EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Paul Nelson v K2. Score one for the big Corporation, 0 for the inventor who changed ski design forever.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paul Nelson v K2. Score one for the big Corporation, 0 for the inventor who changed ski design forever. - Page 2

post #31 of 42

Call the waaahmublance.

 

Nice of him to be trying to build better skis. Shame on him for trying to patent something that isn't really an "invention". Particularly when other people were already doing the same thing.

 

Next.

post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantaddict View Post



Wrong, a one ski quiver is like a one egg dozen, unpossible. There are plenty of skis that handle a wide range of conditions well enough that a good skier could easily do without a second pair, but a single pair will never span the gamut of ski conditions and terrain as well as a well rounded quiver. Dream on though, you might make something pretty awesome. 


I'm going to go with un-possible also. and to prove unpossible wrong, the ski would have to be tested up against specialty skis in every type of conditions. the idea of a ski is mediocre in all conditions is not acceptable. just within racing, several skis have been used, and that has been the concept for a loooong time.
 

post #33 of 42

Conan-Obrien-year-2000.jpg

 

The dream of a "one ski quiver" is finally realized with skis constructed from genetically enhanced erectile tissue, which will appropriately shrink or swell in length and width depending upon what the rider perceives in front of him.

Unfortunately the design is never brought to market due to a prolonged legal battle over the name - The Chubb.

post #34 of 42

No the ski wont be able to compete in downhills and rip in powder but it would be all the ski you need for 99% of ski days, rip in the powder rip on the groomers, you guys are thinking too small about the capabilities of ski manufacturing

post #35 of 42


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

That said, he still would have faced serious prior art issues, because skis are a crowded technical space.  The fact that what we now call shaped skis weren't being sold into the market circa 1991 doesn't mean others hadn't thought of it.

 

   If you want to make this argument directly instead of by analogy to reverse sidecut/reverse camber, you can show people the work of guys like Fabrizio Cruciani:

 

French patent application FR2559673A1

 

 

 

...from 1984 and 1985.


Edited by comprex - 9/17/10 at 12:06pm
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

 

But unless I'm mistaken, you're asking whether, had he had better litigation counsel, he'd have fared better. ... This is one that was probably lost in the application process, not the courtroom.


Great to get your take on things - thx for sharing!

post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

TP or bidet?


TP, natch!

 

idiocracy_recliner.jpg

post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by snowyphil65 View Post

No the ski wont be able to compete in downhills and rip in powder but it would be all the ski you need for 99% of ski days, rip in the powder rip on the groomers, you guys are thinking too small about the capabilities of ski manufacturing



and you're not thinking at all.

 

the mention of racing was the fact that even in that narrow area of skiing, fast turns on ice, it takes more than one ski to make different radius turns at different speeds.

 

you may do better majoring in a different area.

post #39 of 42

Calm down davluri. If i come out with something great then everyone gets to enjoy it. If i crash and burn so what. Its at least worth studying.

post #40 of 42

I'm not feeling un-calm; more dismissive and un-interested. You decided that other people don't get whatever it is that you claim to get.

post #41 of 42

I seem to recall someone struggling to get a shaped ski built much earlier than even the French patent pointed to above.  I don't have any sympathy for someone trying to make money by patenting a range of ski dimensions, or even a single ski dimension.  Skis and no doubt different ski shapes have been built for thousands of years.  Some just didn't work too well with given materials, so were not very popular.  To my way of thinking saying "you can't build this or that shape of ski unless you pay me" is just wrong.

post #42 of 42

^Find it and we'll Wiki it here  FFR.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Paul Nelson v K2. Score one for the big Corporation, 0 for the inventor who changed ski design forever.