CBTF(Canting Ballast Twin Foil)

Infringement

"paul b"-I guess I have "specific knowledge"...
I hope CBTF wins real big but at some point I'd love to see the two giants do a one on one race-what a day that would be!

 

Let's hear it. What do you know about the mechanism in question, and how it infringes the patent? Be specific.

Let me guess. You "can't say" because you are "sworn to secrecy" or somesuch nonsense.

 

infringement

CBTFco believes that Maximus is infringing their patent-- thats good enough for me. I've gotten to know those guys from years of collboration on rc models-they are first class and they've worked hard to perfect the system.
I don't know the specifics but I would hazarrd a guess that one of the points is bound to be the so called trim tab on the forward foil: in and of itself it could be said to operate like a forward rudder. But I don't know the details-just the people and as I said before their judgement is all I need.

 

What about this?

So were you not telling the truth? You now say you made statements without proof on a public forum. What happens if CBTFco doesn't prevail? Now I could paraphrase your prior comments and say I HOPE action is taken against YOU and the other party wins big. Truth is, you and your sad comments probably aren't worth the time of people who own supermaxi yachts, so you are probably safe. After all, if they won what could they get? Perhaps a couple of molds for model boats and a 16' "Foiler" that doesn't?

 

I think some facts are in order here-

 

The letter from the attorneys to Mr Brown in my humble opinion is a) defamatory (libelous) and b) confused (poorly written)

"... the Owners and contributors decided otherwise, thinking they were beyond the reach of the United States law" A very serious accusation, I would say it is libelous. Also, who is the letter dirrected to? Do you purposefuly mutilate the english language to create a presumtuous barrier between the likes of yourselves and the common citizen, like a secret society? This language is neither clever nor noble but rather shows an inherent arrogance and despise of the common citizen. Laws follow the rules of logic and universal morality and so it's language shall be universal and logical.

"Genuine risk build in which the CBTF was utilised, and a royalty paid." So, is this a way of addressing loyal customers? Furthermore, it goes to show the respect which the people involved have in general for the law.

Quite honestly my advice would be to sue for defamation as far as this letter is concerned, I am curious to see what happens next... but meanwhile....

GO MAXIMUS GO :-D

Faced with such greatness as that of the ocean,
one is inclined to be humble and respectful.
Such a force as to fill ones heart with passion,
never again to crumble or be disdainful.

 

PS. Browser wouldnt load the drawings of CBTF specification on the US Pat. web site, does it work? If not, would anyone know of a direction to a link that works? Much appreciated.

 

news flash everyone: Maximus has a daggerboard with a trim tab. Skandia, Nicorette, and several Open 60's have this arrangement. CBTFco is going after Maximus because she was in the States for a few days. This is probably going to discourage Skandia and Nicorette from ever coming to the US for any races.
And Doug, you said that "CBTFco believes that Maximus is infringing their patent-thats good enough for me." Thats a rather foolish statement to make, as these CBTF people may seem god-like to you, but to the vast majority of people (including those on Sailing Anarchy) they seem to be making money in a way that is not approved and the patent is considered rather stupid. Maximus is more than likely to be faster than any CBTF 100'....and if a CBTF 100' uses a retractable canting keel i bet Buckley and Brown would sue them just to give them a taste of their own medicine.
GO MAX!

 

try this

 

Hear, hear.

It also seems a bit exagerated on my side, since the majority of the technology used in the CBTF has been around for a long time hence the highly specific setup which the patent reffers to. Notably the fore and aft finns, I quote the written specification:
" fore and aft foils mounted for rotation about axes extending below said hull fore and aft of said strut and ballast,
a first control means connected to said foils for counter rotation thereof for cyclic steering by turning said foils in opposite directions to port or starboard for creating a yawing moment for steering said yacht on its course,
a second control means connected to said foils for turning said foils in the same direction for collective steering, "

from the other pictures I managed to see these are two elongated fins descending verticaly into the water with the canting keel in between, which in no way resembles the Maximus setup. It can also be pointed out that Mari-Cha IV uses a canting keel combined with ballasts, a reputed designer was involved in both these projects. Since there is no fore fin, it does not correspond to CBTF spec. correct me if I am wrong. Therefor in Maximus' case since the fore fin does not correspond in it's design to the one described in CBTF spec. it does not seem to me, in my humble opinion, to be liable for any royalties due or any other claim.

I would also like to say how touched I am to see good, honest people debating here. It is rather enriching and refreshing.

Kind regards to you all.

 

CBTF "specific knowledge"

I'm competely satisfied that CBTFco has the right and obligation to defend their patent. I'm confident that the assesment of of their position is in good hands and I hope to hell they nail Maximus to the wall!
When I used the words "specific knowledge" it was in relation to "paul b's" comment about the "accusation" against Maximus and referred to my first hand knowledge from one of the patent holders regarding the seriousness with which CBTFco views the situation. I don't know (for sure)specific details of their case just the fact that they view this as
very serious and that they feel obligated to take acton in defense of the patent.
Too many people view the protection of intellectual property in a negative light and that's too bad but a patent holder MUST defend what they perceive to be infringement or their failure to do so can be used against them in further proceedings.
This case is important because there seem to be many people willing to take big chances to use this technology without paying the license fee; hopefully this can be dealt with firmly on behalf of CBTFco and I wish them the best of luck!

 

I guess you would, since if they don't you would have some legal exposure for the comments you have made.

You specifically accused someone of patent infringment with a statement of fact, "..has infringed their patent." When questioned specifically about that you claimed you had "specific knowledge" about it. Then you admitted this was not true. No weasly doublespeak is going to clear you of this.

Really? Many People? Who would these people be?

 

how is CBTFco going to sue Maximus? Maximus's owners could buy every good lawyer before CBTFco started looking if they wanted. Also, CBTFco doesnt have as much money to stand on as EBS Yachting does. What if EBS sues CBTFco? that might make it interesting. Or Greg Elliot might sue CBTFco for trying to claim a TMF system is CBTF. Simonis/Voogt would also get in on that. And then you have the Open 60 designers. This could turn into a huge mess for people involved. CBTFco would lose more than EBS Yachting, because they only have to pay $87,000 plus legal fees, while CBTFco would probably gain nothing except their tag on Maximus. And the majority of the sailing world would be rather annoyed at CBTFco.

 

Cbtf

2, I think the information you think you have regarding CBTFco is way off base- CBTF is going to agressively pursue the infringement of their patent WHEREEVER and by WHOMEVER. They have no choice ; it is their obligation under the law to aggresively protect and defend the patent.
And those that infringe are playing a potentally expensive game where the costs assesed against them could be astronomical.

 

I don't believe this to be their opinion. Rather that the CBTF system does not encompase this particular design... however if they genuinely feel that it does, and that this be a reasonable claim then may they claim and win.

Also other recent improvements made by various designers/inventors must also then get the same recognition and rights as for the CBTF. And then if another person had the idea beforehand and had designed a similar model they also have rights which must be guaranteed.
My thoughts go out to all the inventors who never patented what was rightfuly theirs, or didn't think to, or were robbed of their invention, or even refused recognition due to nationality or whatever other reason.

It is also interesting to think the chinese invented the predecesor of the modern racing sail with the durable and battened junk sail, as well as ballasts. They even invented the steamer before the europeans. That's off subject, but fascinating.