When does Predator's patent expire?

Grilled Cheese

Grilled Cheese

p.i.i.t.h.
Silver Member
First off, I'm not an expert by any means ...and I have not done extensive research but though I'd ask anyway since there's a lot of knowledgeable folks here.

I know that Predator has many patents.

But the key design element, the heart of what has given Predator the advantage in low deflection all these years has been having a bored out shaft at the tip end.

Other manufacturers have come close, but have yet to match or exceed Predator's performance, because no matter what they try, they cannot get lower mass than air. Simple at that. Foam and all this other nonsense...more mass than air.

That said, I Googled some of their patents, and they have several and several of them refer to many of the same design principles. These date from 1994ish onward to 2005.

My understand is that patents of such type are valid from 20 years from the filing date listed on the patent.

Predator also describes much of their research and the results of such research in their patents - particularly that lower mass toward the end of the shaft is beneficial for low deflection, but more specifically - the lower the mass closer to the tip, the greater the improvement in low deflection is. It isn't just about having a low total weight/mass in the first 4-5 inches...it's also about having the lowest possible mass toward the tip. Hence how they bore out the shafts with a wider bore toward the tip, and a smaller diameter bore further down. Obviously, a balance between low mass and durability.


One of their patents expires next month. Others may have already expired. Some will be expiring in the next 18-24 months.

Why do I bring this up? Well first of all, while there's about a dozen low deflection shafts on the market - I'm not sure any of them have a bored shaft that is left empty. Is this true?

I suppose what I'm getting at is -- once other manufacturers can do this, they should all be able to at least meet Predator's low deflection performance. Something they've come close to, but haven't matched. One might think they'll surpass being that they've come close without having to bore the shaft and leave it empty. But the research shows that there's a sort of diminishing returns factor here. An empty shaft is what is needed to get that last bit of low deflection performance after thin/short ferrules, small diameter tips....

Probably makes sense now why Predator released the REVO. It's not like anything in the REVO wasn't thought of more than a decade ago. Or that the technology or materials or manufacturing capability wasn't there. I believe they have a composite shaft patent for that going back a decade.

This is a way for them to change the market attitudes and perceptions toward the next best thing. Just my theory. At some point, everyone else will be able to offer the same, and they need a way to differentiate now.


Time and time again, on this forum and across the web the question is asked "How does _______ compare to the Predator _______"

And the answer is always "It's low deflection but not as low as Predator"


That could change very soon. Would be great to see OB, Mezz, and all the others put out shafts that are as low deflection as the 314 and Z series....they're close now, but not as good.
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Why do I bring this up? Well first of all, while there's about a dozen low deflection shafts on the market - I'm not sure any of them have a bored shaft that is left empty. Is this true?
Click to expand...

Others can license the patent from Predator or remove mass in a way that is not covered by the Predator patents.

People (not manufactures) can chuck up the shaft in a lathe, drill and bore any size and depth or any shape hole they want in their own cue. What patents prevent is making money off such a modification.

I suppose what I'm getting at is -- once other manufacturers can do this, they should all be able to at least meet Predator's low deflection performance. Something they've come close to, but haven't matched. One might think they'll surpass being that they've come close without having to bore the shaft and leave it empty. But the research shows that there's a sort of diminishing returns factor here. An empty shaft is what is needed to get that last bit of low deflection performance after thin/short ferrules, small diameter tips....
Click to expand...

Structural mechanics says that there are other ways to remove weight:
a) removes a conical shaped volume at the back of the tenon
b) put a conical or parabolic shape at the back end of the bored hole
c) line the inside of the hole with CF so the strength of the shaft is not compromised
d) make the tenon out of CF
e) ...
 
I am not sure any patents they have make them better than other shafts. Plenty of shafts are about as low deflection as them, there are many multi part shafts, and lots of shafts have better hit feel than theirs. The Revo was the only shaft from them that I thought was ahead of anything else I tried so far, but even then I only compared it to wood shafts, not from the other 3 or more makers that make carbon fiber shafts.

And as always, the lowest deflection does not make for the better shaft for all players, in fact there are many players that would drop a full level of skill if you had them play with an LD shaft.
 
The 5-inch long hole has expired or not renewed afaik.

OB1 is bored all the way through.
Several use carbon fiber tube in the center . Whether partial or end to end .

These low deflection performances eventually have diminishing value to me .

Does it really matter if one shaft has 20% less deflection than Revo . Or 33% less ?

The shooter will still have to compensate for some deflection and throw .

If you shoot crooked or can't visualize deflection and/or throw, almost zero deflection shaft ain't gonna help you.

Don't even get me started with barbox players playing with Revo.
 
Isn't the conical cuts on tenon the Meucci a work-around on their Power Piston?

I thought OB filled their shafts with foam? As to not infringe on Predator's patent.

I'm sincerely asking, but wasn't the Predator patent on the design and concept of having a bored out (regardless of bore design, as in their patent they show many different iterations of boring the shaft) ...and air filled shaft?

That is ultimately what does make it the lowest deflecting shaft, the idea that none of these other low deflection techniques can be lighter or lesser mass than air...Engineer away all they want.

All things being equal, the other manufacturers - thanks to Predator's patent, have been forced to innovate other ways to bring down end-mass to as low as possible short of boring it out and leaving it empty.

In this thread I'm not making any arguments or debates about the validity or benefits of low deflection. Nor whether that is actually better for all players. That's a different topic.

This is about the patent(s) which have allowed Predator a measurable advantage in low deflection over all others.


We're talking about 20 years now....and no other manufacturer has been able to match Predator. Like I said, they've come close. Very close. Again, I'm not arguing the merits or lack thereof to one's game, whether 20% vs 21% less deflection means anything.


But I think it is safe to say that these small percentage points have allowed Predator to market their shafts, with pretty bar charts and graphs and base their marketing on performance. They have also been able to make the claim they are the lowest deflection shafts, and do so without being called out on it.

This has allowed Predator to become a market leader. Love or hate them, they are huge. This proves people gravitate toward good marketing, and of course, top performance even if it is only a little bit more.


I haven't seen sectioned shafts of all these different makes and models of low deflection shafts. I cannot say for sure. So perhaps some of them did license Predator's design? I doubt it for two reasons...

1. Their shaft would end up costing too much due to licensing fee, making it noncompetitive with Predator.

2. Their shaft would and should perform equally to the Predator. None do...which is a very strong indicator that they are not using that design.


If there are makers of shafts who bore out the shaft at the tip end, and leave it empty in the manner that Predator does to make it low deflection - then well, they really suck at engineering and manufacturing shafts if they cannot match Predator.

Or, they've found a different way to bore a shaft which gives them a plausible way to avoid patent infringement or DETER litigation attempts it by making it an iffy matter. That's fine, but whatever method they've devised, such a design or work around causes such shafts to not perform as well.
 
Advertising is what has given them the advantage . Many make great low deflection cues but they don’t have the presence in pool rooms and pro shops the way predator does. Hell I don’t even think the average person that plays with a predator has any idea what’s in the shaft that makes it low deflection.
 
Is there a question here? I've read thru a couple of lonnnng posts and not sure exactly what you're asking. Are you planning on going into the shaft business? Just curious. BTW, there's a number of shafts that compete dead-even with Predator as far as deflection and often they feel better as well. I had a OBClassic+ that had less squirt at all speeds and felt WAY better than any Pred. i'd ever hit. The Jacoby shaft is another i'd buy before Predator. I do like the Vantage but not enough to pay what they want for it.
 
Last edited:
To be more specific, others have already started making there own Carbon Composite shafts.

I'm sure you read that Cuetecs will be out next month.
Mika was shooting with a prototype from Mezz at the International.
Jacoby has one coming out in April. I hit balls with it at their booth at the International.

I guess like anything, you can make it similar but also different enough to where its not in violation of any patents.
 
You left out an important factor in the production of any good: cost.

Today, there are LOTS of CF layup possibilities, as far as production facilities go. A decade ago, far fewer.

Go to alibaba.com and search 'carbon', for a real eye opener into what is made/ sold/ bought and crazy cheap prices...today.

And to that point...you can get a carbon fiber bike frame for (edit: UNDER $150!!). And it is made up of a whole lotta revos.;)
Grilled Cheese said:
First off, I'm not an expert by any means ...and I have not done extensive research but though I'd ask anyway since there's a lot of knowledgeable folks here.

I know that Predator has many patents.

But the key design element, the heart of what has given Predator the advantage in low deflection all these years has been having a bored out shaft at the tip end.

Other manufacturers have come close, but have yet to match or exceed Predator's performance, because no matter what they try, they cannot get lower mass than air. Simple at that. Foam and all this other nonsense...more mass than air.

That said, I Googled some of their patents, and they have several and several of them refer to many of the same design principles. These date from 1994ish onward to 2005.

My understand is that patents of such type are valid from 20 years from the filing date listed on the patent.

Predator also describes much of their research and the results of such research in their patents - particularly that lower mass toward the end of the shaft is beneficial for low deflection, but more specifically - the lower the mass closer to the tip, the greater the improvement in low deflection is. It isn't just about having a low total weight/mass in the first 4-5 inches...it's also about having the lowest possible mass toward the tip. Hence how they bore out the shafts with a wider bore toward the tip, and a smaller diameter bore further down. Obviously, a balance between low mass and durability.


One of their patents expires next month. Others may have already expired. Some will be expiring in the next 18-24 months.

Why do I bring this up? Well first of all, while there's about a dozen low deflection shafts on the market - I'm not sure any of them have a bored shaft that is left empty. Is this true?

I suppose what I'm getting at is -- once other manufacturers can do this, they should all be able to at least meet Predator's low deflection performance. Something they've come close to, but haven't matched. One might think they'll surpass being that they've come close without having to bore the shaft and leave it empty. But the research shows that there's a sort of diminishing returns factor here. An empty shaft is what is needed to get that last bit of low deflection performance after thin/short ferrules, small diameter tips....

Probably makes sense now why Predator released the REVO. It's not like anything in the REVO wasn't thought of more than a decade ago. Or that the technology or materials or manufacturing capability wasn't there. I believe they have a composite shaft patent for that going back a decade.

This is a way for them to change the market attitudes and perceptions toward the next best thing. Just my theory. At some point, everyone else will be able to offer the same, and they need a way to differentiate now.


Time and time again, on this forum and across the web the question is asked "How does _______ compare to the Predator _______"

And the answer is always "It's low deflection but not as low as Predator"


That could change very soon. Would be great to see OB, Mezz, and all the others put out shafts that are as low deflection as the 314 and Z series....they're close now, but not as good.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20181115-094242_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20181115-094242_Samsung Internet.jpg
    179.9 KB · Views: 581
Last edited:
I only read the first post, but the original patent expired serval years ago. They usually last 17 years. And that’s only if you stay on top of the paperwork, and pay every four years a maintenance fee to the United States patent and trademark office.

I made a post a few years ago in The ask the cue maker section, when the patent was about to expire, asking if anyone was now going to use that exact method.
 
Black-Balled said:
You left out an important factor in the production of any good: cost.

Today, there are LOTS of CF layup possibilities, as far as production facilities go. A decade ago, far fewer.

Go to alibaba.com and search 'carbon', for a real eye opener into what is made/ sold/ bought and crazy cheap prices...today.

And to that point...you can get a carbon fiber bike frame for (edit: UNDER $150!!). And it is made up of a whole lotta revos.;)
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Although i'm not sure i'd wanna take a sub-200buck cf bike into a steep downhill curve. I know what real-deal high end bikes cost and why. Not all cf is created equal but i do believe that $500 cue shafts are a "tad" overpriced.
 
garczar said:
Totally agree. Although i'm not sure i'd wanna take a sub-200buck cf bike into a steep downhill curve. I know what real-deal high end bikes cost and why. Not all cf is created equal but i do believe that $500 cue shafts are a "tad" overpriced.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt trust an unbranded frame either.

Pool stick? hell yes.
 
Loon said:
Ive had no issues with my "knock off" carbon rims, at $300 a set I could buy a few sets before I get to Zipp prices haha!
Click to expand...

Damn...I sold my dt swiss rc38 set for 50$ more than I paid for them and have been wanting another set of (not too deep) deep section carbons.

I have a buddy who went Chinese and has just broken his 4th spoke on them...

The ones I want are these:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/DT-Swiss-RC28C-Spline-Mon-Chasseral-Shimano-Sram-/143011096449

Must....resist!
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Isn't the conical cuts on tenon the Meucci a work-around on their Power Piston?

I thought OB filled their shafts with foam? As to not infringe on Predator's patent.

I'm sincerely asking, but wasn't the Predator patent on the design and concept of having a bored out (regardless of bore design, as in their patent they show many different iterations of boring the shaft) ...and air filled shaft?

That is ultimately what does make it the lowest deflecting shaft, the idea that none of these other low deflection techniques can be lighter or lesser mass than air...Engineer away all they want.

All things being equal, the other manufacturers - thanks to Predator's patent, have been forced to innovate other ways to bring down end-mass to as low as possible short of boring it out and leaving it empty.

In this thread I'm not making any arguments or debates about the validity or benefits of low deflection. Nor whether that is actually better for all players. That's a different topic.

This is about the patent(s) which have allowed Predator a measurable advantage in low deflection over all others.


We're talking about 20 years now....and no other manufacturer has been able to match Predator. Like I said, they've come close. Very close. Again, I'm not arguing the merits or lack thereof to one's game, whether 20% vs 21% less deflection means anything.


But I think it is safe to say that these small percentage points have allowed Predator to market their shafts, with pretty bar charts and graphs and base their marketing on performance. They have also been able to make the claim they are the lowest deflection shafts, and do so without being called out on it.

This has allowed Predator to become a market leader. Love or hate them, they are huge. This proves people gravitate toward good marketing, and of course, top performance even if it is only a little bit more.


I haven't seen sectioned shafts of all these different makes and models of low deflection shafts. I cannot say for sure. So perhaps some of them did license Predator's design? I doubt it for two reasons...

1. Their shaft would end up costing too much due to licensing fee, making it noncompetitive with Predator.

2. Their shaft would and should perform equally to the Predator. None do...which is a very strong indicator that they are not using that design.


If there are makers of shafts who bore out the shaft at the tip end, and leave it empty in the manner that Predator does to make it low deflection - then well, they really suck at engineering and manufacturing shafts if they cannot match Predator.

Or, they've found a different way to bore a shaft which gives them a plausible way to avoid patent infringement or DETER litigation attempts it by making it an iffy matter. That's fine, but whatever method they've devised, such a design or work around causes such shafts to not perform as well.
Click to expand...

I`m not gonna adress every point you made as it`s a long post, but a patent is very spesific and it`s no problem what so ever making a low front end mass without infringing on Predators patent.
Every company has their way of doing LD shafts and I can tell you that the amount of deflection isn`t the only criteria from a design standpoint.
Feel, taper, and not to mention durability is missing the whole debate.
If your stuff breaks down because the engineers has pushed the material to it`s maximum, then I would rather have more end mass and a shaft that I can trust want disintegrate in my hand.
 
Post

Guess who I believe owns/owned this patent...?


Rob.M
 

Attachments

  • D267BE53-7ED1-49AF-A966-9A473465FF23.jpg
    D267BE53-7ED1-49AF-A966-9A473465FF23.jpg
    190.5 KB · Views: 169
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top