't seem right but think about it if you invented something (yes different lure styles are inventions) wouldn't you want the rights to the profit also? Otherwise what is your incentive to go out and make new things? We owe a great deal of what we use now to the patent system, if not for patent rights new products would not be hitting the market. Someone also mentioned deep pockets, it probably took a couple years to raise the funds to actually enforce the patent, its not uncommon for patent enforcement to hit 6 figures and it takes time for a small business to get this pile of cash. Companies like bass pro also pay a royalty to the original company when they do a direct knock off, so companies always have that option if they want to knock off a patented product. If you want to talk about patents that are not right, look at Terminator spinnerbaits, they patented Titanium wire, to me that doesn't seem right. I was unable to read any specifics of the suit, but I think River Rat has a point. The guy may have a legitimate cause of action. Until more information is available I don't think it is right to condemn him.
TackleGuru Posted May 2, 2010 Author Posted May 2, 2010 The only thing that gets me is that he is suing over the legs of and pincher of the bait. Which mimmicks a crawfish. If I mold a bait that looks like a crawfish then get a patent does that mean that no one else can produce or even sell a crawfish bait?? What about other baits? Can everyone that sells a football head jig be sued by the inventor of the football head jig??
Super User Hooligan Posted May 2, 2010 Super User Posted May 2, 2010 If you want to talk about patents that are not right, look at Terminator spinnerbaits, they patented Titanium wire, to me that doesn't seem right. Remember when Terminator first came out with them? There was actually a guy that came up with the idea back in the early 1990's. He had a friend in the dental industry that brought something to him, and they came up with being able to use the wire for spinnerbaits. I believe the guy's name was Danny Mayden or Madden, something like that. He built the first baits and prototypes, and was in the process of patenting the design, not the wire. Terminator patented the wire, and Danny's entire business was gone. I don't remember just how it all played out, but that's the gist of it. Edit: Part of the patent that is under question here, too, to my understanding is the actual injection process. Not just the baits, but the process.
Mattlures Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 I wonder how you guys would feel if you spent thousands of hours and dollars inventing, developing, promoting, and getting a a pattent. Then finaly all your hard work starts to pay off. Then before you can make the proffit you deserve you get ripped off by a bunch of companies who did zero work. All they did was steel your work and now because they didnt have hardley anything invested into it they are under cutting your prices. Of course its rediculous for this guy to want compensation Man what a jerk Also these companies are given fair warning to stop or they will be sued but they ignore the ceice and disist letter and keep on taking money away from the guy who did the work. Oh and one more thing just because a company is big like Berkley doesnt mean they will win a court case. Big companies loose more then you know. When they have blatantly infringed on a patent they can loose a lot of money because they sold a lot of that product. Their game plan is to try and make the court costs too high for the plantif to see the case through.
ToledoEF Posted May 2, 2010 Posted May 2, 2010 I wonder how you guys would feel if you spent thousands of hours and dollars inventing, developing, promoting, and getting a a pattent. Then finaly all your hard work starts to pay off. Then before you can make the proffit you deserve you get ripped off by a bunch of companies who did zero work. All they did was steel your work and now because they didnt have hardley anything invested into it they are under cutting your prices. Of course its rediculous for this guy to want compensation Man what a jerk Also these companies are given fair warning to stop or they will be sued but they ignore the ceice and disist letter and keep on taking money away from the guy who did the work. Oh and one more thing just because a company is big like Berkley doesnt mean they will win a court case. Big companies loose more then you know. When they have blatantly infringed on a patent they can loose a lot of money because they sold a lot of that product. Their game plan is to try and make the court costs too high for the plantif to see the case through. Quoted for truth!!!!
Incheon Basser Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 I buy the Netbait ones anyway.. they are cheaper and come more to a pack and work great... I knew a guy who invented the fuel injection system for snowmobiles and Polaris stole it from him and he took them on... it took 10 years and he almost lost his house and went bankrupt... then he won and received 110 mil so I think it's worth it for the little guy to take on the big dogs
ToledoEF Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 I buy the Netbait ones anyway.. they are cheaper and come more to a pack and work great... I knew a guy who invented the fuel injection system for snowmobiles and Polaris stole it from him and he took them on... it took 10 years and he almost lost his house and went bankrupt... then he won and received 110 mil so I think it's worth it for the little guy to take on the big dogs Our legal system needs some revamping, stuff like this really makes me mad. Big business can steal and screw all over the little guys even though they know they are in the wrong. The try and use litigation as a stall tactic.
River Rat316 Posted May 3, 2010 Posted May 3, 2010 While I hope NetBait wins this one it goes both ways, the big guys get hosed alot by the little guy also. I see netbait has "trick" style worms and a beaver bait, so they are far from perfect. Bu8t in this particular case they deserve what was rightfully theres for inventing a whole new style of plastics
BassResource.com Administrator Glenn Posted May 4, 2010 BassResource.com Administrator Posted May 4, 2010 Don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of the guy nor saying he shouldn't sue. I'm just saying this type of thing is extremely common in the fishing business....extremely.
Super User Hooligan Posted May 4, 2010 Super User Posted May 4, 2010 Don't get me wrong. I'm not making fun of the guy nor saying he shouldn't sue. I'm just saying this type of thing is extremely common in the fishing business....extremely. I don't disagree, but can you think of the last time someone had one that was as all-encompassing as this? You've got to admit that he's got merit, Glenn, and that it is one of the bigger, more notable, cases of this type in a very long time.
b.Lee Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 This is common in every industry! Why are we so worried. I'm sure these big companies are still around because they keep suing each other. So technically money is just being pass around. It just depends on whose turn it is to get it LOL
Stasher1 Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 It may not be a big deal to large companies like Strike King and Pure Fishing, but I'd be willing to bet it's a very big deal to the "little guys" like Brent. :-[
Chris Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 There is a little known company called Wacky Worm Inc. (wackyworm.com) who invented the Paca Craw and chunk who sold the rights to the lure to NetBait. The chunk has the patent (not sure of the other) and it is both of these lures that the company was built on. The original names for these baits where the wacky craw and wacky chunk. http://www.wackyworm.com/wwcustombaits.html
Mottfia Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 I completely agree with Mattlures and Riverrat. If I spend all this time working on these lures then I would sue also. I personally know Braxton and I can tell you that he isn't a jerk or a lazy bum as some guy put it. He's a great guy that has spent more years than I've been alive in the lure business. The simple fact is these companies encroached on the patent. Simple as that. Mottfia
Super User grimlin Posted May 4, 2010 Super User Posted May 4, 2010 The only thing that gets me is that he is suing over the legs of and pincher of the bait. Which mimmicks a crawfish. If I mold a bait that looks like a crawfish then get a patent does that mean that no one else can produce or even sell a crawfish bait??What about other baits? Can everyone that sells a football head jig be sued by the inventor of the football head jig?? If you change the design of a bait enough to where the action,size and shape is different enough there's nothing the "other guy" can do.There's a certain percentage of change in a bait design before it's not considered a copycat bait.
Mike Z Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 I read the suit a few weeks back shortly after I joined the site here and was searching for *** on Google. There are basically two different claims here. The first and biggest is that one or more of these companies either made and or sold a product that he has a patent on. If the product is similar and not changed in any great degree then they will will be paying him quite a bit and or stopping of sales of those products. The second aspect of the suit was that one specific company was still selling products labeled as patented when the patent had expired years before, leading you to believe that you were still no longer permitted to make copies. Apparently this is a deceptive business practice and illegal. This would also result in unfair competition and a continued monopoly on a product when the company has no right to that monopoly.
repper Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 I did not read the suit, but if he's suing over the beaver type bait, Reaction Innovations(Andre Moore) was the first one to have a beaver type bait I believe. And because it has been so hugely sucessfull everybody now has their version, and many look VERY much like the Sweet Beaver from R.I. i can't recall how many years ago it was, but i rode in back of a pro's boat years ago and he was using those beavers as jig trailers, at clear Lake, and we ( he lent me some) just caught fish after fish with that combo. great baits.
tyrius. Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 The guy holds three patents: -an injection molding system for multi-color plastics (2003) -two for soft plastic lures (2007, 2009) No details are listed, as yet, in PACER, beyond "patent infringement". Paul, Are these the patents? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7308773.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7610714.pdf http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6554605.pdf
tyrius. Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 I can't seem to access the lawsuit but if those are the patents, then I don't see how he's suing over the beaver style of bait. Brent doesn't sell anything like the baits in those patent drawings. The drawings and measurement look more like the paca chunk/craw than anything else. I haven't seen anyone else selling that specific craw/chunk though. It looks like it may be a suit of how the baits are made (the injection patent). That one doesn't make a lot of sense either because Brent isn't a manufacturer so how would he be responsible for his suppliers? Strange stuff.
River Rat316 Posted May 4, 2010 Posted May 4, 2010 HE IS NOT SUEING OVER THE BEAVER TYPE BAIT, the suit is over the Paca Craw pinchers and legs. Andre from RI has a patent on the beaver and if I am not mistaken has a similar law suit on most of the players in this suit
tyrius. Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 HE IS NOT SUEING OVER THE BEAVER TYPE BAIT, the suit is over the Paca Craw pinchers and legs. Then what bait does anyone make that is a direct copy of the paca craw? *** doesn't sell anything that's close.Â
Super User Gatorbassman Posted May 5, 2010 Super User Posted May 5, 2010 I've talked to Brent about the suit, like what has already been said, it is over the design of the pincers. What I don't understand is that if the suit involves the design and manufacturing then why are distributors also named in the suit?
Mattlures Posted May 5, 2010 Posted May 5, 2010 It does not have to be a direct copy, it has to be infringing on his patent. Which could be a manufacturing process or a specific feature of a bait, not necaceraly the entire bait. If I designed a new tail and patented it, it doesnt matter if you put my tail on a worm or a crankbait. If you copied my patented tail then you are infringing. there are several different types of patents which cover different aspects of intelectual property.
Recommended Posts