Shimano flexing their muscles

[JhnBssll]

I'm missing something - why can't you patent a communication protocol? If it's inventive I see no reason for this to be true.

 

[C R]

I'm missing something - why can't you patent a communication protocol? If it's inventive I see no reason for this to be true.

The protocol itself is only a description of the messages. The protocol will specify which sequence of bits to send for each request, that's descriptive, there's no inventive step, it can be copyrighted, but not patented, they tend to be trade secrets.

To be patentable it would require there to be something fancy involved, for example, an algorithm that used a reading from a power meter to shift to the optimal gear might be patentable, but the set of instructions that the shifter sends to the derailleur is unlikely to be patentable.

 

[IanSmithCSE]

Good morning.

I'm with CR on this.

Back when the IBM PC was first invented, anyone who wanted to copy it, needed to duplicate some low level software called the BIOS, the Basic Input Output System. This was just enough code to allow the computer to start up and read the proper operating system and allow other programs to access the screen, disc, keyboard etc.

It wasn't enough to solve the problem of how to do this, it had to behave in exactly the same way as the IBM solution so that programs written for the IBM worked.

A couple of companies employed programmers who could prove that they had never seem the IBM BIOS and they wrote an identically performing BIOS, IBM went to court and lost. Those companies made a fortune selling their BIOS to anyone who wanted one, because they had won in court.

If you are a Linux fan, you may be aware of SAMBA, it was and maybe still is the basis for networking Linux and Windows PCs. The guy that wrote it spent ages looking at the Server Message Blocks sent by Windows on real networks and worked out what they meant. Again the courts said, what you have done is okay.

Bye

Ian

 

[JhnBssll]

The protocol itself is only a description of the messages. The protocol will specify which sequence of bits to send for each request, that's descriptive, there's no inventive step, it can be copyrighted, but not patented, they tend to be trade secrets.

To be patentable it would require there to be something fancy involved, for example, an algorithm that used a reading from a power meter to shift to the optimal gear might be patentable, but the set of instructions that the shifter sends to the derailleur is unlikely to be patentable.

OK, I think we're on the same page - thanks for explaining So the protocol itself is unlikely to be inventive, agreed, but at a system level I would be very surprised if they hadn't protected IP to make it at least very difficult to implement the features. I've patented less inventive things myself and I'm always amazed at how a decent IP lawyer can make even the mundane sound inventive, but I confess my experience is with mechanical and system level IP and not at a software/protocol level.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

As an aside I think Amazon are slow to the party.

With a bit of jiggery-pokery on the integration front and a helmet attached boom mike; shifting could be achieved via voice command.

"Alexa; shift me into a gear where my legs don't hurt so much." 🙂

 

[Tenkaykev]

"Alexa; shift me into a gear where my legs don't hurt so much." 🙂

“ Playing music by Britney Spears on Amazon Music “…

 

[Ming the Merciless]

As an aside I think Amazon are slow to the party.

With a bit of jiggery-pokery on the integration front and a helmet attached boom mike; shifting could be achieved via voice command.

"Alexa; shift me into a gear where my legs don't hurt so much." 🙂

Cue your bike starts playing “I’m a Barbie girl…”

 

[tyred]

When do Sturmey - Archer release an upgrade for my AW hub?

 

[Alex321]

Reverse engineering, if done clean, is perfectly legal and Shimano wouldn't have a leg to stand on to sue on that basis. The problem for Hammerhead is that now they have seen the spec they will never be able to use a reverse engineered approach because they will never be able to prove that it was done cleanly.

It doesn't have to be "done clean" if it is for the purpose of enabling another program to operate with it.

What the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act says on this:

50BDecompilation.​

(1)It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program expressed in a low level language—
(a)to convert it into a version expressed in a higher level language, or
(b)incidentally in the course of so converting the program, to copy it,
(that is, to “decompile” it), provided that the conditions in subsection (2) are met.

(2)The conditions are that—
(a)it is necessary to decompile the program to obtain the information necessary to create an independent program which can be operated with the program decompiled or with another program (“the permitted objective”); and
(b)the information so obtained is not used for any purpose other than the permitted objective.

(3)In particular, the conditions in subsection (2) are not met if the lawful user—
(a)has readily available to him the information necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
(b)does not confine the decompiling to such acts as are necessary to achieve the permitted objective;
(c)supplies the information obtained by the decompiling to any person to whom it is not necessary to supply it in order to achieve the permitted objective; or
(d)uses the information to create a program which is substantially similar in its expression to the program decompiled or to do any act restricted by copyright.

(4)Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).

 

[C R]

It doesn't have to be "done clean" if it is for the purpose of enabling another program to operate with it.

What the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act says on this:

Interoperability here is the key. What do you use the Hammerhead device for? If it is only to record gear selection to add yo other ride data, it is hard to see that Shimano would be able to prevent that use. Where it may get slightly more complicated is developing a compatible shifter. I expect that a shifter that just told the derailleur to go up one gear when a button is pushed would be fine, as all it does is use the coms protocol.

 

[mustang1]

Good evening,

I have a lot of sympathy with Shimano on this. :-)

For them Di2 is premium product in terms of price and I am presuming in profitability and also in performance.

If SRAM are allowed to own and produce the Hammerhead device it is pretty close to Shimano saying that they approve of the use of the Di2 communications protocols for anyone who wants to use them.

When Hammerhead were independent Shimano could say; yes we knew about them, but they were a niche supplier and we didn't care and didn't want to appear as bullies.

Shimano now need to close down the argument that as SRAM now produce a head unit that is integrated with Di2 and Shimano have not complained Shimano are implicitly saying that Di2 is now an unprotected public standard.

If that argument stood SRAM could freely make Di2 compatible levers or mechs.

I have used Stava in the past and don't like it, I used the iPhone app to record the ride and have lost too many rides for me to regard it highly. I am completely happy to accept that the iPhone performed up to spec as did the Strava app, but at the end of the day I didn't get a record of the ride.

If Shimano Di2 fails to perform because of integration problems with SRAM components then I will blame Di2 as a whole not SRAM or Shimano and I suspect that many others will also do so.

I love Di2 because it just works, but it is so very hard to justify the price increase over cabled gears especially with post COVID prices.

Of course there was always the risk that by going to court in the past Shimano could have hit a court ruling that the instruction of the rider to the gear system to change gear is his property and that he is entitled to use a third party device.

I certainly don't have a document from Shimano where I agreed that my use of Di2 was somehow special and restricted in anyway and I don't know of anyone who has.

Bye

Ian

+1 to what Ian said.

 

[JhnBssll]

I would have sympathy for a business that didnt allow access to its tech. I don't have sympathy for a business that allows access, allows thousands of customers to spend their hard earned money to access it, and then take it away again.

I understand why they've done it of course, I just dont believe its a sensible decision and may end up costing them more in the long term. But anyway, moaning about it here isn't going to make any difference so I'll just continue using the current software build which retains the Di2 integration and won't apply any updates until it's resolved, or I move to SRAM/Campag, whichever happens sooner

 

[bonzobanana]

I can't blame Shimano as SRAM are their direct competitor and have made inroads into their market share so this makes complete sense to me. I guess if I was picking sides I'd go with Shimano I've had limited experience with SRAM products but feel generally Shimano provide better quality products most of the time and Shimano manufacture more of their own products rather than use third party factories as much as SRAM. Shimano are under a lot of commercial pressure as there are many decent Taiwanese and mainland Chinese brands now offering high value groupsets and SRAM competing directly with them for highly profitable high end groupsets.

I've watched many videos of bike shops around Asia and you see LTwoo groupsets fitted to loads of bikes there and that was a factory that originally made groupsets for SRAM but lost the contract and now goes it alone and they seem to be doing very well for entry level bikes across Asia. So you could say SRAM equipped them with the knowledge on how to make groupsets etc and now Shimano are seeing a huge decline in market share in some markets. Markets where SRAM never really sold much anyway at those price points.

 

[Fredo76]

In a former lifetime as a software engineer I became acquainted with a squabble termed 'the mouse wars', where Logitech, Microsoft, and maybe others wrote their mouse driver software so as to not work with their competitors' mice. That silliness soon ended, somehow, as the companies involved 'grew up', so to speak. (Apple, on the other hand, never did 'grow up'; all Catalina did for me was to break my after-market charger.)

I've only recently re-introduced myself to our sport in my dottage, and have gradually come to understand the contributions that software has made to how well our bicycles can be made to operate. Seriously. I'm not a Luddite, and I'm using heaps and piles of software just to post this little message. It's just that, after an entire career in the software industry, I just don't wan't any of that EXCREMENT on my bicycle.

This thread gives a small clue as to why. I don't have any objections to other's use of software on their bicycles, but I'm going to let that modern convenience pass me by. Hopefully anyone who feels as though I have just insulted them will realize that I'm just an old geezer, yelling at the clouds...

 

[Ming the Merciless]

When do Sturmey - Archer release an upgrade for my AW hub?

Titanium gear chain?