MARCH 17 - Sorta Cutting Edge News

GT's i-Drive Connection
During the late '90s, GT designer Jim Busby was busy inventing the i-Drive. Like, the ML-7, the i-Drive featured a bottom bracket, which pivoted independently between the front and rear triangle. The big difference here is that the i-Drive's bottom bracket was not housed in a conventional link like the Maverick, but instead was housed in an eccentric that rotates within a giant bottom bracket shell (the shell was part of the rear triangle). Confused again by jargon? Check out the picture below.

This picture sucks, but you get the idea. That black gaping hole in front of the chainstays? That's the eccentric. The bottom bracket sits in there. The eccentric "floats" on bearings and rotates around the bottom bracket. The eccentric is basically GT's version of an independent link between the front and rear triangles.

Anyhoo, when Busby was designing the i-Drive for GT, he filed for two patents. The first patent was filed on October 28, 1997, and covers frame designs in which the eccentric was attached to either the front or the rear triangle. The second patent (which is known as "the 010 patent") was filed on June 16, 1998, and covers bicycle designs that feature bottom brackets situated in an independent link between the front and rear triangle. GT's patents were granted several months after Turner unveiled his ML-7.

Back to the Lawsuit Stuff
So, GT came to Turner early on and told him he was infringing on their 010 patent. Turner never felt that his design infringed on the i-Drive patent. For starters, he'd been working on the Monolink design since 1995. In addition, he believed that his structural shock set the two designs apart. Nevertheless, Turner came to an agreement with GT to pay them a token royalty so they would drop the subject and go away. For awhile that worked. Then GT was acquired by Pacific Cycles and the Maverick/GT agreement was dropped.

Ever since Pacific acquired GT, they've been threatening to sue Maverick. It seems that this has finally come to pass. Pacific is suing both Maverick American and Klein (since they license the ML-7 design and sell them as Klein Palominos). Suing Klein, however, basically means suing Trek, since Trek owns that brand. In a tit-for-tat maneuver, Trek is suing GT for patent infringement--on the grounds that i-Drive infringes on their Y-bike patent. At least, that's what Pacific's attorney, Brian Gilpin, says.

A gaggle of lawyers will meet in the near future to determine whether or not a settlement is in order, or whether the case needs to be put into full gear. Either way, this could sit around in the courts and cost all of the parties involved a ton of money that no one in the bike business seems to have these days. The money spent on lawyers and court dates will eventually result in higher price tags at the bike shop--not so great for consumers.

Between 1996 and 2000, more than 4,200 bicycle-related patents were filed annually with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This can be a good thing as patents protect inventors from having their hard-earned inventions constantly ripped off. If you couldn't somehow protect your brilliant inventions, would you spend your time and money dreaming them up in the first place? Probably not. In a world without patents, we'd probably all be forced to ride around on Mafac brakes and plastic-coated Simplex shifters. Life would be a living hell. So, no, I'm not against patents at all. On the other hand, I think there are times when companies have to come to a middle ground on the issue.

When you're designing bikes, it's pretty hard not to bump into one of the 4,000-plus, pre-existing patents. Staying out of court and licensing designs, instead of furiously defending patents and suing/counter-suing, would be good for consumers and everyone's karma. Sure that probably sounds like something Joni Mitchell would say, but warm and fuzzies aside, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where price tags didn't reflect lawyers' fees? How about four-bar-linkage bikes that all sported Horst Links? We don't have to hug each other and embrace the sacred mother spirit; let's just leave the lawyers out of it.

YOUR THOUGHTS ON SHOOTING DRIVERS

A few weeks ago I ran a story about Robert Urick-the 41-year-old cyclist from Monroeville, Pennsylvania, who pulled out a gun and shot a motorist (William Nicoletti) in the arm after the driver yelled at him to get off the road. A few readers sent in their thoughts on the subject. I should note that neither I nor Bike magazine supports the notion of shooting motorists. The story is interesting though, because, if you've been swerved at enough, you've certainly contemplated doing what Urick did. A court hearing was set for February 17. I haven't heard anything since, so I imagine the case has been quietly settled and that Urick is sporting an orange jumper and picking up trash on the side of a Pittsburgh expressway. If anyone out there knows different, send me a line. Here are the letters.

Motorists are Loaded Weapons
I ride off-road, on-road and I commute everyday to work by bicycle regardless of the weather. I reside in New York City and work at a bicycle shop. At times the commute can be stressful and dangerous-particularly when I get cut off, forced out of the way on an icy side street or have to deal with partygoers in the East Village using the bicycle lane for an HOV lane to beat the traffic. Most of the drivers' aggressive actions are planned with the removal of you from their forward path, regardless of whether this will require hitting or forcing you to stop.

I am not the only person to have experienced such encounters. I also hear it from my customers and see it in the form of mangled bicycles or wheels. Most cyclists are lucky to survive without great injuries. The same can't be said of their wallets since insurance compensation rarely is rewarded.

Motorists possess the same impact and potential as loaded guns. I do not agree with Robert Urick's actions, but I can understand his position. I'm not even taking sides. I do not agree with violence or aggressive behavior. But whenever I have one of these encounters with a motorist I have to wonder whether they even realize that they have the power to injure or, worse yet, kill cyclists.
Steve Leibowitz
Via Internet

The Chickens Come Home to Roost
I read your story on the cyclist who shot the asshole in the car. Good for him!!! It's about f-----g time this started happening. Any asshole who harasses a cyclist on a 20-pound bike just because he or she is on a public road is going to get what they got coming. How do these pieces of shit get a driver's license in the first place? I don't want to come across as an aggressor who's mad at the world, but I've been in Robert Urick's place. Unfortunately, I didn't have a gun. I live here in Durango, Colorado, and being a big road and mountain bike Mecca, these assholes in their land tanks have made it here in very large numbers. I used to ride a road bike, but after a few "near misses," I said I'll ride a road bike again when I'm in a bike-friendly area-not this arena for assholes in Range Rovers.

No, I don't condone shooting motorists, but till society starts yanking these mentally unstable assholes' driver's licenses, we are in for a long fight. Just think if that were a small kid on a bike when this asshole became "upset," because someone was riding on a public street? What then? I'm surprised that this Robert didn't try to tell the police that this asshole was gunning for him. The way this society is going with lack of respect for your fellow man and this hurry-hurry, get-out-of-my-way mentality a lot more of this is going to happen.

I had a good friend I used to ride the road with around here in Durango. Kyle, who at the time was a criminal lawyer. Kyle was riding with a few friends one day two summers ago, when some asshole in a car aimed for him and forced him into a ditch. Kyle got banged up, but not seriously hurt. One of the other riders got this asshole's license number and called the police. Kyle told me you should have seen the look on that jerk's face when he learned the guy he forced into the ditch was a criminal lawyer. Enough said!
Keith R Rossow
Via Internet