MAXIMUS Granted CBTF License

In the final result of a long battle between CBTFco and EBS Yachting owner of Maximus, Maximus has "admitted" that they are in fact using CBTF technology and have been granted a license for use of the patent!
More on this story here:
CBTF Co. Eyes Three-Boat Match for Sydney Hobart Line Honors - AlphaTrade FN
Address:http://www.alphatradefn.com/story/20...___BW5499.html
===================================
Pilgrim Project:200' CBTF all carbon superyacht
scroll down to this date: 23/12/2005
SYNFO.com - World Superyacht News
Address:http://www.synfo.com/news/allnews2005b.asp

[K4s]

A bit free and easy with the facts of the article there Doug.
Perhaps CBTF decided that Maximus was right all along and "granted" a licence to save face.No where in the article does Maximus admit anything.
Stirring the pot perhaps?

Not so. In addtion to the article I've talked with CBTF's lawyer and the fact is that Maximus paid for a license because they use CBTF technology; whether you define that as an "admission" or not is semantics. I said they were using CBTF technology in 2005 and it turns out they were/are. Too bad they had to break down.....
------------------
One goes not get "granted" the rights to a patent unless one pays for it.

[Chris Ostlind]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

One goes not get "granted" the rights to a patent unless one pays for it. (sic)

This is simply flat-out BS.

There are many reasons why a party would be granted rights to a patent without paying for it and to express otherwise is disingenuous, if not a pile of utter nonsense.

Patent rights are not just given away; there could be circumstances where they may be traded, I guess, but it is extremely unlikely that an on-going viable patent(s) would be given away; that is-traded for no value.
In the case of CBTF: they charge a fee for licensing and it is important that they fight hard to maintain their rights to the technology by making sure that all who use it pay the licensing fee. Maximus attempted to use the technology w/o paying for it-now they have paid for it.
If they were to allow Maximus(EBS Yachting) to use the technology w/o paying the licensing fee the patent(s) would become worthless and CBTF's ability to defend against infringement non -existent.

[Chris Ostlind]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

If they were to allow Maximus(EBS Yachting) to use the technology w/o paying the licensing fee the patent(s) would become worthless and CBTF's ability to defend against infringement non -existent.

Doug, a business posture for a given product, can be structured in many ways. A potentially viable patent is, in fact, just another product with potential to the owner of said patent and nothing more. If you do nothing with the patent, then it has no value. Zip, nada, zilch... nothing. In fact, it has cost the owner money to pursue and obtain so it is lodged as a debit on the books until it starts to generate income in some fashion.

Since it is a product, it can be utilized as a tool in many strategies of a business approach. It can be held out of the market because it is so easy to get around and therefore represents a position that would eventually cost money to defend, rather than generate income. It could be used to barter, or trade, as you mention, in order to leverage further considerations from a competing agency. It could be given as a series of limited rights to a another company or individual in order to prove-out the full potential of the operational aspects of the patent. Maybe another company has a parallel patent on file themselves that is essentially non-competing, but decidedly appropriate for a joint venture product and combining the two with full licensing rights, but maintained retention of the original component is useful... and on and on the possibilities go.

These many faceted potentials are all viable and do not require the exchange of cash to be fully realized as a technique for a successful business negotiation.

Perhaps you could expand your understanding of the potential of this product as it applies to a business model and redirect your thinking away from a limited scope environment?

CBTF Yacht Captures Back-to-Back Line Honors in Sydney Hobart Race: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
Address:http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061228/20061228005365.html?.v=1
------------------------

Since the link in the first post has apparently gone dead here is the full text of the CBTF Press Release containing the info about Maximus:
--------------------------

"CBTF Co. Eyes Three-Boat Match for Sydney Hobart Line Honors

CBTF Co., the developer of the innovative Canting Ballast Twin Foil (CBTF™) technology, anticipates a three-boat match for line honors in the 61st running of the Rolex Sydney Hobart Yacht Race, set to begin Dec. 26.

The supermaxis Wild Oats XI, race record holder and defending overall and line-honors winner, Maximus, which recently set a new world speed record around the Isle of Wight, and Skandia, the 2003 line-honors winner, will go head-to-head in their battle to be first-to-finish the 628-nautical-mile race from Sydney Harbor to Hobart. All three yachts employ elements of CBTF Co.'s patented CBTF™ technology.

Wild Oats XI, owned by Australian Bob Oatley and sporting CBTF™ technology, shattered the race record last year, finishing in 1 day, 18 hours, 40 minutes, 10 seconds.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CBTF Co. recently granted New Zealand-based EBS Yachting, the owner of Maximus, a license for the use of its CBTF™ technology and patents.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"While we don't expect a record this year, we do expect a hard-fought battle between these three magnificent 30-meter yachts," said Chuck Robinson, president of San Diego-based CBTF Co. "CBTF™ is now getting the attention it deserves. From maxis to the singlehanded round-the-world races to club racers, the technology has proven to give greater speed and stability and, most important, to be a winner."

CBTF™ technology was developed and patented by CBTF Co. of San Diego, California.

"Today you'll see canting-keel and CBTF™ designs on a broad range of boats," said Bill Burns, project leader and designer of CBTF Co. "We're excited about the opportunity to see the technology contribute to setting yet another record in the Sydney Hobart Race."

The CBTF™ technology features an innovative separation of the functions traditionally provided by a standard fixed keel and single rudder. Controllable twin foils located forward and aft provide steering control and hydrodynamic lift, while the canting central ballast strut provides a highly efficient righting moment to control heel with a minimum of ballast weight.

The ballast strut can move from one side of the boat to the other, and the twin, articulating foils reduce drag while allowing the boat to sail more directly into the wind. The canting keel enables the big maxi-yachts to be lighter, carry more sail and sail faster in all wind conditions.

About CBTF Co.

CBTF Co., based in San Diego, California, created a radical new appendage design known as Canting Ballast Twin Foil (CBTF™) technology that uses a canting ballast for righting moment and two articulating foils. The patented technology is the only movable ballast system that provides safe, reliable and non-intrusive performance for everyday sailing. The successful development of the CBTF concept is a milestone in the evolution of sailboat design and represents a transformational view of sailboat technology. The principals and design team at CBTF Co. have also applied their innovative design process to powerboats in developing the revolutionary M-hull™ technology. The M-hull form is being commercialized by San Diego-based M Ship Co., which creates and develops transformational solutions for the maritime industry. For more information, go to www.cbtfco.com or www.mshipco.com."

[marshmat]

In the case of CBTF: they charge a fee for licensing and it is important that they fight hard to maintain their rights to the technology by making sure that all who use it pay the licensing fee.

In other words, they're a patent vulture. Their website confirms as much. Do they actually have any sources of revenue other than their licensing fees?
Some wonder why we don't see more boats with this type of technology. I suspect if we took CBTFco out of the picture we would see a lot more. They charge $7,000 for licensing alone on a 30-footer, $17500 on a 50-footer. That's just for a licence to put a foil ahead of and behind a canting keel, with no engineering or design data attached. The actual design and engineering run a fair chunk more. And if you try to do something a bit different to get around their patent, you get harassed by their lawyers.
Bottom line is, I see a great technology that is being held back by an overly broad patent and aggressive lawyers. When the patent expires, I expect we'll see a lot more boats like this.

What do you think patents are for ,Matt? I wish CBTFco the best of luck in enforcing their patent rights in this age of unprecedented assault on intellectual property rights.
The designer of the JS9000 just lost his case before the Australian High Court trying to enforce his rights to his own design. A person who was trusted by Swarbrick literally stole the design and now has a green light to go forward with his pirated, stolen , product.

[gggGuest]

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

... in this age of unprecedent assault on intellectual property rights....

Hardly unprecedented... For just one example check out the history of copyright in the USA and how much US publishers used to pay British authors in the 19th Century. You can find an example here: http://www.jeromekjerome.com/threemen.htm

Originally Posted by Doug Lord

A person who was trusted by Swarbrick literally stole the design and now has a green light to go forward with his pirated, stolen , product.

And is an entirely different situation in every way.Swarbrick has had his work ripped off. The Maximus and CBTF guys are both if you like, standing on the shoulders of the same giants. One isn't a copy of the other.

Jim, the Maximus system is IDENTICAL to one of the first versions of CBTF tested and to one of the most recent . It was a direct, premeditated, ripoff of CBTF technology.

[marshmat]

I never said CBTFco didn't deserve a patent for the work they've done. What I'm saying is, the patents they mention on their website can easily be interpreted as covering an incredibly broad range of designs- they appear to apply to any vessel of any size that has non-fixed foils both forward and aft of a canting keel on centreline. A patent this broad makes it very difficult to do any research or development on any layout vaguely resembling the one they claim. So while it's providing a bit of revenue to the company through substantial licensing fees, it's also stifling the work of many other designers who now cannot explore technologies, related or not, that may be interpreted as resembling CBTFco's. And as far as I can tell, CBTFco itself does not appear to do much engineering work; their published materials seem to imply that they simply hold the rights to the conceptual appendage layout and make their money by charging royalites to anyone who wants to test out related technologies. So while they do deserve a patent for the system they developed and refined, extending that patent to cover all related technologies on boats of all sizes and types seems excessive.

[AleX`G]

Isnt that kind of like putting a patent on the idea of having flaps on wings?

Seems kind of stupid that someone is willing to restrict the growth of the industry and technology by imposing these fees on anyone.

[Paul Scott]

He (or she) who most aggressively 'defends' his (or her) intellectual property wins. Period.