# STS received patent approval



## SIR SHOOTS ALOT (Jun 12, 2005)

I use the original STS..........

the others just dont compare........:darkbeer::darkbeer:


----------



## IChim2 (Aug 20, 2006)

Well,i'm glad i already have mine from meanv on 2 of my hunting bows,but need one more for another....i better hurry.


----------



## BowhuntnHoosier (Aug 28, 2005)

I like the STS better because it is more diverse. Good job Joe and Brigette.


----------



## Dthbyhoyt (Dec 4, 2004)

STS , thats whats on my Vectrix XL


----------



## shovelhead80 (Sep 24, 2006)

not sure how this is going to work. What kind of patent did they get. Because if you look Cool hand Luke's is not like any STS out there. They are a lot of different kinds of Patents. So I am not sure it will apply to MeanV and cool hand Luke. Because there design is not the same and the can show design date of when they started making them. An beleive me I know what I am talking about.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Jan 20, 2003)

I love the STS myself. Have nearly a dozen of them...only have one bow...so I'm selling several to make room for the new ones.:wink:


----------



## littleyellow (Feb 1, 2007)

shovelhead80 said:


> not sure how this is going to work. What kind of patent did they get. Because if you look Cool hand Luke's is not like any STS out there. They are a lot of different kinds of Patents. So I am not sure it will apply to MeanV and cool hand Luke. Because there design is not the same and the can show design date of when they started making them. An beleive me I know what I am talking about.


Utility and Design......


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*?*

I am curious about the patent and what the patent says.

It would be difficult to patent supression, or a supressor in general. 
I was there but heard nothing of this.

Unless the patent is "backdated" I have doubts. And they dont backdate a patent. "Patent Pending" is a common term used. 

Best of luck. We sell them.


----------



## Dredly (May 10, 2005)

a few searches through the patent database revealed no patents that would match the STS issued this year. None even come close. 

Does anyone have the patent number?

and more then likely the only thing STS can patent is the "block" type attachment that they use. They will be hard pressed to patent the "concept" since Bear has been using it for years, theirs came off the cable guard if I remember correctly.

Other then the block its nothing new or original so I doubt the patent office would give them anything


----------



## 36trap (Nov 4, 2007)

I read the published patent application, 20060278207.

Based on the application claims this patent will have no serious weight.

_*3. The shock suppressor of claim 1, wherein the rigid rod has an offset bend shape.*

*7. The shock suppressor of claim 1, wherein the mounting block has a size of 2 inches wide and 3/4 inches long.*
_​
If the flapper japper in question doesn't use a semi-specific mounting block and a rigid rod with an offset bend shape this patent means nothing. This attorney should have written the patent to claim it has a rigid rod and a mounting block that attaches to the bow riser, this covers all bases as it relates to bolt on versions of the STS.

I'm not sure the method of directly attaching the rigid arm to the riser can be patented since it existed in some form previously.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

I know nothing about the patent process, but I find it interesting that they got a patent on this since there were prior designs of this. If they can enforce the patent good for them.

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=575451


----------



## 36trap (Nov 4, 2007)

Nimrod said:


> I know nothing about the patent process, but I find it interesting that they got a patent on this since there were prior designs of this. If they can enforce the patent good for them.


The US Patent office is presently in a mode of issuing patents and letting lawyers battle things out in court. If the application doesn't fully disclose prior art or the applicant truly doesn't know of existing prior art, this is where the battle begins and it's not the US Patent offices job to research things.

Enforcing is another story, it takes serious coin to enforce a patent or invalidate a patent.


----------



## Q!! (May 3, 2005)

Just hope this doesn't effect the CHL and Meanv2. Much better IMO. Better get a couple orders in real quick.


----------



## Dredly (May 10, 2005)

sounds like they got the patent based on the "block" that they use so as long as that isn't used...

Also I don't see it as an approved patent... I just see the application. Did anyone find it as an approved patent in the "current" list?


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

Q!! said:


> Just hope this doesn't effect the CHL and Meanv2. Much better IMO. Better get a couple orders in real quick.


I agree, even though I have a side mount STS, which is clean compared to past designs with that black block, Dan and Luke have very clean awesome looking string suppressors. 

Wasn't there an string suppressor before the STS? 

In archery, seems everyone has something very similar to the other guy so I guess wording in patents has to be very clear and concise.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Jennings*



Peregrynne said:


> Now that the ATA's are over there are going to rumors flying about STS and their patent. Let me start by clarifying. Yes they now have the patent on the design. It was approved on Dec. 27th 2007. The official announcement was made by Joe and Brigitte at the ATA show.
> 
> You might be asking yourself what this all means.
> 
> ...


Was the first to use this. Atleast they had one on there bows long before the STS.
DB
DB


----------



## sittingbull (Jan 19, 2003)

*Last year or the year before, I spoke with someone at STS about the subject of STS "look a-likes" being produced after their STS was marketed. 

There were some interesting stories...one story about a company that asked if they could exam and test their STS product...only to tell the STS people the company was no longer interested in their STS. Then a few months later, that company produced their own STS look alike product and used it on their products.

The real problem seems to occur during the "patent pending" period. If it did not take so long to get a patient, the subject of non inventors producing look a-likes might not be such a problem. 

I'm not sure how long it took from application for a patient for the STS to the time of issue...but if it could be shortened, it might help. 

I did take notice that one company did it the right way, IMO...Hats off to Martin, who recently advertised in my Bow and Arrow magazine, that they are using the "official STS shock terminator" on their Martin Firecat. 

Now, the lawyers earn their pay seeking to reach agreement with those companies or individuals who came out with other versions of the STS.

Great product...great people at STS too...sittingbull

*


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*lawyers*

We are discussing patent infringments? There is no patent. It would be from the date it is granted onward. All of the supressors on the market would not have to quit making them. 

If you think attorneys for STS in Dyersburg, TN will fight with the bow companies that have their own style similar to STS and win, then I have some things I will sell you at a bargain.

No disrespect to STS, you have a good product at a fair price, but you will need to sell 10 million or so to have the $ to beat some of these guys in court with attorneys. That is the reality.

It appears this thread was created too quickly after they got back form the ATA and were a little excited about somethig that was said there. I could be wrong but the patent as defined is very broad and vague. I will be shocked to see any patent. Almost like trying to patent a process, which is very difficult to fight. 

It would be like BowTech trying to patent the machined riser, and the way it is cut and shaped. How about all of the existing manufacturers? 

Just some thoughts.

MJ


----------



## iron mace07 (Jun 1, 2007)

*well said*

Joe cam in the HCA booth to loook i am sure but what we use is not even close to there design. I think in hope that he may want to talk to HCA about what they are using, may have crossed his mind till he seen the design, ooppss


----------



## Slippy Field (Nov 4, 2005)

amarchery said:


> If you think attorneys for STS in Dyersburg, TN will fight with the bow companies that have their own style similar to STS and win, then I have some things I will sell you at a bargain.
> 
> No disrespect to STS, you have a good product at a fair price, but you will need to sell 10 million or so to have the $ to beat some of these guys in court with attorneys. That is the reality.
> 
> MJ


lain:


----------



## marforme (May 30, 2006)

There sure is a lot of speculation here. The last Time I talked to Joe we were having a drink and appetizers. The patent covers just about everything except a straight non-adjustable rod as I understand it. Preliminary approval happened in December of 2006 and it was also at that time that other companies were notified and that is also the date to which action can be taken due to a cease and assist that was issued. It does not matter who made what and when if there was no patent issued so even if a similar concept came about several years ago, no patent no matter. Again, this is as I understand it and the details will come forth in the near future.


----------



## 36trap (Nov 4, 2007)

amarchery said:


> We are discussing patent infringments? There is no patent. It would be from the date it is granted onward. All of the supressors on the market would not have to quit making them.


Technically they have 1 year after introducing the product to apply for the patent. If they applied for a patent, which they have, any possible infringements could happen before getting an actual patent.

Personally, the way this application is worded it's specific at times and vague at times. In court I doubt it would hold much weight. STS will find it costs a big pile of money to enforce a patent. Anyone that STS serves will find it costs a big pile of money to fight a patent. In the end, the attorneys are the only people involved who come out on top. Royalties and damages in this industry are typically a lot less than attorney fees.


----------



## sittingbull (Jan 19, 2003)

*To those who may be upset at what I posted, first and foremost, these are my thoughts, not those of the STS folks. 

So if your upset, be upset at me... 

I have not talked to the STS folks for some time, so some of you may know a helluva lot more about the situation than I do.

The story I related, to the best of my knowledge is true, but again, those are my words and I can't even remember who told the story.

I was trying to think back to some of the Mathews patient issues that came up a few years back and it seems to me that once the patients were issued or settled, Mathews and/or their lawyers did work out agreements with those interested in their product. 

Like I said, IMO, the people I have talked to at STS are some very good people and I in no way am speaking for them...Like I said, just my opinions...sittingbull

*


----------



## 36trap (Nov 4, 2007)

marforme said:


> It does not matter who made what and when if there was no patent issued so even if a similar concept came about several years ago, no patent no matter.


When applying for a patent the applicant is responsible to seek out and disclose any prior art as part of the application. The US Patent office does not check to see if there is already a similar product with or without a patent.

If prior art exists and the applicant wasn't aware it existed or made the decision to withhold the prior art, chances are it would get invalidated in court if things ever made it to that point. Again, it takes tremendous amounts of money to enforce or to invalidate a patent.

So, it does matter who made what and when they made it even if there wasn't a patent involved...


----------



## Unassuming (Jul 23, 2006)

These patent issues are always fun. A patent is always open to interpretation and that is what the courts are for. Each case is also unique, so you could see STS have numerous suits against some of the biggest companies in the game. Never dull and should be fun to see the outcome...Odds are STS will sell to one of the larger companies and they in turn with the larger resources will mostly likely try to enforce the patent. It is a good move to up STS's worth to another company...


----------



## viperarcher (Jul 6, 2007)

I personally like the surpression mount( Stealth shot) from Hoyt/fuse archery it like a shock absorber! and now in 2008 fuse archery is offering one that can be mounted to any bow! www.fusearchery.com!


----------



## gpalma (Oct 3, 2007)

A patent is only as strong as one is willing to enforce it. Not certain how deep the pockets are for that company, but they would have to look at how much with their legal expenditures "may" return them and then, is it cost effective? That is always a problem for a small company with a patent.


----------



## BMAN007 (Dec 31, 2006)

*not to be a ass or nothing...............*

i owned a mean v once!mind you once!then a coolhandluke version,wow what a product!my mean v snapped at the threads,then come to find out it was a cobra cable guard cut down to brace height with a stopper on it!no thanks!


----------



## Snowcamphunter (Nov 26, 2007)

where is cool hand lukes suppressors at??,, i've never saw one


----------



## iron mace07 (Jun 1, 2007)

*there are enough changes made*

to the string surpressors that sts will not have to waste money with patent infrigments. I mean why be a ass, long as u made what chnages need to be made so its not the same idea then so be it, some others just madeit a better device, for there products. STS uses a block and its not screwed into the riserm so anyone that doesnt use the block or on side method isnt into the infrigements on patent, at least the way i read it. take the cable roller guide system, whos idea and patent do you think that is?It sure wasnt Mathews, sts makes a great product, but if the bow manufactor makes something else or uses another design , then so be it.long as its not an infrigement on sts patent they have.Get over it already, lets get ready for ASA


----------



## trapshooter (Feb 14, 2005)

36trap said:


> When applying for a patent the applicant is responsible to seek out and disclose any prior art as part of the application. The US Patent office does not check to see if there is already a similar product with or without a patent.
> 
> If prior art exists and the applicant wasn't aware it existed or made the decision to withhold the prior art, chances are it would get invalidated in court if things ever made it to that point. Again, it takes tremendous amounts of money to enforce or to invalidate a patent.
> 
> So, it does matter who made what and when they made it even if there wasn't a patent involved...


Yes, you are right. The US is a "first to invent" country not a "first to file" country like many European nations. If the first inventor can show an initial date of concept and prove diligence all the way up until the filing date, he or she will receive the patent in the US.

Even if a person conceives of the same idea and files for a patent sooner, they may still be denied a patent because of the first to file laws.


----------



## elksniper (May 5, 2006)

I guess this is why I've not gotten a reply from Coolhandluke to place and order and also why he hasn't posted since 1/8?


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Is this deja vu? We keep hearing about the STS patent. STS claimed it was going to be issued Feb 14, 2007 the last time I asked.



STSman said:


> We will disclose all info on the patent *February 14th*. Thank you.
> 
> Joe


 I just searched the US Patent Office and it's still a published application.
We've heard about this issued patent forever though

*January 16, 2006*


STSman said:


> Anyone building for himself or herself doesn't bother me in the slightest. BUT.....a*ny company or person who decides to build copies of the STS shooting system is infringing on our patent.*
> 
> We suggest these companies get in contact with us and I will be willing to discuss a royalty fee.........


Also seems as though they've been selling them since 2001, which if proven and presented to the Patent Office will cause the patent application to be rejected as you need to file within 1 year of making said invention public knowledge.
*January 28, 2007*


STSman said:


> The design that Meanv2 is using is not something he's come up with. *Joe was selling those six years ago.* He's seriously been giving it some thought about doing some STS's like that design again on a larger perspective even though we have been making custom STS's for numerous people.


Not trying to be negative, but get the patent and then post up


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

trapshooter said:


> Yes, you are right. The US is a "first to invent" country not a "first to file" country like many European nations. If the first inventor can show an initial date of concept and prove diligence all the way up until the filing date, he or she will receive the patent in the US.
> 
> Even if a person conceives of the same idea and files for a patent sooner, they may still be denied a patent because of the first to file laws.


George Trotter from Shreveport, Louisiana filed for a a string suppression device in 1975 and the patent was issued 2 years later.


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

Wonder if they will claim.Being the first to put 2 on a bow.One being above the nock.And one being below the nock.And intern giveing a even hit of the bow string. .


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Patents*

Are about darn well worthless unless your willing to fight and that takes lots of money and lawyers.

I would be willing to bet that any bigtime bow company could put this on there bows and you wouldnt beat them in court.

Been around this patent thing a time or two. Rich mans game.
DB


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

All i know is that theres a lot of patent experts in here!


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

Ib4Hoyt said:


> All i know is that theres a lot of patent experts in here!



Where do i sign up


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

*Quess*



Ib4Hoyt said:


> All i know is that theres a lot of patent experts in here!



If you have ever designed and patented a product you become an expert real quick and learn the whole process is pure crap. Well atleast thats what my guy that helped me said and he done over 3000 patents. Most likely over 500 hundred on fishing lures alone. He also writes article for a patent magazine.

DB


----------



## Jeff K in IL (Nov 4, 2005)

Same ole' garbage. Their patent was supposedly issued on February 14th like Doc pointed out, not December. STS then fell off the face of the earth this year. I know a friend of mind who used their system exclusively wanted to get one for his new bow, and he sent emails and called, and STS never returned calls nor emails. He had his picture with a 200" buck in their brochure that came with the STS last year. Now he is using another product.

Staff Shooters really must like STS though...


----------



## PABowhunt4life (Feb 3, 2005)

Jeff K in IL said:


> Same ole' garbage. Their patent was supposedly issued on February 14th like Doc pointed out, not December. STS then fell off the face of the earth this year. I know a friend of mind who used their system exclusively wanted to get one for his new bow, and he sent emails and called, and STS never returned calls nor emails. He had his picture with a 200" buck in their brochure that came with the STS last year. Now he is using another product.
> 
> Staff Shooters really must like STS though...



Could not agree more Jeff and I know who you speak of as he relayed the story to me as well. STS has been threatening and huffing at people for 2 years now and IMO this is just the latest attempt to try and bully the competition. We'll just wait and see what happens when the bluff gets called.

For the record, I'm fairly sure Dan and Luke have nothing to worry about :darkbeer:


----------



## mdewitt71 (Jul 20, 2005)

What about the Buck Stop or Buck Stopper that Bear bows came with in the 90s.......
Was that patented, it was a suppressor?

I hope all goes well for STS, I wish them no ill but, I am still a fan of the CHL Vibekiller, Duravane, and Bow Rattler too. :wink:


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

mdewitt71 said:


> What about the Buck Stop or Buck Stopper that Bear bows came with in the 90s.......
> Was that patented, it was a suppressor?
> 
> I hope all goes well for STS, I wish them no ill but, I am still a fan of the CHL Vibekiller, Duravane, and Bow Rattler too. :wink:


I agree, its not re-inventing the wheel, the concept has been out there for awhile. I only heard of STS from this site. Never seen them in catalogs till after reading about them on here. 

I do have an STS on my bow and I like it even though the price was a little high for a piece of rod, rubber stopper and mount but I understand manufacturer costs and what it costs to make things.

Just hope Luke and Dan and others can make their versions because there are a lot of nice designs out there to choose from.


----------



## fastpassthrough (Jan 25, 2003)

*patent number*

happen to have a patent number am curies as to what part was able to be patented ?


----------



## gpalma (Oct 3, 2007)

Technically, the claim of string suppression in the patent filing could be in jeopardy if you look at the early 1980's model of the Bear Delta-V :embara:

Like I said before. Think that STS has the means and the grounds to fight an infringement suit? :dontknow: Then, would it be worth it it the target may not even be collectable? 

Personal opinion: I see lots of threatening letters and not much else.


----------



## mdewitt71 (Jul 20, 2005)

fastpassthrough said:


> happen to have a patent number am curies as to what part was able to be patented ?


This was posted on another thread- 

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...&s1=20060278207&OS=20060278207&RS=20060278207


----------



## zabby (Sep 20, 2007)

*claims on patent*

after reading the claims to the patent, it looks as though strong emphasis is placed on a mounting plate and a elbow shaped rod, a straight rod threaded into the riser is not claimed under this patent.


----------



## TomG (Dec 4, 2002)

Unfortunately, The patent put too much emphasis on the mounting block. All main claims mention this mounting block with two bore holes. All string suppressors that do not use a mounting block do not seem to be infringing the patent, like most of the one I've seen.

TomG


----------



## fastpassthrough (Jan 25, 2003)

*Claims*

I just wanted to make sure I had not missed something, as I had not The HCA version is clear no problem the patent is going to be hard to enforce other then the type of mounting block, and there have even been some of that style in the past from some of the stabilzer companies


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

I have a link to the thread on the first page post #12 The Thumper looks very similiar to the STS and it is said to have been around since the 80's.


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*exactly!*



Daniel Boone said:


> Are about darn well worthless unless your willing to fight and that takes lots of money and lawyers.
> 
> I would be willing to bet that any bigtime bow company could put this on there bows and you wouldnt beat them in court.
> 
> ...


And BINGO was his namo! My thoughts and comments exactly.

Question: Has it been approved or are folks anticipating? Big difference when it comes to patents. It really does sound like a patent was filed for approval so someone made their rounds to check other products and start the talk. It appears that way, but I could be wrong. Patent on a bend in a rod?


----------



## Dredly (May 10, 2005)

mdewitt71 said:


> What about the Buck Stop or Buck Stopper that Bear bows came with in the 90s.......
> Was that patented, it was a suppressor?
> 
> I hope all goes well for STS, I wish them no ill but, I am still a fan of the CHL Vibekiller, Duravane, and Bow Rattler too. :wink:


hehe and keep in mind that Bear is now owned by Escalade sports... a publicly owned company with lots of cash behind them... I doubt they would be happy with having to share their money with STS via Royalties


----------



## bowaholic77 (Jul 27, 2006)

sittingbull said:


> *
> There were some interesting stories...one story about a company that asked if they could exam and test their STS product...only to tell the STS people the company was no longer interested in their STS. Then a few months later, that company produced their own STS look alike product and used it on their products.
> 
> 
> *


This doesnt make any sense. If a company's intention is to make a similar version and they want to study the product, they can simply go buy it in a store. This way the other company does not know what is going on. Happens alll the time with every buisness known to man. I worked for a company that when our compettitor came out with a new product I had one in my hands withing days to study it. Tear it apart, see how it was made, and then go from there.

As far as the patent is concerned.........I dont think there will be much they can do about the others that have come out since. Too many differences, and if they can patent suppression, well then every company out there will be making some changes:zip: And someone suggested that Jennings or Bear started this years ago.......Doesnt really matter if the patent ran out. I think most are 25 years, or if they ever patented it in the first place????


----------



## trapshooter (Feb 14, 2005)

Doc said:


> George Trotter from Shreveport, Louisiana filed for a a string suppression device in 1975 and the patent was issued 2 years later.


It depends on what was claimed on the application in 1975. His claims may have been too broad at the time. My guess that his claims were too broad because the application was not denied under the prior art ruling, though this is not the responsibility of the patent office. Also a utility patent, like this one, only provides protection for 20 years from the filing date provided that the patent owner pays the maintenance fees. In this case more than 20 years have gone by since the 1975 application was granted.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

Jeff K in IL said:


> Same ole' garbage. Their patent was supposedly issued on February 14th like Doc pointed out, not December. STS then fell off the face of the earth this year. I know a friend of mind who used their system exclusively wanted to get one for his new bow, and he sent emails and called, and STS never returned calls nor emails. He had his picture with a 200" buck in their brochure that came with the STS last year. Now he is using another product.
> 
> Staff Shooters really must like STS though...


i like mine....does that make me bad people? :noidea:


----------



## sittingbull (Jan 19, 2003)

bowaholic77 said:


> This doesnt make any sense. If a company's intention is to make a similar version and they want to study the product, they can simply go buy it in a store. This way the other company does not know what is going on. Happens alll the time with every buisness known to man. I worked for a company that when our compettitor came out with a new product I had one in my hands withing days to study it. Tear it apart, see how it was made, and then go from there.



*bowaholic...At the time this company asked to test the STS, it was just before or shortly after the STS began to be marketed to the public. If I'm not mistaken, the STS operation was rather small when the product was first marketed and they were being made as the orders came in and they were not being sold in any shops at the time. 

Hope that clears the situation up for you and it makes a little more sense to you now...sbl*


----------



## Jeff K in IL (Nov 4, 2005)

CntrlIaHunter said:


> i like mine....does that make me bad people? :noidea:


No, what I meant, the only way you see a thread come up about how great they are anymore, is from a Staff Shooter. The market is flooded with options, and most of them are a bit cleaner. With that said, I don't use any of these devices anymore, they did nothing for me, and my bow shoots better without it!


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

Jeff K in IL said:


> No, what I meant, the only way you see a thread come up about how great they are anymore, is from a Staff Shooter. The market is flooded with options, and most of them are a bit cleaner. With that said, I don't use any of these devices anymore, they did nothing for me, and my bow shoots better without it!


that was just a little friendly razzing on my part...:wink::tongue:


----------



## bowaholic77 (Jul 27, 2006)

sittingbull said:


> *bowaholic...At the time this company asked to test the STS, it was just before or shortly after the STS began to be marketed to the public. If I'm not mistaken, the STS operation was rather small when the product was first marketed and they were being made as the orders came in and they were not being sold in any shops at the time.
> 
> Hope that clears the situation up for you and it makes a little more sense to you now...sbl*


It does:wink: Thanks.


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

*Don't want to steal the thread*



Jeff K in IL said:


> No, what I meant, the only way you see a thread come up about how great they are anymore, is from a Staff Shooter. The market is flooded with options, and most of them are a bit cleaner. With that said, I don't use any of these devices anymore, they did nothing for me, and my bow shoots better without it!


But I think you are in the minority on this point. Just the reduction in wear and tear on my bow is worth every penny! The fact that you cannot hear my bow at 12-15 yards away says something about energy dissipation....

And now, for something more interesting...:wink:
Carter


----------



## iron mace07 (Jun 1, 2007)

*Sts*

well i have a sts on my wifes bow, and had always used them in past, the design and concept work good, but id think mounting one directing threw the riser, is by far the best method to obtain the best results in such a product. The patent would be hard to enforce as there are too many vairiables out there before he obtained the patent, So id say a little tooo late there . wish Joe, contined success, with STS.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

carteranderson said:


> The fact that you cannot hear my bow at 12-15 yards away says something about energy dissipation....


 Was it very windy that day?

All bows that store high energy make a good "thump" when that energy is delivered to the arrow. Noise level testing of all the "top " bows by the major manufacturers have come back showing noise level numbers in the same ballpark; and yes the same noise levels with modern string suppression systems installed.

I know a guy that has a new Vectrix and he says "the only thing you can hear is the arrow hitting the target". He obviously doesn't hear very well as actual testing results have proven otherwise.


----------



## PABowhunt4life (Feb 3, 2005)

skyhunter said:


> Was it very windy that day?
> 
> All bows that store high energy make a good "thump" when that energy is delivered to the arrow. Noise level testing of all the "top " bows by the major manufacturers have come back showing noise level numbers in the same ballpark; and yes the same noise levels with modern string suppression systems installed.
> 
> I know a guy that has a new Vectrix and he says "the only thing you can hear is the arrow hitting the target". He obviously doesn't hear very well as actual testing results have proven otherwise.



On the same note, people fail to realize that even the quietest of bows are still above 80DB'd which is equivalent to a garbage disposal being run, a factor car radio turned all the way up, a small plane flying over your head at "I forget how many feet"...............

So yeah, in the overalls cheme of things every bow is pretty loud :darkbeer:


----------



## goofy2788 (Aug 14, 2005)

Ok to try to clear up some of the questions concerning the patent....Yes the Patent is approved and official as of Dec. 27th. It has been going through the process for almost 2 total years. As of right now Brigitte and Joe (the sts owners...not some big corporation) are working with all the bow manufacturers to allow them to continue producing their own brand of string suppressors for their bows. As far as the copycat companies (yes I refer to them as copycats since STS is the one that put string stoppers on the map.) only time will tell as to who does and does not fall under the patent. If anyone would have any specific questions concerning this please feel free to PM me. I will be more then willing to do my best to get you the correct answers, however this is not an invitation to argue with me over the patent, I'm not here for that.

Thank you to all that have supported the STS company and their products. As not only a staff shooter but a good friend I will always remain loyal to their product.


----------



## KBacon (Nov 13, 2003)

How can you patent a cable guard rod, a rectangular aluminum block w/ 2 parralel holes in it, a screw, and a limbsaver on the end? Anybody could make one of these in 1/2 hr and some spare bow parts. Not to mention the product is a "copy" of earlier products that have been available for the last 20yrs... this one just happened to get whoored out all over archerytalk a few years ago... big deal!!!

And to beat a patent the product only has to be 10% different... 

Good Luck to STS!!!


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

skyhunter said:


> Was it very windy that day?
> 
> All bows that store high energy make a good "thump" when that energy is delivered to the arrow. Noise level testing of all the "top " bows by the major manufacturers have come back showing noise level numbers in the same ballpark; and yes the same noise levels with modern string suppression systems installed.
> 
> I know a guy that has a new Vectrix and he says "the only thing you can hear is the arrow hitting the target". He obviously doesn't hear very well as actual testing results have proven otherwise.




No, not a windy day. I'm forty one, and I hear better than most teens. There are a lot of variables at play obviously, including draw length and weight, arrow weight, how well my bow is tuned, etc. It's at 60lbs, 27.5 draw, and a 348 grain arrow (5575 if you must...) 

Tell you what. I'll get confirmation on this by another AT'er when I get back from my trip, and maybe you can feel better. It is what it is  and I stand behind what I say. Period.

Carter


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

carteranderson said:


> No, not a windy day. I'm forty one, and I hear better than most teens. There are a lot of variables at play obviously, including draw length and weight, arrow weight, how well my bow is tuned, etc. It's at 60lbs, 27.5 draw, and a 348 grain arrow (5575 if you must...)
> 
> Tell you what. I'll get confirmation on this by another AT'er when I get back from my trip, and maybe you can feel better. It is what it is  and I stand behind what I say. Period.
> 
> Carter


Confirmation from another ATer is not science and only proves something to someone who disregards real factual data.. As far as me felling better; sounds like you are the one who has a problem with real science.

Like i said before the many scientific tests that have been conducted measuring actual noise levels have proven that what you have experienced is not what has been reported by actual industry technicians. Perhaps you could conduct your own testing and report back on how nany "DB's" you are measuring.

Saying somebody didn't hear something does not mean that a high level noise did not occur. There are many variables that coulld affect the outcome of a non scientific test, such as yours.

Real science has always shown that a high level noise occured when a compound bow released it's stored energy, and I don't expect any future tests to reveal anything different. 

Can you hear me now?


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

Quote = patent a cable guard rod, a rectangular aluminum block w/ 2 parralel holes in it, a screw, and a limbsaver on the end? 


Ok lets take the block first.Thats no biggie.I will show 2 pic' how to get around that.
One of the pic's is a quick disconect that i built and posted a pic here on AT. A long time ago.
The other pic is a sight bar holder.With a cable guard hole.Now i have also use one of theses to atach a rod and string stopper.And i might add that alows you to have a stopper over the top of your nock.

Now Lets take the rod.You can build a offset piece to except two rods.



Now did you guys know about 98% of the STS is MFG in Ohio.As of last year.And my guess they still are.


----------------------------Pic 1 nd 2


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

I don't have any true decibel data or change over time, but I did shoot a bow with and without a string suppressor. In this case it was the VibeKiller made by CoolHandLuke. Conditions were identical except the addition of a string suppressor in the second shot.

No VibeKiller









VibeKiller


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

Doc said:


> I don't have any true decibel data or change over time, but I did shoot a bow with and without a string suppressor. In this case it was the VibeKiller made by CoolHandLuke. Conditions were identical except the addition of a string suppressor in the second shot.
> 
> No VibeKiller
> 
> ...


Out of curiousity:
In FRONT of the bow,OUTDOORS, how near do you have to be to hear your bow with the suppressor? What kind of bow, weight/spine of arrows, draw weight and length? I just want to see if you are in the same distance range as I am. I don't know anyone in the area that shoots with a suppressor except me. I've not been outside shooting since the new bows came out with them installed. Seems likely that the manufacturers put them on for a reason, but call me crazy if you want :wink:. I just doubt that they wanted to spend the $ just to keep up with the Jones's. Especially when is seems that they all came out with them for 2008. IE, it doesn't seem like one-up-manship to me.
BTW, could you do a dB check at 20, 15 and 10yds??

Also, my legal disclaimer: When I say "in front of the bow", please be logical 

Regards, and thanks! I wasn't sure if Home Depot rented dB meters anymore...

carter


----------



## goofy2788 (Aug 14, 2005)

Unk Bond said:


> Now did you guys know about 98% of the STS is MFG in Ohio.As of last year.And my guess they still are.


Some of those numbers have changed this year Unk:wink:


----------



## Big Eazy (Mar 12, 2007)

In my opinion, and that's all it is...my opinion, all STS has a patent on is UGLY!!!


----------



## Unk Bond (Aug 1, 2004)

goofy2788 said:


> Some of those numbers have changed this year Unk:wink:



Pm me the change please.


----------



## HartShot (Aug 2, 2006)

I think they think they are BIG TIME now because they are in Cabeles.I personely had one and thought it was a WASTE OF MONEY AND A PIECE OF CRAP and wouldnt throw a cup of P on it if it was on fire I now have one made by CoolHandLuke and love it.


----------



## bowhuntermn (Oct 22, 2005)

HartShot said:


> I think they think they are BIG TIME now because they are in Cabeles.I personely had one and thought it was a WASTE OF MONEY AND A PIECE OF CRAP and wouldnt throw a cup of P on it if it was on fire I now have one made by CoolHandLuke and love it.


Boy you're a regular Einstein now aren't you? Do everyone a favor and don't pro-create. The world doesn't need anymore little angry people running around. Just let nature takes it's course and prune your branch from the family tree


----------



## Jeff K in IL (Nov 4, 2005)

Doc said:


> I don't have any true decibel data or change over time, but I did shoot a bow with and without a string suppressor. In this case it was the VibeKiller made by CoolHandLuke. Conditions were identical except the addition of a string suppressor in the second shot.
> 
> No VibeKiller
> 
> ...


This only shows one thing, a difference in sound, no I am not talking how loud the bow is with, or without it; I am saying that the sound of a bow changes its frequency. As for an STS protecting your bow, that is debateable, at this time there is no conclusive evidence pointing either way.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

some of you guys would complain if they gave away free bows with the purchase of an STS! :zip:


----------



## jdawg240 (Feb 20, 2007)

*Boooooo*

I see this as no more than a black eye on the archery industry. Bad for buisness as well. Seems like this talk has been going on for a while now! I refer everyone to anyone but STS because of all this mess.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

wow, i didn't realize this was a bash an AT sponsor thread:noidea::zip:
i really don't think that was the intention of it:nono:
if you don't like the product....don't use it


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

CntrlIaHunter said:


> wow, i didn't realize this was a bash an AT sponsor thread:noidea::zip:
> i really don't think that was the intention of it:nono:
> if you don't like the product....don't use it


This is AT and people can voice their opinions regardless if it is positive or negative towards a Sponsor's product unless they cross the line, then the Mods will take the appropriate measures. With the good comes the bad and if the company is strong and has a good following they can overcome the bad.


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

*Hey*

JEFF K

*quote: This only shows one thing, a difference in sound, no I am not talking how loud the bow is with, or without it; I am saying that the sound of a bow changes its frequency. As for an STS protecting your bow, that is debateable, at this time there is no conclusive evidence pointing either way.*
__________________

1. It looks to me like the amplitude is dramatically decreased, but I'm no physicist. Anyone want to ride that pony? Also, empirically, I can tell you that the bows I have put a string suppressor on have ALL drastically quietened. I will say that the louder the bow to start, the more difference it made. I've not seen one on, say, a Whisper Creek. Probably wouldn't be as much sound improvement as they are already pretty quiet.
Just my $.02...

2. Wasn't there some threads about Hoyts dry firing a bow over 1000 times with a string suppressor (intentionally brand neutral statement there...)?

I off for field training a hunter's safety course, or I'd take the time to research it myself. Maybe I can do it at work :embara: tomorrow before I fly out to ND. I'll need some prayers from some of you to help me survive the next week!

Carter


----------



## plottman (Nov 15, 2003)

I don't own an STS, however isn't it their right to pursue a patent on their product? I don't understand the hostility towards them. regardless as to what someone done 15 years ago, until STS product came out no one was using anything like that. Now similar products come standard on many bows.


----------



## Jeff K in IL (Nov 4, 2005)

carteranderson said:


> JEFF K
> 
> *quote: This only shows one thing, a difference in sound, no I am not talking how loud the bow is with, or without it; I am saying that the sound of a bow changes its frequency. As for an STS protecting your bow, that is debateable, at this time there is no conclusive evidence pointing either way.*
> __________________
> ...


Hoyt dry fires their bows at the factory, and this is not to test their STS system. If there is a noise decrease, I doubt it is noticable to the human ear. I shot one on my Drenalin for a long time, and I took it off, really it made no difference.

As for bashing this is not bashing, but there are two things here that question the validity of this thread. Last year, STS posted the same thing, except they said their patent was to be issued Feb 14th, 2007, now it is a new year, and we have another thread about their patent being issued recently, kind of funny ain't it....


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Jeff K in IL said:


> I shot one on my Drenalin for a long time, and I took it off, really it made no difference.


This may be the reason you did not see a big difference, the Drenalin already has two string suppression devices mounted on the top and bottom limb. Therefore, the difference may be smaller than the sensitivity of the human ear.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> This is AT and people can voice their opinions regardless if it is positive or negative towards a Sponsor's product unless they cross the line, then the Mods will take the appropriate measures. With the good comes the bad and if the company is strong and has a good following they can overcome the bad.


and i just voiced mine. :wink:


----------



## Big Country (Apr 25, 2003)

jdawg240 said:


> I see this as no more than a black eye on the archery industry. Bad for buisness as well. Seems like this talk has been going on for a while now! I refer everyone to anyone but STS because of all this mess.


Do you realize that there are lawsuits on a regular basis between various bow companies over cam design, riser design, etc.?

Not defending STS, although I do use their product on my hunting rigs, and they ain`t on there for added weight.


----------



## bowhuntermn (Oct 22, 2005)

jdawg240 said:


> I see this as no more than a black eye on the archery industry. Bad for buisness as well. Seems like this talk has been going on for a while now! I refer everyone to anyone but STS because of all this mess.


Sorry you feel that way. Business is business, I don't understand why one business trying to protect itself is a bad thing? There have been lawsuits in every industry and there always will. I'm sure just about every bow manufacturer has been in litigation/lawsuits at one time or another. 

If you had your own business would you roll over and let anyone and everyone else make money off of your product and take your idea's?


----------



## Unassuming (Jul 23, 2006)

As I mentioned before,,,If STS is looking to sell the whole company to one of the bigger companies, it makes great sense and increases their value. If they are looking to get paid by the bigger companies to due to their patent...that could and would most likely put them out of business...I love watching this stuff...it is like playing poker...


----------



## bowhuntermn (Oct 22, 2005)

Jeff K in IL said:


> Hoyt dry fires their bows at the factory, and this is not to test their STS system. If there is a noise decrease, I doubt it is noticable to the human ear. I shot one on my Drenalin for a long time, and I took it off, really it made no difference.


I have one on my XT and it does make a little difference in sound. As mentioned, Mathews already has built in supressors at the limb tips already. So, the difference would not be as noticable as with other bow manufacturers or models..

Now, I also have one on an Evotek Impact. And for that bow it's made a very big difference in sound and vibration reduction. The reduction in vibration more than anything to the point it's almost unbelievable. I've been shooting STS's for over 2 years and when I put it on the Impact, it made me even smile.


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

bowhuntermn said:


> Sorry you feel that way. Business is business, I don't understand why one business trying to protect itself is a bad thing? There have been lawsuits in every industry and there always will. I'm sure just about every bow manufacturer has been in litigation/lawsuits at one time or another.
> 
> If you had your own business would you roll over and let anyone and everyone else make money off of your product and take your idea's?


Hey 
First of all: How's the weather??  30below is brutal. I grew up in Fargo, and worked in Elbow Lake for 2 yrs, so I am sympathetic to your cause...
Secondly: I'm not sure how STS or anyone else can take claim for creating the string suppressor, much less persue other manufacturers who products are easily 10% different from the STS... The earlier comments on this thread make me wonder if someone else won't be coming back after STS. I'd say they would be better off putting their $ into R&D and less into lawyer's pockets. I won't be getting an STS now just because of their sabre rattling practices...
Thirdly: I agree with you 100% regarding the Drenalin comment. The bow is already suppressed somewhat. My experience with louder bows was similar to your comments. In fact, I have an old PSE that sounded like a 22 going off...She now is as quiet as any new bow. The technology absolutely works with appropriate bows!

Go Twins!

Carter


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Mar 5, 2005)

carteranderson said:


> Hey
> First of all: How's the weather??  30below is brutal. I grew up in Fargo, and worked in Elbow Lake for 2 yrs, so I am sympathetic to your cause...
> Secondly: I'm not sure how STS or anyone else can take claim for creating the string suppressor, much less persue other manufacturers who products are easily 10% different from the STS... The earlier comments on this thread make me wonder if someone else won't be coming back after STS. I'd say they would be better off putting their $ into R&D and less into lawyer's pockets. I won't be getting an STS now just because of their sabre rattling practices...
> Thirdly: I agree with you 100% regarding the Drenalin comment. The bow is already suppressed somewhat. My experience with louder bows was similar to your comments. In fact, I have an old PSE that sounded like a 22 going off...She now is as quiet as any new bow. The technology absolutely works with appropriate bows!
> ...


I agree with the sabre rattling. I have purchased two STSs but haven't bought one since the first threats posted on AT. 
Besides, most other have a cleaner look.

-30F is brutal. I grew up near Hawley, my folks still live up there.

My sister played BB for UND.


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

carteranderson said:


> Secondly: I'm not sure how STS or anyone else can take claim for creating the string suppressor, much less persue other manufacturers who products are easily 10% different from the STS... The earlier comments on this thread make me wonder if someone else won't be coming back after STS. I'd say they would be better off putting their $ into R&D and less into lawyer's pockets. I won't be getting an STS now just because of their sabre rattling practices...
> 
> 
> 
> Carter


I would stress what bowhunterMN stated earlier. This is simply a matter of a buisness trying to protect its interests. Any buisness that does not will not be around for long. If you can't think of examples of other companies doing the exact same thing then you have not read many threads on AT. 
I can think of at least one other company that must believe STS is correct. Martin Archery.
Those of you that have supported STS thank you. For those who have not I have no ill will. The day we all agree on everything is the day there will be no need for Archery Talk. Good hunting to those of you that still have seasons open.:thumb:


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*Cam*

As I said before, sometimes "The Law" is not rational or common sense oriented.

It would be like gettig a patent today for a compound bow and the patent stating, "Two wheels attached on the ends of flexible limbs, tied together by two cables with one other attachment string over the back-side of the wheels, synchronized to turn at the same time while the main string is pulled back". Or even one part of it. "A bow with two wheels". Patent Pending. Sorry to all of the companies using two wheels or these days Bionary style cams. 

I do understand the whole protect the business aspect of the patent pending on this deal, but it just looks silly and sounds weak. STS should be a good enough aftermarket item to do fine. Heavy doubt in my mind that a quality bow manufacturer in the top 10 companies is worried about this right now. It shows a feeling that STS may feel they have as much of the market as they will get so lets try for Royalties. I dont know. 

In the whole scheme of things this will not matter to any of us but it is fun to debate and talk about it. 

MJ


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

oldglorynewbie said:


> I would stress what bowhunterMN stated earlier. This is simply a matter of a buisness trying to protect its interests. Any buisness that does not will not be around for long. If you can't think of examples of other companies doing the exact same thing then you have not read many threads on AT.
> I can think of at least one other company that must believe STS is correct. Martin Archery.
> Those of you that have supported STS thank you. For those who have not I have no ill will. The day we all agree on everything is the day there will be no need for Archery Talk. Good hunting to those of you that still have seasons open.:thumb:


:thumb:


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

*Come on*



Ib4Hoyt said:


> :thumb:


You guys are killing me. How can you defend actions of a business founded on using someone else's development, and then threating to sue everyone around them as a "defending their business" concept. You may call it smart business practice. I call it reprehensible intimidation tactics and boorish behavior. Quite frankly, if I worked for a company that has these core beliefs, I'd be looking for new employment. Period. If they created this concept and put years and years into R & D, I'd be happy to defend them also. Simply put, they didn't, and their patent seems to be built around the block, not the concept. So to threaten the guys who make CSS and Vibekiller seems to be like a schoolyard bully picking on a little kid. The CSS and Vibekiller don't use a block. You guys who are defending them seem to have a horse in this race. Defend them all you want, but I won't be buying an ugly/bulky product from a company with no ethics...

Carter


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

anyone? :zip:


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

carteranderson said:


> You guys are killing me. How can you defend actions of a business founded on using someone else's development, and then threating to sue everyone around them as a "defending their business" concept.


Quite simply they are our friends. Would you do any less? I also happen to believe every word I said.


> You may call it smart business practice. I call it reprehensible intimidation tactics and boorish behavior.


I am sure you feel the same way about Darton. I disagree with you on both counts. My grandfather had a couple of patents on parts for railroad cars. He sued several people over them. I suppose his behavior was boorish as well. 


> Quite frankly, if I worked for a company that has these core beliefs, I'd be looking for new employment. Period.


Here you go too far. I will ask you to please not advise me who to associate with. 


> If they created this concept and put years and years into R & D, I'd be happy to defend them also. Simply put, they didn't, and their patent seems to be built around the block, not the concept. So to threaten the guys who make CSS and Vibekiller seems to be like a schoolyard bully picking on a little kid. The CSS and Vibekiller don't use a block. You guys who are defending them seem to have a horse in this race. Defend them all you want, but I won't be buying an ugly/bulky product from a company with no ethics...
> 
> Carter


Brigitte and Joe obviously believe they do have a product worthy of a patent. They did put more time into R&D than I will waste my time telling you about. The information is already posted on Archery Talk if you care to look. You call it threats. I call it protecting property rights. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. The rest of your comments are simply tasteless. The STS guys will be willing to help you in any way we can anytime anywhere. Shoot straight.


----------



## bowhuntermn (Oct 22, 2005)

carteranderson said:


> You guys are killing me. How can you defend actions of a business founded on using someone else's development, and then threating to sue everyone around them as a "defending their business" concept. You may call it smart business practice. I call it reprehensible intimidation tactics and boorish behavior. Quite frankly, if I worked for a company that has these core beliefs, I'd be looking for new employment. Period. If they created this concept and put years and years into R & D, I'd be happy to defend them also. Simply put, they didn't, and their patent seems to be built around the block, not the concept. So to threaten the guys who make CSS and Vibekiller seems to be like a schoolyard bully picking on a little kid. The CSS and Vibekiller don't use a block. You guys who are defending them seem to have a horse in this race. Defend them all you want, but I won't be buying an ugly/bulky product from a company with no ethics...
> 
> Carter


Everyone has an opinion and that is their right. You can express yours and that's okay, it's your right. I too am fortunate enough to be able to call Brigitte and Joe my friend as well. I've used there products for over 2 years and I shoot what I like and I believe in what I shoot.

Now, you do mention one thing which I happen to disagree with. I guess I don't understand your reasoning or disagreement over a company getting a patent and defending their right to do so. If you truly have a problem with any company defending it's right to a patent, you are going to be living in a hole somewhere. The computer you are tying on, and everything else in your house, it protected by one patent or another. And I don't understand your questioning their ethics either. Disagree is fine, but if you do not know them, then please don't question their ethics.

As mentioned, you have a choice to shoot whatever you like and that is your right. I choose to shoot with an STS and for STS and that is my choice as well.


----------



## Hornsgalore (Jan 27, 2007)

carteranderson said:


> You guys are killing me. How can you defend actions of a business founded on using someone else's development, and then threating to sue everyone around them as a "defending their business" concept. You may call it smart business practice. I call it reprehensible intimidation tactics and boorish behavior. Quite frankly, if I worked for a company that has these core beliefs, I'd be looking for new employment. Period. If they created this concept and put years and years into R & D, I'd be happy to defend them also. Simply put, they didn't, and their patent seems to be built around the block, not the concept. So to threaten the guys who make CSS and Vibekiller seems to be like a schoolyard bully picking on a little kid. The CSS and Vibekiller don't use a block. You guys who are defending them seem to have a horse in this race. Defend them all you want, but I won't be buying an ugly/bulky product from a company with no ethics...
> 
> Carter


I live near Joe, I buy from him and have talked to him about his STS design and patend on several occasions.
The problem lies herein. you just don't see any one else copying Mathews version of their system. Why?.because they have the dough to sue the crap out of any one that tries.
When Joe put his type of stopper on the market he had done something for archery.............that right. The "little man" made a difference in the industry.
whether it was ever invented fefore or not "HE" moved it into production and the darn thing worked.....Did what anyone else would do and applied for a patend..........and what happens next is nothing short of thievery. 
Others coppied the idea and played it off like "what did we do ?".it's not the same...............yea right.
At the time Joe and the STS is not backed by a multi million dollar lawfirm. He does not have the resources that Darton or Mathews has.......and what comes next is a slap to the face by the leading bow companies. themselves...........NOW they have taken his vision and rubbed salt in his eye...........................What a shame.
I believe every individual and company that sells a string stopper anything close to what the STS is should pay royalties.............He should have got every little detail worked out in the paperwork.
Like I said before how many other versions of the Mathews string stopper have you seen copied?...............wonder 
why? .......
Oh yea the "ugly and bulky" this always cracks me up...................what are you talking about?
have you ever looked at your sight or rest? things just don't get any bulkier than that do they?


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*Well*

I am not a patent attorney. But I do know one thing is smart, and that is the development and patent process. You....... 

*1. Develop a product
2. Patent that product*
3. Sell that product on the open market
4. defend that patent against copies
5. sell royalties 

You dont.....(Like STS seems to have done) 

1. Develop a product
2. Distribute the product for several years
3. Watch many companies make similar products
4. Pursue a patent to stop existing companies 

It is not out of the question but they did it backwards. If he believed in the product and wanted to protect it, get the patent up front. To wait until all of the folks and companies have been making various supressors for many years, and then to pursue it, is beyond me.

My opinion. Edit: Bill, with all due respect, that is business. He DID NOT get a patent to protect himself in the early going. That was the mistake. To think he came out with a supressor that was never going to be copied or may start new thinking by others is simply nieve. That is how all things get started and most assuredly improved upon. To come out with a good idea and show it to the market prior to a patent is bad business.

Who was the first bow company to have wheels on a bow?
Who was the first company to use fiber optic pins?
Whot was the first company to use magnesium risers?
Who was the first to machine a riser?
How about rubber boots?
Neoprene gloves?

All these were ideas by someone, and not all got patent approvals or probably was copied. The list goes on and on.

If these folks didnt patent the process or product it is fair game. That is the way it is.

One more thing. Has the Patent been issued? If not was the carriage before the horse, maybe?


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

they did it...it's done 

some of you disagree, some don't

get over it! :zip:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

I wonder why the STS people have not put their patent number on their website like other companies do? If they received a patent on Dec. 27, 2007 then surely they have a patent number and are willing to publish it so that others can verify their claim. This patent number should not be some top secret information and once one has been issued the public is free access it.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Nimrod said:


> I wonder why the STS people have not put their patent number on their website like other companies do? If they received a patent on Dec. 27, 2007 then surely they have a patent number and are willing to publish it so that others can verify their claim. This patent number should not be some top secret information and once one has been issued the public is free access it.


Data on the U.S. Patent Office website is current as of 01/29/2008 for published patents and I still get nothing for it. The only thing I get is a published application, which has been the same since 12/14/2006 and filed 06/28/2005.:noidea: I would agree that the Patent No. would be a big deal.:nod:


----------



## IChim2 (Aug 20, 2006)

There's a zillon different type of broad heads,sights ,rests, arrows,strings etc on the market......i'm sure there's enough room for a few different types of sts's,css's etc....use what you like.More and more bows are being made with them already on any way.


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*Thread was a mistake, admit it*

This was a mistake. This thread was a mistake to start. None of us would have known anything about it if this thread had not been started. Until March I suppose.

We realize patent cases go on constantly, they just don't get on AT and basically throw out a bone to try and "scare" all of the manufacturers of suppressors. 

I don't know the STS folks and they may not have even known about this thread being started, but this thread title with the original explanation of the thread, talking ATA show, and contacting the bow manufacturers etc was all very lame. It is even more lame how there is not a patent number, (not saying there may not be), but one was awarded last December? And then wait until January at the ATA to "announce" it? Who announces a patent? You usually see it in fine print on the item or in a brochure.


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*exactly*



IChim2 said:


> There's a zillon different type of broad heads,sights ,rests, arrows,strings etc on the market......i'm sure there's enough room for a few different types of sts's,css's etc....use what you like.More and more bows are being made with them already on any way.


Good point. And this is what bothers them. Bow manufacturers building them onto the bows. No need for an aftermarket part. 

And this effects all vibration products. Sims String leeches etc. are almost obsolete on some of these bows. All they do is slow them down. The best business for these companies is selling the components direct to the bow manufacturer and to have them put on bows out of the box. BowJax with HCA etc.


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

*Well now,*

Brigitte and Joe are, I'm confident via AT threads, fine people. What does that have to do with making poor decisions? I'd like to think I'm an alright guy, but I make bad decisions every day. Just ask my wife, she'll happily tell ya. 

It's a fine choice to protect your business, and I think it would be foolish not to do so. I'm just saying, IN THIS PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE, that they did not "create" the string suppressor concept, and while I fully defend their design within confines of the patent, the patent does not appear *to this layperson *to cover the CSS nor the Vibekiller. I think they were wise in getting a patent on the block system. It's just that no one yet has to defend the specifics of whether or not the patent actually covers a potential lawsuit against CCS/Vibekiller manufacturer's designs. 

You all just defend the right of the company to protect their business. Who is going to disagree with that???? I'm just saying that I think that a lawsuit, while within STS's rights, is not terribly ethical. Sorry, but that's how I feel, and that is what a public forum is all about. Argue the merits of a lawsuit as it covers the 3 different designs, and we can talk all day. Is STS going to sue Mathews?? They have string suppressors built in...How about Bowtech, HCA, etc? Better to just threaten the little guys and see if they fold, right?

Also, I am only telling you what I would do if I was affilitated with STS. I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what to do. We each have our thresholds of tolerances, and if their activies are acceptable to you, so be it. Not my place to judge you as individual, and if anyone took it that way, please, accept my clarification on this point, and my apologies... :embara:

Carter


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

Hornsgalore said:


> Oh yea the "ugly and bulky" this always cracks me up...................what are you talking about?
> have you ever looked at your sight or rest? things just don't get any bulkier than that do they?


Touche'! Can't disagree with that-right you are, and I admit I could have been a little more judicious with this comment.

That being said, if someone comes up with sights/stabs that are more slim/sleek, I'll be the first to sign up. I, btw, don't usually use a stab when hunting as I don't have much shock with a parralell bow and a string suppressor. One more reason that string suppressors rock !!

Carter


----------



## carteranderson (Jul 31, 2006)

*One last thing*

oldglorynewbie,
You are a class act all the way. If I were with STS, or any archery company, I'd want you to be affiliated with me. I thank you for your PM publicly, and want our fellow AT'ers know that you represent the best of us. Your pm content will remain between us :secret:, but I think you deserve a note of gratitude and appreciation. It just goes to show that we can all disagree on a particular topic, and yet remain friends. This is the epitomy of why A.T. is the best archery site out there!

oldglorynewbie, God Bless!

Carter


----------



## SShooter (Nov 19, 2007)

*Who cares*

:zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip:


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

carteranderson said:


> oldglorynewbie,
> You are a class act all the way. If I were with STS, or any archery company, I'd want you to be affiliated with me. I thank you for your PM publicly, and want our fellow AT'ers know that you represent the best of us. Your pm content will remain between us :secret:, but I think you deserve a note of gratitude and appreciation. It just goes to show that we can all disagree on a particular topic, and yet remain friends. This is the epitomy of why A.T. is the best archery site out there!
> 
> oldglorynewbie, God Bless!
> ...


:embara:Thanks Carter. I just try to pass along the kindness that has been shown to me by many others on Archery Talk. Archers Helping Archers:thumb:


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

SShooter said:


> :zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip::zip:


:brick::nyah::darkbeer:


----------



## Carlos (Jan 19, 2005)

The problem with the STS patent is that if you market your product for a year before applying for a patent, you will loose your rights to patent it.
If as mentioned in one post they were marketing it years before they applied for it they are doomed.
If you noticed Hoyt's string suppresor had a patent pending number when it was released for sale.
And this my friends is no bull.


----------



## DFA (Dec 30, 2002)

amarchery said:


> We are discussing patent infringments? There is no patent. It would be from the date it is granted onward. All of the supressors on the market would not have to quit making them.
> 
> If you think attorneys for STS in Dyersburg, TN will fight with the bow companies that have their own style similar to STS and win, then I have some things I will sell you at a bargain.
> 
> ...


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

WHAT PATENT????

This thread is useless without the number of the patent that was issued to the STS people on Dec. 27, 2007. If a patent was issued why the big secret regarding the number that was issued? A patent that is issued is a matter of public record. Those of you that say STS has received a patent, where is the proof?:secret:


----------



## sagecreek (Jul 15, 2003)

This is all I'm going to say about the matter.

They are getting a patent on the Cobra Cable guard that has been out for years. String suppressors have been out for years also. They cut one of these off and mounted a Limb Saver Stabilizer Enhancer on the end of it and made this type of device famous.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Surely someone, maybe connected to STS or not, can post the number to the patent that STS was awarded on Dec. 27, 2007?


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

carteranderson said:


> oldglorynewbie,
> You are a class act all the way. If I were with STS, or any archery company, I'd want you to be affiliated with me. I thank you for your PM publicly, and want our fellow AT'ers know that you represent the best of us. Your pm content will remain between us :secret:, but I think you deserve a note of gratitude and appreciation. It just goes to show that we can all disagree on a particular topic, and yet remain friends. This is the epitomy of why A.T. is the best archery site out there!
> 
> oldglorynewbie, God Bless!
> ...


awww jeeezzz ,,don't make his head any bigger than it is already..:wink:


----------



## Mastershot (Jan 19, 2008)

*sts*

I personally have shot the STS, I have'nt shot any of the others, I have seen posts and pictures about and of the other products, but with what I have seen and or heard about the STS, is all but bad things, I see no need to get frustrated or confused at someone who has worked so hard on development and producing their product to their in help all of us wether we be tournament shooters or bowhunters, seems to me that things happen to get confused and that no one really knows the truth here yet they debate the very facts that they dont know, you tell me what you think.


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*Ok*



DFA said:


> amarchery said:
> 
> 
> > We are discussing patent infringments? There is no patent. It would be from the date it is granted onward. All of the supressors on the market would not have to quit making them.
> ...


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

sagecreek said:


> This is all I'm going to say about the matter.
> 
> They are getting a patent on the Cobra Cable guard that has been out for years. String suppressors have been out for years also. They cut one of these off and mounted a Limb Saver Stabilizer Enhancer on the end of it and made this type of device famous.



Doesn't someone on AT sell this as their brand.. just modified?


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

amarchery said:


> Originally Posted by amarchery
> We are discussing patent infringments? There is no patent. It would be from the date it is granted onward. All of the supressors on the market would not have to quit making them.
> 
> If you think attorneys for STS in Dyersburg, TN will fight with the bow companies that have their own style similar to STS and win, then I have some things I will sell you at a bargain.
> ...


:crazy: Do you also pm yourself?


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Where oh where could the elusive STS patent be? I know it has to be so since many have said so, but it is no where to be found.


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*No*

No cisco I dont PM myself. Look at it closely. I responded to a quote/response to my comment, just replied to the whole thing. Look closely at the bottom from the other guy regarding PSE patent and BowTech. Appreciate the oversight. I even highlighted it. 

What thread were we on? Oh yes, STS Patent. Anyone have a number yet? 

MJ


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

amarchery said:


> No cisco I dont PM myself. Look at it closely. I responded to a quote/response to my comment, just replied to the whole thing. Look closely at the bottom from the other guy regarding PSE patent and BowTech. Appreciate the oversight. I even highlighted it.
> 
> What thread were we on? Oh yes, STS Patent. Anyone have a number yet?
> 
> MJ


i think Joe and Bridgette have the number..


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Did a little more searching for this elusive STS patent over at www.uspto.gov/ 
and still no STS patent even though the site states the information is up to date as of 5-Feb-2008. The most current suppressors that are patented:

U.S. Patent Documents

3658157 April 1972	Lee
3757761 September 1973	Izuta
4061125 December 1977	Trotter
4461267 July 1984	Simonds et al.
4628892 December 1986	Windedahl et al.
5323756 June 1994	Rabska
5452704 September 1995	Winebarger
5720269 February 1998	Saunders
6257220 July 2001	McPherson et al

So what gives here, have we been given misinformation by the STS people or what? If STS received a patent on 27-Dec-2007, as stated here by some that claim to be in the know, then why no patent number issued yet? I will state again, this is a matter of public record once a patent is awarded.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

maybe you should call 1-800-patent police

does it really matter that much what joe and brigitte do?
let it go........:zip:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

You all were so eager to come on AT and thump your chest that STS had a patent and other companies would soon comply with this "patent". Is it asking much to prove it since the evidence is no where to be found and a patent is public record? STS is what they are today largely because of AT. They used AT as a marketing/advertising tool, mostly before they became a sponsor, and now these statements on this thread are suppose to intimidate a few individuals on AT that make their version of a string suppressor. Live by the sword and die by the sword. Prove it, is all I am saying or retreat and have this thread locked.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

Nimrod said:


> You all were so eager to come on AT and thump your chest that STS had a patent and other companies would soon comply with this "patent". Is it asking much to prove it since the evidence is no where to be found and a patent is public record? STS is what they are today largely because of AT. They used AT as a marketing/advertising tool, mostly before they became a sponsor, and now these statements on this thread are suppose to intimidate a few individuals on AT that make their version of a string suppressor. Live by the sword and die by the sword. Prove it, is all I am saying or retreat and have this thread locked.


I would have to agree with a few points here.

In 2005 I bought a Bowtech Allegiance and equipped it with an STS. Why?; because of what I read on this site. Had it not been for my activity on this site, I do not believe I would have even know what an STS is.

The man is only stating what is factually listed on record. The archery industry presently has many patents that can not and will not ever be enforced. This STS patent, if it were to materialize one day is another.


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

Peregrynne said:


> Now that the ATA's are over there are going to rumors flying about STS and their patent. Let me start by clarifying. Yes they now have the patent on the design. It was approved on Dec. 27th 2007. The official announcement was made by Joe and Brigitte at the ATA show.
> 
> You might be asking yourself what this all means.
> 
> ...





Nimrod said:


> You all were so eager to come on AT and thump your chest that STS had a patent and other companies would soon comply with this "patent". Is it asking much to prove it since the evidence is no where to be found and a patent is public record? STS is what they are today largely because of AT. They used AT as a marketing/advertising tool, mostly before they became a sponsor, and now these statements on this thread are suppose to intimidate a few individuals on AT that make their version of a string suppressor. Live by the sword and die by the sword. Prove it, is all I am saying or retreat and have this thread locked.


Please point out which post in this thread by an STS staff shooter you consider to be chest thumping? As far as your other questions why don't you take Peregrynne up on his offer and pm your questions to him.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Tell me this, why was this thread started? I am not going to take this to PM's, I would like to see this all played out right here for all AT'ers to see (kinda like Darton vs. Elite). I have nothing to hide or gain here, but apparently someone does or their would be a patent number. It is only a matter of time before this thread is lock at SOMEONE'S request I am sure.


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

Again, I would advise you to ask the thread starter your questions. I did not start the thread and was just as surprised by it as anyone.

EDIT:I am still waiting for the posts you consider to be chest thumping?


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Well, here I am to the starter of this thread, why was this thread started? Again, I will not take this to PM's, this was announced to the public. As for chest thumping, I consider any post on this thread stating that STS received a patent on Dec. 27, 2007 to be just that. Why is anyone connected to STS concerned with anything I have to say here anyways? Is there something going on here that we all should know about, was there a some intent or message with this thread? All it would take to make a believer out of some of us is to see a patent number that can be confirmed or a letter issued from the US Patent Office. But who am I to ask for that?


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> Why is anyone connected to STS concerned with anything I have to say here anyways? Is there something going on here that we all should know about, was there a some intent with this thread? All it would take to make a believer out of some of us is to see a patent number that can be confirmed or a letter issued from the US Patent Office. But who am I to ask for that?


Because you implied that I was "thumping my chest" as you put it. I try very hard not to come across in a negative manner and I am allowed to challenge you when you make such a claim. 
I have not spoken to Peregrynne about this thread but he states his intent in his original post. He also has the right to deal with any questions that arise in any way he sees fit.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Your are 100% correct. You have the right to challenge me and I have a right to challenge you or anyone else here as long as I stay within the guidelines (rules). What a great marketing/advertising tool AT is, where else can an archery related company come out of the dust with a product and grow into such a machine. It is kind of strange how AT is good enough to get your company going better but something as important as a patent being awarded is insignificant, even though this patent could be the success or death of your company.


----------



## amarchery (Nov 28, 2007)

*If I May, and I have No Dogs in This Hunt*



Peregrynne said:


> Now that the ATA's are over there are going to rumors flying about STS and their patent. Let me start by clarifying. Yes they now have the patent on the design. *Claim* It was approved on Dec. 27th 2007. The official announcement was made by Joe and Brigitte at the ATA show. *Rumors? Started by this thread. Have not heard a word about it anywhere but right here. This is not GM or Ford ya know. *
> 
> You might be asking yourself what this all means. *Yes I am Curious, and stated like it does matter to us at AT. *
> 
> ...


 *PMs should not be the basis of communication since you chose to be public with the score on a patent and the advancement of "pressure" to other manufacturers. Show Me. *


Now folks if you do not think this is a little pride and warning going out then you do not get the intent of this thread. Again, I do not have a dog in this hunt. Heck I stock some STS in the store. But after this stunt I will not. We will go with MeanV and Rattler, now that I had a reason to look at others. I like the way the Rattler adjusts with the slide.


----------



## ciscokid (Apr 26, 2006)

CntrlIaHunter said:


> maybe you should call 1-800-patent police
> 
> does it really matter that much what joe and brigitte do?
> let it go........:zip:


I agree.. 

Obviously it matters to some people. 

I guess they are mad b/c it makes them wrong.

It is nunya bizness!


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

amarchery said:


> *PMs should not be the basis of communication since you chose to be public with the score on a patent and the advancement of "pressure" to other manufacturers. Show Me. *
> 
> 
> Now folks if you do not think this is a little pride and warning going out then you do not get the intent of this thread. Again, I do not have a dog in this hunt. Heck I stock some STS in the store. But after this stunt I will not. We will go with MeanV and Rattler, now that I had a reason to look at others. I like the way the Rattler adjusts with the slide.


I see... this is another example on differing perspectives. You see threats and intimidation tactics where I see a company calmly stating its intentions. I suppose one could take it that way if you believed you were possibly affected by those intentions. 
As to answering your questions I will leave it to Peregrynne to answer them or not and by whatever means he sees fit.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

ciscokid said:


> I agree..
> 
> Obviously it matters to some people.
> 
> ...


Does it matter to me? Not at all, but it will be an entertaining journey.

Mad and wrong? Don't think so. How am I wrong? Better yet PLEASE prove me wrong, that is what I am waiting to see.

Nunya bizness? Well it was posted on a public forum so for entertainment purposes I can make it my bizness.


----------



## marforme (May 30, 2006)

Let me just make a little clarification about what is going on here. First off the patent information that was posted very early in this thread was the original patent filing and was very vague. This is the way it normally happens and the actual STS patent has been revised about a dozen times since then. Yes the patent has been approved as stated, but the final patent number is in the process of being issued so STS should be receiving the official documents and number very shortly. It is because of this that you are not able to find the patent information online yet nor the details of the patent. Please stop all this back and forth garbage. Just because YOU can't find the information does not mean it is not true. Joe and Brigitte are 2 of the nicest people you would ever meet and all they have ever wanted to do is help fellow archers any way they can. They are working with all companies and have many agreements in place already to everyone's satisfaction. I hope this helps clear up any confusion.

Once again, I am not going to argue any of these points with anyone. You can feel free to PM me with any questions and I will gladly answer them to the best of my knowledge. The original poster was not boasting at all. There has been the talk of this happening for a long time and many questioned the validity after nothing transpired over time. This was due to the delays with revisions and he just wanted to let everyone who had been following this and asking that it was now official.


----------



## monty53 (Jun 19, 2002)

GVDocHoliday said:


> I love the STS myself. Have nearly a dozen of them...only have one bow...so I'm selling several to make room for the new ones.:wink:


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

and there you have it.....thanks m4m for clearing that up.:wink:
there must not be anything to argue about in the BH section today:noidea:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Yep it is as clear as mudd now.

I will hold my congratulations for STS until I see the proof in writing. If that ever happens you can be sure I will acknowledge that they indeed have a patent.


----------



## skyhunter (Dec 1, 2003)

Many archery patents aren't enforced; many *can't* be.


----------



## marforme (May 30, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> Yep it is as clear as mudd now.
> 
> I will hold my congratulations for STS until I see the proof in writing. If that ever happens you can be sure I will acknowledge that they indeed have a patent.


Maybe even an appology:wink:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

I don't think I owe them an apology. They use AT to their benefit and I will use it within the guidelines. Like I said before, I will be more than glad to congratulate them once I see the fine print. Until then, to each his own.


----------



## marforme (May 30, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> I don't think I owe them an apology. They use AT to their benefit and I will use it within the guidelines. Like I said before, I will be more than glad to congratulate them once I see the fine print. Until then, to each his own.


It was a wink and I meant to those you had words with/about on this thread. Yes they have used AT to some bennefit, but they are also a high level sponsor and have been for awhile unlike a majority of others that benefit from this site.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

I will agree to disagree with you. STS would be much of nothing today if it were not for AT, this was their grass roots launching pad and it was all free then. Maybe before they make an anouncement in the future or someone with a relation to them makes an announcement, they will be ready and able to back it up is all I am saying. I will leave now and go shot my bow with the "patent infringing/copy cat" string suppressor on it. Good day and good night to all.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> I will agree to disagree with you. STS would be much of nothing today if it were not for AT, this was their grass roots launching pad and it was all free then. Maybe before they make an anouncement in the future or someone with a relation to them makes an announcement, they will be ready and able to back it up is all I am saying. I will leave now and go shot my bow with the "patent infringing/copy cat" string suppressor on it. Good day and good night to all.


from reading your past posts it won't matter if they do produce a patent number. you still won't be happy. did you just come here to argue or do you have some sort of personal gain or loss from all this?


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

CntrlIaHunter said:


> from reading your past posts it won't matter if they do produce a patent number. you still won't be happy. did you just come here to argue or do you have some sort of personal gain or loss from all this?


If you can read then you see that I have stated several times I have nothing to gain or loss from this. I just find it entertaining that when a STS thread comes up, it is mostly people, like yourself, that are connected to STS that are normally very defensive about anything negatitive said about STS most other people could careless. And you are right about one thing, IF they get a patent it want matter to me, I'll just make my own or use someone elses design since STS want be able to defend their patent across the board. I could do this this all weekend with you but I have a life. So enjoy your weekend.


----------



## shovelhead80 (Sep 24, 2006)

This will be my only post on this. As for publicly stating they have a patent on it. If this is not true then they "STS" can be in big trouble from the patent office. (large fines) It is illegal to claim you have a patent and not have it. Quick Stand is patent pending by the way. Now if they do get approved for there patent the way it is so broadly wrote. Then I am going to get a patent on bow strings and cables, and air also maybe. They are not the first to design a string suppressor. Maybe first on there design. You I think can only get one patent on a product, design or the other one. Not both is my under standing. There is one design I know was out about 6 months before they said they were coming out with one. Did you know when they released theres it looks just like the other guys? So who is stepping on who's toes? 
Just my take on it. OK start the bashing of me now for posting this. And I'm sure you will.
O yes and this is not bashing STS, I have one of theres on a bow. I just like the other one better.


----------



## oldglorynewbie (Oct 17, 2006)

I for one am not going to bash you for your comments. If the patent stands or not is not an issue I am not qualified comment on. I have absolutely no knowledge of patents or patent law.
Any comments I have made have been towards people I thought stepped over the line and certainly never meant to even be argumentative. I try to refute claims by others that I believe are wrong but that is the extent I am willing to go. Have a good weekend.:thumb:


----------



## VictoryDC06 (Sep 9, 2006)

Maybe instead of worrying about filing and fighting a patent and trying to make royalties off of everyone else's products they should be more concerned with actually making and SHIPPING "Their" product.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

:hurt::hurt::deadhorse:whip:


----------



## Mallard Masher (Feb 4, 2007)

ok guys m4m is right sts got the patent on dec 27 07 but it will be 60 to 90 days from that date before you can view it. so nimrod since you know so much about patents why didnt you know that?????? Oh and another thing sts did not use AT to push there product, a shooter at one of the shoots was having trouble with his bow and joe helped him out when the shooter got back home he put it on AT about how the sts helped him out. that is how it got started!!! not joe and brig. And for anyone else out there that thinks sts doesn't have the resources to fight for thier patent your WRONG!!!!


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Mallard Masher said:


> Oh and another thing sts did not use AT to push there product


I will disagree with this, but so what if they did:noidea:...so be it....they are a sponsor now, which is the normal progression one should expect. AT did phenomenal things for STS and if you had been around at that time, you would realize this as well...there is no disputing this fact.


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Mallard Masher said:


> ok guys m4m is right sts got the patent on dec 27 07 but it will be 60 to 90 days from that date before you can view it. so nimrod since you know so much about patents why didnt you know that?????? Oh and another thing sts did not use AT to push there product, a shooter at one of the shoots was having trouble with his bow and joe helped him out when the shooter got back home he put it on AT about how the sts helped him out. that is how it got started!!! not joe and brig. And for anyone else out there that thinks sts doesn't have the resources to fight for thier patent your WRONG!!!!


Oh how little you know, if you had only been around when the STS mania started on AT. STS was here promoting their product, which is not a bad thing and apparently did not violate any rules, way before they were sponsors. As for being a patent expert, I have stated earlier in this thread that I am not, but I know where to look up patents and how once they are officially recorded. Still we have claims and no proof, there should have been a provisional letter or something from the USPTO to indicate a patent has been awarded to STS. This can not be verbal, so until I see proof as stated numerous times I still wander what is what.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Mallard Masher said:


> ok guys m4m is right sts got the patent on dec 27 07 but it will be 60 to 90 days from that date before you can view it. so nimrod since you know so much about patents why didnt you know that??????


Under normal circumstances, the announcement of a patent wouldn't be a big deal, but possibly unbeknownst to you...STS has announced several times that they have received their patent and then "strong-armed" their competition with these bogus claims, when in fact it was never issued. I believe this is where the "controversy" arises...kind of like the little boy that cried wolf:wink:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

Doc said:


> Under normal circumstances, the announcement of a patent wouldn't be a big deal, but possibly unbeknownst to you...STS has announced several times that they have received their patent and then "strong-armed" their competition with these bogus claims, when in fact it was never issued. I believe this is where the "controversy" arises...kind of like the little boy that cried wolf:wink:


Thank you Doc. I guess that is what I have been getting at and you justed worded it perfectly. I have never stated here that STS has not been awarded a patent; I have repeatedly used the word "IF and wander". I just would like to see some proof with this anouncement instead of the old tatics.


----------



## marforme (May 30, 2006)

Doc said:


> Under normal circumstances, the announcement of a patent wouldn't be a big deal, but possibly unbeknownst to you...STS has announced several times that they have received their patent and then "strong-armed" their competition with these bogus claims, when in fact it was never issued. I believe this is where the "controversy" arises...kind of like the little boy that cried wolf:wink:


Well doc I beg to differ. STS received preliminary approval in Dec '06. Since it was locked in at that date they took their time to make all the necessary changes and revisions to cover all the legal bases to protect their interests...something any good lawyer would make sure of before rushing into a final draft. The final approval is Dec '07, but it legally goes back and starts with Dec '06.


----------



## goofy2788 (Aug 14, 2005)

As has been stated here already yes they now have the patent. Those of us who know and talk to Joe and Brigitte on a regular basis know all the details and at this time we have stated what can be stated. That they now hold the patent which became official on Dec 27th 2007. For those who are competitors they already have been or will shortly be informed of how this will affect their business. Please if you don't know, don't assume it isn't true. 

As I stated earlier in this thread, if you have legitamate questions and would like answers please feel free to PM me. I maybe able to get those answers for you....If all you're wanting to do is stir the pot and argue...AT has a forum for that, it's called the bowhunting section.:wink::lol:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

goofy2788 said:


> As has been stated here already yes they now have the patent. Those of us who know and talk to Joe and Brigitte on a regular basis know all the details and at this time we have stated what can be stated. That they now hold the patent which became official on Dec 27th 2007. For those who are competitors they already have been or will shortly be informed of how this will affect their business. Please if you don't know, don't assume it isn't true.
> As I stated earlier in this thread, if you have legitamate questions and would like answers please feel free to PM me. I maybe able to get those answers for you....If all you're wanting to do is stir the pot and argue...AT has a forum for that, it's called the bowhunting section.:wink::lol:


I all know is that we have heard this all before, so if you don't mind I will believe it when I see it which I believe I have a right to state. Why the need to go to PM's, there is nothing to hide?


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> I all know is that we have heard this all before, so if you don't mind I will believe it when I see it which I believe I have a right to state. Why the need to go to PM's, there is nothing to hide?


i have a right to do this too.......:moon::bartstush::elf_moon::wink:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

CntrlIaHunter said:


> i have a right to do this too.......:moon::bartstush::elf_moon::wink:


Yes you do. Isn't it great how we can conduct ourselves in this manner. Man I am glad you speak so well for STS.


----------



## CntrlIaHunter (Feb 11, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> Yes you do. Isn't it great how we can conduct ourselves in this manner. Man I am glad you speak so well for STS.


man i'm glad you don't speak for STS. i wouldn't shoot for them if you were on the team.:zip:


----------



## goofy2788 (Aug 14, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> I all know is that we have heard this all before, so if you don't mind *I will believe it when I see it which I believe I have a right to state.* Why the need to go to PM's, there is nothing to hide?


What do you gain from this? I'm not saying you don't have a right to say it...however you've said it now repeatedly...fine, you don't have to believe it, you've stated that, now don't you think it's time to move on?

Honestly....Is there a reason to continue this style of discussion. As soon as more information can be released it will be. You've questioned the patent and why it isn't on the website yet. The explaination has been stated....more then once as to why it's not there yet you continue to want to argue the point. All I'm asking is if you don't know don't assume, if you don't want to believe us...fine don't believe us, however for someone that has nothing to gain you seem to be awfully concerned about this subject.

As Doc stated yes it has been said before about the patent....as answered by Marforme this process has been going on since 2006 when the patent was first requested. During the last two years the Patent Attorny has been revising the patent to truely reflect what Joe felt it should and what legally they could. Now after the revisions, the reviews, and the legal red tape they were informed that the patent is theirs, issued Dec. 27, 2007. Now as we all know the government is a fast speedy organization that will send them the patent number immediately....right and I'm the best archer in the world It takes a mandatory period after the patent is issued for the website to be updated and for them to receive the actual patent paper work.(all the paper work has to be signed and filled by all the proper people first) 

Once this information is available to STS, it will be made available to the public. As I've stated If someone has specific question regarding the patent and how it may affect thier business then YES I would like for them to PM me. I do not have all the answers but the people who do also try to run a business and do not have the available time to come here and field questions from "patent experts." I will do my best to try to find out those answers.

Once again for those of you who have supported Joe and Brigitte, I'll personnally thank you. You are supporting two very good friends of mine.


----------



## Mallard Masher (Feb 4, 2007)

see there you go again thinkin that u know what your talkn about I have been around since the very begining. I helped him put the very first one on and stood there beside him as he took the first shot and knew he was on to something. And I have sit here and read everything everybody has had to say good and bad so ya I know all about the sts mania


----------



## marforme (May 30, 2006)

Mallard Masher said:


> see there you go again thinkin that u know what your talkn about I have been around since the very begining. I helped him put the very first one on and stood there beside him as he took the first shot and knew he was on to something. And I have sit here and read everything everybody has had to say good and bad so ya I know all about the sts mania


:wave: How ya doing Dave.....keep Joe in line would ya.:wink: :cheers:


----------



## Texbama (Sep 18, 2003)

I do not gain a thing by this really, but it is kind of comical to see some of the reactions. There have been a few some current members and former members of AT that have been bullied by the free shirt/hat wearing STS bunch because of their "copy cat" string suppressors on their bows. Maybe STS will come down hard on some once or if they have an enforcable patent, but why does the free shirt/hat wearing bunch have to be the enforcers on AT instead of letting the owners of STS handle the situation in more professional manner or totally ignore the comments and continue on with business? I guess you could say I am like a duck, when the gang comes charging in like the calvary because they don't like someones response to STS, it just runs right off my back if you know what I mean.


----------



## Bellows1 (Oct 19, 2003)

Thread closed. 



This area is for Manufacturer Announcements and Press Releases, there are other forums for debate.

B1


----------

