Humphree stabilisation system?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted User YDKXO
  • Start date Start date
MapisM said:
BUT, re...
...are you for real?
Of course that's the conclusion I'm drawing. I can't honestly think of another one, as long as we consider rational/economic/technical reasons.
Otoh, there might be folks out there who like a legal fight for the sake of it, but that's another matter altogether, and I have no reason to think that any of CMC competitors are so stupid.

Let me throw down a gauntlet, on the conclusions that should be drawn whenever someone tries to challenge a patent.
I assume that vector fins were patented, weren't they?
If that is the case, I'm betting a virtual Mars bar that nobody on this planet will ever challenge that patent, regardless of how fortunately it might have been obtained. :)
Click to expand...
Mapism, this is getting ridiculous and of course I'm for real. CMC have patented the use of electric actuators in general. Electric actuation is a great concept and it is a great solution in may cases. The other manufacturers want to make electric (see www.niaid.com home page) so they now need to challenge the patent for electric actuation as a general concept. Indeed, some were developing electric and it never occurred to them that electric actuation as a concept would be patentable, so they were taken by surprise with CMC's patent. It took some fancy footwork (imho) to get the patent that CMC got. Ergo, a challenge to the patent does not mean the challengers think CMC's product is the best (nor that it isn't).

The curved fin is patented and no-one has challenged it afaik. They would have little chance of success because it is quite obviously a new invention (unlike an electric fin actuator). You seem to be working on the flawed premises that (i) people only challenge patents because they think the patented invention is better, and (ii) an absence of patent challenges means the product is no good. Both premises are absurd, so if I'm misunderstanding your stance then please correct me.

We've done arguing this to death so let's not do it here, at least not the curved fin part. I've read all the patent papers which you haven't, and I've run 1msq curved fins and 1msq flat fins on the very same boat (with, as you know, uber accurate fuel metering) which only one other person on the planet has ever done. (The fuel answer btw is 3/4litres per mile benefit at P speed!). In contrast, you're shooting blind on both topics.
 
jfm said:
You seem to be working on the flawed premises that (i) people only challenge patents because they think the patented invention is better, and (ii) an absence of patent challenges means the product is no good. Both premises are absurd, so if I'm misunderstanding your stance then please correct me.
Click to expand...
Well, yes you are, at least to some extent.
The crucial thing here is what we mean by "better", as opposed to "no good".
I never said that electric stabs are better than hydraulic ones, if by better we just mean more effective at doing their job.
Otoh, they do have a distinctive competitive advantage vs. hydraulics, because they are simpler, lighter, require less components and are ultimately cheaper to build and install - also for builders btw, not just for retrofitting - though obviously the difference is higher with the latter.
In this sense, I already sympathized with your last sentence in post #28.

In fact, nobody in their right mind would consider challenging a patent unless they think that it grants a competitive advantage to a competitor, and/or unless they want to use whatever has been patented themselves.
Now, if that doesn't prove that there's something which is, one way or another, "better" in the patented technology, I don't know what else does.
And this is so obvious in my view, that if it isn't in yours we'll have to agree to disagree for good, because it's REALLY not worth discussing further.
Life's way too short to find a compromise between "obvious" and "absurd" on this matter....

Re. curved fins, glad to not discuss them here, if you don't want to.
I struggle to understand why you felt the need to follow your request with some meaningless numbers, not to mention the willy waving bits, but hey ho! :)

PS: what does the expression "fancy footwork" mean/imply, exactly?
 
Last edited:
Oh dear, forums! I'll just try to answer the "absurd" point. MapisM, you're moving the goalposts to suit the hole you've dug. You say above that the challenge to the patent means "there's something which is, one way or another, "better" in the patented technology". I agree and have never disagreed; it's obvious.

But your post that I was replying to (#31) said that the challenge means that CMC is the best there is. That's an entirely different thing. The reason for the challenge isn't that CMC is the best there is. The reason is that CMC have a patent on electric actuators in general, regardless of whether their stab systems are rubbish or excellent.

Electric actuation as a concept is a good thing and if CMC had invented it then fair play to them. But they didn't, or at least that is the criticism. There are on-the-record electric actuators invented decades ago, and the argument goes that the patent ought not to have been granted because nothing new was invented. Of course, a judge can disagree - that's what courts are for.

No other aspect of CMC's design is being chased; none of their many other patents is being chased, and therefore your original position in #31 holds no water, with equal obvious-ness.

Ref willywaving, I have taken the trouble/interest to read the patent application and reapplication out of geeky technical interest. It's a pity that is met with the willywaving sort of insult. Hey ho indeed!
 
jfm said:
You say above that the challenge to the patent means "there's something which is, one way or another, "better" in the patented technology".
I agree and have never disagreed; it's obvious.
Click to expand...
Fairenuff, that's all I meant, and it's sufficient to read my very first post to understand that:
"there must be other stabs builders around [...] who don't trust hydraulic to be the best solution anymore"
Which is pretty much the same thing you're now agreeing is obvious, after having dismissed it as a "side show"... :ambivalence:

Besides, I'm not moving goalposts at all. You are rather manipulating my words, instead.
I never said "the challenge means that CMC is the best there is".
That's YOUR wording, and to anyone who followed my train of thought - as you obviously did - I hope it's crystal clear that what I meant in my post #31 is that the patent challenge indeed leads to the conclusion which you now agreed is obvious, i.e. the one related to the technology being somewhat "better".
Guilty as charged for having just quoted/confirmed your wording without rephrasing it, anyway.

Re. willywaving, it wasn't meant like an insult at all, as I'm sure you understood.
Otoh, if you have a better definition for the whole sentence you added right after suggesting to "not do it here, at least not the curved fin part", I'm all ears.
I would accept "useless" as a more polite alternative, but I have a tendency to use the most appropriate expressions, regardless of how diplomatic they are... :)

Last but not least, I'm still interested to hear what you meant by "fancy footwork".
For some reason, I have a funny feeling that petem interpretation is not what you actually wanted to suggest.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Mapism this is getting kinda tedious. I don't agree much of #45 but if the format here is that you didn't actually mean what you wrote and I'm in the wrong for not reading your mind then I'm happy to park this and I'm happy to agree to disagree.

I don't want to elaborate on fancy footwork. To make sense of the patent thing it's necessary to read the documents. I've already explained that cmc got a patent for electric actuators even though electric actuators were invented quite some time ago. I think you know AC so you can ask him directly precisely what cmc invented that wasn't prior art. You might even want to speculate on here, having seen the units in the flesh. I'd be interested to hear! Best wishes
 
jfm said:
if the format here is that you didn't actually mean what you wrote and I'm in the wrong for not reading your mind then I'm happy to park this and I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, right... As if I said black and I meant white... :ambivalence:
But I agree, let's park all that. Life's too short, and I for one (as I'm sure most folks around here) actually couldn't care less about anybody's patents.
 
MapisM said:
Yeah, right... As if I said black and I meant white... :ambivalence:
But I agree, let's park all that. Life's too short, and I for one (as I'm sure most folks around here) actually couldn't care less about anybody's patents.
Click to expand...

Well it is interesting situation. As I said previously, innovations in the stabiliser market seem to be coming along every week now so the issue of a patent possibly stymying new developments is more than a passing interest. IMHO stabilisation is going to be one of the next 'big things' in the boat market particularly if competition and innovation brings down prices, as it should do. So without wishing any ill on CMC, let's hope that somebody successfully challenges their patent
 
Well, I feel very relieved now :)
While 2.5 year ago, there were some concerns and tough discussions about some aspects of CMC electric stabs in my pre –stabs installation thread,
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...neering-question/page15&highlight=engineering

Now here in this thread, it appears to be accepted that Electric stabs:... have some advantages compared to hydraulic stabs, ....that a consortium of competitors want to challenge the patent, .....and that electric stabs might become the better allround solution in the 20..24m boat range ! ? etc…
That’s a completely different tone than 3 years ago.

Not that this would influence my opinion about my installation, it just reassures that I made the right choice,
I’m totally satisfied and very pleased with the CMC installation we have done,

Not that I consider CMC the best in what they do, (I just don't know that)
they are a bunch of young and clever engineers with a good idea, and good intentions, and gradually build up their experience and know how. They just happen to cross my path with the right product at the right moment, and it’s a nice extra that they are very nice people to deal with.

To OP, Deleted User, sorry for TD, its all your fault ;)
 
BartW said:
Not that this would influence my opinion about my installation, it just reassures that I made the right choice,
Click to expand...
It must be very satisfying to be proved right, Bart;);)

Doesn't happen often!
 
Deleted User said:
So without wishing any ill on CMC, let's hope that somebody successfully challenges their patent
Click to expand...
M, I already agreed with the last sentence in jfm post #28, which stated the very same concept.
But from "our" (customers) viewpoint, what we should hope is that EVERY patent is revoked - or that none is granted, to start with.
Be it for electric actuators, curved fins, or whatever - not to mention pharmaceutical products, just to make another (much more critical) example!
I might well subscribe for a world like this, but it's not the one we live in, I reckon.
 
MapisM said:
M, I already agreed with the last sentence in jfm post #28, which stated the very same concept.
But from "our" (customers) viewpoint, what we should hope is that EVERY patent is revoked - or that none is granted, to start with.
Be it for electric actuators, curved fins, or whatever - not to mention pharmaceutical products, just to make another (much more critical) example!
I might well subscribe for a world like this, but it's not the one we live in, I reckon.
Click to expand...
Not at all imho. The ability to get a patent is a critical feature needed to create the incentive to commit capital to R+D and invent. The world would be a far worse place without patents, including pharmaceutical patents, imho. However, to maintain that incentive the patent system must have integrity including a principle where only new inventions can be patented. Fortunately, that integrity does generally exist because patents are usually awarded with care and ultimately we have courts to resolve disputes. On patents generally, the world is a good place imho.
 
+1 JFM, on the patent CMC have, the first claim is very simple and unambiguous, however there is quite a lot of prior art in the background so some serious digging might possibly invalidate CMCs patent (unlikely patent offices don't like being told they are wrong). The european patent has been granted but defending european patents is a nightmare. So if Humphree decide to sell their product in europe, CMC will have to bring a case against them in every state in europe that Humphree sell the product. (this may have changed in the past 8 years) With the number of potential sales, I doubt it will be worth the cost of the defence. To defend a patent in the UK you can be looking at £400K in fees etc. Also in the past if someone brought a European patent case against a competitor, the competitor just needs to file something similar against the complaint party in Italy and wait for the legal system to turn ever so slowly. What will probably happen is that CMC will accept a license fee - just needs negotiating. That won't happen until it someone sells a lot of product and CMC feel materially threatened. Or they may have deep pockets and want to play hard ball. Patents are only any good if you can afford (or it to be worth) defending them.
 
Last edited:
jfm said:
The world would be a far worse place without patents, including pharmaceutical patents, imho.
Click to expand...
Well, your guess is as good as mine.
Fwiw, history teaches us that people invented stuff and made investments well before patents even existed.
And also nowadays, I actually wonder how relevant patents really are, considering that even industries like one of the (formerly?) most important of the globe didn't give a sh!t about restrictions much stronger and enforced than any patent.
But a further o/t towards philosophical matters is the last thing we need here, I reckon.

jfm said:
the patent system must have integrity including a principle where only new inventions can be patented.
Click to expand...
Ah, ok. Now I get the point. To summarize:
1) CMC patent is just a side show and nothing new, hence their patent should be revoked, also because (ain't it funny?) everyone and their dog want to go the same route.
2) Sleipner bent fin is instead a breakthrough innovation and should be protected. Which doesn't matter one iota anyway, because nobody think it's worth copying it.

That's OK though, no worries.
When I said that I couldn't care less about anybody's patents, I for one REALLY meant it.

I'm just wondering why I can't resist reading threads about stabs again - let alone trying to contribute with some thoughts that, if nothing else, are unbiased.
I should know better by now... But every day is a school day, I reckon. :ambivalence:
 
jfm said:
Not at all imho. The ability to get a patent is a critical feature needed to create the incentive to commit capital to R+D and invent. The world would be a far worse place without patents, including pharmaceutical patents, imho. However, to maintain that incentive the patent system must have integrity including a principle where only new inventions can be patented. Fortunately, that integrity does generally exist because patents are usually awarded with care and ultimately we have courts to resolve disputes. On patents generally, the world is a good place imho.
Click to expand...

Almost every inventor I come across (who are not in big corporates) say that patent system is broken and actually killing innovation. Too dominated by big corporates trying to make money out of it, rather than protect genuine invention (not saying some don't use it for the right purpose). Many say it is so costly for the small entrepreneur that if they get the patent, they have to stop innovating to monetise their investment in the patent. Where they can many just launch a product and keep the innovation a secret, and hope that by the time someone else has figured it out, they have innovated further.

This is not including those parasites in the US who sit on patents just to sue people for breach.

There is an interesting little video series called "Everything is a remix" by Kirby Ferguson that explores creativity, invention and patents. Basically states that almost nothing is actually original art.
 
A friend of mine is a research Dr. for pharmaceuticals. He says that when they are developing a new drug they have 7 years to get it to market from the moment of registration of patent. So if it takes you 5 years to do all the checks, it only leaves you 2 years to get some of your R&D investment back. Once your time is up, everyone is onto your product like a rash. That's why you can buy a pack of paracetemol for 30p. Move that onto something like stabilisers where the market is ridiculously small in comparison to people needing to get rid of a headache and it is understandable why some manufacturers claim it is a new invention as opposed to a tweak.

IMHO of course.
 
jfm said:
Just out of my boating interest. I have no professional/work connection with the matter. I read them a couple of years ago - iirc an original patent application, a letter of rejection from the patent office, and a revised application made by CMC that was accepted by the patent office. All in English, by the way, even though done in Italy. AFAIK they are not online but I have plenty of lawyery type friends in Milano and Turino who can get publicly available documents from the register
Click to expand...



Well they are available online, see the attached link, you can also follow the legal back and forth.

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP09171591&lng=en&tab=doclist
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Baggywrinkle
Test run of the Lithium system that has been sitting in my cellar for most of this year.
Replies
0
Views
146
Baggywrinkle
Baggywrinkle

Share this page

Top