@kyler1945 I was about to ask if you'd gone soft after reading post 14 but then you called us monkeys again in post 17 so all remains right with the world. Lol hope you and the new addition are doing well.
-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
Saddle saturation?
- Thread starter okccj
- Start date
Your dad sounds like he had a wealth of knowledge. I thought that way as well at one point…..
I agree with the lightweight stands and climbers competing. That in my mind further muddies the water. Many of those stand companies are making saddles and platforms as well.
I disagree about the patent pending part in todays context with all the lawyers getting involved. Patent pending is for place holding until you work the details out to get it approved. With today’s lawyers and the right “wording” you can get many things approved and then claim doctrine of equity if a product performs similarly but doesn’t meet the criteria listed in your patent. It’s a giant sham
I’d be interested to see why you think that.
The fact of the matter is that starting a business making and selling a product that isn’t truly unique is very risky, and has low upside. Our current IP laws reflect the value we put on innovation and creativity. And lawyers are just the editors of our ideals.
Starting a saddle making company today might make you a million dollars. You might also get sued, and rightfully so, and lose all but 10% of it.
You could instead start a saddle selling company, and make 10% margin selling the patent owner’s product, or licensing their IP, and eliminate risk. While being more realistic about the actual value being offered to the consumer.
True innovation is easy to protect in this country. And true innovation is very valuable. It makes stroking the 6 figure check for good international IP protection easy to do.
Thinking this way requires a lot of humility though, and recognizing that what we might think is a “good” product, is not a truly “unique” one.
I say that, as a person with a couple million dollar ideas that will never be realized because of that reality. It’s too risky, and the upside is too small.
Doesn’t mean I can’t do it. Doesn’t mean I’m not a wimp. Just means that the range of outcomes that arise from betting on myself, are not valuable enough to leave the day job. And they’re really good ideas. They’re just not polished enough to protect them from rent seekers. Which means they aren’t good enough to risk it on.
Doesn’t mean I can’t do it. Doesn’t mean I’m not a wimp. Just means that the range of outcomes that arise from betting on myself, are not valuable enough to leave the day job. And they’re really good ideas. They’re just not polished enough to protect them from rent seekers. Which means they aren’t good enough to risk it on.
Thanks! She’s awesome!
And I didn’t call y’all monkeys. I called US monkeys - I included myself! As always, I include myself in the silliness.
I re-listened to the 2021 Steve / Matt Rinella podcast last night and the more I stew on it the more I agree with Matt. The younger generation is growing up with the content and potential viewership associated with the activity in a way that I / we did not, and it’s a bit of a shame IMO. The genies out of the bottle don’t know there’s much that can be done but the animals and the habitat are increasingly a commercial product. I’m a hypocrite who’s both team Meateater / Winke / Youtube, but also team Matt.
And agree, as much as I love it I’d be very hesitant to attempt a business in the outdoor space. And I’m no Hannah Barron.
I believe the laws were started in good faith but like nearly everything else that involves politicians and lawyers, it quickly turns into a farce that favors the wealthy. Not everyone is willing to license out their”innovations” nor do they have to. Furthermore the idea is supposed to new and non obvious. Are pockets that are sewn into the side of the saddle new or non obvious? How far of a tail you leave in an amsteel splice… is that new or non obvious? Daisy chains with a hook? How about boat cleats as an attachment method? What about having a concave shape? Oh wait straps sewn into the top panel and bottom panel, using ladder locks for panel management? Everything I just listed is either patent pending or has been approved by the US patent office over the last 4 years. I can give you examples of each being put out publicly and used on this site or by other saddle companies YEARS before these patents were applied for. Tell me how it’s designed to protect true innovation and not just a wording game performed by lawyers. The patent office doesn’t do it’s due diligence. It checks against existing patents, asks a couple questions and then approves it. When you try to protest it prior to approval, they refuse to allow it and then they tell you, it can be hashed out in court. I’ve been through the process and it’s a farce. At one time, yes it was required and probably truly a protection, now it’s a game of money and lawyers. Nothing more, nothing less.
Preach!!!
I patented brown shoe laces in boots! All you sons a ....!!!
Pretty sure every both at the expo claimed to have patented something and sneered at some other both. Yup, cleats on sticks. Broadhead features. Amsteel. Every petty thing you can think of
I patented brown shoe laces in boots! All you sons a ....!!!
Pretty sure every both at the expo claimed to have patented something and sneered at some other both. Yup, cleats on sticks. Broadhead features. Amsteel. Every petty thing you can think of
But I bet you noodling catfish in a thong would get a lot of views on Grindr
I don't think I can judge that because I'd be judging it based primarily on what I see here.
There's a lot of folks on social media and other archery, etc. sites (or not online much at all) that are into saddle hunting and aren't active here.
The law reflects the value we place on innovation.
The budget and tools of the patent office reflects the value we place on it.
“Hash it out in court” reflects the value we place on our legal system. And again, the value we place on innovation. If it costs you 100k to defend your product or business, and that sinks you, was it the best idea to be in that particular business to begin with?
The blame always seems to rest with lawyers.
I guess all I’m saying is that patenting a boring idea is a negative - we agree. But for different reasons. You seem to see it as an ethical issue - it’s the wrong thing to do. I just think it’s bad business. Just like I think starting a business that doesn’t offer something that would stand up through all of this is a negative too.
I’m all for the American dream. And small business.
I just don’t see the conspiratorial nature of it, how lawyers are to blame, and why we have such a negative opinion of the monopoly.
Having a good idea, and sharing it with the world as a hobby is cool. But stepping into the meat grinder to earn a living with it takes certain risks on board.
The people firing off patent requests left and right have the right idea. If you’re going to start a business selling a product, the better your IP protection, the lower your risk of losing upside. Where they’re wrong is in the belief that the IP protection is a true reflection of their idea’s value. It isn’t. It’s how that IP protection holds up long term against anyone challenging it.
It’s easy for tethrd(they’re the obvious example-no harm meant) to spend 100k to seek IP protection for their marginally interesting ideas. Once granted though, and suddenly there’s dozens of competitors in the space, what’s their move? Cease and desist again, is cheap and easy. But do you think they’re going to spend a million dollars taking every single one of them to court for resolution? I don’t.
This is why there’s still 100 companies making saddles. It’s also why I think starting tethrd was a bad bet. They made some money because they were first mover. But my guess is that it will be short lived, and the upside is limited. Someone will pay them, and they’ll exit, maybe handsomely for a small time outfit. There was also always a chance they went or go bankrupt and their lives are ruined, all while chasing a couple million dollar upside.
You can make the same money being an electrician for 40 years, investing in an S&P index fund and owning a house. While making saddles in your garage and giving them to friends for the cost of the material.
This is no knock on anyone starting a small business. Or anyone making saddles. Or anyone applying for IP protection for a mediocre idea. Some of these things just ARE, and don’t require a story to be true.
I wouldn’t start a business in the mobile huntjng space, strictly because of the limited upside. But if I did, I’d laugh at any attempt by another company to gnash teeth based on a patent. No one makes enough money in this space to put those cards on the table. I’m prepared to be wrong. I just don’t see it.
Off original topic, but my opinion is that what drives true innovation is unlimited upside. The laws we have in place are there to foster that. Sure they can be misapplied. But that’s at the cost of the people bickering over them.
I spent 3000 hours getting a product one click of a button from bringing it to market. I stopped. Because once I bake in all of the variables, the upside is limited. I’ll spend another 3000 to remove or lift that upside enough to press go. Or, be happy with what I learned in the process, without ever pressing go. That would still be cheaper than letting it out in the wild before it’s polished enough to eliminate any real competition. It doesn’t make me feel good looking over at it on the shelf. But I sleep at night.
I spent 3000 hours getting a product one click of a button from bringing it to market. I stopped. Because once I bake in all of the variables, the upside is limited. I’ll spend another 3000 to remove or lift that upside enough to press go. Or, be happy with what I learned in the process, without ever pressing go. That would still be cheaper than letting it out in the wild before it’s polished enough to eliminate any real competition. It doesn’t make me feel good looking over at it on the shelf. But I sleep at night.
I was telling this guy who hunts for bear in an area that I hunt that I don't have a stand setup in one area, I move around and hunt out of my saddle.
A few weeks later I was talking to the land owner and he asked me if I had horses, I said no and he said, I didn't think so. It turns out he was talking to the bear hunter and the bear hunter told him that I was hunting off a horse (from the saddle
). I was walking in to hunt and had my saddle on that day so I showed him my saddle setup.
Last edited:
I was telling this guy who hunts for bear in an area that I hunt that I don't have a stand setup in one area, I move around and hunt out of my saddle.
A few weeks later I was talking to the land owner and he asked me if I had horses, I said no and he said, I didn't think so. It turns out he was talking to the bear hunter and the bear hunter told him that I was hunting off a horse (from the saddle
Haha I suspect that would be the response of most people. Think of what was going through that guys head before your conversation!
Probably that he had underestimated him. What a genius! A mobile elevated position that masks the sound of you moving? And makes you look like a non-threatening tourist!!
IP law is meant to protect true innovation. Shrinking a treestand to shoeboex size or putting an anti wedgie device on a harness is not innovation, it's iteration.
Iteration. Innovation. I get confused. Patent granted!! Now go pay my lawyer buddies and my judge buddies to argue about it . Weasels
. Weasels
I agree.
My question, is why anyone is upset that they aren’t protected by IP law when someone with a crappy patent sues them? This statement works in both directions, for both sides of this proverbial coin. The only truth is that if you didn’t come up with something interesting and unique, you won’t be offered much protection. Whether you’re the patent defender or attacker.