An ambitious folder.

giannip68 said:
These is what my lawyers said to me.
I am writing here in order to understand better the situation.
I write again that in any case I would like have Mr. Hinderer on board in this project, I hope that he will answer me soon.

There are three different situation:
1) Prevent over extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade
2) Stabilizer the lockbar when the blade is open
3) Locking the lockbar when the blade is open

Point number 1:
There are no patent for this point.
There are different way that are used in order to prevent the over extension of the lockbar. Some company use the clip, someone use the handle and other a screw.
Rotoblock use a mechanism fixed by a screw.

Point 2
There are no patent for this point
Hinderer has developed a clever idea, Lockbar stabilizer
http://www.usualsuspect.net/forums/showthread.php?t=80395
Stabilizer the lockbar by filling the gap between the lockbar and the fix part of the handle/frame.
It is not patent.
Rotoblock: does not care about it. There is nothing that make this works.
Click to expand...

You need to look at this:

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Y-ydAAAAEBAJ&dq=hinderer&rview=1

The link above shows a patented device by Mr Hinderer which is for locking the blade open, not a lockbar stabilizer. (This has been discussed ad nauseum in the thread already, so maybe you saw it.)

I hope you and Mr Hinderer can come to an agreement. If not you guys should just make your knife without the rotoblock. It's still a great looking and innovative knife without that feature!
 
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
to moderator: please cancel this message
 
Last edited:
In the patent linked I can't see the claim about stabilizing the frame. But I'm not a lawyer and for sure not a knives designer. :p

I like to see what Gianni wrote above and I hope all you like too:

giannip68 said:
I write again that in any case I would like have Mr. Hinderer on board in this project, I hope that he will answer me soon.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
ombrapelone said:
In the patent linked I can't see the claim about stabilizing the frame. But I'm not a lawyer and for sure not a knives designer. :p

I like to see what Gianni wrote above and I hope all you like too:


:thumbup:
Click to expand...

Yes, it appears that Gianni is well intentioned. That's always good to see. I'm still going to see how this all turns out before I conclude anything.
 
Giannip68:

I agree, the Roboblock probably does not infringe Hinderer's camlock. The key point being the limitation in his patent that the device is mounted to the lock flexure and not the frame. That alone probably does it.

It is this "stabilizer" patent that would be the problem for the Roboblock, IMO.
But as you know, it's impossible to discern infringement if you can't see the claims.
I too have had trouble locating the original lockbar stabilizer patent.
I'm pretty sure I stumbled onto it by accident a few months ago, however. I didn't review it. I just noted it to myself and looked at the drawings. I do not recall what type of patent it is/was, or if it was ever granted. Sometimes patents are difficult to find because they don't fit obvious search criteria.

I'm sure Rick will inform on a patent number should one exist.

Still, as you mentioned at first, An association with Hinderer on this point is most preferable either way ... just as was arranged by Strider, Kershaw/Zero Tolerance, etc.
 
Last edited:
JCaswell said:
Giannip68:
Still, as you mentioned at first, An association with Hinderer on this point is most preferable either way ... just as was arranged by Strider, Kershaw/Zero Tolerance, etc.
Click to expand...

you are right... I am doing that.
 
JCaswell said:
I agree, the Roboblock probably does not infringe Hinderer's camlock. The key point being the limitation in his patent that the device is mounted to the lock flexure and not the frame. That alone probably does it.
Click to expand...

You are right.. Rotoblock is different from the Hinderer patent CamLock.

As regarding Hinderer Stabilizer we can not steal nothing only because we do not stabilize the lockbar.
 
For those that are interested.
Pease, put yourself in list.

1 - molletta
2 - Cotherion
3 - FlaMtnBkr
4 - Josh K
5 - ArchAngel
6 - laurin
7 - tomdogma
8 - Kaizen1 - to be confirmed
9 – Haze - to be confirmed
10 – Haze - to be confirmed
11 - cutter 17
12 -madfordiving
13 – unwisefool - to be confirmed
14 - lorenzol
15 - Nadohr1
 
giannip68 said:
You are right.. Rotoblock is different from the Hinderer patent CamLock.

As regarding Hinderer Stabilizer we can not steal nothing only because we do not stabilize the lockbar.
Click to expand...

Great news! I'm looking forward to handle it.
 
1 - molletta
2 - Cotherion
3 - FlaMtnBkr
4 - Josh K
5 - ArchAngel
6 - laurin
7 - tomdogma
8 - Kaizen1 - to be confirmed
9 – Haze - to be confirmed
10 – Haze - to be confirmed
11 - cutter 17
12 -madfordiving
13 – unwisefool - to be confirmed
14 - lorenzol
15 - Nadohr1
16 - FlaMtnBkr
 
giannip68 said:
... As regarding Hinderer Stabilizer we can not steal nothing only because we do not stabilize the lockbar.
Click to expand...



The Roboblock appears to mount to the frame and, among other things, prevents/blocks overextension of the lockbar, which is the heart of Hinderer's "stabilizer".

Still, the question of infringement all depends upon the claims.

I will have to take a second look for the patent. I'm getting curious now. :)
 
These are the three main purpose:

1) Prevent over extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade
2) Stabilizer the lockbar when the blade is open
3) Locking the lockbar when the blade is open

Hinderer Stabilizer:
Point 1: OK
Point 2: OK
Point 3: NO

RotoBlock:
Point 1: OK
Point 2: NO
Point 3: OK

So, the two mechanisms have only one purpose in common, Prevent the extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade.
There are no patents for that….. or I am not able to find it!!! :confused:

In any case it is strange that a company that has a so important patent do not write its number, writing it will let close any discussion. It is less expensive than call a lawyer later.

Please do not write the Camlock link any more... it is another thing
 
giannip68 said:
These are the three main purpose:

1) Prevent over extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade
2) Stabilizer the lockbar when the blade is open
3) Locking the lockbar when the blade is open

Hinderer Stabilizer:
Point 1: OK
Point 2: OK
Point 3: NO

RotoBlock:
Point 1: OK
Point 2: NO
Point 3: OK

So, the two mechanisms have only one purpose in common, Prevent the extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade.
There are no patents for that?.. or I am not able to find it!!! :confused:

In any case it is strange that a company that has a so important patent do not write its number, writing it will let close any discussion. It is less expensive than call a lawyer later.

Please do not write the Camlock link any more... it is another thing
Click to expand...

Gianni, I think you're still misunderstanding the function of Rick Hinderer's new, improved lockbar stabilizer (the patented one everybody keeps linking to). It does indeed do all three of the things you listed as your criteria. The patent Mr. Hinderer has (linked to several times) clearly spells it out. Regardless of whether or not Mr. Hinderer's original lockbar stabilizer was issued a patent, his new and improved version, which clearly secures the lockbar in the locked position, obviously was.
 
giannip68 said:
So, the two mechanisms have only one purpose in common, Prevent the extension of the lockbar when unlocking the blade.
Click to expand...

If there is a patent that adequately describes the Hinderer device, this similarity would be enough, especially considering this "common purpose" is addressed exactly the same way (As I said before, it all depends on the claims). Adding or subtracting functions to someone's else's design doesn't help.

The big issue is whether or not there is a patent.

It is interesting that Strider and ZT/Kershaw have licensed with Hinderer.
This doesn't guarantee there is a patent. It is not unheard of for people to voluntarily seek license from the recognized originator of a technology even if they don't have to (especially if that originator is well known/respected).

I hope it all works out well. I'd love to see the knife made. I don't think there will be trouble selling it.
 
JCaswell said:
If there is a patent that adequately describes the Hinderer device, this similarity would be enough, especially considering this "common purpose" is addressed exactly the same way (As I said before, it all depends on the claims). Adding or subtracting functions to someone's else's design doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Is there a patent or not?
There are different way that are used from the company to reach the same purpose.. to prevent the over extension of the lockbar.
Some companies use the clip: AG Russel, Spyderco c99
Some companies use the handle: Chris Reeve Mnandi, Xikar Xi158, AG Russel Sea Muster ecc.
Some companies a screw: Hinderer, Strider, ZT
Rotoblock use a mechanism fixed by a screw.


JCaswell said:
The big issue is whether or not there is a patent.
…….. recognized originator of a technology even if they don't have to (especially if that originator is well known/respected).
Click to expand...

In spite there is a patent or not I have already invited Mr Hinderer to join this project, we are writing..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top