While looking for something else I chanced on this vacuum muzzle patent which now puts a name and a date to the invention of the STC X-Power vacuum muzzle.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
Vacuum Muzzle Patent
- Thread starterpopgun pete
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
While looking for something else I chanced on this vacuum muzzle patent which now puts a name and a date to the invention of the STC X-Power vacuum muzzle.
I checked and there does not seem to be a US Patent for this muzzle, at least under the inventor's name. The Designated Contracting States and Designated Extension States tells you where the patent is in force.
If you are up for it, there's some interesting reading somewhere on Dima's website about an STC patent, too. Or rather about STC wanting to go after Dima for breaching patent. If I recall correctly, Dima on the other hand feels he proved that he had made vac muzzles well before STC and points to some Ukranians/Russians doing it way back when.
This is your turf but to me, the world of patents seems full or loop holes, but a bit like the UN, it's kinda the best we have...;-)
This is your turf but to me, the world of patents seems full or loop holes, but a bit like the UN, it's kinda the best we have...;-)
Last edited:
A patent protects the rights of the patent holder to the commercial exploitation of the idea in the national jurisdictions that the patent is actually registered in, even though the idea may have been in private use before, but that does not invalidate the patent. The period of protection is limited to a certain number of years, depending on the individual circumstances, and then expires. Patent searches prior to granting a new patent are intended to eliminate the possibility of “prior art”, that is the idea being part of an earlier patent. For example there is a rollergun patent that was granted a decade or so back that covers ideas that were in use at least a decade before it was applied for, but no one bothered to patent those ideas earlier, so the door was open for someone to do so. However the prior “inventors” can still use the idea, they are only restricted by the patent if they want to sell items employing that idea. What has made this system less effective, particularly with spearguns, is that buyers can directly purchase via the internet what may be infringing items in other countries and bring them in as private imports, unlike an official local distributor of that competing product who could be challenged by the patent holder, as to my knowledge no one is policing those private imports for personal use.
A minor change to a given design is all that is required to get around an existing patent, and given the fragmented nature of the spearfishing industry, chasing patent infringements may incur more costs than the rewards any successful court action would bring. Many vacuum barrel guns use rubber nozzle type seals rather than “O” rings as the vacuum seal onto the shaft surface and that idea should fall outside the scope of the STC patent which employs the latter. In Russia the “Taimen” Company has patents on its pneumovacuum gun, but that has not stopped the idea being copied, even in its own market, with minor variations. The key to success is to churn guns out and meet market demand rather than sit on a patent and taking on manufacturers from all over the planet who may be in jurisdictions that are not very respectful of patents.
A minor change to a given design is all that is required to get around an existing patent, and given the fragmented nature of the spearfishing industry, chasing patent infringements may incur more costs than the rewards any successful court action would bring. Many vacuum barrel guns use rubber nozzle type seals rather than “O” rings as the vacuum seal onto the shaft surface and that idea should fall outside the scope of the STC patent which employs the latter. In Russia the “Taimen” Company has patents on its pneumovacuum gun, but that has not stopped the idea being copied, even in its own market, with minor variations. The key to success is to churn guns out and meet market demand rather than sit on a patent and taking on manufacturers from all over the planet who may be in jurisdictions that are not very respectful of patents.
Last edited:
The ability of the shaft tail stop diameter to push through the vacuum seal is in my view the superior system as it allows a rear tethered spear to be used. The rubber nozzle type vacuum seals can be stretched to provide a momentarily larger diameter opening than the shaft diameter is, particularly if the water already trapped in the muzzle nose spreads the seal lip just as the shaft shoulder step arrives.