I saw online that a company called Escalade Sports owns Onix. Looks like they own a lot of smaller sporting goods companies as well. If that’s the case, I can see them suing other companies as a revenue stream. With that said, If Onix truly invented and patented something that every other paddle company uses I don’t see any reason asking for a fee to use their invention for profit is wrong. If they saw someone else’s invention and patented it they would be wrong. Other companies getting into the paddle game now know how important it is to either innovate something that will insulate them from lawsuits, or create something they can license to others.
A company applied for the rights to a design, got the rights, and are now winning cases that prove other companies are infringing on these copyrights. That's the point of a copyright. You may not like the rules, but they are there to protect the intellect and designs awarded to companies. Imagine it's the other way around and a small company comes up with a great design. If they copyright that design, should joola and selkirk be able to use the design also and run them out of business?
I'm not a lawyer. So I'm not sure this could even be done. But perhaps a group of manufacturers could join together in the equivalent to a class action lawsuit against Onyx over their patent. (Though, perhaps this is a "snooze you lose" kind of thing. They patented the process first. So they win.) Or, maybe another patent could be submitted that was similar. Perhaps this would force the Patent Office to review the situation, and realize that this technology has been around for a long time.
I don’t understand this patent as the original design and manufacture are from China. Almost all paddle companies selected their paddles from catalogs so they should not be liable on infringement, right?
Rafael, I appreciate you going to such lengths to clarify a previous pod but I still have a few questions if I may. Aren't the courts supposed to arbitrate whether the Onix patent (or those of Apple, Microsoft, or Google, who frequently sue each other over patents years ex post facto) has merit and standing? Should companies be held responsible for conducting thorough patent research before manufacturing to ensure they aren’t infringing on existing patents? Is Onix profiting from judgments in their patent infringement lawsuits? Is it sometimes morally wrong to enforce a potentially valuable patent? Could you please clarify when you believe failed companies should refrain from seeking residual value in their existing patents?
That's already happened. Onix started by suing the company PICKL as a test and won the lawsuit. PICKL decided to shut down and liquidate their inventory. Whatever is on Amazon is pretty much the last of PICKL's inventory of paddles, balls, etc.
Do you know how six zero makes their paddles? Iirc the owner talked about creating the foam edge but deciding not to file a patent cause it would be expensive to prove and defend it. Wouldn’t that be Rich if they actually came up with it first?
I think that would be referred to as “prior art”, and another company couldn’t get a patent on it even if 6.0 chose not to patent. Patents are for new, novel creations. Perhaps Rafa could weigh in.
I have a bag full of Gen 2 patent infringements … I’m good until what comes next (please hurry). Part of me hopes they also patented plastic cores and crappy balls. 😁 I will flip off all Z5s I see on the courts.
Its not shady to defend your intellectual property. They might be irrelevant, and maybe its because everyone stole their patent. I think its a smart move on their part on who and how they go about C&D orders
The patent system is notorious for awarding patents that should never have been exclusive property in the first place. The patent system is 50% racket. When they enable IP that shouldn't exist, it only ever translates into higher prices for consumers. IP is fundamentally a form of monopoly, which permits monopoly rent extraction. If it legitimately incentivizes innovation that wouldn't have happened otherwise, then it's a net positive. But that's only a tiny fraction of patents actually awarded, because expert patent examination is expensive, so it is cheaper to delegate to the legal system. This mainly works to the advantage of deep pockets with an aggressive streak. If you had any idea how much of the sticker price of your electronics purchases went to fund hot tubs of marketing executives who brought no value add into the world, I think you would feel differently about this. Patents don't actually establish ownership of an idea. The establish the right to access the legal system to pursue a legal decision concerning ownership. We spin a legally untested patent portfolio as "IP", because it often works for shaking competitors down, even without being legally tested. Almost every patent contains a long list of specific claims, starting with the hideously overbroad (we own the whole world), and then successively narrowing down to more specific circumstances. You mainly hope that some narrow claim at the bottom holds water in the courtroom. Almost all of the claims in a typical patent are total non-starters. Judge: Yeah right, no you don't own the world. Now let's look at the next claim. Oh, this one is appropriately narrow, maybe this is one you can actually defend. Note that I fact checked this post with Gemini Advanced, which agreed with my legal points, for what that's worth. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty good at driving this new technology that will soon eat lawyers for breakfast.
Thank you for keeping people informed about this issue.
With your ace review and the next level of paddles you should include the Kiwi Labs Circuit. Great way of using foam that is not power directed.
Onix is going after small pickleball companies like Thanos going after infinity stones
So I’ll never ever buy anything Onix now.
Good strategy. Now that I've decided to boycott Microsoft, Apple, and Google how can I send a telegram, or am I now restricted to smoke signals?
I saw online that a company called Escalade Sports owns Onix. Looks like they own a lot of smaller sporting goods companies as well. If that’s the case, I can see them suing other companies as a revenue stream. With that said, If Onix truly invented and patented something that every other paddle company uses I don’t see any reason asking for a fee to use their invention for profit is wrong.
If they saw someone else’s invention and patented it they would be wrong.
Other companies getting into the paddle game now know how important it is to either innovate something that will insulate them from lawsuits, or create something they can license to others.
A company applied for the rights to a design, got the rights, and are now winning cases that prove other companies are infringing on these copyrights. That's the point of a copyright. You may not like the rules, but they are there to protect the intellect and designs awarded to companies. Imagine it's the other way around and a small company comes up with a great design. If they copyright that design, should joola and selkirk be able to use the design also and run them out of business?
I'm not a lawyer. So I'm not sure this could even be done. But perhaps a group of manufacturers could join together in the equivalent to a class action lawsuit against Onyx over their patent. (Though, perhaps this is a "snooze you lose" kind of thing. They patented the process first. So they win.) Or, maybe another patent could be submitted that was similar. Perhaps this would force the Patent Office to review the situation, and realize that this technology has been around for a long time.
I prefer to see the list of companies that are served papers than listening to this technical stuff.
I don’t understand this patent as the original design and manufacture are from China. Almost all paddle companies selected their paddles from catalogs so they should not be liable on infringement, right?
Rafael, I appreciate you going to such lengths to clarify a previous pod but I still have a few questions if I may. Aren't the courts supposed to arbitrate whether the Onix patent (or those of Apple, Microsoft, or Google, who frequently sue each other over patents years ex post facto) has merit and standing? Should companies be held responsible for conducting thorough patent research before manufacturing to ensure they aren’t infringing on existing patents? Is Onix profiting from judgments in their patent infringement lawsuits? Is it sometimes morally wrong to enforce a potentially valuable patent? Could you please clarify when you believe failed companies should refrain from seeking residual value in their existing patents?
That's already happened. Onix started by suing the company PICKL as a test and won the lawsuit. PICKL decided to shut down and liquidate their inventory. Whatever is on Amazon is pretty much the last of PICKL's inventory of paddles, balls, etc.
Do you know how six zero makes their paddles?
Iirc the owner talked about creating the foam edge but deciding not to file a patent cause it would be expensive to prove and defend it.
Wouldn’t that be Rich if they actually came up with it first?
I think that would be referred to as “prior art”, and another company couldn’t get a patent on it even if 6.0 chose not to patent. Patents are for new, novel creations.
Perhaps Rafa could weigh in.
I have a bag full of Gen 2 patent infringements … I’m good until what comes next (please hurry). Part of me hopes they also patented plastic cores and crappy balls. 😁 I will flip off all Z5s I see on the courts.
Onix....the Walmart brand?
Its not shady to defend your intellectual property. They might be irrelevant, and maybe its because everyone stole their patent. I think its a smart move on their part on who and how they go about C&D orders
The patent system is notorious for awarding patents that should never have been exclusive property in the first place. The patent system is 50% racket. When they enable IP that shouldn't exist, it only ever translates into higher prices for consumers.
IP is fundamentally a form of monopoly, which permits monopoly rent extraction. If it legitimately incentivizes innovation that wouldn't have happened otherwise, then it's a net positive. But that's only a tiny fraction of patents actually awarded, because expert patent examination is expensive, so it is cheaper to delegate to the legal system. This mainly works to the advantage of deep pockets with an aggressive streak.
If you had any idea how much of the sticker price of your electronics purchases went to fund hot tubs of marketing executives who brought no value add into the world, I think you would feel differently about this.
Patents don't actually establish ownership of an idea. The establish the right to access the legal system to pursue a legal decision concerning ownership. We spin a legally untested patent portfolio as "IP", because it often works for shaking competitors down, even without being legally tested.
Almost every patent contains a long list of specific claims, starting with the hideously overbroad (we own the whole world), and then successively narrowing down to more specific circumstances. You mainly hope that some narrow claim at the bottom holds water in the courtroom. Almost all of the claims in a typical patent are total non-starters. Judge: Yeah right, no you don't own the world. Now let's look at the next claim. Oh, this one is appropriately narrow, maybe this is one you can actually defend.
Note that I fact checked this post with Gemini Advanced, which agreed with my legal points, for what that's worth. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty good at driving this new technology that will soon eat lawyers for breakfast.