Sledgehammer Update

mr8ball said:
Attention all. Mike Gulyassy has got his patent on his break cue. This means that all billiard suppliers and cue makers that have been selling and using a C grade phenolic or any other resilient material as a one piece ferial-tip unit used for breaking or jumping has to stop.

Grants to the person (s) having title to this patent the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention through the United States of America This is what is in writing on the United States of America or importing the invention into the United States of America for the term set forth, subject to the payment of maintenance fees as provided by law.

I would like to be one of the first to congratulate Mike on this great achievement.
Click to expand...


There is virtually no way to defend this "patent" in court. Mike will see that when he tries to enforce it. People have been using hard materials on jump cues for nearly 20 years. Mike did not invent it at all.

Watch and see what happens when Mike's attorneys start trying to bully some of the companies who are using a hard material on the end of their shafts.

I will bet $1000 right now that Mike's patent will either be voided (I have no clue as to exactly how it's written) or vastly curtailed when faced with the evidence that the patent examiners most likely had no access to. It's like trying to patent a coffee cup. Things that are public domain are not patentable.

John
 
onepocketchump said:
There is virtually no way to defend this "patent" in court. Mike will see that when he tries to enforce it. People have been using hard materials on jump cues for nearly 20 years. Mike did not invent it at all.

Watch and see what happens when Mike's attorneys start trying to bully some of the companies who are using a hard material on the end of their shafts.

I will bet $1000 right now that Mike's patent will either be voided (I have no clue as to exactly how it's written) or vastly curtailed when faced with the evidence that the patent examiners most likely had no access to. It's like trying to patent a coffee cup. Things that are public domain are not patentable.

John
Click to expand...
Very well said sir.
Plus the hot ticket right now is threading the canvas resin into Ivorine 4. Seems to work better than the one piece...plus zero breakage issues.;)
His claim is on the one piece, like I often use...and Fury as well.
 
I just read through the patent. This has NO CHANCE of holding up in court.

Sorry Mike but this one won't fly at all. The problems your "invention" claims to solve have been "solved" long before the Sledgehammer was in existence.

Furthermore, the claims of improved performance are exaggerated or untrue.

This is nothing more than patent-squatting claim. I.e. one designed with the sole purpose of extortion in mind. I can tell you right now that Mike is going to have a severe fight on his hands if he tries to force certain companies to either stop selling the cues they are already making or to attempt to charge damages or a licensing fee.

Now, beyond that I have already designed in the course of three minutes at least four ways to make a cue that performs as well or better than Mike's that would be uncontestable in court based on how the patent is written.

Like I said before - no chance - Mike from Omega is being bullied and EXTORTED into not displaying and selling his wares that he has every right to do.

I don't think this is a good think for Mike Gulyassey to do at all. Not at all. I am all for someone protecting their designs and intellectual property having been a victim of design theft myself. I am not into extortion because you think you can. Sorry Mike, it wasn't your idea to round off hard material so it could facilitate the jump shot and by extension the break shot. You weren't the first to think of it nor were you the first to do it as evidenced by the patent references in your patent.

John
 
I am a firm believer in spending my energy and precious time in improving my design and building the best product with the best quality to benefit the customers.

If someone tries to copy my design, I will just come up with something better. I would like to see if anyone can catch up with me.

It is only going to benefit the customers when companies keep coming up with new products of better quality other than wasting their time attacking each other.

I have been spending all my time and energy in selling my cues during this year's US Open, and I only have one X Breaker left. I think a member here on az might want to pick that up on Friday, but if he is too late, it will be gone.

By the way, Doug, thank you for using the X Breaker.

Richard
 
Last edited:
Patent very specific

It says ABS material only!!!!
it says one peice joint ferrulle only!!!
it says treaded only!!!!!

So , anything not ABS can be used and not violate the patent!
You can use two peice design with ferrullle and phenolic tip!
You can us non-treaded tenon and not infring!

His claim is very limited and he knows it. He can not stop anyone with a competing product on the grounds that it is a hard surface on a wooden tenon.

Plus, his patent does not stop the sale of goods made prior to his patent award. In this country ex-po facto rules apply. It is not a violation if the patent was not awarded or in effect at the time of production. So. sell away. You just can't produce any more for 10 years or until his patent expires or you compensate him for the use.

Plus, have any of you spoke to Mike G. If you wanted to produce using your design or his he could only expect 1 dollar per use or maybe 50 cent tops if even that. how many break cues are being made that infringe??? it sure cant top a thousand or two a year. So, all that for 2 thousand a year for 10 years tops!!!!!

I just don't see the point!!! Plus, Mc dermott has so many stock piled that his patent ONLY stops new production. Not the sale of items pre patent award.

Just some thoughts from someone who is not an expert on these things

Kid
Dynomite
 
I think it's a great, novel idea to patent or even attempt to, but the real issue when it comes to pool cues today is quality workmanship, especially when you get up into the $300 range. Not high end custom cues at this price, but for a break cue, it's a lot, and most would want chose a quality product that was recommended to them over the hype a cue generates.


That said, really enjoyed the time Mike G. spent with me on the telephone, and even though I had some issues he seemed to take it personally to heart, and I felt like I was being taken care of.

I wouldn't hesite to recommend his cues or any of his services to anyone.
 
catscradle said:
Madison Bob said the one-piece ferrule on my j/b was hemp. Is that a resilient material? I don't know, but breaks and jumps a damn sight better than my old Sledgehammer did. I guess I can always smoke it if it's deemed a patent violation.
Click to expand...


Laughing so hard coke just came out my nose..
 
Gregg said:
His patent is not new, so why call this an update?
.
Click to expand...
It is new. His patent was denied previously, but he was somehow able to bring it back to life. Apparently, whatever wording was used got through. The last I talked to Mike, it was still pending.

Fred
 
Bamacues said:
Secondly, as I see it anyway, the second generation Sledgehammer cues had so many issues of warpage, loose joint pins as described earlier and so many other cues have been introduced which use different technology to achieve the same effect, that the demand for the Sledgehammer in my area is almost non-existent. If they were to take the quality of the product back to what it was in the beginning, that might change.
Click to expand...
Dammit I have to respond to this. Mike spent entirely too much time trying to separate from the "second generation" fiasco. That was the McDermott partnership, and it's probably the other legal battles the other poster mentioned. No Sledgehammer II's are being manufactured at all, ever.

The fact is that Mike did get away from the Sledgehammer II manufacture(after only a few months of production), and he did return to his original mass produced partner. He also started an upper-level generation of Sledgehammer cues that he builds solely in Greenville, SC. According to his new site, it looks like he's saying that he's also gotten away from his original manufacturing partner, and is building the original Sledgehammer (Type 1) at his new shop as well.

http://www.sledgehammerinc.com/

Fred
 
onepocketchump said:
Sorry Mike, it wasn't your idea to round off hard material so it could facilitate the jump shot and by extension the break shot. You weren't the first to think of it nor were you the first to do it as evidenced by the patent references in your patent.

John
Click to expand...
Yeah, but was he the first to patent it?

I guy named "Meucci" comes to mind. Antonio Meucci.

Fred
 
I noticed when reading the Sledgehammer patent that another patent concerning jump cues is mentioned: 5,326,329 by Doss. Granted, this patent mentions adjustable weights in the handle, but I don't believe all jump cue manufacturers have to pay a licensing fee to Doss.

-djb
 
Gregg said:
His patent is not new, so why call this an update?

BTW I hope he does patent the shaft used on the Sledgehammer, so that nobody copies them. I wouldn't want anybody who paid $300 for a cue to suffer through the same problems I had with two of them, eventually having to pay $70 more for a new "custom" joint pin and shaft.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you could elaborate a little on this...I currently have a S.H (Looks exactly like the birdseye with black wrap type 1 in the ad page) & notice that both joints tend to come loose between breaks...

I am in the habit now of checking the cue to make sure its tight before breaking each time, but wonder why it tends not want to stay tight....(escpecially where the butt meets the shaft)

I am about ready to sell it anyway...cause its too thick in the butt & shaft for my sausage finger hands.
 
nipponbilliards said:
I am a firm believer in spending my energy and precious time in improving my design and building the best product with the best quality to benefit the customers.

If someone tries to copy my design, I will just come up with something better. I would like to see if anyone can catch up with me.

It is only going to benefit the customers when companies keep coming up with new products of better quality other than wasting their time attacking each other.

I have been spending all my time and energy in selling my cues during this year's US Open, and I only have one X Breaker left. I think a member here on az might want to pick that up on Friday, but if he is too late, it will be gone.

By the way, Doug, thank you for using the X Breaker.

Richard
Click to expand...


You are preaching to the CHOIR brother, amen, sing it loud.

John
 
Cornerman said:
Yeah, but was he the first to patent it?

I guy named "Meucci" comes to mind. Antonio Meucci.

Fred
Click to expand...

I don't get the reference but it doesn't matter. Whether it be patents or trademarks fair use prevails. If something has been in wide use in commerce in an unpatented form then one does not get the right to patent it and start charging money for it.

Just because no one patented chopsticks I don't get the right to go and patent them and start charging Chinese restaurants a fee for the right to offer their customers chopsticks. Nor do I get the right to forbid it.

Beyond fair use, there is the question of innovation. Mike claims that his "invention" allows for the cueball to be jumped with less angle than with other pool cues, including the ones he cited as related patents. This is not true. The Sledgehammer Cue in it's first and subsequent incarnations has never been able to signifigantly improve the ability to jump a cue ball any more than several dozen cues that were on the market long before the Sledgehammer came out.

Don't get me wrong. I think Mike builds a fine cue. I don't think that he invented anything signifigantly new and innovative though.

John
 
onepocketchump said:
You are preaching to the CHOIR brother, amen, sing it loud.

John
Click to expand...
John,

I like competition and I am all for innovation. I hate it when someone tries to copy my marketing approach or design...

It is like playing a game of pool. Two players can have respect for each other and still compete in a gentleman like manner. In such case, the pool lovers and audience get to watch a fine game.

Same with business competition, customers can enjoy the options of fine products when all companies are coming up with better designs all the time. We can still respect each other and focus on improving ourselves.

Besides, I do not think canvas phenolic is really such a great material nor do I find it durable. So, why not move on and use something better?

From what I understand, Mike is a great guy and a great player. I have seen his high end work and they are very nice. He has a nice line up with the Japanese and I think that is great. I want to see him keep improving himself and continue to offer his customers the best quality.

The battle against overseas copies is an uphill battle. It will cost not only money but also lots of mental and emotional energy that one can use in better ways.

I would recommend Mike to focus on building a great product rather than wasting his time in fight such a battle is all I am trying to say.

All the best to Mike and his product.:)

Regards,
Richard
 
The patent office is a joke.

If you submit something enough times eventually it gets through. Some of the insane things that have been "approved" boggle the mind and make you wonder who exactly is in charge of all of this.

Why do we need separate patents for things "on the internet"? Why are things like "1 click shopping" allowed to be patented?

The problem is that the patent office has no problem pumping out thousands of patents then leaving businesses to foot the bill for endless legal battles to ultimately void or alter a patent that should have never been issued to begin with.

There are companies who exist solely to file patents for things in the hopes they can sue for them in the future, even though they never implemented or produced ANYTHING and the sad thing is they usually are able to settle out of court for large sums of money.

Patening something unique I have no problem with and I applaud the inventor but something like this is just ridiculous. All it makes me want to do is not buy the product.
 
onepocketchump said:
I don't get the reference but it doesn't matter. Whether it be patents or trademarks fair use prevails. If something has been in wide use in commerce in an unpatented form then one does not get the right to patent it and start charging money for it.
Click to expand...

Many Italians point to Antonio Meucci as the inventor of the telephone. The going urban legend is that he was only moments late in patenting the invention, with A.G. Bell beating him to the patent office. Bell gets the patent. Meucci gets nothing.

Anyway, I know that Mike tried to get this thing patented years ago right at the SledgeHammer beginning, but it got rejected. So, it's not like he was trying to do it after it got widely used in the industry. Since it got rejected, there must have been some reason at the patent office why. And since it's patented now, I have no idea what the wording change is, and what is actually "protected." And, of course, I have no idea how much it would cost to defend whatever it is that's supposedly protected.

Apart from that, doesn't Mike get any credit (forget about patents) from you guys as to being the innovator of making the ferrule/tip combination? Is it such a leap to think that all of the following j/b cues that have installed phenolic ferrule/tip combos for jump/breaking did so because of Gulyassy? They were copying, were they not? I know Hightower had a jump rod before the SledgeHammer, but did it have an installed ferrule/tip? Did the multitude of SledgeHammer copycats copy the Jump Rod or were they copying the SledgeHammer?

Fred
 
Everyone is doing it now because the pretense of having a "tip" on the end of a cue is no longer needed.

It is reported however that Pat Fleming "invented" the jump cue when he used a cue with no leather tip on it to jump with.

Years before the Sledgehammer came out there was a company in Germany who was making jump cues with tipless rounded ferrules, Oliver Stops.

I could make a claim that Mike's claims are just an extension of the designs for the Bunjee Jumper.

He doesn't get credit from me because I know that there were and are plenty of guys who were doing the same thing on a smaller scale than Mike well before Mike brought out the Sledgehammer nationally.

The Bunjee Jumper stems from an ORIGINAL design by Hans Jorg Bertram, a cuemaker in Germany. It was "improved" and mass produced, with no credit to Bertram by Oliver Stops. A version based on these models was made by Franz Hauber who provided the basis for the Bunjee Jumper.

Even if I were to grant you that Mike was the first to use a ferrule as the tip, which I do not, it is not a signifigant performance increase as is claimed in the patent. Nor was it the first to provide "a tip that does not ever need to be replaced". If anything, Mike popularized a technique that was already in use and is a slightly more efficient way of achieving the same goal.

On a political note, some could rightfully argue that the rise of such "tipless" ferrules has increased the ire of pool's purists and made them even more adamant to call for banning jump cues all together.

Mike is copied like I was was copied. You can't patent basic utility. Rounding a ferrule on the end of a cue doesn't make it perform any better than gluing a flat bottomed piece of the same material to a flat surface on the end of the cue. That's the bottom line.

I don't care how much he tried to patent it, whether it was rejected or approved or not. It won't hold up in court. It won't even get to court and will cost a bunch of money to try.

The sad part is that Mike probably spent a bunch of money getting it done. I am sure no lawyer that he used explained the futility of trying to defend it. You want a patent? Sure we'll write it up for you, send us $5,000 and we'll get it done. I could be way off base here but I doubt it.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top