You Can’t Patent Fun
Who likes snowboarding and thinks its fun? Yeah it’s fucking awesome isn’t it? Probably one of the greatest things in the world hence why so many of us wrap our minds around it even in the off season. Fun is just that fun, you can’t measure it, you definitely can’t put a dollar amount on it, and most certainly you can’t patent it. We’re all here to have fun and that’s what it’s all about but sadly on the business end of things you can patent fun and most certainly you can measure it with dollar amounts.
Early last week Never Summer Snowboards announced that they were granted their patent which would cover their R.C. Technology along with the Vario Power Grip.
Immediately following the news there were two parties that the patent had gone through speculation began to surface as to what this would mean to the snowboard industry and most notably Mervin Manufacturing’s C2 Banana Technology. The pro Never Summer fanboys rallied for the cause while others were a bit more skeptical.
Mervin had this to say about Never Summer getting their patent over on Easy Loungin:
1. What is the status of Mervin’s patent?
Mervin has officially been given an “Allowance” for there reverse camber Banana patent! This is big news for the whole industry because there patent actually is relevant to many of the rocker combos on market. This is big!
2. Why did Never Summer get a patent first?
Never Summer applied for their patent almost 2 years after Mervin began our patent process. They lucked into an examiner that was much quicker than mervins and possibly less thorough in the examination process. This is not uncommon for different patent exams to extend over varied durations of time.
3. How does Never Summer’s patent affect Mervins C2 boards patent?
Not at all other than the quick dose of hysteria from people who don’t understand how patents work(and people shouldn’t understand how patents work). We all must do our part to proactively educate the dealers, public, media etc. of the facts.
4. What is Never Summer’s patent all about?
Patents are not fun to read and we don’t expect you to try to decipher them. They are full of the world’s longest run-on sentences. In summary, Never Summer has patented something that is very different than C2 or even their own rocker/camber boards.
Our best shot at interpreting their patent reveals a funny looking contraption that is popping a wheelie and might not slide so well.
5. So their patent isn’t really relevant to their own boards?
Not in our interpretation. For fun, hit the Google, and find their patent images. Them are some f’ugly snowboard drawings……………flat between the feet with croquet wickets on the ends.
7. Is Mervin’s patent relevant to NS and other brands with rocker between the feet?
Yes!
!0. So when did Mervin actually start making boards with C2 rocker/camber combo?
Mervin actually put C2 boards in the mix from the beginning of Banana production in 2007. At there first Banana tradeshow, thry sold Skatebananas, TRS Bananas, and Cygnus Bananas. All of the TRS Bananas and many of the 159cm Skatebananas had C2. Mervin didn’t think the world was ready to comprehend different Banana blends yet, so Mervin planned to not market names for the different blends for several more years. At the time, we called C2 blends the “Pickled W.” This is where the Park Pickle name evolved from.
So in summary, Mervin’s “Pickled W C2″ was prior art of Never Summer’s patent application by 2 selling seasons!
13. So, is Never Summer going to follow their own patent images and start making boards that are flat between the bindings with croquet wickets on the ends?
We hope so! The world needs more ways to play croquet.
Mervin invented “Banana Tech and C2″ reverse camber and began the patent process almost 2 seasons before Never Summer applied for a patent. Werd!
Last night Never Summers owners released this statement to Snowboarding Forum:
On September 21, 2010 Never Summer Industries, Inc. was awarded a patent for its rocker and camber snowboard design. Our patent is the result of a Never Summer research and design team that spent countless hours trying to improve the performance and ride-ability of snowboards to enhance the snowboarding experience. We’re pleased to see not only the US Patent Office, but also the snowboarding public, recognize Never Summer’s innovative achievement.
It appears that Mervin Manufacturing is also about to receive their own patent for their banana. We’re happy for them and wish them success.So it really is an exciting time for snowboarders. With all these patented improvements they’ll now have a choice between Never Summer’s high-performance rocker and camber design, countless camber and flat-camber designs, or a banana.
Tracey Canaday
Never Summer Industries, Inc.
The interesting thing is that both companies took this to the realm of social media for the people to decide. All in all right now we’re at a stalemate with what’s going to happen but ultimately the general consensus from people is that patents are bad for snowboarding.
With all the talk about patents going on one of my friends shot over a link to a video from the TED site. In the video attached to the link Johanna Blakley talked about how the fashion industry doesn’t have intellectual property protection in the form of patents but they do have trademark protection to protect a logo. But the basic run down of it is the fashion is too utilitarian to patent the fundamentals of clothing ( i.e. collars, pockets, cuffs). Which got me thinking about the snowboard industry especially the design aspect if it, more importantly what would be the fundamentals of a snowboard?The basics would be inserts, metal edges, and of course camber or reverse camber. Think about that and see what you feel are the fundamentals. My guess is you’re coming up with the same things I’ve listed and possibly a few more.
Now imagine how not having intellectual protection might benefit the snowboard industry. While sure it would create a culture of copying much like what happens in the fashion industry with knock offs but it would also establish the originators and in that genre of copy-cats there would become a sub-genre of innovators tweaking what has already been established as working. It’s slightly trippy to think about because when you start to look at how many people want to be an originator and hold that idea to make their money you couldn’t conceive that they would knowingly want to be a part of this I.P. free for all. But think about it like this with no fear of law suits and reprisals wouldn’t companies function better knowing they could dump the legal department in favor of more research and design? Check out the video from TED for yourself.
And for more of my thoughts on this idea check out my interview from Buoloco.
Avran LeFeber from Angrysnowboarder talks about Patents Mervin versus Never Summer from BuoLoco on Vimeo.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Licensing fees aren’t going to be good for any consumer if thar’s what it will all come down to. And it would eventually leave everyone with the feeling that it was always about money from the start which would degrade a company’s image. Both companies want to be seen as innovators, not copiers, which is understandable. I think that that BOTH companies have contributed more to the snowboard industry than all the others combined in the last few years, and hopefully there is enough glory for both. Contraversy draws attention, and some attention can be good. But too much more of this bitch fest is going to get old. I agree that snowboarding is just about having fun, and fun can be had on lots of different boards.
For sure this has a lot to do about bragging rights. Have you ever seen Mike Olson do an interview without saying we were the first. He claims to have invented the tight sidecut, t-bolts(inserts), cap construction, multi axle fiberglass, sintered sidewall(well to use it)….blah blah. They market everything, so for them to have a camber in their rocker, not put it in their patent application & not say anything doesn’t make sense.
NS rocker patent is basically stating 2 camber points, where when a rider stands on a board at least one camber will not touch the snow. This is different from most rocker/camber boards, most flatten out when you stand on them…like a traditional camber board.
Mervin patent, just rocker between the feet, flat to the tips & the 2nd part is including magnetraction…which they tighten the standards on. So any board with rocker & undulating edge (bumps, could be just 2 like many companies).
Rocker terminology is not new( snowboard patent 1974; Dimitrije the founder of winterstick), either is reverse camber (ski patent 1982). All early snowboards has rocker/reverse camber. Many were meant to be surfboards for snow, so they shaped them with surfboard style shapes. Most of the patents speak of reverse camber in their patents.The flying yellow banana was a board produced with rocker & was a main part of why Mervin could not get the patent. Nidecker predates mervin as well.
There’s lots of ideas/prototypes that never make it to the market, there are some that just take awhile. Rocker/camber wasn’t just a NS/Mervin thing, other companies were working on it as well at the same time. However, bragging rights go to whomever released it first.
sorry, mervin’s patent application….
I agree with Angry. Patents are ridiculous in snowboarding. R&D is what fuels this sports(or any sports that is), it is needed for snowboading to stay alive.
I mean where will patent end? Is Signal going to get a patent for their “extreme” rocker from their Park Rocker board?Or, will Signal get sued because they use the rocker technology even though they made their own version of it.
i just hope ns charges burton for the tech. Also would love to see some cash for being the grandfather of snowboarding
something I think I figured out right now.
these patents are for camber hybrids not just standard ol, reverse camber or rocker camber.
(boards with both positive and negative camber)
correct?
I wondered when this was going to happen. I could see it coming when each company wanted to call their RC a new name, and their weird metal edges a new name, and make everything into some sort of brand identity thing.
What if one car company patented the hood scoop? They would be like… HEY! WE INVENTED THE AIR-BURST MAXIMIZER!!!
But lets be real – It’s NOT technology. It’s just part of the overall design.
Its like preschoolers in the sandbox going… this is MY CORNER! I peed in it FIRST!!!
I find it all incredibly silly and I’m losing respect for all these greedy money-centric companies.
Now excuse me while I go patent lacing my shoes top to bottom. (I’m calling it NEVER-MERVIN TOP-TRACTION)
I wrote my little ditty before I watched the TED piece. Otherwise I would have picked more facetious examples.
I would like to point out that the people saying patents are harmful to the sport couldn’t be more wrong. Mervin did come up with an innovative technology, whether you want to agree with the FACT or not isn’t important at this point.
If the Liquids, Lamars, 5150s, etc. of the world are allowed to build boards with Mervin’s reverse camber geometry, they will be able to once again compete on a performance level, regardless of materials and construction. Guess what, Mervin (and others) can’t compete with the prices offered by those brands so a free-for-all on Mervin’s innovation could result in Mervin, other quality manufacturers, and frankly some of your favorite retailers, going out of business. Mervin has spent millions of dollars over the years on improving the snowboarding experience. If you guys had your way with patents, decoration and advertisement would be the only reasonable places to spend money. That is where the fashion industry is. What “truly” new products has the fashion world come up with? I know, the Snuggy! Good job.
Where will the innovation and advancement of the sport come from when Mervin, NS, Ride, Burton, and any others who give a damn about the sport are run down by the $99 Lamar Jib Plantain?
Oh and another thing, Mervin didn’t take this to the “public forum”. The multi-point letter was a tool to help the sales people who were trying to address the threats from NS reps about the removal of Mervin product from the retailers’ floors.
So I’m guessing you didn’t watch that little video from TED did you. Suppose you should go watch that and then look at your little fears again.
The video is irrelevent to the issue. This is a functional innovation. Regardless of whether a person prefers rocker to camber or vice versa they are unanimously regarded as completely different. Shirts, pants, socks and shoes are shirts, pants, socks and shoes no matter what materials, pipings, prints, etc. you decorate them with. When someone comes up with the flying shoes, you better believe they’ll be patented, even though they’ll shaped like shoes and fit on your feet.
Do you think the pharmaceutical companies would spend billions on development of life saving and/or boner drugs if anyone could knock them off the year after they hit the market? All the elements exist in nature so the chemicals should be up for grabs, right?
I’m glad you view functional design concepts as trends. I’ll bet the shelves sure will be pretty when the market is reduced to a graphics war.
Blah!
No that video actually makes relevant points. But hey just remember there’s real viagara then knock off viagara both do the same shit just one happens to be store brand one isn’t.
“If the Liquids, Lamars, 5150s, etc. of the world are allowed to build boards with Mervin’s reverse camber geometry, they will be able to once again compete on a performance level, regardless of materials and construction. Guess what, Mervin (and others) can’t compete with the prices offered by those brands so a free-for-all on Mervin’s innovation could result in Mervin, other quality manufacturers, and frankly some of your favorite retailers, going out of business.”
That’s bullshit. First of all, Lamar and 5150 already have reverse camber (and liquid has disappeared?), and at quick glance the prices aren’t that much cheaper than models available from Mervin or Never Summer. There are super cheap leftovers from the seasons of yesteryear, but that’s an entirely different market than current innovation and the latest and greatest.
Anyway, I haven’t heard anything about any of the staple companies of snowboarding hurting because those companies also serve up alternative camber boards.
Second, this is the age of the smart consumer; sure, some will get suckered by price alone, but most will check out reviews on sites like this one, ask their friends, ask store reps etc. Based on that information they will spend money on a board that will actually work, even if it is a little bit more expensive.
Just think about it. How much cheaper is a fake Rolex to a real one, yet is Rolex gone? Nope. They’ve been around since the 1920s. That’s the power of high quality craftsmanship with a little bit of branding mixed in.
I think you are tripping over nothing.
As for this: “Regardless of whether a person prefers rocker to camber or vice versa they are unanimously regarded as completely different. Shirts, pants, socks and shoes are shirts, pants, socks and shoes no matter what materials, pipings, prints, etc. you decorate them with.”
Come on man, you are talking out of your ass.
I think there’s a huge difference between a t-shirt and an underlayer, which is lighter and meant to wick away moisture and keep your body warm. A jean pant is a different animal from a jean pant designed to stretch with your movement. The thin spring sock I use is way thinner and a lot cooler than the thick socks I use in winter. A vulcanized shoe grips a skateboard way better than a casual shoe, and most skate shoes are designed to resist rolled ankles… and what about shoes/boots designed to absorb impacts, or shoes that use boa lacing?
[...] Thе Angrу Snowboarder » Blog Archive » Yου Cаn’t Patent Fun [...]
There will be no latest and greatest if the bottom feeders start knocking everything off. You haven’t heard about Burton’s troubles? Really? They have had HUGE troubles lately.
Second, the TRULY smart consumer will figure out that there are really only a very few material suppliers for snowboard guts so they are all made of basically the same stuff. If you take away the geometry differences there isn’t all that much to make a “high end” board better than a shitty RIM board from back in the day. If you want to talk durablity, I can buy five boards from Sports Authority for the price of one Lib Tech. A new board for every month of the season!!!
You are right about the branding. I think I mentioned something like that in my post. Ha! Anyway, a Rolex will, and is meant to, last for several generations. A snowboard is disposable. Sorry to break that one to you since you haven’t noticed the parks and magazine shots of kids beating the shit out of boards on city streets. The Faux-lex will only last a few weeks and is basically a novelty (I know because I bought one in the Patpong shopping district).
I’ve been on the hill since I was a poor little kid who didn’t know what a proper “first layer” was and I’ve used the latest and greatest and I wouldn’t call the different experiences an apt comparison to the camber vs. rocker experience. I also don’t think the jeans deal is of consequence. We all know we buy the jeans we think girls will like us in regardless of material. Another shitty side effect of the “wonderful example” that is the fashion industry. We pay $250 for jeans with the proper stiching on the back pockets because it’s what women want to see. Your viability as a mate is measured by your wardrobe budget. Maybe we can get lucky and chicks will look at your snowboard as a status symbols so we can afford to have the Mervins, Signals, Smokin’s and Never Summers made here in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
As for boots, tit is first. Padding, support, speed lacing, etc. are nice but if they don’t fit none of that matters.
I won’t even respond to sock thickness…
Actually, I don’t care that much but I do know people who put their hearts and souls into making snowboarding better and if they are priced out of the market, the world will be worse for it.
Out.
Yah yah. You are so much more core than me… fuck why does everyone I argue with come back with that. Anyway, does anyone else here think this dude was reaching for straws with that one?
I’m not against patents at all. However with the rocker patents….it’s not new, it’s turning 40. Now magnetraction, I can see, however Fischer did a crosscountry ski with it in the 70′s. One thing, Mervin didn’t spend millions on this stuff. Off topic, but I think the best thing Mervin could do would be to invest in some real base finishing equipment & make the boards have a longer life. What’s eco about having a board break easily.
You can spend money on doing patents(lawyers, maintainence of patent, enforcing the patent,etc) or use that money to continue to innovate. So everybody does rocker & you can get a board cheaper, but you can’t with magnetraction….guess rossi might have some cheaper versions. If Mervin hadn’t done the banana, they would be screwed, they were not a profitable company. But they had a great success which has last a few years now…so they did get their reward. Now they need to work to move on to the next thing.
The super cheap boards are not a profitable thing, why buy a cheap piece of shit when there will always be closeout boards. People buying a lib/gnu already know they want to buy that board. There will always be knockoffs for cheaper & there will be customers for that….but the majority are not those customers. That’s why you market & innovate.
[...] interesting read. Wojtek Pawlusiak sessions a nice urban feature. Wow, the Angry Snowboarder is a real person (that talks about the Never Summer patent craze). Kevin Backstrom knows how to do them front and [...]
http://business.transworld.net/48585/features/the-never-summermervin-rocker-patent-debate/
Jeff er I mean Mervin oh shit I mean Marvin why don’t you tell us what it is you exactly do over there in your factory in WA with Mervin please.
e, good post.
Looks like mervin’s been trying to charge “pizza” for years on everything.
Yet everyones butthurt n.s. got this.
Fuck mervin.
you wanna say fuck patents, then start with mervin and thier quiksilver coporation cocksucking asses.
Who has 2 thumbs and will never support mervin,
>>>>>>>>>>This guy.<<<<<<<<<<<
They are corporate greed.
I love how the new attack bannana is marketed that same way c2 is.
“Second, the TRULY smart consumer will figure out that there are really only a very few material suppliers for snowboard guts so they are all made of basically the same stuff. If you take away the geometry differences there isn’t all that much to make a “high end” board better than a shitty RIM board from back in the day”
Wait…if every board is the same, then why did I have to pay 600$CAN for a LibTech board when I could have bought a cheaper board?
Ah yes, because the shitty boards dont ride the same as the quality one’s. Maybe it’s just me but every time I’ve tried a cheaper board, it just didnt feel right. But I guess ride quality doesnt mean shit when it comes down to buying a board, right? I mean they are all built the same so surely they must all ride the same….
N.S. gets a patent and everyone’s panties are in a twist.
Why werent they in a twist for everything else that has been patented.
O shit n.s. got this hybrid patented, mother fuckers!
Lib has banana patent, who cares?
Stupid bull shit, mervin should really work on adressing the public, cause I deff will never recomend a board from the wazy edge asses.
Go suck some more quik cock Olson.
Lou G. is correct.
Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the “budget” board brands are either owned or have heavy ties to much more established and mainstream brands. Rule one of these large conglomerates is not to cannibalize their own sales thus making Mervin’s point moot.
good on ya for getting a patent… good luck ever holding it up in a lawsuit. all people will have to do is state that the reason for their “similar” technology is for a different end result.
i’m fine with you getting the patent. i don’t blame any company for doing it. but at the same time, the first patent suit that comes out of it will have me pissed off.
mervin… even if some newb goes and buys a 5150 plantain or whatever… the next year, they’ll want the real thing and will buy whatever a “real” brand has to offer. getting that piss poor kid on the hill just got you a future customer, so instead of shitting on the cheap brands, work with them… you had better be doing more than just r and d better than those cheap companies… if thats all you got, good riddence if you fail…
all i know is that i can ride a cambered board for the rest of my life and still love snowboarding.
TBT blows banana, C2 and RC out of the water. Camber for pop and control, raised edges for a super loose feel, which is exactly what these new shapes claim to do…so let them both have their patents and everyone ride Bataleon.
ITS JUST SNOWBOARDING, GET OVER IT! JUST RIDE AND HAVE FUN
Haha… what do people who post that hope to accomplish. Are we supposed to just drop our conversation because you are so wise and awesome… oh, and you typed it in all capital letters.
Anyway, http://business.transworld.net/48672/uncategorized/mervin-mfg-co-founder-on-rocker-patents/
Seems in the long run Mervin isn’t bitching because they are scared of being undercut by copycat brands, they are just pissed because they supposedly thought of it first, and when other companies weren’t stoked when Mervin said “we have patents being approved, you should just pay us usage fees”, they took matters into their own hands.
This whole thing is about greed, and that brings us back to what Avran was saying in the first place… greed won’t do anything good for innovation in snowboarding.
I think magnetraction is a viable piece of “technology” worthy of patenting. But the BEND in your BOARD? I’m sorry but “reverse camber” is not a unique enough design characteristic worthy of a patent. Even rocker/camber. If you want to get specific and say “our camber is a v type or ‘notch’ camber in the center with an x-degree bend, swept along arc radius xxx for xxx degrees, then is flat for xxx cm then lifts/curves/etc”; hey, go patent that, I’m down, because if someone else does that they’re ripping you off. But last time I checked, most companies have their own take on reverse camber, and if you’re going to patent a kink between your feet, I’m going to patent the nose/tail curve, I’m going to patent use of a ptex base, and sandwich construction, and I’ll find a way to make it unique and I’ll find a way to say that I was the first ever person to do it.
Oh and the Liquids, 5150′s, lamar’s, etc, umm… Ride/K2 can squash those any day they wish, mervyn has its own 2nd rate board companies which they can squash whenever.
And reverse camber was on snowboards in the 1980′s and probably even earlier.
Doug
Unliscensed Reverse Camber User
Anyone want to tell me who this person is in this photo in the NS booth at SIA Vegas?
Mervin Co-founder Mike Olson. Standing there in the NS booth he reminds me a little of the Grinch.
You have no reverse camber without Shane McConkey.
You have no snowboards without skis. (and surfing and skating)
Every aspect of your “sport” has been taken from others. Good luck patenting it.
Actually R.C. was around long before the Spatula. And seeing as there’s some ancient Tibetan or Indian people that have ridden down hills standing on modified toboggans for over 400 years I think we’ve been around before skiing.
the TED video is great and makes perfect sense. I dont think patents and liscensing will benefit anyone because you can simply change a measurement or a screw or one aspect of that “unique” design, and now its no longer a copy of that design. Magnetraction for instance, people have their take on it, magnetraction which is a far more unique design than the way a board is bent, is being copied/modified/etc whatever you want to call it.
All Look Lamar freestyle/tricksticks etc from 1989ish naturally became reverse camber after a good 30-40 days of abuse. Many other 80′s boards did as well
The way I look at it …
It seems as if Mervin (the company, not the poster) is being kinda shady or “pouting” on this whole issue.
From what I can tell – it is almost obvious that they’ve been doing camber-rocker-camber hybrid boards for quite some time now… as I’ve seen multiple photos/reports showing that older TRS boards and even some as old as the one with the motorcycle on it had camber at the tip/tail.
They just didn’t market these properly (wrapped all of these different variations within the “banana” term) and they are now getting bit in the ass about not being the first to come out with the “hybrid” style rockers.
The comments from them seem sort of shady though, in that they want to make their “pizza” off of it… when it seems (as of right now) that Never Summer only put the patent through to avoid any legal issues that could have arose in the future. That would have been OK for NS if they are only doing it to save their asses. It would NOT be OK if they were planning on flipping this and charging everyone (making their own pizza) for their “technology” in the future.
All of that said… I bought a 2010 (last year) Banana Magic and it just arrived at my house today. All I really care is that it is more of a hybrid than straight rocker and if it is… I’m probably gonna stick with it.
Can’t everyone just play along nicely?
You people need to get it together….really….Mervin has been bringing innovation to the sport for years…. anyone can argue and talk shit but fact of the matter mervin has improved the ride,the pop, the cut, in all aspects of snowboarding.