LOST JEEPS :: View topic - rustys control arms

I wonder though if they have taken into account of them hitting the strut with the lift on the KJ???

Hey, and Rusty is giving them away free too! Just add a set to your shopping cart and have a look.

Talk to a patent lawyer. There are all sorts of ways to 'retrofit' patents. Talk to a patent lawyer.

Oh, and before I forget, TALK TO A PATENT LAWYER!!

I dont believe he put a patent on them. Thats why he said he wishes he would of done so faster.

There are all sorts of ways to 'retrofit' patents

I dont believe he put a patent on them. Thats why he said he wishes he would of [sic] done so faster.

retrofit: To fit into or onto equipment already in existence or service.

wouldn't be hard to get a patent on something like an A-arm? I mean, how many ways are ther to make one. It would be like trying to patent a coil spring or leaf spring, right?

Ok, question guys,

Are you guys saying that Rustys copied the arms?? I had the idea of building upper and lower control arms for my Liberty in 2002. At that time I asked Rustys if they where going to build the arms for the Liberty. I'm not saying that they didn't copy Al's arms but they told me back in 2002 that they were going to work on it. I'm not taking sides but everything I've ordered from Rustys has been well built and I've been very happy with his products. Seems to me it's better for everyone if we have options of getting parts from different places as long as we keep the interest in producing the parts and accessories for the Jeep Liberty. Is it still copying if they use a different ball joint or make the arms of different materials? I believe to get a patent you have to define and give an exact description of a product so that no one can reproduced unless they change some part in that product. All that would take is a different grade of steel or slightly different bend in the arm. I think it's great that Al built the control arms and have recomended them to anyone who lifts a Liberty. But I don't believe we ought to down Rustys for producing a different control arm.

Wes

I didn't realize we had so many people qualified to give advice on patents. I think Al should talk to a patent lawer VERY SOON (A very good friend of mine is a "big city patent lawyer"), and folks that aren't patent agents or patent lawyers should not decide what is or can be patented or even when....

I didn't realize we had so many people qualified to give advice on patents.

Author:	The Shocker [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:33 am ]
Post subject:	rustys control arms
rustys has some new upper control arms coming out, and i wanted to know how they would affect the liberty? and is it like als a-arms www.rustysoffroad.com check them out

Author:	kolesy [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:36 am ]
Post subject:
Hmmm thats interesting. I really like rusty's and I am glad to see that they are still coming out with new stuff for our rigs. I wonder though if they have taken into account of them hitting the strut with the lift on the KJ???

Author:	white04kj [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 5:45 am ]
Post subject:
kolesy wrote: I wonder though if they have taken into account of them hitting the strut with the lift on the KJ??? Doesn't look like it... They look to be the same length as the OEM arms. And I don't really think the arms need to be "beefed up", add a serviceable ball joint and lengthen the arms. This could be a good option for stock height KJ's, or perhaps KJ's with really small lifts.

Author:	Jeepin Al [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:33 am ]
Post subject:
what really sucks is the fact that it is an exact copy, right down to the ball joint bung of my arms...interesting. I guess I should have acted faster to patent my arms. I kept no secrets, and explained on this board how my arms were built. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut. The only difference I can see is that the ball joint bung is an off the self unit from a NASCAR supplier to hold the upper 772 Moog Ball Joint. I have mine machined now, they are a little thicker, and have more meat to weld to. darn, I just wish I had the time to patent the darn things. Al

Author:	pixeldzn [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:41 am ]
Post subject:
Hey, and Rusty is giving them away free too! Just add a set to your shopping cart and have a look. That ball joint bung looks preety thin walled to me.

LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

rustys control arms http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10994	Page 1 of 2

Author:	mb818 [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:08 am ]
Post subject:
Quote: Hey, and Rusty is giving them away free too! Just add a set to your shopping cart and have a look. it says right on there that this is not in production until late august Mark

Author:	chefdab [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rusty got the idea after drooling over Al's jeep at the Adam's show. If I remember correctly, he even made a comment about the a-arms. He spent quite a bit of time looking around and under Al's jeep that day.

Author:	SethX9 [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:
Talk to a patent lawyer. There are all sorts of ways to 'retrofit' patents. Talk to a patent lawyer. Oh, and before I forget, TALK TO A PATENT LAWYER!!

Author:	Jeepjeepster [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:
SethX9 wrote: Talk to a patent lawyer. There are all sorts of ways to 'retrofit' patents. Talk to a patent lawyer. Oh, and before I forget, TALK TO A PATENT LAWYER!! I dont believe he put a patent on them. Thats why he said he wishes he would of done so faster.

Author:	mb818 [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I dont believe he put a patent on them. Thats why he said he wishes he would of done so faster. Quote: There are all sorts of ways to 'retrofit' patents retrofit: To fit into or onto equipment already in existence or service. Mark

Author:	Se7enLC [ Tue Aug 01, 2006 4:13 pm ]
Post subject:
You can prevent rustys from getting a patent and claim that you were prior art, but I don't believe you can patent them now that somebody else is also producing them. I guess that's all the more reason to get that next great product out and patent it this time. It's too bad rusty's didn't do the right thing and offer to buy the design from you or something. Then again, if they did that, you'd have gotten a patent first and they'd be in trouble. You might still beat them to a patent if you apply soon, see what a patent lawyer can do for you.

Author:	warblade666 [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:01 am ]
Post subject:
wouldn't be hard to get a patent on something like an A-arm? I mean, how many ways are ther to make one. It would be like trying to patent a coil spring or leaf spring, right? Look at Chevy IFS fits, EVERYONE makes new A-arms for them, and they all look the same. Change it 0.05deg here or 0.001" there and it's a new part, if one uses 1/8" wall tube cro-mol and one uses 1/4" wall tube dom they are differant.

Author:	kickit_in4wheel [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 3:17 am ]
Post subject:
I still would not buy them from anyone other than Al.

Author:	SethX9 [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:15 pm ]
Post subject:
Jeepjeepster wrote: Quote: I dont believe he put a patent on them. Thats why he said he wishes he would of [sic] done so faster. That's why he needs to talk to a patent lawyer and not us about what can be done. mb818 wrote: Quote: retrofit: To fit into or onto equipment already in existence or service. Right...to retroactively fit Al's belated patent onto the existing body of patents sorry if you were confused by the submerged simile.

Author:	fdezone [ Sat Aug 05, 2006 11:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Quote: I didn't realize we had so many people qualified to give advice on patents. I think Al should talk to a patent lawer VERY SOON (A very good friend of mine is a "big city patent lawyer"), and folks that aren't patent agents or patent lawyers should not decide what is or can be patented or even when.... It definitely wouldn't hurt, but like you said, your friend is the "big city patent lawyer." Please read the sister thread. There's nothing new to the design. All-Pro & Total Choas are just a few who have developed similarly designed UCA's. And that's just for Toyota Tacomas. It's the same with Chevy's, Nissans and most other IFS trucks. A-Arms exist for a number of cars and trucks. From classic muscle cars to import tuners, low-riders, off-roaders and even ATVs. Give me a break! http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=11128 Excerpt from the United States Patent and Trademark Office WHAT CAN BE PATENTED The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained. In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles that are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon 42 U.S.C. 2181 (a). The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be “useful.” The term “useful” in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent. Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter that can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required. NOVELTY AND NON-OBVIOSNESS, CONDITIONS FOR OBTAINING A PATENT In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or “(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . .” If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this country more than one year before the date on which an application for patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by, otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve patent rights in many foreign countries. Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable. NUFF SAID! Quote: I didn't realize we had so many people qualified to give advice on patents. I apologize if you didn't mean to sound so condescending. No, we're not experts. We're just giving our opinions, not that they may matter. Al's old enough and smart enough to reach out to a lawyer if he feels he's been screwed. I personally don't think he has a case. Sorry Al.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	SethX9 [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:
warblade666 said: Quote: wouldn't be hard to get a patent on something like an A-arm? I mean, how many ways are ther to make one. It would be like trying to patent a coil spring or leaf spring, right? Are you serious? You should take a look at what gets patented. Would you believe that Microsoft holds the patent on double-clicking?

Author:	RedJeepCRD [ Wed Aug 02, 2006 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Ok, question guys, Are you guys saying that Rustys copied the arms?? I had the idea of building upper and lower control arms for my Liberty in 2002. At that time I asked Rustys if they where going to build the arms for the Liberty. I'm not saying that they didn't copy Al's arms but they told me back in 2002 that they were going to work on it. I'm not taking sides but everything I've ordered from Rustys has been well built and I've been very happy with his products. Seems to me it's better for everyone if we have options of getting parts from different places as long as we keep the interest in producing the parts and accessories for the Jeep Liberty. Is it still copying if they use a different ball joint or make the arms of different materials? I believe to get a patent you have to define and give an exact description of a product so that no one can reproduced unless they change some part in that product. All that would take is a different grade of steel or slightly different bend in the arm. I think it's great that Al built the control arms and have recomended them to anyone who lifts a Liberty. But I don't believe we ought to down Rustys for producing a different control arm. Wes

Author:	Se7enLC [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 2:35 pm ]
Post subject:
RedJeepCRD wrote: Ok, question guys, Are you guys saying that Rustys copied the arms?? I had the idea of building upper and lower control arms for my Liberty in 2002. At that time I asked Rustys if they where going to build the arms for the Liberty. I'm not saying that they didn't copy Al's arms but they told me back in 2002 that they were going to work on it. I'm not taking sides but everything I've ordered from Rustys has been well built and I've been very happy with his products. Seems to me it's better for everyone if we have options of getting parts from different places as long as we keep the interest in producing the parts and accessories for the Jeep Liberty. Is it still copying if they use a different ball joint or make the arms of different materials? I believe to get a patent you have to define and give an exact description of a product so that no one can reproduced unless they change some part in that product. All that would take is a different grade of steel or slightly different bend in the arm. I think it's great that Al built the control arms and have recomended them to anyone who lifts a Liberty. But I don't believe we ought to down Rustys for producing a different control arm. Wes Definitely agreed! I think we would need to see something in common between both sets of arms that couldn't be just a coincidence or a common-sense derivation before we really jump to a conclusion about it being a copy. I say any development for the Liberty is a good development.

Author:	warblade666 [ Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:
I agree, the more the better!

Author:	moose [ Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:10 pm ]
Post subject:
I didn't realize we had so many people qualified to give advice on patents. I think Al should talk to a patent lawer VERY SOON (A very good friend of mine is a "big city patent lawyer"), and folks that aren't patent agents or patent lawyers should not decide what is or can be patented or even when....