Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 04:57:46 -1000 From: mss@das.harvard.edu (Marty Sasaki) Message-Id: <1993May20.145753.7895@das.harvard.edu> Organization: Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University Subject: A message from Bill Owens, "Getting up to date" Due to an error on my part, a message from Bill Owens was trashed before it could be posted to rec.kites or sent to the mailing list. Replies should go to Bill, and not to me. Sorry about the inconvenience. -Marty Return-Receipt-To: owens@cookiemonster.cc.rochester.edu From: Bill Owens Subject: Getting up to date I'm only just now 'rejoining' the kiting community after being away since the fall of 1991, for various reasons, and it's amazing to see what's new since then. I've gone through the archives and bought the latest magazines, and I've already figured out Carrington, 2-wrap spars and relaunchers, and been bewildered by the flood of new kites (everybody is selling kites now!). However, I haven't heard anything at all about the litigation that the Hadzickis were threatening (and I believe going through with, against Peter Powell) based on their patent. What happened? I see that the Tetrad is still for sale, as is the Quadrifoil, which makes me hope that the brothers saw the light and dropped the issue. Without starting a flame war over meta-issues, can someone fill me in on this bit of history? Thanks much, Bill. Bill Owens owens@cc.rochester.edu 727 Elmwood Avenue MIME and PEM accepted Rochester, NY 14620 716/275-9120 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 14:42:11 -1000 From: jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) Message-Id: <1th8h3$rjb@hecate.umd.edu> Organization: University of Maryland at College Park Subject: Re: A message from Bill Owens, "Getting up to date" Bill Owens wrote: >However, I haven't heard anything at all about the litigation that the >Hadzickis were threatening (and I believe going through with, against >Peter Powell) based on their patent. What happened? I see that the >Tetrad is still for sale, as is the Quadrifoil, which makes me hope >that the brothers saw the light and dropped the issue. Without starting >a flame war over meta-issues, can someone fill me in on this bit of >history? The original suit (restraining order?) brought against Peter Powell by Recolution was over the Double Diamond quad-lined kite. This was a very clear knockoff of the Rev, despite the fact that it didn't have the mesh along the leading edge. It did share an almost identical bridle, not to mention matching handles. >From what I understand of the Hadzickis' patent, it includes references to "mesh associated with the leading edge." The handles are patented. I'm not sure about the bridle or the assymetrical configuration of the sail. When the Double Diamond was forced from the market, PP rushed to get another quad available--the Omni. Basically shaped like two diamond kites stuck tail-to-tail, the Omni was billed as a kite equally comfortable moving in any of the 4 cardinal directions. This is in direct contrast to the Rev, which moves much better in some flight configurations than in others (ask most Rev fliers to show you a non- inverted horizontal slide, and they'll flub it pretty badly). The kite's shape owes virtually nothing to the Rev, nor does the bridle. There's no mesh, and the handles included with the kite are straight, not curved. The Tetrad is *very* similar to the Omni, but it looks more like two squares joined at corners. Both kites are roughly 6' wide. I've never flown a Tetrad (and I've only seen one of 'em!) but my own feeling on the Omni is that it's a dog that I wasted $135 on. There are a few people who are quite talented with the kite (Dennis Kucmerowski comes to mind) but the kite really wasn't any competition to the Rev. The Omni was released a little over 2 years ago. The Quadrifoil also owes virtually nothing to the Revolution, except for mimicking the curved handles. Honestly, I'm not sure if the Rev boys decided not to go after Kite Innovations for copying the handles, or if they're worked out some sort of agreement. The Quadrifoil has also been around now for about 2 years, though it's grown vastly in popularity in the last year or so. Most people view it as a power kite, though, and I only know a handful of folks who own a Quadrifoil who don't also own a Rev or two. I don't really see any of this as a meta-issue. Many of us have stressed, over an over again, that it's okay to knock off a kite for your own consumption, but to steal someone's design and make money off it is pretty uncool. Joe Hadzicki came up with some incredible innovative stuff for his kite, and really did spark a revolution in the type of flying many of us do (f'rinstance, the floating/stalled spins I do with my Pro now are descended from similar turns I was doing with my Rev II a couple of years ago). He managed to patent these things. I don't really think it's wrong to want to protect that. At the same time, I'm glad I have my Quadrifoil. ;-) Jeff -- |Jeffrey C. Burka | "When I look in the mirror, I see a little clearer/ | |SAFH Lite [tm] | I am what I am and you are you too./ Do you like | |jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu | what you see? Do you like yourself?" --N. Cherry | = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =