Air-lock joint patent

[mchpddl1]

Hi,

I read somewhere in this forum that the air-lock joint was actually created and patented by chinese.

Does it mean that each cue make who uses air-lock joint need to pay for a fee for this including manufacturers such as Omin etc ?

How does this system work? Thanks in advance.......just curious to know.

[keith auld]

good question - the original comment came from a thread from JP1 of the Indian Ocean territories and came as a repsnse to various threads on the John Parris Cues link - it makes very interesting reading so I've copied it in it's entirity below - my comments will follw that

Thanks for proof reading my post Mike, maybe they would have been more successful using my spelling?

John Parris has summonsed the demons himself by proclaiming to be the worlds leading cue expert whose products are of a standard others try to aspire to, and he will be judged by that claim, if you care to compare, John has lifted much of what he claims straight from the Peradon website, so much for innovation.
Anyone may knock Parris but you cannot deny his ability to market himself and to project a trade logo recognized around the world, all of that has been associated with and probably still is a lot of hard work and dedication, not to mention the money, the cues he provides pro bono for the leading pros have got to be paid for by other means.

As the old saying goes, the harder I work the luckier I get.

My opinion is that problems and complaints arise when the product fails to live up to the sales hype, I invite everyone to look at these two Parris ultimate cues for sale on ebay no's 110253901259 & 110253910775 and tell me that this is the pinnacle of cue craftsmenship, and before the usual Parris defence force jumps in, these cues are 100% authentic, you may also ask ebay why they no longer remove obvious Parris copies from their site, the answer you will get is that John had complained in the past that EVERY cue on ebay was a fake, for obvious reasons, it has crossed my mind that he may be quite happy to have these fakes float around on ebay, it offers a convenient way to explain away some of his lesser creations, oh that cue, yes that is an obvious fake;;
He could easily produce cues in a way which does not allow copies to be made, but I suspect he may not want to, as this would lock in those cues to him. No one can claim that cues produced in Asia are worse then those produced in England, you get good and bad in both countries, England has the edge simply because all the snooker events take place there, all the players are there and it is easier for them to get in touch with the cuemaker whenever they need to, the cues made today by O Min or Master Cue are as good as the best produced in England, and they have moved to protect their product by hallmarking the brass joints and logo discs in a way that is not easy copied, O Min was the first to use the vacuum joint, he hallmarks the joint which was patented by Luo Pei who founded the Hengxuan Billiards Factory in the south of China, and not in England,all those who know Luo Pei will also know of his early association with most, especially the better known, cue manufacturers in the UK, there are some diabolical cues being made in China as well, if Dominic Dale is still on this forum he may give his comments on cues he had made by Luo Pei and how they compare to the very best produced in England ?
Buying a cue is a personal thing, not just from what suits you length weight and feel wise, I have a number of one off cues, including a very early Parris one piece, which is a truly magnificent cue, I would not buy one of his current cues because they are not made by him, but that is just me, just a few eeks ago I took delivery of another special made by what I regard as one of the best cue makers in England, I appreciate the tradition of English cue making and effort that went into finishing that cue, I have the exact same cue made by Master Cue & O Min both at least as good in quality and better in finish, there is not one linishing mark visible on the butt from both O Min & Master Cue, and they were 4 times cheaper, so from a players point of view, these cues are superb cues to own and play with, I am happy to pay what I have paid for the English cue,and will continue to buy on that basis, it is my decission and that in my opinion is how it should be, if you are happy to buy just a name in John Parris knowing he had nothing to do with the creation of your cue, then do so, it is your choice and your money, feeling happy about your cue will allow you to play your best whether you pay 20or 2000 pounds for a cue.

I have never had a cue made by Keith Auld, if you read this post Keith how can I get hold of one of your cues? would love to have one.

If these joints are indeed patented on a worldwide patent then the answer to your question is - yes a royalty would have to be paid to the patent holder for every joint used and if these were used without the written permission of the patent holder then anyone using these joints would also be subject to a fine for blatent abuse of copyright.
However, litigation in these cicumstances is very expensive and not usually taken to court because of this fact; although in this case the only proof reqired would be to obtain just 1 cue from each manufacturer who's illegally used this joint and enter a claim against them and then let them prove or disprove the number of cues they have sold bearing this joint. This tactic is usually used to put the onus on the manufacturer to disprove the size of the claim made against them. In most cases the small manufacturer in this country would probably choose bankruptcy than go through the costs or pay the claim made against them

[Wity]

Can anyone on this forum whose read any of Mike Wooldridges character from his posts really believe he's paying royalties to a chinaman or would even contemplate copying a foreign designed part to use in his cues?

C'mon he's a West Ham fan for crying out loud, goes to all the hammers matches with Alf Garnet and salutes the Queens picture every morning.

[MikeWooldridge]

can you patent something that already exists?....

any cue join made can be made slightly differently using existing threads but nothing clever enough to make it patentable. i would have thought...

the hunt & o'byrne join is 1/2" whitworth thread. standard stock, freely available and bought 'off the shelf' from any engineer. i don't know the name rees but i know several engineers who've made exactly the same join for me in the past.

likewise, the 'airlock' consists of a 5/16" whitworth thread. again, freely available. it's recessed, not rocket science.

i was actually told, years and years ago, that it was originally used in a completely different industry in a slightly different form. not sure what, but it would appear to be same old story - old idea re-worked.

i could be wrong about all this, but at the end of the day, many chinese manufacturers copy and 'rip off' genuine patents every day. i really can't imagine anyone caring about a handful of cue joins, whether there is a genuine patent on the design or not.

finally, wity, no i wouldn't contemplate paying royalties. but that's cos i'm a tightarse and nothing to do with being a west ham fan...

and weren't all cues originally made in france? which means we've all copied the frenchies!

sacre bleu!...

on a serious note, i really don't believe one's character is compromised if foreign designed parts are employed no matter what line of work you are in. 'foreign' does not equal 'bad'.

as with all industries, it does not matter where, who, why, when an item was produced. as long as it does the job, comes in at the right quality/price etc., etc..

finally, keith, could you pm me mick rees' number please. i would like to discuss some join stuff with him. cheers.

[Wity]

That's a shame in a way Mike, I was hoping you were gonna say yes I pay royalties cuz I had my reply ready...

"kin ell you'll be telling us next you drink lager and not real ale "

[keith auld]

Hi Mike - I'll speak to Mick tonight and get his ok to pass on his number - I do know that he doesn't want to get back to doing the sort of quantities that he used to do for Hunt & O'Byrne and myself, and at the moment is struggling to keep up with my work; particularly as I now have cue orders for China as well as repairs and cue alterations coming from China to me, and they're asking him to make and fit joints into other makers cues to the spec he used to do in Hunt & O'byrne cues and mine back in the 1980's.
By the way Mick never patented his cue joints, but he's been copied by a few and gets really ****** off when he sees them, particularly when they're inferior quality to those he makes, are of poorer quality brass and being copied by people he helped when they were first starting off in this business. I'll let you know how Mick feels - one way or the other

[MikeWooldridge]

cheers keith.

i don't want mick to do any work, i just want a chat so would appreciate being able to contact him.

lol. i'm one of those who 'copied' them. ironically enough cos my hong kong/chinese customers 'demanded' the 'hunt' join.

mine were certainly not inferior. actually improved the basic internal design. and my engineer used top quality brass.

eventually stopped using them cos 90% of customers don't like them cos of the size. i think they're a good solid join, albeit a bit heavy, but it's just the hong kong/chinese market who seemed to really like them.

but that's definitely changed a lot in recent years. i've been sending cues to the far east for 15 years or more and am doing more business there now than ever. but rarely do i get asked for the 'hunt' join now.

i think in general they've got over the hunt & o'byrne thing now, primarily due to the huge influx and influence of the thai cues. o'min being the major contributor, ironically enough with the airlock join...

Mick....really ****** off.....copied by people he helped when they were first starting off in this business.

i'm intrigued. it appears he got stitched up. who are you talking about?

[keith auld]

i'm intrigued. it appears he got stitched up. who are you talking about?

I'd never say - it's best left that way!!

You'd be surprised at the names on the cues that are coming to me from the far east, already owned by my clients customers, that want Mick Rees' joint - pulling out those that are already in situ and replacing - (Far East as well as well known UK makers) - the reason I said about the quality of the brass Mick uses is that one of the players in Southampton had a cue with a joint copied from Mick and the brass was a bit soft and the thread started collapsing and brought it to me as he knew that I dealt solely with Mick and when Mick saw it he said that it was substandard - removed the whole thing and replaced it, and it was definitely inferior to Mick's. I'm not really one to judge - I used to do all my own joints when I moved to Southampton from London (couldn't be hassled with 130 mile round trip every time) and had a large engineering lathe in the workshop - but in all honesty, I can't do the job Mick does for me, certainly not at the price he charges me; he handmakes each joint, cuts the cue (if 1 piece), taps a thread inside the cue, fits, finishes, alligns the grain if necessary, and makes sure every cue - tip and butt run true and so makes certain everything is straight. At the same time as he's doing the jointing he uses my intructions of where the customer wants his weight and balance and does the cue to exactly where the customer wants it. He then tuns it at the joint to it's lowest point which when it comes back for finishing gives me a perfect round from which to run out my final taper and finish the cue. It's amazing how much time it saves me and allows me to concentrate purely on making cues. I find it's worth the journey

[cacabunjas]

didnt know you were a hammers fan !

I dont mean to go off topic but mike i did not realize you were a hammers fan so thought i would let you all see the case i made , funny enough i am a utd fan (shhhh!!!!) and spent wednesday evening finnishing off the case in front of the telly as we won the cup.

[cacabunjas]

Ohh and the cue aint bad either !
hope you had a good one !

[MikeWooldridge]

I dont mean to go off topic but mike i did not realize you were a hammers fan

i usually keep it to myself.

dangerous information in the hands of the likes of archalf1471...

so thought i would let you all see the case i made

very nice mate. you've done really well with the cases etc.. it's not an easy thing to do...

[poolqjunkie]

If the joint was patented in China, then anyone who uses or manufactures this joint in China without the inventor's consent is in violation. But in order for the inventor to pursue this claim in another country, he will need to have his design patented in the patent office in that country as well. I know that some countries would allow a patent protected when it is registered in another country due to some treaty signed between these countries, but I do not believe China and the Uk have such an agreement.
Now, if the joint is being used in the UK, but is manufactured in China, and the inventor can prove that fact(it could be very difficult to prove the origin of manufacturing sometimes, and the factory can always move to another place), he may be able to apply an injunction to the manufacturing of the joint in China and the export of the joint from China, may be even the traders of the joint in other countries. But this can be quite tricky to enforce.
In reality, it is almost impossible to pursue such a claim in a place like China, because making illegal copies and infringement of copyright is such a common practise over there.
You can always check to see if a design is patented in the UK or any country by looking up the patent number.
According to the laws in Canada and the US, if an item is patented, the patent number should be listed clearly on the item(or the box containing the item...etc) so other people can take note and will not therefore infringe its patent either intentionally or unintentionally. When an item has applied for a patent, then "patent pending" should be printed on the item to notify the public until the patent is granted. When it is impossible to print such numbers or wordings on the item, then a reasonable effort needs to be made to make this information avaliable to whoever may be using or buying this item. Usually, the patent information will be printed on the container or on a tag or so on. Without making it clear to the public that an item has been patented, the inventor will find it very difficult to pursue any claim should an infringement occur. In order to protect their rights, almost everyone who has a patent on a product will let the public know that, by making the patent number clearly visible. Is this the case in the UK, I dont know, but I would imagine so.
I have never seen the airlock joint before it is installed in a cue, so I do not know if there is any notice that it was patented shown anywhere on the joint or the box such as a number engraved or something like that. Somehow, I doubt it.
I agree with Mike that even if this joint was indeed patented, the matrix thread can be changed to void the patent, while the joint can still serve the same function--so the idea of patenting such a joint is quite silly in my opinion.
With regard to a joint not being able to be patented, actually cue joints have been patented in the US--the Uniloc company has patented its uniloc and radial pin joint as far as I know. I believe a French Canadian cue maker has patented a conical joint as well.

[Wity]

cacabunjas, dont ask me how I knew he was a Hammers fan I aint got a clue who told me I would never of guessed it, I only need to look at that characture of his and it screams Millwall to me.
Showed it to next doors cat last week and he aint beem seen since let alone peeing on me roses

[mattyuk]

shows how **** my art is then.

[ADR147]

the basic desgn of all cue joints is older than a copywrite lasts anyway. and china is not exactly known for looking after other people protected designs is it!!