Cross Compatible Reloads

[cjl]

Honestly (and I agree with you - the 38/640 skid is a massive pain to clean), the larger skids aren't as bad, as far as the cleaning goes. It's perfectly fine if they aren't your cup of tea, but they aren't as bad as some people think.

 

[darkhelmet]

Hardware can be patented...I do not believe a bag of propellent pieces, o-rings & a rubber washer & a delay could ever be. They could package the delay differently, say in a plastic liner w/built in spacers for different length delays.

You can't patent a size!

And I think an patents on ATs hardware design would have expired by now. You could never say "RMS", but I cannot see how producing reloads could ever cause a patent problem. It's almost identical to aftermarket toner cartridge filling companies....HP/Epson can beech all they want, but they can't stop someone from filling their devices w/material.

As a service to TRF readers, here's a more civil reply to Deandome's incorrect statements.

The AT and CTI patents are online. Go to uspto.gov and search. Both are current patents. You can see how AT forgot to pay the maintenance fee and it lapsed, then they petitioned and it was reissued. You can see how RCS was assigned the patent rights when Gary purchased the bankrupt Aerotech. You can also read the details of the patent claims.

Patents have multiple claims. Another company cannot infringe on any of them, in whole or in part. If you make the pieces and parts that infringe on the patent, you are breaking the law. The company is responsible for going after you, not the US Government. If a company feels it cannot afford to fight another company with bigger lawyers, it may just ignore a minor infringement.

Trademarks are a different issue. They must be in general use and registered for protection. "RMS" is a trademark. A company can refer to another company's trademark as long as they make it clear it's not their property.

People seem to always use the toner/ink cartridge example. You have no idea what arrangements have been made for licensing and royalties. You also have no idea if the particular elements of the design or invention are covered by patent claims. Some brands and models have patents, some do not. Some companies are willing to allow 3rd parties to manufacturer compatible ink/toner for a fee, others do not. Some companies have no patent protection and it is a free-for-all.

If you need further information on intellectual property law, just ask. Now where did I put my box of Crayons?

 

[The Visionary]

Being a newbie, I think it is great if the companies WANT to cooperate. They will only do it if there is a benefit for both either in profit or customer loyalty. With that said, It is probably a BUSINESS decision that they will work with one and not others. Whether it be competing for a comparatively small customer base or dealing with a young company. Many things go into these decisions.

The only thing I have recently been upset about is Aerotech's 29MM hobbyline and the regular 29MM cases are not compatible, but I understand that someone killed that horse a while back.:lol: It would make it easier to move into HPR though. Just a side note.

 

[deandome]

Now I will politely quash darkhelmets ravings.

You cannot patent a shape and you you cannot patent a shape. He dismisses aftermarket toner filling with a condecending "you don't know what agreements..." line. I DO know what agreements mfgs have with aftermarket suppliers...NONE. Their mantras are "use original HP/Canon/Epson supplies"...and in copiers, they cancel warranties & service plans if they find you using aftermarketed stuff. But there are no "approved" filers/vendors...and if you think these guys chose not to patent anything they can, you're naive.

I sold Minolta copiers for 4 years....I sold Canon for 2. They patent their toners (i.e., smaller particles). HP patents their inks, cartridges and print heads. But not only can ANYONE fill ANY cartridge with non-mfg toner with impunity, you can develop an entire laser cartridge with every shape, ridge, notch necessary to work perfectly in your HP laser printer...you can CLONE THE SHAPE, because that cannot be patented. Epson got smart, they developed a printer that reads a PATENTED chip in the cartridge, if it's not Epson, it won't work. Someone copied/stole that chip (I think the aftermarketer got if from the same place Epson sourced it & Epson sued THAT company, not the aftermarketer). THAT kind of idea has legs, but it's $$ to develop, and frankly, if you try to hard to force people to buy only your supplies, people, LIKE ME, are going to choose not to buy it because you're locked into $$ supplies.

Same w/rechargable batteries, chargers & adaptors for cameras, phones, etc. Each mfg has specific shapes & dimensions to try to steer you towards their stuff....but because you cannot patent a size or shape, you can see a Lenmar replacement for your brand-new Canon camera within weeks of it's release. I

Aerotech's patents don't specify what's patented, if you think that looking at the diagram means that everything there is patented, you're wrong. Round slugs of propellant shaped into grains that are stacked & sealed w/o-rings in refillable motor systems were in place way before RMS was developed. Maybe something might be special about the delay system, but I'm sure that could easily be worked-around...and in most stuff I and up, delays aren't really used, you could sell a line without it.

If you honestly think selling 54mm slugs of propellant "X" mm long in a package with o-rings and a few plastic discs could be patented, than you're wrong.

 

[jderimig]

Now I will politely quash darkhelmets ravings.

You cannot patent a shape and you you cannot patent a shape.

I sold Minolta copiers for 4 years....I sold Canon for 2.

I have to side with Dark Helmet. Do not express your (incorrect) opinion as fact. You do not know what you are talking about and you should really stop posting on topics other than what you know.

What do you think any mechanical design is? Its a collection of shapes!
You certainly can patent interface features and that is what commonly done in a whole range of products such as copier toner cartridges and razorblades.

How many patents do you hold? Have you EVER met a patent attorney?

Please STOP!!!!!

 

[darkhelmet]

Now I will politely quash darkhelmets ravings.

Aerotech's patents don't specify what's patented, if you think that looking at the diagram means that everything there is patented, you're wrong.

If you could read and understand more than the pictures, you'd find out exactly what is patented.

If you had experience designing copiers and printers (like I have) and not just sold them, you might understand the issues at a different level.

I will not lower myself by pointing out Deandome's mistakes any longer. I guess the moderators don't actually care about facts, just about "being nice". This type of ignorant misinformation is a disservice to the TRF readers.

I have heard that most knowledgable rocketeers, and intelligent people in general, don't stay in this forum very long. I can see why.

 

[KermieD]

If you could read and understand more than the pictures, you'd find out exactly what is patented.

If you had experience designing copiers and printers (like I have) and not just sold them, you might understand the issues at a different level.

I will not lower myself by pointing out Deandome's mistakes any longer. I guess the moderators don't actually care about facts, just about "being nice". This type of ignorant misinformation is a disservice to the TRF readers.

I have heard that most knowledgable rocketeers, and intelligent people in general, don't stay in this forum very long. I can see why.

NOTE: Your assertion of expertise under an online pseudonym without verifying your identity AND professional history does not make your statements fact and even were that to be the case, you have not identified ANY professional history that makes your statements irrefutable. This is the nature of online forums, and as such, your statements are no more factual and authoritative than the statement itself. Your stated identity means nothing. Your assertions that the moderators and administrators of this forums are not interested in fact are as unbased as you claim Deandome's assertions to be.

Fact is, until you identify yourself in a verifiable manner as a patent expert (and if your assertion that designing printers and cartridges makes you a patent expert, please let me know who you work for so I can purchase my next printer who hires engineers to design printers, not patent lawyers), your statements of "fact" carry no more legal veracity than Deandome's. Until you can do so, this will remain a discussion forum, not a reference manual written by Darkhelmet.

Both of you would be doing the community as a whole a huge favor if you'd just quit measuring yourselves and have a rational discussion of your own thoughts instead of trying to tear each other's to pieces.

FYI: The reason this forum exists and has thrived is because people are "nice" to each other on the whole. If you do not value that, you may wish to look into other forums or venues to experess your opinions.

 

[KermieD]

Now, regarding the inkjet parallel, perhaps these agreements that are being asserted here actually DON'T exist, and those that DO exist only do so as a result of lawsuit settlements.:

https://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-5905212.html

 

[ben]

I bet I'll be all alone on this, but I've had my fill of sparky motors, and it wouldn't bother me at all if they ceased to exist. I've flown exactly one myself (the AMW 38/640), and cleaning the case was enough of a hassle that I'm happy to just watch others fly the Skidmarks. But besides that, I've seen a lot of 'em in the last few years, and the thrill is gone. I'd MUCH rather see more staging and airstarts.

Am I supposed to say something rude here as well?
I'm not sure about the rules.

maybe once I fly a few *I* will get tired of them but i doubt it. I do like airstarts and I plan on airstarting a few in one of my rockets (4 to be exact)

Ben

 

[jadebox]

You can patent shapes - as design elements or as part of an invention. But, you can't patent something which is obvious or intuitive - such as, I would assume, using a round reload in a round case. But you might be able to patent something like a new shape for the core - if no one else had done it before and it resulted in something useful (like a different thrust profile).

As far as warranty issues:

"No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade or corporate name..." (15 U.S.C. 2302(C)).

-- Roger

 

[uncle_vanya]

I know someone will take offense to this...

There are people who claim that small businesses and inventors shouldn't bother with patents. This is a sample of that viewpoint - which I am starting to think is correct... .

https://www.tinaja.com/glib/newpats.pdf


The point I am making with this is that even when you patent something - if the company you are suing has good lawyers - they may be able to show that the patent was obvious and that it shouldn't have been held in the first place. This is an area of law where what is legal and what is fact often are in dispute.

In the case of ink and toner - it may be so difficult to pursue the myriad suppliers who are creating "compatible" ink cartridges that it is not worth the revenue lost by not pursuing them.

To steer this back to rockets...

The ideas in the link above seem applicable. The snap-ring style motors have essentially become "obvious" and are probably patent proof. The new motor vendor can play in this space without a lot of problems from trying to determine the legal status of the other case options.

 

[jderimig]

The ideas in the link above seem applicable. The snap-ring style motors have essentially become "obvious" and are probably patent proof. The new motor vendor can play in this space without a lot of problems from trying to determine the legal status of the other case options.

The other of the 3 requirements of a patent is novelty (newness). If it hasn't been patented yet you can't patent it now.

--jd Holder of US Patents #5716714, #5709949, #5547759 and numerous others (to satisfy Kermie D's request of bona fides)

 

[Stuck Fingers]

You can patent shapes.

to wit: https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...TXT&s1=Coiner.INNM.&OS=IN/Coiner&RS=IN/Coiner


Read the abstract. The parallelogram has been patented by yours truly.

 

[darkhelmet]

Now, regarding the inkjet parallel, perhaps these agreements that are being asserted here actually DON'T exist, and those that DO exist only do so as a result of lawsuit settlements.:

https://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-5905212.html

Perhaps, someone who knows how to Google can appear to be an expert.

 

[darkhelmet]

To steer this back to rockets...

The ideas in the link above seem applicable. The snap-ring style motors have essentially become "obvious" and are probably patent proof. The new motor vendor can play in this space without a lot of problems from trying to determine the legal status of the other case options.

Exactly. This is the point I made earlier and is the MOST important issue related to the topic of this thread. Two hobby-market motor configurations have patented elements: AT/RCS and Cesaroni. Snap-ring motor designs are not patented nor are they patentable, unless a novel element is added.

Getting back not only to rockets, but to the topic of this thread...

Cross-compatible reloads are not as clear-cut as some might think. The noise in this thread was leading to the conclusion that it's as simple as a "bag of parts". It's a multi-faceted problem involving patents, warranty, safety, NFPA certification, NAR/TRA policy, and prior ageements between competitors. This is difficult enough for the NAR Board to understand, so I'm not suprised that many people here (including at least one moderator) aren't sure what to think.

 

[shreadvector]

LOL. There is a GINORMOUS bag of popcorn sitting on the counter here at work. Left over from a dept picnic on Saturday. I was deep in the A/C-furnace replacement....

I will go fill a bowl now.

Pull up a seat this could get interesting.

 

[darkhelmet]

Holder of US Patents #5716714, #5709949, #5547759 and numerous others (to satisfy Kermie D's request of bona fides)

Don't you think it's ironic to have to justify yourself to an anonymous moderator, while correcting the mistakes of an anonymous poster who goes unchallenged by the aforementioned anonymous moderator? (Rhetorical question!)

 

[ContrailRockets]

Exactly. This is the point I made earlier and is the MOST important issue related to the topic of this thread. Two hobby-market motor configurations have patented elements: AT/RCS and Cesaroni. Snap-ring motor designs are not patented nor are they patentable, unless a novel element is added.

Getting back not only to rockets, but to the topic of this thread...

Cross-compatible reloads are not as clear-cut as some might think. The noise in this thread was leading to the conclusion that it's as simple as a "bag of parts". It's a multi-faceted problem involving patents, warranty, safety, NFPA certification, NAR/TRA policy, and prior ageements between competitors. This is difficult enough for the NAR Board to understand, so I'm not suprised that many people here (including at least one moderator) aren't sure what to think.

Since AMW doesn't have any patents on there snap ring type motors and as Dark Helmet Said, they are "not patentable". AT did nothing wrong in certifing reloads for AMW hardware...

CTI set the precident years ago by certifing their reloads in AT Hardware. AT is just following up on that.

 

[darkhelmet]

Since AMW doesn't have any patents on there snap ring type motors and as Dark Helmet Said, they are "not patentable". AT did nothing wrong in certifing reloads for AMW hardware...

CTI set the precident years ago by certifing their reloads in AT Hardware. AT is just following up on that.

"Nothing wrong" is a wide generalization. Time will tell.

CTI's loads for AT hardware were a secondary casing test along with the primary CTI case by CAR. These AT loads for AMW cases are a precedent for a propellant load that was not certified as a 'system' from the same manufacturer.

You also realize that Aerotech complained in writing to the test organizations at the time of the CAR certs of the CTI loads, demanding that the "unauthorized CTI loads" not be accepted in the US? The NAR position was to avoid making a decision by stating "it is NAR S&T policy to not certify reloads in other manufacturer's casings". The "combined list" of motors does not say it is ok to use the CTI loads in AT cases. So, there was never a clear acceptance.

For full disclosure, Tom, can you tell us about your cross-compatible hybrid system?

 

[uncle_vanya]

CTI's loads for AT hardware were a secondary casing test along with the primary CTI case by CAR. These AT loads for AMW cases are a precedent for a propellant load that was not certified as a 'system' from the same manufacturer.

Sorry - lost me. How did the certification steps taken by CTI differ from those taken by RCS/Aerotech?

Did Aerotech submit an AMW case with their propellant and have it certified or not? I'm a little lost as to what the distinction is here. The "system" by the same manufacturer is confusing. CTI didn't make the Aerotech tubes, they bought them and used them in the certification process.

 

[MarkM]

The "system" by the same manufacturer is confusing. CTI didn't make the Aerotech tubes, they bought them and used them in the certification process.

What Darkhelmet tried to convey was that 75/98mm CTI loads that are cross-certified were initially developed for CTI's own line of casings and then, secondarily, modified (inclusion of additional O-rings, etc) & cross certified for use in AT casings.

The difference with the new KBA loads is that they were never developed for use in a line of AT casings and then cross-certified in AMW casings, but developed solely for use in another manufacturer's (AMW) casings.

I'm not going to argue about the "legality" concerning the two because I honestly don't know, but there clearly is a difference in HOW the two types of loads were developed and certified; one is a cross-certification, the other for the explicit use in a competitor's casing. Whether or not there's a "legal" differentiation is another matter for the patent lawyers to argue.

 

[deandome]

Now, regarding the inkjet parallel, perhaps these agreements that are being asserted here actually DON'T exist, and those that DO exist only do so as a result of lawsuit settlements.:

https://news.com.com/2100-1047_3-5905212.html

This is EXACTLY what I said...HP isn't suing because they are remanufacturing/refilling their cartridges...they're suing because the FORMULATION OF THE TONER is patented & the aftermarket person infringed on THAT patent. They cannot stop remanufacturing/refilling itself...period. That's similar to the epson lawsuit I mentioned. The company was manufacturing entire cartridges, not just refilling old ones. But the only basis they had for the suit was the use of a proprietary "recognition chip"...not the shape, not the fact that if fit inside the printer perfectly.

Nobody said squat about the proprietary rechargable battery argument I proffered, either. every mfg has a unique shape, and w/camcorders & phones, a series of hooks & notches built into the case to latch onto the camera. If that was patentable, they would all be protected, but clearly they are not, because you can get batteries from 1/2 dozen different sources with the identical SHAPES in the casing.

Back to rockets...I'm not even so sure that different formulations are patentable, because one could argue nothing is "invented' by adding small amounts of different ingredients to the main base propellant (AP)g to create colors. Could AMW sue if AT's new green shows to be identical/almost identical to green gorilla...even if it's just a case where adding something like manganese (or whatever..that's a guess) makes a green color?

That's trickier...and I'm not making difinitive statments on THAT angle. But I am certanly sticking to my guns on the main argument that anyone could make AT compatible reload kits without infringing on any patents.

 

[ContrailRockets]

"Nothing wrong" is a wide generalization. Time will tell.

CTI's loads for AT hardware were a secondary casing test along with the primary CTI case by CAR. These AT loads for AMW cases are a precedent for a propellant load that was not certified as a 'system' from the same manufacturer.

You also realize that Aerotech complained in writing to the test organizations at the time of the CAR certs of the CTI loads, demanding that the "unauthorized CTI loads" not be accepted in the US? The NAR position was to avoid making a decision by stating "it is NAR S&T policy to not certify reloads in other manufacturer's casings". The "combined list" of motors does not say it is ok to use the CTI loads in AT cases. So, there was never a clear acceptance.

For full disclosure, Tom, can you tell us about your cross-compatible hybrid system?

I will agree that is a wide generalization. But the fact that AT is making loads for AMW Hardware is not "wrong"... A Manufacture legitimately doesn't even need to produce hardware to have motors certified. They just need to submit the hardware of the manufacture they are certifying motors in.

Accusations relating to Patent law in this thread are completely ridiculous. They make no sense at all. The AMW Fuels are not patented, nor is the hardware. It doesn't take a patent lawyer to see that. Future discussion of it, or the discussion of ink cartridges in this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

The CTI/AT dual use grains certified by CTI set a standard in which Company A could use another Company B’s hardware for certifying reloads.

It is my understanding that Gorilla Rockets requested to be able to use AMW Hardware for certification of their motors as well. But at the time, they would have needed to submit 2 or 3 of each hardware size and type for certification.

AT may have been upset at CTI when they certed loads in the AT Cases... It was new, and set a precedent in the hobby. Never before had cross certification been done. Now it is old hat and manufactures should be aware that it can be done as long as the proper procedure is followed.

Stating that there was not a "Clear Acceptance" of CTI/AT Cross Compatibility is false. There is no question that CTI loads in the large AT Hardware is accepted.

Now since I think Dark Helmet is probably a smart guy... He can tell us all why CTI can't certify their loads in AT Hardware... <-- Hint: (CHOO CHOOOOO)

As for Full Disclosure on our products... We do not currently have motors certified for any other manufactures hardware. Will we be doing something in the future? YES. That isn't a secret. let me link you to www.trojanhybrids.com in case you want to check them out. It is TRA/TMT's Position that the use of a standard size tank for a hybrid motor such as a "Catalina cylinder" is ok.

Those motors were displayed at LDRS 26 in Jean, NV. The Use of Our Products on a HT Brand tank has been approved for certification. CTI/HT may not be "Happy" about it, but they set the precedent years ago.

Manufactures have never been able to agree on a common hardware spec... Maybe this is the start of it?

 

[Anthony Cesaroni]

I will agree that is a wide generalization. But the fact that AT is making loads for AMW Hardware is not "wrong"... A Manufacture legitimately doesn't even need to produce hardware to have motors certified. They just need to submit the hardware of the manufacture they are certifying motors in.

Accusations relating to Patent law in this thread are completely ridiculous. They make no sense at all. The AMW Fuels are not patented, nor is the hardware. It doesn't take a patent lawyer to see that. Future discussion of it, or the discussion of ink cartridges in this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

The CTI/AT dual use grains certified by CTI set a standard in which Company A could use another Company B&#8217;s hardware for certifying reloads.

It is my understanding that Gorilla Rockets requested to be able to use AMW Hardware for certification of their motors as well. But at the time, they would have needed to submit 2 or 3 of each hardware size and type for certification.

AT may have been upset at CTI when they certed loads in the AT Cases... It was new, and set a precedent in the hobby. Never before had cross certification been done. Now it is old hat and manufactures should be aware that it can be done as long as the proper procedure is followed.

Stating that there was not a "Clear Acceptance" of CTI/AT Cross Compatibility is false. There is no question that CTI loads in the large AT Hardware is accepted.

Now since I think Dark Helmet is probably a smart guy... He can tell us all why CTI can't certify their loads in AT Hardware... <-- Hint: (CHOO CHOOOOO)

As for Full Disclosure on our products... We do not currently have motors certified for any other manufactures hardware. Will we be doing something in the future? YES. That isn't a secret. let me link you to www.trojanhybrids.com in case you want to check them out. It is TRA/TMT's Position that the use of a standard size tank for a hybrid motor such as a "Catalina cylinder" is ok.

Those motors were displayed at LDRS 26 in Jean, NV. The Use of Our Products on a HT Brand tank has been approved for certification. CTI/HT may not be "Happy" about it, but they set the precedent years ago.

Manufactures have never been able to agree on a common hardware spec... Maybe this is the start of it?

Unhappy about what? The dozen or so you may sell? There are 4 figures of the HT mark motors (in terms of numbers) out there. Regardless, if you step on our IP we won't ignore it. Otherwise, please stop crowing nonsense.

Good luck.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

 

[ContrailRockets]

Unhappy about what? The dozen or so you may sell? There are 4 figures of the HT mark motors out there. Regardless, if you step on our IP we won't ignore it. Otherwise, please stop crowing nonsense.

Good luck.

Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
https://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

I guess I just felt that you were "Unhappy" about the idea. But I should have remembered that a man like yourself is probably indifferent in the idea. The HT Sales are no doubt only a drop in the bucket when compared to your military and commercial ventures.

As has been stated before, we do not infringe on your patents and have no interest in doing so. You can not be so bold to say that the use of a commercially available tank of a specific size is IP.

 

[darkhelmet]

Accusations relating to Patent law in this thread are completely ridiculous. They make no sense at all. The AMW Fuels are not patented, nor is the hardware. It doesn't take a patent lawyer to see that. Future discussion of it, or the discussion of ink cartridges in this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

Re-read the thread. The issue of patents was not brought up related to AMW loads. It was in reference to the incorrect assertion that "anyone can make any load for any rocket motor system". This is only true if you do not infringe on the intellectual property of another company. The AT/RCS and Cesaroni motors have patented elements. It DOES take a patent lawyer to see that.

The ink/toner cartridge issue is different but related. It's a multifaceted issue and not as clear cut as certain people insist on declaring.

Stating that there was not a "Clear Acceptance" of CTI/AT Cross Compatibility is false. There is no question that CTI loads in the large AT Hardware is accepted.

If you are a NAR member, ask to see the Board meeting minutes. Otherwise, do not make assumptions without all the information.

 

[deandome]

jee-sus....I can't believe people actually accuse me of being a "know it all"

Here's some "Intellectual Property" for you:

Host: Miss Anne Elk, who is an expert on the...
Elk: No, no, no, Anne Elk.
Host: What?
Elk: Anne Elk, not Anne Expert.
Host: No, no, I was saying that you, Miss Elk, were an, A.N. not A.N.N.E.,
expert...
Elk: Oh!
Host: ...on elks - I'm sorry, on dinosaurs.
Elk: Yes, I certainly am, Chris, how very true, my word yes!
Host: Now, Miss Elk - Anne - you have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
Elk: Could I just say, Chris, for one moment that I have a new theory about
the brontosaurus?
Host: Er... exactly. What is it?
Elk: Where?
Host: No, no, no. What is your theory?
Elk: Oh, what is my theory?
Host: Yes.
Elk: Oh what is my theory, that it is. Yes, well you may well ask, what is my
theory.
Host: (slightly impatient) I am asking.
Elk: And well you may. Yes my word you may well ask what it is, this theory
of mine. Well, this theory that I have--that is to say, which is mine--
...is mine.
Host: (more impatient) I know it's yours. What is it?
Elk: Where? Oh, what is my theory?
Host: Yes!
Elk: Oh, my theory that I have follows the lines I am about to relate.
(Coughs) Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.
Host: Oh God.
Elk: Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. Ahem.
Ahem. Ahem. [Impatient noises from Host] The Theory, by A. Elk. That's
A for Anne, it's not by a elk.
Host: Right....
Elk: This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how
it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory.
Ahem. Ready?
(Host moans)
Elk: The Theory by A. Elk brackets Miss brackets. My theory is along the
following lines.
Host: Oh God.
Elk: All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle,
and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and
which is mine, and what it is too.
Host: That's it, is it?
Elk: Right, Chris.
Host: Well, Anne, this theory of yours seems to have hit the nail on the head.
Elk: And it's mine.
Host: (ironical) Thank you for coming along to the studio.
Elk: My pleasure, Chris.

Please, now you have people in the industry telling you you're wrong...just give it up!

Aerotech did NOTHING new other than replace snap rings w/threaded closures (and don't you DARE think the idea of threaded closures is patentable), went w/disposable, high-temp plastic nozzles and maybe come up w/a unique delay arrangement, which I've said might be the only thing they have that's truly unique.

I can produce & market body panels for a 2008 altima without Nissan's permission. I can produce & market a complex, stand-alone cartridge for a HP 8000 laser printer. I can produce & market batteries & car adaptors for a new Motorola RAZR. I can produce and market slugs of PVC or any other plastic/substance for use in any & all hybrid motor systems.

I can produce reload kits for any & all Aerotech RMS hardware setups...and it LOOKS like I can get them certified in Aerotech's hardware without their permission (which is somewhat surprising & something I never claimed would be a "given"). Thus, I could market my aerotech-compatible reloads, too.

YOU CANNOT PATENT A SIZE...YOU CANNOT PATENT A SHAPE.

 

[gorillamotors]

It is my understanding that Gorilla Rockets requested to be able to use AMW Hardware for certification of their motors as well. But at the time, they would have needed to submit 2 or 3 of each hardware size and type for certification.

Not true. I did NOT request to use AMW hardware for certification. Tripoli said I could use AMW hardware if I wanted to and if I went that route I had to submit 3 complete sets of AMW motor hardware to do so. Although I was given the choice to certify in AMW hardware (I personally enjoy making the propellant over making the hardware) I felt that it was morally and ethically wrong to certify in some other manufacturers hardware without his permission. So I made my own to be submitted.

Jim Harris
Gorilla Motors

 

[darkhelmet]

jee-sus....I can't believe people actually accuse me of being a "know it all"
Here's some "Intellectual Property" for you:
YOU CANNOT PATENT A SIZE...YOU CANNOT PATENT A SHAPE.

You do not have a single PROPERTY that is INTELLECTUAL!

There are many patented sizes and shapes. You are PATENTLY wrong!

Now stop wasting bandwidth and educate yourself before actuating the random noise generator in your Dumb Dome.

 

[ContrailRockets]

I can produce reload kits for any & all Aerotech RMS hardware setups...and it LOOKS like I can get them certified in Aerotech's hardware without their permission (which is somewhat surprising & something I never claimed would be a "given"). Thus, I could market my aerotech-compatible reloads, too.

YOU CANNOT PATENT A SIZE...YOU CANNOT PATENT A SHAPE.

Ok... You Can. But only you... Just don't tell anyone I told you it was ok...

But for Anyone else!
You can also be taken to court for patent infringement for using the Aerotech Patented "Delay Train." (Gary Correct me if I am wrong on name, design etc.)

One of the big problems of CTI certifying the smaller motors in an AT Case was the delay patent I believe.

Patenting a hardware size or shape maybe not... But a critical part of the AT Hardware that is patented... That can and has been done.
The Large AT Hardware (75mm and 98mm) are all plugged and don't have that delay like the smaller motors...