RC-Monster Forums

RC-Monster Forums (https://www.rc-monster.com/forum/index.php)
-   Slipperential discussion (https://www.rc-monster.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=45)
-   -   Cloned Slipperential? (https://www.rc-monster.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26306)

adrictan 03.22.2010 02:11 AM

Cloned Slipperential?
 
Look what I've found? It seems like a clone. I'm not sure abt the quality though. I emailed the people. They tell me it's made of hardened steel.

What's_nitro? 03.22.2010 02:15 AM

Well, I think "slipperential" is copyrighted. It should be anyways... The design itself is a complete rip-off. Once Mike's pat. pending actually goes through they won't be able to sell that anymore. It's wayy to close in design and would definitely qualify as infringement.

E-Revonut 03.22.2010 02:31 AM

^^^ + 1

adrictan 03.22.2010 02:59 AM

Yep. I put it here so Mike can see this and take it up with them.

Arct1k 03.22.2010 10:30 AM

Disgusting but thanks for posting. Hopefully mike can get them.

adrictan 03.22.2010 10:52 AM

Can someone give Mike a call? I know he's busy at RCX but i'm sure he'll wanna do something fast. I'm in Singapore. You guys can tell him its Adric from Singapore.

RC-Monster Mike 03.22.2010 11:04 AM

Thanks for the heads up, Adric - I saw this post last night and will be in touch with my lawyer ASAP.

BrianG 03.22.2010 11:14 AM

Wow, that sucks! According to the "about us" page, they are a dealer in Hong Kong. Can anything even be done legally since they are in China?

adrictan 03.22.2010 11:23 AM

As far as I know, certain patents are intentional so it does cover China or HK. The problem may lie with the hassle of engaging yr own lawyer who in turn has to engage a China/HK based Patent lawyer to carry out the patent demand.

An extract from Wiki:

Enforcement
The plate of the Martin ejector seat of the military aircraft, stating that the design is covered by multiple patents in Britain, South Africa, Canada and "others". Dübendorf Museum of Military Aviation.

Patents can generally only be enforced through civil lawsuits (for example, for a U.S. patent, by an action for patent infringement in a United States federal court), although some countries (such as France and Austria) have criminal penalties for wanton infringement.[14] Typically, the patent owner will seek monetary compensation for past infringement, and will seek an injunction prohibiting the defendant from engaging in future acts of infringement. To prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused infringer practices all the requirements of at least one of the claims of the patent. (In many jurisdictions the scope of the patent may not be limited to what is literally stated in the claims, for example due to the "doctrine of equivalents").

An important limitation on the ability of a patent owner to successfully assert the patent in civil litigation is the accused infringer's right to challenge the validity of that patent. Civil courts hearing patent cases can and often do declare patents not valid. A patent can be found invalid on grounds that are set out in the relevant patent legislation that vary between countries. Often, the grounds are a subset of the requirements for patentability in the relevant country. Although an infringer is generally free to rely on any available ground of invalidity (such as a prior publication, for example), some countries have sanctions to prevent the same validity questions being relitigated. An example is the UK Certificate of contested validity.

The vast majority of patent rights, however, are not determined through litigation, but are resolved privately through patent licensing.[clarification needed] Patent licensing agreements are effectively contracts in which the patent owner (the licensor) agrees to forgo their right to sue the licensee for infringement of the licensor's patent rights, usually in return for a royalty or other compensation. It is common for companies engaged in complex technical fields to enter into dozens of license agreements associated with the production of a single product. Moreover, it is equally common for competitors in such fields to license patents to each other under cross-licensing agreements in order to share the benefits of using each other's patented inventions.

lutach 03.22.2010 11:40 AM

It says that http://www.hobbypro.com.hk/ made it.

adrictan 03.22.2010 01:08 PM

Apparently so.

lutach 03.22.2010 01:35 PM

Mike,

Check all the sells for the Slipperential made to HK and find the source. The company that copied our master piece had to buy it. It looks identical to your. Go after everyone involved in it.

Bondonutz 03.22.2010 02:20 PM

What a bunch of dirty bastards, sic'em Mike !

JThiessen 03.22.2010 03:05 PM

This is exactly why I try hard to not buy anything Chinese made (including lipo's). They are notorious for this activity.

snellemin 03.22.2010 03:21 PM

That's a low blow. That thing looks like an exact duplicate.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.