Weaver Leather, Climbing Innovations and Richard Mumford are pleased to announce that the lawsuit is over!

Richard Mumford-yoyoman

Well-Known Member
Location
Atlanta GA
Weaver Leather, Climbing Innovations and Richard Mumford are pleased to announce that

the lawsuit is over! Mumford’s SAKA mini-Max has been found not to infringe on any patent

of Weaver Leather. It was also found that Mumford’s survey and GoFundMe request for help,

posted on at least Treebuzz, Instagram, and Facebook on August 15, 2019 was disparaging

against Weaver. Both parties respect and accept the decisions from the court and are grateful

to have resolved their issues. Weaver Leather and Climbing Innovations are glad to move

forward in serving the marketplace with respect. Weaver Leather, Richard Mumford and

Climbing Innovations urge the climbing community to refrain from negative comments or

statements directed toward either company.
 

ATH

Well-Known Member
Location
Ohio
glad for the outcome. I always had the impression that you just wanted your innovations to have a place in the market. It is great they can.
 

Burrapeg

Well-Known Member
Location
Puget Sound
Am I the only one still pissed at Weaver for putting Richard through this emotional and financial ordeal? The bury-the-hatchet thing is a fine sentiment but the truth is they are perfectly capable of doing it again to anyone else, if they are inclined towards that sort of monopolistic behavior. It also bothers me that, depending on the judge, the skill (read: cost) of the attorneys involved, etc., the decision could easily have gone the other way. There is no protection or enforcement at all included in US patents. The system is extremely flawed and slanted in favour of the larger corporations with bigger legal budgets. It seriously discourages innovation by ordinary guys and smaller companies, and this is exactly where much innovation happens. The downside of trusting bigger companies to do the innovation is that they are often the last place you will see it. They get tooled up for a certain product line, retailers and distribution set up, expensive catalogues and web sites in place, etc. and then they can be very reluctant to change anything. And, naturally something else better coming along is seen by them as a threat.
 

evo

Well-Known Member
Location
My Island, WA
Am I the only one still pissed at Weaver for putting Richard through this emotional and financial ordeal? The bury-the-hatchet thing is a fine sentiment but the truth is they are perfectly capable of doing it again to anyone else, if they are inclined towards that sort of monopolistic behavior. It also bothers me that, depending on the judge, the skill (read: cost) of the attorneys involved, etc., the decision could easily have gone the other way. There is no protection or enforcement at all included in US patents. The system is extremely flawed and slanted in favour of the larger corporations with bigger legal budgets. It seriously discourages innovation by ordinary guys and smaller companies, and this is exactly where much innovation happens. The downside of trusting bigger companies to do the innovation is that they are often the last place you will see it. They get tooled up for a certain product line, retailers and distribution set up, expensive catalogues and web sites in place, etc. and then they can be very reluctant to change anything. And, naturally something else better coming along is seen by them as a threat.
Weaver pissed me off long before the saka was a dyi how to build video Richard posted
 

CloggerPete

Active Member
Location
Dunedin
Am I the only one still pissed at Weaver for putting Richard through this emotional and financial ordeal? The bury-the-hatchet thing is a fine sentiment but the truth is they are perfectly capable of doing it again to anyone else, if they are inclined towards that sort of monopolistic behavior. It also bothers me that, depending on the judge, the skill (read: cost) of the attorneys involved, etc., the decision could easily have gone the other way. There is no protection or enforcement at all included in US patents. The system is extremely flawed and slanted in favour of the larger corporations with bigger legal budgets. It seriously discourages innovation by ordinary guys and smaller companies, and this is exactly where much innovation happens. The downside of trusting bigger companies to do the innovation is that they are often the last place you will see it. They get tooled up for a certain product line, retailers and distribution set up, expensive catalogues and web sites in place, etc. and then they can be very reluctant to change anything. And, naturally something else better coming along is seen by them as a threat.
Patents aren't worth the paper they are written on. Somewhere, somebody is copying what you are doing. Only way to avoid that is to keep improving whatever it is. Makes it awfully hard to copy. This is a lot easier to do if you make the product in house or at least in country...
 

oldoakman

Well-Known Member
Location
Alorgia
I called Richard when I first saw this thread and you could feel the grin he had over the phone. You could tell that an enormous weight had been lifted. Next step for him is to get the gears of production moving again and for us in the industry to continue to support him through our purchase of his products.
 

Woodwork

Well-Known Member
Location
Tidewater
Be interesting to know "the rest of the story" but I suspect all parties are enjoined from opening their mouths in any way whatsoever...
 

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Kask Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger Tracked Lifts Climbing Innovations
Top Bottom