I am removing the SAKA from the market.

has anyone here bought anything weaver in the last ten years?
I bought a Cougar saddle in 2015 to replace one that was stolen and during the process, received 2 that were mismarked as to size that had to be sent back. I believe Weaver made the MCRS Saddle as well, so anyone who has one of those supported Weaver. If so, between that and this, it seems like Weaver has changed its opinion of customer service.
 
It occurs to me that I have seen this before. A number of times in the past I have seen on companies' websites that a product had been discontinued due to a patent infringement issue. Interestingly, it often went on to warn that *once the remaining stock on hand has been sold, there will be no more available*. Apparently this is not uncommon. Now, this begs the question, who knows how many SAKA's Richard has left? Hmm?, did he mortgage the farm and perhaps have six or eight thousand made? Might take a while to sell off what he has left on hand, even after he has completely complied with Weaver's demands and advertised on his site that he has discontinued the product commercially.
 
In the case That I referred to earlier there was a cease and desist order where no one...in the US...could sell the product. Any vendors who had them on the shelf couldn't sell them. Loss of revenue for them

It all depends on the settlement and willingness/financial ability to fight

This discussion ties right into the other active thread about getting paid by a client who
Is in bankruptcy
 
I was gonna pull the trigger and buy the SAKA just a few days before Richard started this thread. Looked on his website, every arborist supplier in the U.S. and nothing. I thought something like this went down but I sure wasn’t gonna be the one to bring it up! @richard sorry to things not work out for you. Thanks for always posting videos and being an inspiration to us tree guys and girls!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
. . . a cease and desist order where no one...in the US...could sell the product. Any vendors who had them on the shelf couldn't sell them. . .
Yeah, that would alter the situation for sure. Still, there is one final possibility that Weaver could do bugger-all about and yet still allow a trickle of SAKA's out there for true devotees. And that is the completely unregulated trade in *used but like-new* SAKA's on sites like eBay. Nothing can prevent the eventual resale of all the *numerous* pre-owned SAKA's already out there. How many, who knows? Hundreds upon hundreds were probably sold. Why, I would not be surprised at all to see them begin to turn up regularly online, often in perfect condition. Food for thought.
 
I have my regular SAKA and a new one I ordered a few months back. Wish I could get my hands on one more. Here's a thought. One of the groups I'm in has cds. We don't sell them. We give them away but we accept donations for the group. Sure we have a few go out without a donation but some people pay extra. We actually make more per cd than the other group I'm in that sells them for a set fee. Thanks for all you do Richard. You've helped me out more than you'll ever know.
 
This discussion has really helped me get my head around some of the details in this whole tragic mess, I appreciate having a place to discuss these things openly. This video is my summary and context for folks that are not on the buzz. I don't have all the facts, and left things out, but this is MY viewpoint. it's also a chance for me to throw Weaver a lifeline from a business perspective. Not that anyone will grab it, but I'm still gonna send it.
 
I don't know all the history. But I am just going to assume, correct me if I'm wrong. but the jumar and the croll and those other advances were most definitly patented as well as defended vigorously. petzl most definitely was a business man.
 
I can also assume he was, and he had the luxury of an innovation cycle that took decades, 24 years since that last major advance in ascenders across all climbing disciplines.

What we are experiencing now in our little mini tree tool market is an innovation avalanche. If someone takes that same approach today, they are likely to get buried holding their patent flag as consumers look in newer directions.

In the video I use the example of Microsoft, they were on the cusp of a fast innovation cycle, if they had chosen to not license the code to DOS (that they didn't actually own yet) Billy Gates would still be working in his parents garage.
Commodore is a good example from that time that were ahead of the curve on innovation, but decided to not license anyone else to use it, they were gone within a few years.

The safest thing Weaver can do right now is take their patent power and let other innovators pay to use it. If they don't they will likely be running their business with a lot fewer of these pesky tree customers to deal with.
 
https://www.karstsports.com/petzl-p...LGx1vXD7s0McZtKK_50mNnk6ZhpcHDXxoC6IsQAvD_BwE


see that slick push button to open the traxion? that's patented. think of all the innovation that's stifling. Likewise that button mechanism on the omniblocks. you better believe if you make anything with a pulley and a central spring button, petzl will be on your neck.

Like they should... on your neck to get their cut for they innovation that you built on. And if someone is making knock offs with no real add, of course shut them down.

But that's not the situation here.
 
And yet you still made a public access video on the subject. Seems to be a common theme nowadays.

By video or text, we are all putting our words out here for public access. Which is exactly where public dialog belongs.

Glad you are adding yours as well.
 
On the serious side, I've had my own company for over 25 years doing EHS work and process safety in the chemical/ petroleum industry. High end clients (some of the world's best) and small ones too, but some of the best minds I've had the pleasure to work with. We also developed software and had the same issues with "proprietary" code and even the arrangement of buttons on windows if you can believe it. These issues eventually caused us to throw in the towel on several really good ideas - had the customers, but when the lawyers got ahold of it, we ran out of $$ to pay the bills as a startup. At some point as a small business, you just cut and run. Forget it.

Freefallin, I think your discussion is reasoned and most excellent. But, what we experienced though, was the exact opposite of reasonable people sitting down - greed and avarice, ego and winner take all (a lot of these people must have been highly abused as children, I think, that's the only way to explain what we went thru). The US tort system is, I think (having drealt with it in Silicon Valley) THE WORST in the world, bar none. And while the home dogs chew away at each other, in the far east, they just take an idea, copy it and run with it.

For record, I think Richard's configuration of the ascender was tops, and I did buy extras as part of our "capital sparing" program. Now, boy am I glad we did. So final thought - if you do have some piece of equipment that you find really cool and "just fits" the way you work, if you've got the $$, consider buying extras as spares before it disappears from the market (harness, or knee ascender, or rope you love, etc.). The good thing though, is that some types of patents, from what I understand, expire eventually (pharmaceuticals, ski bindings, etc.). The judges and lawyers that grant these things have gotta get their heads on straight 'cause they're ruining commerce and progress.
 
Greed and avarice sit on both sides of the table. The first US patent was signed by George Washington in 1790. You have but to look around to know that "it" is not what stops progress.
 
I would really like people to, while they are going at weaver, to go at PETZL for that damn button in the middle of the pulley on the Traxion. That stupid patent is really killing some innovation and y'all don't even know it! nobody knows what kind of innovation thats killing because noone would dare test Petzl. And you know Petzl isn't going to license it to anyone. No sir. How can you patent a damn button with a spring in it. Buttons have been around forever! so have springs and So have pulley sheaves! You know how annoying it is when the perfect solution for a design that your working on is just completely off the table? man if I could just give you all a taste. Maybe you would all get so angry you could petition Petzl to share.
 
Kevin, this gets to exactly what I refer to in my post above. Citing DSMc, absolutely no problem with patents for truly unique "discoveries" (a light bulb never before seen, etc.). And throughout history there are lots for sure. I do have problems with patents being granted for what I will call "incremental developments" or "incremental additions to already existing designs".
Here for me is the rub. How can a corporation be granted a patent for natural things like a DNA sequence? Nature, and science, is always built on all the "work" that has gone before. In the human world, show me computer code that isn't based somehow on work others preceding you has done before? Back to mechanical things, following the line all the way back on the ascenders, could the IP actually belong then to the writers of "On Rope" and the first documented visual depiction? Or to Gerry Beranek? This is where we found the copyright and patent law jurisprudence a hindrance to commerce not a help, as no doubt you have as well.

Addenda: Kevin, I really enjoyed seeing the video with you in the, I think it was, the Detroit area "Idea Lab". Wish we had something that well developed [incl. the patent search/ filing - :-) ] in the Great White North here where I am.
 
Last edited:

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom