HANS Lawsuit - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: HANS Lawsuit

  1. #11
    your other left, you idiot
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Wisconsin (was-Michigan)
    Posts
    3,909

    Default

    The pro is the only one made of carbon fibre, and you pay for it.

    I figure the only time the weight matters, is when you are carrying it through the airport. When it's sitting on my shoulders, I doubt I can tell the difference among the 3.

    ymmv.....

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy View Post
    You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.
    press on,
    just a poor, dumb, Michigan(now Wisconsin) navie
    KC8YHT
    jimmy

  2. Remove Advertisements
    SpecialStage.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #12
    100 K left 2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Orlando, Florida, US.
    Posts
    30

    Default

    The issue is that HANS had the original patent issued in 1987 and most patents are only valid for 17 years. They have subsequent related patents (1993, 1999, 2000) but they are closely related to the original patent with regard to the fundamental claims.

    The defNder would clearly violate the original HANS patent but it appears to be no less patent worthy than the subsequent patents issues by HANS and therefore has a good chance of defNding it’s self in court.

    Then again, these legal battles can (and usually do) come down to who has more money to pour into the suit and HANS probably has the advantage there.

    I had a close look at the defNder this Friday at PRI and it really looks promising. I would consider buying one if I did not already own a HANS due to the defNder’s ability to also mitigate side impacts.

  4. #13
    I have a cat. Eric Burmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Beautiful Holland, Michigan, USA.
    Posts
    3,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morison View Post
    And the human body has about $4.50 work of materials.
    You can't ignore the 'intelectual property' that is involved with items - straight material and fabrilcation costs is irrelevant. You also didn't factor in tooling costs for the product let alone R&D.
    Um, having designed parts and privy to mold costs on products with multiple molds 10 times as complex to manufacture as the HANS device that also need the same type of crash testing, (leather grained urethane molded steering wheels over magnesium armatures with clocksprings, switches, airbags, and trim, for example), I think I understand the cost associated with both the R&D and the tooling.

    You are right, though that the intellectuctual property is what one is paying for. Hence my responses:

    You gotta hand it to them. They came up with a product that works, did it first, and paid to get reputable testing facilities to do the testing. They deserve success, for sure.
    and...

    And I also agree that the person who discovered the need, developed the product, and did the development (especially one requiring such expensive testing as hiring crash test rigs) deserves the lion's share of the rewards.
    We're on the same page here. But TRW or Takata never sold a production steering wheel for $1,000 for a production car built in any kind of quantity...even in hand-baseball-stitched leather!

    Again, kudos to the inventor. I'm still trying to come up with/develop a product that could be such a cash cow!

    Or the cost to litigate this lawsuit, the cost of liability insurance, etc.
    There is truth to this, John. I would bet the liability insurance was probably a huge concern, especially in the beginning!

    Just pointing out a successful business model guys. Not saying HANS is the devil! Kinda envious, actually!

    chillls
    Last edited by Eric Burmeister; 12-15-2008 at 09:18 PM.
    Things could be worse. You could be a crackhead.

  5. Remove Advertisements
    SpecialStage.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #14
    I have a cat. Eric Burmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Beautiful Holland, Michigan, USA.
    Posts
    3,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy View Post
    You couldn't pay me to wear a sport, they are a LOT heavier then the extra, and a LOT a LOT heavier then the pro.
    Really? I couldn't pay you to wear something who's only considerable difference (weight) is completely negligible if the device is strapped in according to it's design principle?

    I only wear it on stages...where it is strapped down and is exerting far more force downward on my spine than gravity alone...but just about the same downward force as if I had paid twice as much!

    Of course, it doesn't look as cool as carbon.
    Things could be worse. You could be a crackhead.

  7. #15
    The Scorpion King John Sundelin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ, USA.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ebanc View Post
    The issue is that HANS had the original patent issued in 1987 and most patents are only valid for 17 years. They have subsequent related patents (1993, 1999, 2000) but they are closely related to the original patent with regard to the fundamental claims.

    The defNder would clearly violate the original HANS patent but it appears to be no less patent worthy than the subsequent patents issues by HANS and therefore has a good chance of defNding itís self in court.

    Then again, these legal battles can (and usually do) come down to who has more money to pour into the suit and HANS probably has the advantage there.

    I had a close look at the defNder this Friday at PRI and it really looks promising. I would consider buying one if I did not already own a HANS due to the defNderís ability to also mitigate side impacts.
    Interesting... I'll bet on one of the following two outcomes:
    1 - Cross licensing agreement
    2 - Hubbard/Downing drives the company that makes the defNder into insolvency through court action and picks up the patent for next to nothing.

    Unless, of course, the defNder group knows of some prior art that will invalidate the Hubbard patent.

    --
    John

  8. #16
    into right 2 tightens
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA.
    Posts
    1,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Sundelin View Post
    Unless, of course, the defNder group knows of some prior art that will invalidate the Hubbard patent.
    When you try to market a device that even REMINDS somebody of someone else's, the first thing you do is your due diligence...you research the patents, the prior art - anything you can lay your hands on BEFORE you put out your first press release. Since - at a glance - this device has a passing resemblance to a HANS, these folks are either well-prepared for this suit...or not terribly bright.

    Since everything is typically well-documented, infringement suits need not be terribly expensive...compared, say, to your average personal injury suit.

    Bruce

  9. #17
    L5 Lg > 4 into Broken
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Bethlehem, Pa
    Posts
    561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
    Since everything is typically well-documented, infringement suits need not be terribly expensive...compared, say, to your average personal injury suit.

    Bruce
    What would you consider expensive? I'm curious what others spend on these things. What is a good comparison?

    I know that my company (~200 active patents and at least a dozen active lawsuits) spends alot of money on inside and outside counsel, engineering resources, document collection etc. Of course we've never lost a suit that has gone to court to the best of my knowledge and are a privately held company with an owner who will vehimantly defend his patents with every resource available to us.

  10. #18
    into right 2 tightens
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA.
    Posts
    1,998

    Default

    Expensive? Well, the average PI suit will go on 3-6 years. There are typically a couple of dozen witnesses to depose as well as expert witnesses on both sides - all of whom have to be hired. Then there are things like accident reconstruction folks and other esoteric hirelings. There's a tremendous amount of discovery to be done on both sides, and settlement negotiations going on during all of this. They are so expensive that only about 5% ever get to trial - obviously only the big buck ones are worth it.

    Being both an engineer and a lawyer, an infringement suit looks much more straightforward...for example, you already own most, if not all, of the information you need to present, and you have people on staff whose job it is to explain this stuff...or you do if you're doing it right.

    In both cases, however, proving up damages can be a real art form.

    Bruce

  11. #19
    The Scorpion King John Sundelin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Queen Creek, AZ, USA.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
    When you try to market a device that even REMINDS somebody of someone else's, the first thing you do is your due diligence...you research the patents, the prior art - anything you can lay your hands on BEFORE you put out your first press release. Since - at a glance - this device has a passing resemblance to a HANS, these folks are either well-prepared for this suit...or not terribly bright.

    Since everything is typically well-documented, infringement suits need not be terribly expensive...compared, say, to your average personal injury suit.

    Bruce
    Probably true, but this has the scent of a licensing agreement gone awry.

    --
    John

  12. #20

    Default

    Wait.. the patent is over its 20 year life span... doesnt that mean its free game?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •