STS claims any DIY remote mount turbo violates their patent

[GP99GT]

http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/236967

First Patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,745,568&OS=6,745,568&RS=6,745,568


Second Patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,134,282&OS=7,134,282&RS=7,134,282

:rollseye::rollseye::rollseye:

[foff667]

Yeah someone posted that up on hpt's board a couple of weeks ago...it is a bit silly, but i guess they have to protect their future no matter how silly it sounds...kinda like me patenting WTF or something though lol

[BonzoHansen]

If they have a patent, they should enforce it. That how a good business stays afloat.

[Blacdout96]

well its kinda stupid, i mean, how are thewy gonna know its remote mounted on your car ,what do they have people they just send out, drive around, and find cars that are turbo'ed and see if its in the rear?

[Jersey_TA]

I think that's pointed towards any business that makes money of a rear mount set-up. If the average Joe does up a custom set-up for his car they can't say anything.

[BonzoHansen]

You enforce a patent by suing the offending manufacturer, not a car owner. It is only a viloation if you sell it. If you replicate the part in your garage for your car, no violation. But if you start selling them, that is the violation.

Without patent proection, the economic incentive to spending on R&D goes out the window.

[GP99GT]

yeah bonzo, but the guy was designing it for his own car, using his own design, nothing copied from STS besides the idea of having it remote mounted...they cant really do anything about it as far as i can tell

[V]

STS contacted the guy, months after he was thinkign about the idea of doing a remote mount(he had decided not to anyway) they told him he'd need to basically BUY a license from them in order to do a remote mount on his OWN car. That, is complete BS.

we should get this up on as many boards as possible to make it know. i have no hate for STS but that action was not needed. LS1tech had a thread about it but it was quickly deleted since STS is a sponsor.

[maroman88]

doesnt the new hennesey srt600 cherokee have a remote mount, not all the way out back but its tucked underneath somewhere

[BonzoHansen]

STS contacted the guy, months after he was thinkign about the idea of doing a remote mount(he had decided not to anyway) they told him he'd need to basically BUY a license from them in order to do a remote mount on his OWN car. That, is complete BS. If true, I agree. But we also do not know the whole story. I've seen more than a few threads about 'what I am doing' turn into 'buy my stuff'. Not saying that is what is happening here, I'm just talking in general.

[NJSPEEDER]

the easy thing to do would be to dig up any evidence of a DIY remote mount that existed previous to STS selling or patenting such products. also, since patent information has to be very very specific i would guess that it you did a kit for yourself on a car of different engine displacement/intended air consumption with a different or not previously applied exhaust routing, their case would go flying out the window.
if they are serious about this i would call it a serious mistake of greed that will mess them all up. all it would take is STS trying to take one person to court for them to cost themselves 10 times as much money as they evr could have made selling that guy a kit or parts to help with the install.
then they coudl subtract the lost sales due to the black eye to the corporate image and it becomes very clear that they would be very foolish to persue any course of action against any private person attempting to make a system for their own personal use.

[98tadriver]

well its kinda stupid, i mean, how are thewy gonna know its remote mounted on your car ,what do they have people they just send out, drive around, and find cars that are turbo'ed and see if its in the rear?

they will use STS NAZIS and besides, i thought that violating a patent would take selling your DIY kit to someone, not building it for yourself. thats about as retarded as harley davidson patenting their sound

[NJSPEEDER]

patents refer to the actual act of producing something specific in a very specific manner, not the application or distribution of the idea. those are further counts of patent law, beyond what they are claiming.
basicaly they would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no way that anyone in the world coudl have remote mounted a turbo on any vehicle before it became common knowledge that they were doing so. they would also have to prove that the application in question is in direct violation of EVERY term of the patent in question and not just a partial or evolved concept, since extensive rvision = new idea in the eyes of the law.
STS is screwed if they try to go forward against anyone in something like this. remote mount turbo and rear mounted turbos instead of mufflers have been put on cars since the late 70's in racing applications and it is too broad a stretch to believe that no one ever thought of applying this concept to teh stret until they came along.
any lawyer good enough to pull it off for them woudl cost them 3 years profit in the process. i can't see them being that stupid.

[Blacdout96]

patents refer to the actual act of producing something specific in a very specific manner, not the application or distribution of the idea. those are further counts of patent law, beyond what they are claiming.
basicaly they would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no way that anyone in the world coudl have remote mounted a turbo on any vehicle before it became common knowledge that they were doing so. they would also have to prove that the application in question is in direct violation of EVERY term of the patent in question and not just a partial or evolved concept, since extensive rvision = new idea in the eyes of the law.
STS is screwed if they try to go forward against anyone in something like this. remote mount turbo and rear mounted turbos instead of mufflers have been put on cars since the late 70's in racing applications and it is too broad a stretch to believe that no one ever thought of applying this concept to teh stret until they came along.
any lawyer good enough to pull it off for them woudl cost them 3 years profit in the process. i can't see them being that stupid.

If im gonna have to point my finger at rear mounted turbos on race cars, id say look at the porsche 935's

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/1403/bh812.jpg

and indy cars that used the offenhauser turbo'd enbgines, at one point and time they were able to produce almost 1100bhp out of a offy 4 cylinder, but if my memory seves me right, they never used it, only tested to see what it could hold. Ot me its rediculous to say they patended the idea. STS FTL