worm Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Who make a mold close to Strick King Rage chunk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 No one will be making a mold of this bait. It is protected by patent. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrat69 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 bob makes a craw . 706 about as close as you will find Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worm Posted January 31, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 The Bobs 706 is what Im looking for. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATFLATTIE Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Yeah I wanted the same thing but just got the 706 and bite it down if needed. It is a wonderful bait and I have caught a bunch of nice fish on it. You won't be disappointed if you get that mold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 I am surprised Bob got away with the 706. It is all about the flanges on the appendages that create the action. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FATFLATTIE Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 Isn't about the only thing that's patented on the rage craw is the actual ridge on the claw?? Bob's is completely different but produces almost the exact same action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrat69 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 their is no flange on the 706; that is what the patent is on. many different ways to get claws to swim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) It is the flanges on the claw that give the action. That is what this lure is all about. The rest of the lure is aesthetics. I haven't read the patent, and I am sure they will site other features, to drag your attention away from the important flanges, that is what I would do. If the flanges are not well covered by the patent, then Rage do not understand their own lure. Elrat69 - I am looking at the 2nd image on the BTS site, there are flanges shown on the claws. Flanges, ribs, ridges, call them what you like, they are there in the pic. Dave Edited January 31, 2016 by Vodkaman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hpssports Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 The patent is for the wider outer edge. The 706 has the same, if not more action but is raised before the outer edge & goes back thin at the edge. It only takes a 20% difference to get around a patent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveMc1 Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 The patent is for the wider outer edge. The 706 has the same, if not more action but is raised before the outer edge & goes back thin at the edge. It only takes a 20% difference to get around a patent. Negative on that. There are a couple different patents. This is one you hear about being patented but I haven't been able to find the patent to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majic man Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 The patent is for the wider outer edge. The 706 has the same, if not more action but is raised before the outer edge & goes back thin at the edge. It only takes a 20% difference to get around a patent. Myth. Design patents are totally at the judges discretion, if he or she feels it looks similar. Utility patents cover individuality's across a wide range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 There is no such thing as a 20% or any other % rule. This is the patent document that I am looking at. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbv Posted January 31, 2016 Report Share Posted January 31, 2016 (edited) The body of the 706 craw looks looks like it has a circular cross section, can anyone verify? It may not violate at least one of the claims if it is. Patent claim 1 a) a body having two ends, the body having a width and a height, the body width being greater than the body height; Deconstructing patents is fun but way too risky to act on without consulting an attorney. Edited February 1, 2016 by rcbv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travis Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Deconstructing patents is fun but way too risky to act on without consulting an attorney. You forget the only real important thing with patents and deconstructing..........deep pockets and getting legal to side on your behalf. Outside of this essentially you just have a guy that slept at a Holiday Inn Express the night before. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 You have to put yourself in the position of Strike King. If your copy sales are affecting SK sales profits, then you are likely to get a cease and desist letter, you then have to make a decision; get a lawyer or cease and desist. To get on to SK's radar, you are going to have to move a LOT of product. Lawyering patents takes a lot of time, effort and money and is not something SK will jump into lightly, unless it is fiscally necessary. BTS are more likely to grab SK's attention because of the cumulative affect of selling the copy mold to hundreds of pourers and the copy product they are selling. SK will be well aware of BTS and will be monitoring the situation. SK obviously do not consider BTS a threat and have decided to let it slide. So, unless you are selling 100,000 pieces a month, then you have very little to worry about. Another possibility is that SK and BTS may have struck a loyalties deal, were SK receive a commission on the mold sales, but this is doubtful. These are just my opinions and speculations. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elrat69 Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 Well go to tackle warehouse and look at maNY baits that look like the sk patent. Sk with your logic, will have to take on many competitors Sk patent flange on edge vs zooms square Ridge on the edge I could be totally wrong but love the debate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted February 1, 2016 Report Share Posted February 1, 2016 SK as far as I know, haven't chased up on this patent, at least nothing showed up on my search. The need for a patent has to be anticipated and applied for before the product is released, this is why patents are stepped process. If you later realize that you don't need the patent, then you can let it lapse after the first stage, saving a lot of money. Big companies like SK will patent everything, just in case, the cost of patents not being a big deal. They even pay for the follow-up full patent. For this reason, we often see features that have been around and in use on lures for decades, all of a sudden being patented. Raised trailing edges create vortices, which create action. The principle is no different to the paddle tail. The same principle has been patented on other lures with raised tail edges. I find this extremely annoying as a designer, because a lot of the tools in my design box, which I consider obvious and standard, I cannot use because of patents. This is not SK's fault, or any of the other big companies flashing patent money about. It is the fault of the patent assessors, they simply do not know enough about this specialized subject of lure design, in my opinion. I hope you are not getting the impression that I am 'against' Bob's mold and 'for' SK's patent, I certainly am NOT. I think the patent is entirely unjustified. The idea is good, but far from original. An example of good, original design, worthy of a patent, would be the Chatterbait, which was never patented (as far as I know). I am currently working on a hard bait that produces a new type or shape of action, that I discovered quite by accident a few years ago. I call it the DoubleWaggle. However, I morally could not patent the features that generate the novel action, because the features that I have combined to make the novel action, in themselves are just not original. I am ‘all for’ original, innovative, patented design, but this raised edge tail is old technology. What I find really annoying, is when patents are granted for features, that the designer doesn’t understand and even gets the vortex flow diagrams all wrong, and still, the patent is granted. Such nonsense, clearly demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the part of the designer AND the patent assessor. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rcbv Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Prior art can invalidate a patent, but you have to pay careful attention to the claims, they are the heart of the patent and the only thing that matters. The Strike King Rage Chunk raised ridge is not the only thing claimed in the patent. And to further screw things up there is the "doctrine of equivalents". This is where a judge in a patent case can decide that even though your product did not literally infringe a patent but your product may still be equivalent to the patented product and therefore in violation. It's educational to browse through patents, you'll see plenty of idiotic ideas that were granted a patent. What I like to do is look at patents that have expired for ideas, in the USA that means patents issued 20 years ago. Still plenty of great ideas from that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 When I was starting out with lure design, I refused to look at other people's work. I wanted to explore my own ideas and did not want to be influenced. Even now, eight years on, I rarely go into the gallery for the same reasons. I am the same at work, designing cars. I will tackle the problem myself, say the B-pillar/roof connection. Once my ideas are laid out, I will have a look at other vehicle ideas, because my boss insists. I can then choose the best ideas. Sometimes my virgin ideas win the day, but usually the bosses go for the tried and tested. I like looking through the vintage lures and am often amazed at the innovation, because there was very little science behind the designs, just years of experience and the occasional accident. There is a lot to learn from these old designs, combining them with modern engineering knowledge. Sometimes you can see the potential for an improvement or a slightly different variation that will work better. I haven't followed up on such ideas, as I am still working my own. But, vintage is definitely worth exploring for NEW ideas. Good points made by Elrat and RCBV. For me patents are a complex, tedious, but interesting subject. Aggravating at times, when you see obvious old ideas with patents attached to them. Yes, the above patent claims more than just the tail, in fact, it just about claims everything. A lot of this is nonsense, for example; the body is wider than it is deep. They cannot possibly enforce this claim, as it is too general AND craw bodies are wider than deep. There is nothing innovative here and the same can be said about the rest of the claims. Most of the claims are describing shapes. You should not be allowed to patent a shape that exists in nature, otherwise you will have to explain to the mom and Dad craws, that they are not allowed to infringe on SK's patent. The only remote patent-able feature is the raised edge and I sneer at that too. Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Dave, I was involved in a trademark-cease and desist 30 years ago. I hired a patent and trademark attorney who handled the original trademark application. The name and logos were original and the T&P office in Washington searched the name and logos on the application.They said that a exclusive trademark would be issued if there were no objections. Kaboom- the last day before it would have been issued a company w/ very deep pockets objected. Long story short- an additional $5500. in legal fees. My T&P attorney said,"We'll win this if we go to Washington to plead our case." I asked what the cost would be- he said 20K- 20 thousand dollars!~!!!! I sucked-it up and changed the name and trashed the logos. I can't imagine what the cost today would be to fight a patent infringement suit. If you lose,you are liable for the legal expenses for both sides. Note to all the lawyer wannabees on TU- You better have 10's of thousands of $ to waste if you wish to take on Strike King lures and the ability to produce enough baits to cover your legal expenses whether you win/lose.. Patents and trademarks are expensive and very tricky subjects.BTW- there are very good crayfish imitations that catch bass w/out interfering w/ the Strike King-rage tail patent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Well stated SMH. I don't think I will ever be getting involved with patents, unless I saw the opportunity to sell a design. I certainly would not be getting into any litigation. My pockets are all shallow runners Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark poulson Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Dave, The original Chatterbait was patented, and defended. I know Barlow's Tackle had to stop selling the components that infringed on that patent. He said the company involved allowed him to sell off his remaining stock, but that he could no longer offer those components, once his stock was gone. If you look at everyone else's commercial Chatterbait knockoff, they don't have the direct connection of the blade to the head, or the same hex blade design. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vodkaman Posted February 2, 2016 Report Share Posted February 2, 2016 Mark - I missed that in my search. But like I said; worthy of a patent. Dave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
