Spade and Sword anchors

[ QUOTE ]
a concave thing, as it is a concept that has been around for millenia.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly right.. So I'm not patenting the concave concept, but patenting an anchor fluke which is concave.. and before the Spade, no anchor did have a concave fluke..


[ QUOTE ]
Is there a link to the patent for the Spade? it would be interesting to read (even in French)

[/ QUOTE ]Spade: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US5934219&F=0&QPN=US5934219

Sword: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODO...bf7b57d35dcac53

[/ QUOTE ]

Very fast answer Craig.. you seems perfectly informed about all my Patents.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

but I never find any reference for the patents of the Rocna.. will you be as efficient to publish the references too?? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
would you suggest the 5kg or 10kg Sword?

Are there any plans to produce a template for a cardboard Sword (as there is for the Spade) so that I could check how it might fit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Machurley..

As I'm no longer in the business.. I will suggest you to contact the SPADE importer for UK: info@bluewatersupplies.com

Alain
 
"before the Spade, no anchor did have a concave fluke"

Actually, you may not have noticed, but the flukes on a CQR are concave. Oh and so are those on a Bruce. Not to mention a Mushroom.

Grapnels.jpg
 
But it's the overall anchor design that is patented, with the concave surface as a part of the whole. On the basis of the description you could claim that you have patented 'sharp corners' or 'two sides'. Not quite true.

Your patent protects you from somebody making an exact, or close (see lawyer for degree. Bring money.) copy of the Spade or Sword but certainly not from somebody else making a concave anchor.

All IMHO.
 
[ QUOTE ]
"before the Spade, no anchor did have a concave fluke"

Actually, you may not have noticed, but the flukes on a CQR are concave. Oh and so are those on a Bruce. Not to mention a Mushroom.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, the mushrom is a different product used only as a mooring anchor.. don't confuse Cylindrical with Concave, CQR blades are cylindrical, the Rocna is concave.. as the SUPREME is cylindrical.. a slight difference but different enough not to fall down into the patent..
 
Hylas,

I'm sure the Spade is a very fine anchor and you could, no doubt, teach me a lot about anchors but there's not much you can teach me about the English language.

Concave - with an outline or surface curved like the interior of a circle or sphere.
Cylindrical - cylinder shaped.

Just because you convinced the US Patent Office that a concave fluke is novel (actually, I'm not sure you did reading the extract above) doesn't mean very much. The USPTO is notorious for not looking assiduously for prior art, and thus opens the door for patents to be overturned subsequently if robustly challenged.

I note too that you describe it as a marine anchor, which would also - I suspect - cover a mooring anchor such as the mushroom.
 
And don't you find they clarify the issues so well? ...'mines best' - 'no mines best' - 'yours smell' - 'yours smell worse'
 
Yes and just recently, still there I believe, there was a thread on the 'For Sale' forum about maximum price of stuff for sale, here we have, yet again, a clear case of two people marketing their product for commercial gain!

How about buying half a page each in Yachting Monthly gents?

If Guapa can't sell a £600 windlass why should these guys use the forum to market £1,000's of anchors?
 
[ QUOTE ]
here we have, yet again, a clear case of two people marketing their product for commercial gain!

How about buying half a page each in Yachting Monthly gents?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Galadriel..

with only a small detail..

One of the two is clearly advertising for his product with all "tools" including the full web side address..

and the other one doesn't have anymore any relation with any anchor manufacturer or distributor and therefor, no "commercial gain!".. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Then the thread was clearly about the Spade and the Sword anchors.. if you are not interested at all by any of the two.. nobody will oblige you to párticipate to the thread..
 
[ QUOTE ]
if you are not interested at all by any of the two.. nobody will oblige you to párticipate to the thread..

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I'll grant you that. But as sure as eggs are eggs, where there is a thread about anchors amongst people without any professional interest, you two pop up, then ensues a very predictable 'debate'.

Besides muchurley22 has been around a while if he wanted the designers thoughts on sizing, then he could have PM'd you. A question to the forum for experiences has turned into a row (with a small 'r') over patents!
 
- a row (with a small 'r') over patents! -

Discussion, I would have said. It would be a poor forum if such discussion did not take place. There is a fine line between what is acceptable and enjoyable and what is not, but as a participant I don't think the thread has strayed across it. IMHO.
 
[ QUOTE ]
where there is a thread about anchors amongst people without any professional interest, you two pop up, then ensues a very predictable 'debate'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to avoid answering threads were I'm not competent enough..
but some people says that I could be considered as an anchor "expert"???

Like yourself i'm WITHOUT ANY PROFESSIONAL INTEREST (except perhaps for selling my new book in English about anchors and anchoring?) and I "Pop up" not only on anchor subjects, but also about tandem technique, anchoring lines etc...

I agree, I have sometime new "disturbing" theories.. like the one that surface area is more important than weight , although after more that ten years of fight.. this is more and more accepted..

Is it just because my theories are different from yours that you pretend to exclude me from the forum??
 
Re: USPO

Hang on _hylas_, in one post you rubbish the Rocna's roll bar but now this anchor is infringing a Spade patent.

I also notice the patent was granted by the USPO, this fact alone demonstrates the weakness of your claims. The USPO is an affront to sentient beings and probably some vegetables too. When researching an idea for a TV program guide I discovered that the USPO had granted a patent for the concept of displaying a Windows/Apple type cascading menu on a TV screen, where is the invention in that?

Anyhow if your patent has any legal credibility in the US and prevents the sale of Rocna anchors in that territory, then I can only pity American citizens. We sailors of the Free World will be able to watch US yachts drag in a blow knowing an unholy alliance between the US legal system and the Federal government prevented US sailors from selecting the best world-wide products.
 
Re: USPO

again and again about patents..

Believe what you want.. on my side I see that, as soon as a design has proved successful.. they are always very clever people who try to get the benefit from your ideas, much easier than to develop new improved designs.. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Since 10 years now that the Spade design is on the market, they have been many and many attempts to copy it.. from China, Turkey, U.S. France.. not talking about New Zealand (who is not the first one to try!).. and, up to now! we have been always successful to block them.. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I believe it will be more beneficiable for the sailor community, if designers would try to invent new concepts instead of spending their time to copy others ideas..

[ QUOTE ]
<span style="color:blue"> in one post you rubbish the Rocna's roll bar </span>

[/ QUOTE ]
This design has been PATENTED by Peter Bruce.. more than 30 years ago and used again by the Bügel anchor before being copied by the Rocna..

As this thread is about also the Sword , looks how the Sword works without the need of this cumbersome accessory???
Can you tell me what is the interest of it?? does it improve the holding?? does it reduce the manufacturing cost? does it improve the repartition of weight?

But as I've said before.. much easier to copy other’s ideas than to develop new designs.. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
HYLAS,
So - I have a problem.
I bought an Oceane anchor as I thought that it was the best fit for my bow and I was impressed by the Spade reports.
It has been good so far - but I have not been in any really testing situations with it yet.
However - I find that the projection on the shank keeps it so far forward of the bow when stowed that it is often caught by waves when sailing.
Can I cut off the projection ? It will then look a bit like a sword and should fit closer to the bow.
What do you recommend ?
Ken
 
Minor point of information
[ QUOTE ]
Besides muchurley22 has been around a while if he wanted the designers thoughts on sizing, then he could have PM'd you. A question to the forum for experiences has turned into a row (with a small 'r') over patents!

[/ QUOTE ]
Although it was a general request for info I specifically hoped that Alain would put in an appearance and when the thread wandered off (as they do) I PMed him several times and he was kind enough to reply.

While their ding-dongs can be wearisome I value the contributions that both Alain and Craig make to the forum, though ideally not on the same thread. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top