Re: [CR]Klein/Cannondale, was Re: Aluminum fatigue

(Example: Framebuilding:Tubing)

Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 18:30:01 -0500
From: <joebz@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [CR]Klein/Cannondale, was Re: Aluminum fatigue
In-reply-to: <000801c655dd$25dbe820$6500a8c0@w1k7q8>
To: Jon Schaer <jschaer@columbus.rr.com>
References: <000801c655dd$25dbe820$6500a8c0@w1k7q8>
cc: CR <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Yes, I should have been more careful. Bill Shook and Roger Durham's bike designs were apparently in evidence as prior art but I don't know who testified.

Joe Bender-Zanoni
Great Notch, NJ


----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Schaer
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 05:39:00 -0000
Subject: [CR]Klein/Cannondale, was Re: Aluminum fatigue


> > Klein sued Cannondale. Klein's patent was ruled invalid.

\r?\n> Supposedly,

\r?\n> at least Bill Shook and

\r?\n> > Roger Durham testified as to prior large tube bikes they had built.

\r?\n> >

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Not having been there, I can't say 100%, but I saw the court

\r?\n> transcripts

\r?\n> from those preceding and Roger's name was not present. Roger's '72

\r?\n> frame

\r?\n> may pre-date Bill's a touch, but to my knowledge Roger wasn't a

\r?\n> factor

\r?\n> specifically in the Klein-Cannondale issue. An article in Bicycling

\r?\n> magazine citing Roger as a witness sure made it look otherwise, but

\r?\n> I

\r?\n> don't know where they got their facts. I'm not trying to belittle

\r?\n> Roger's inputs and influence on bike or component designs, but it's

\r?\n> nice

\r?\n> to straighten out fact and rumor when we can. If anyone has

\r?\n> evidence to

\r?\n> the contrary, please clarify.

\r?\n>

\r?\n> Jon Schaer

\r?\n> Columbus, OH