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

(Example: Production Builders:Peugeot:PX-10LE)

Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 17:24:06 -0800
Subject: Re: [CR]Klein/Cannondale, was Re: Aluminum fatigue
To: "Jon Schaer" <jschaer@columbus.rr.com>
From: "Brandon Ives" <brandon@ivycycles.com>
In-Reply-To: <000801c655dd$25dbe820$6500a8c0@w1k7q8>
cc: CR <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>

Alas I'm 700 miles away from my archives so can't be 100% certain. If my memory serves me correctly what Gary patented and was defending against Cannondale wasn't really the fat tubes part of it. I think the bone of contention was that Gary's frames were welded. Before Gary I think everyone else used riveting and bonding, or at least that was the argument. best, Brandon"monkeyman"Ives Vancouver, B.C.

On Saturday, Apr 1, 2006, at 14:39 US/Pacific, Jon Schaer wrote:
>> Klein sued Cannondale. Klein's patent was ruled invalid. Supposedly,
> at least Bill Shook and
>> Roger Durham testified as to prior large tube bikes they had built.
>>
>
> Not having been there, I can't say 100%, but I saw the court
> transcripts
> from those preceding and Roger's name was not present. Roger's '72
> frame
> may pre-date Bill's a touch, but to my knowledge Roger wasn't a factor
> specifically in the Klein-Cannondale issue. An article in Bicycling
> magazine citing Roger as a witness sure made it look otherwise, but I
> don't know where they got their facts. I'm not trying to belittle
> Roger's inputs and influence on bike or component designs, but it's
> nice
> to straighten out fact and rumor when we can. If anyone has evidence to
> the contrary, please clarify.

>

> Jon Schaer

> Columbus, OH