Because I like to beat dead horses...
If anyone read the original HAAS patent it is very specific to the function and materials being patented, to infringe, someone would need to use the same materials and have them function the same way.
The original HAAS patent was specific to -
- An elastic cord only attached at one end.
- A braided polyester rope tether
- A boat clip on the elastic
- A foot loop that is formed as a continuation of the tether rope.
All of these are brilliant additions to Baranek's rope walker system he described and pictured in his books. Michael should be proud of these innovations and should be compensated for them. Weaver, as the current patent holder should manufacture and sell this system and make tons of money.
The SAKA has NONE of these features. It does have a list of innovations not found anywhere in the HAAS patent, like a custom rope grab, a stronger cord fastened at both ends, a semi rigid sewn tether, dual micro carabiner connection points, a sewn footloop that stays on your boot for later use, the loop is flat and coated so you can walk and climb on it...
And that's just off the top of my head, the point is, there is no patent case. The SAKA is comfortably it's own system that accomplishes the same task as the HAAS, and other rope walker systems.
In my mind then, the actions taken against Richard are not based on patent infringement, they are an attempt to use patent law as an excuse to litigate a competing product with a smaller bankroll out of the market.
This is why I'm sticking my big nose in the discussion, I'm just not cool with that.
