Segway Inc. Files Complaints for Patent Infringement Against Swagway LLC and Razor USA LLC

[OliverH]

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/segway-inc-files-complaints-patent-infringement-against-swagway-llc-razor-usa-llc-2085162.htm

[dmethvin]

The Solowheel inventor Shane Chen created one of the first "hoverboards" in the Hovertrax, and Segway is suing him too. Then IO Hawk got an investment from Mark Cuban and they were sued by Shane. So I guess we will just need to let all these guys figure out who wins. The big question is whether hoverboards and EUCs will make it into the country while this settles out. As long as a specific brand or type isn't called out they should be safe, but unfortunately this probably means the more obscure and unsafe models are likely to make it through before the ones that are safely made, higher priced, and better funded.

[Obly]

2 hours ago, dmethvin said:

The big question is whether hoverboards and EUCs will make it into the country while this settles out. As long as a specific brand or type isn't called out they should be safe, but unfortunately this probably means the more obscure and unsafe models are likely to make it through before the ones that are safely made, higher priced, and better funded.

Hrmm... I suppose Ninebots will remain available, whether Segway wins or loses this. I hadn't been planning on buying one, but I guess it's not a bad option if worse comes to worst.

[Skylightica]

This is an interesting read on the lawsuits & scary personal beef from both sides. The Inventist invented and patented both EUCs and hoverboards based on its function (hoverboard: “a two-wheel, self-balancing personal vehicle”). The Inventist detains a shipment of Ninebots from exiting China and sues Ninebot. Ninebot claims that his patent was too vague and didn't include the implementation, so Ninebot patents the self-balancing technology and sues Shane right back.

If Ninebot wins, cheap knockoffs become even cheaper, more consumers purchase self-balancing devices, but they also become less reliable as everyone cuts corners to reduce costs. If Shane wins, prices go down less quickly. Since it proves patents still have meaning, tech companies are more encouraged to spend funding on developing better products.

I think Shane winning would be better for us to get quality over quantity in the long run.

[lizardmech]

I don't see how inventist winning would improve the quality, all it will do is prevent larger companies from making them or spending money on R&D. Cheap no name brands will increase as American companies do not appear to have any interest in selling them at reasonable prices or licensing the technology. I find it somewhat difficult to have much sympathy with the high prices they could have easily produced the products in America and the clones would not have been an issue in the first place. Producing things in china is cheaper partly due to their relaxed IP enforcement, it seems hypocritical to exploit that to try and save money then complain when it doesn't go in your favour. 

[ninebot156]

2 hours ago, Obly said:

Hrmm... I suppose Ninebots will remain available, whether Segway wins or loses this. I hadn't been planning on buying one, but I guess it's not a bad option if worse comes to worst.

Ninebot owns Segway......so they can probably countersue Inventist and get some major concession.

[playdad]

1 hour ago, lizardmech said:

I don't see how inventist winning would improve the quality, all it will do is prevent larger companies from making them or spending money on R&D. Cheap no name brands will increase as American companies do not appear to have any interest in selling them at reasonable prices or licensing the technology. I find it somewhat difficult to have much sympathy with the high prices they could have easily produced the products in America and the clones would not have been an issue in the first place. Producing things in china is cheaper partly due to their relaxed IP enforcement, it seems hypocritical to exploit that to try and save money then complain when it doesn't go in your favour. 

You are right with regards to Solowheel and the Chinese copies.

I believe Shane Chen manufactured in China to save on costs (yet it sells at such a high price) but it backfired when they copied his Solowheel. I saw IPS selling their EUCs online approx. 3-4 years back so it all first happened soooo long ago!

With the "Hovertrax" board thing however, it appears the Chinese company actually built one using details from Shane's patent! (not that difficult since the EUC concept was already mature and similar)

The irony is that Shane was actually born in China. I don't get how he didn't see it coming since I am well aware of Chinese business practices just having been here for 7 years. They say he grew up in Beijing and that's exactly where I am right now... riding a Chinese knockoff of both EUC and "hover"board.

[Skylightica]

17 hours ago, lizardmech said:

I don't see how inventist winning would improve the quality, all it will do is prevent larger companies from making them or spending money on R&D. Cheap no name brands will increase as American companies do not appear to have any interest in selling them at reasonable prices or licensing the technology. I find it somewhat difficult to have much sympathy with the high prices they could have easily produced the products in America and the clones would not have been an issue in the first place. Producing things in china is cheaper partly due to their relaxed IP enforcement, it seems hypocritical to exploit that to try and save money then complain when it doesn't go in your favour. 

Nearly all consumer products are made in China, even iPhones. Anyhow, making his products in the states won't stop people from copying The Inventist's designs because plenty of people in China can reverse-engineer products from pictures or by having the product in hand.

The bigger companies will find a way to exist, but they'll have to pay Shane royalties. All the companies will be in a race to patent the next best tech that everyone else would want to use -- eventually the big EUC companies will have similar technologies and they'll pay each other royalties. Net royalty fee per unit ends up being fairly low for the companies who spent the most on R&D, and the cumulative amount that everyone spent on R&D would be higher than if Shane didn't win.

Like @playdad mentioned, the pressure to win the patent race is likely the highest for the hovertrax right now. EDIT: Or whatever self-balancing wheeled thing they're making (i.e. Intel/Ninebot's new hoverbutler).

The smaller companies making knockoffs who can't afford to pay the royalties will die out and their engineers who are passionate about EUCs will join the bigger companies. IMO, this would be a great thing. I'd rather have pricier quality products than to have bad rep to this hobby from the extra issues associated with cheap knockoffs and too many teenagers. And as long as no one is monopolizing the market, prices will stay reasonable even if companies have to pay royalties.

[lizardmech]

9 hours ago, Skylightica said:

The bigger companies will find a way to exist, but they'll have to pay Shane royalties. All the companies will be in a race to patent the next best tech that everyone else would want to use -- eventually the big EUC companies will have similar technologies and they'll pay each other royalties. Net royalty fee per unit ends up being fairly low for the companies who spent the most on R&D, and the cumulative amount that everyone spent on R&D would be higher than if Shane didn't win.

He didn't patent any technology though did he? The parts I saw were just for the form factor of a unicycle without a seat and a segway without a handle. The lack of solowheel products gives the impression they're more interested in lawsuits than developing and producing EUC but it's impossible to know their plans, maybe they are working on many things now.

[playdad]

@lizardmech

Part of the problem seems to be that Shane is more of an inventor than a "real manufacturer". This is the impression I get from the internet and posts on here from Solowheel itself! His mind is probably buzzing with ideas but he'd rather work on more ideas than actually focus on really going full production on one.

@Skylightica

It is probably much easier to copy your product when the whole manufacturing process is setup right in their factory. Chinese factories are infamous for producing excess product for sale on the black market too.

[lizardmech]

38 minutes ago, playdad said:

@lizardmech

Part of the problem seems to be that Shane is more of an inventor than a "real manufacturer". This is the impression I get from the internet and posts on here from Solowheel itself! His mind is probably buzzing with ideas but he'd rather work on more ideas than actually focus on really going full production on one.

 

It would have been much better if it were approached as a platform rather than a product I think. A similar business model to google with android could have worked, develop open standards for the EUC and sell guides and services for manufacturers, branding and certification etc.

[Skylightica]

On January 7, 2016 at 9:00 PM, lizardmech said:

The lack of solowheel products gives the impression they're more interested in lawsuits than developing and producing EUC but it's impossible to know their plans, maybe they are working on many things now.

 

On January 7, 2016 at 10:03 PM, playdad said:

Part of the problem seems to be that Shane is more of an inventor than a "real manufacturer". This is the impression I get from the internet and posts on here from Solowheel itself! His mind is probably buzzing with ideas but he'd rather work on more ideas than actually focus on really going full production on one.

I agree that the Inventist is now too behind in the EUC technology and have likely already lost too much the market to make improving the Solowheel to compete with the other major brands a good business strategy. I'm saying that it would be good for him to win for a ) fairness' sake, and b ) to not be an example where spending on R&D makes for a losing business strategy because everyone will just use what you had to learn the hard way.

These guys have essentially created a skateboard on a small EUC and estimates $10,000 per unit to manufacture it in the USA. Here's their long post describing why they chose to manufacture it in China. http://hoverboard.com/made-in-the-usa/

[SuperSport]

That Hoverboard looks cool, especially when watching it run from the side, but I think I prefer the standing position of the Unicycle.  It seems like the possibility of falling on your backside increases with the Hoverboard.  Possible on the Uni, but not as easy.

[Obly]

 

37 minutes ago, Skylightica said:

I agree that the Inventist is now too behind in the EUC technology and have likely already lost too much the market to make improving the Solowheel to compete with the other major brands a good business strategy. I'm saying that it would be good for him to win for a ) fairness' sake, and b ) to not be an example where spending on R&D makes for a losing business strategy because everyone will just use what you had to learn the hard way.

Hmmm... I was getting the impression that if you could take a Solowheel like the Xtreme and simply put a bigger battery in it and figure out how to price it competitively, that people would be eager to use them. I didn't think it was the technology curve they were behind on so much as the price point. If Mark Cuban really is backing them, I would have thought he'd have made this point to them forcefully by now. So it seems like they could still get back in the game if they wanted to...?

Totally agree on the second point though. With EUC technology so new and so desperately in need of key advancements in areas like safety features, it's critically important to incentivize the innovation side of the equation, at least as much as the manufacturing side. There has to be clear ROI for creating new technologies or no one will bother to do it.

(Of course we the community have to do our part too by being willing to pay a little more for better, more advanced products, instead of incentivizing the race to the bottom of the price barrel with our purchasing decisions)

[lizardmech]

2 hours ago, Obly said:

Hmmm... I was getting the impression that if you could take a Solowheel like the Xtreme and simply put a bigger battery in it and figure out how to price it competitively, that people would be eager to use them. I didn't think it was the technology curve they were behind on so much as the price point. If Mark Cuban really is backing them, I would have thought he'd have made this point to them forcefully by now. So it seems like they could still get back in the game if they wanted to...?

It's going to be difficult because they were so aggressive with lawsuits. No one trusts American tech companies that behave like that, so everyone will file patents on every minor EUC improvement they think of and use them to retaliate or make it difficult for solowheel to remain competitive with new features.

[playdad]

Mark Cuban is no longer working with Shane.

[SuperSport]

36 minutes ago, lizardmech said:

It's going to be difficult because they were so aggressive with lawsuits. No one trusts American tech companies that behave like that, so everyone will file patents on every minor EUC improvement they think of and use them to retaliate or make it difficult for solowheel to remain competitive with new features.

Can you say Apple vs Samsung?

[esaj]

Patent trolls (patent holding companies) entering the market in 3, 2, 1...

[SlowMo]

4 hours ago, Skylightica said:

 

These guys have essentially created a skateboard on a small EUC and estimates $10,000 per unit to manufacture it in the USA. Here's their long post describing why they chose to manufacture it in China. http://hoverboard.com/made-in-the-usa/

Who was the first to patent this type of board. Is it them or One Wheel?

http://rideonewheel.com/

One wheel just asked a chinese seller removed from CES by US federal marshals.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-07/u-s-marshals-raid-hoverboard-booth-at-ces

 

 

[lizardmech]

4 hours ago, SlowMo said:

Who was the first to patent this type of board. Is it them or One Wheel?

http://rideonewheel.com/

One wheel just asked a chinese seller removed from CES by US federal marshals.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-07/u-s-marshals-raid-hoverboard-booth-at-ces

 

 

It's in the original segway one and there's prior art on google from 2007.

http://skateandannoy.com/blog/2007/03/not-four-wheels/

The USPTO is a joke, less than one minute on google shows the claims are ridiculous.

[SlowMo]

Just now, lizardmech said:

It's in the original segway one and there's prior art on google from 2007.

http://skateandannoy.com/blog/2007/03/not-four-wheels/

The USPTO is a joke, less than one minute on google shows the claims are ridiculous.

One Wheel must have pulled a lot of strings to get such patent.

[lizardmech]

10 minutes ago, SlowMo said:

One Wheel must have pulled a lot of strings to get such patent.

I don't think they even check them, there was a case recently where patent examiners were working from home and were found to be just passing everything while working other jobs or doing nothing. Then patent trolls abuse the US system by filing lawsuits in very specific locations where jury members will be hostile to foreign companies. So American start ups and patent trolls can patent virtually anything and have a reasonable chance of enforcing invalid patents as long as they're targeting non-american companies.

There's no real defense besides having a huge array of patents to counter sue in a city where you will get a fair jury. And that only works if the other company even has products it needs to sell to stay in business, many of them don't sell much and plan to make money on lawsuits.

[playdad]

These patents are a joke. The idea of that one wheel was far from original.

[SuperSport]

I was a little surprised that the FBI was able to raid and remove that company from the event.  Shouldn't they have more evidence before being able to do that?  I'm sure that company spent a pretty penny on getting there and all of their inventory.  It does not sound to me like there was a hearing on the matter yet, so what gave the FBI the authority to just run them out and take all their stuff?  Especially when there seems to be multiple patents on the same thing.

I'm not saying the company that was removed was right or wrong, but what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?  I don't think it exists in America anymore.  Whomever has the most money is right.