Malibu Suing Mastercraft
 

Just watched the Surf Gate video and NXT2 video. They take two different approaches to manipulating the wave. I can see where Nautique's system is somewhat similar but don't see it on the Mastercrafts.

I'm with you. The Malibu patent must be pretty broad.

Will not ever consider buying a malibu because of this. To bad it is a sad time we live in.

I havent looked into the patent myself but from reading the following threads on The Malibu Crew and Master Craft Team Talk here are a few things others have said.

The Malibu Crew

http://www.themalibucrew.com/forums/...oing-after-mc/

Master Craft Team Talk

http://www.mastercraft.com/teamtalk/...ad.php?t=68127

The patent in questions can be view here - https://www.google.com/patents/US8578873

The full lawsuit writeup - http://www.boatingindustry.com/wp-co...6713058359.pdf


The biggest part of the patent wording that I can tell from the other threads is the following

""The ’873 Patent provides a system for generating a surf wake behind a watercraft travelling through the water.""

This must be the ground that Malibu is trying to stand on saying that the Gen 2 Tabs violate the patent.

Doesn't seem like a great reason to never consider a whole brand. Are you also knocking out correct craft for the whole patenting any tow tower thing?

"Malibu prays for judgment against MasterCraft"

a system that even allows such a case to go to court is just broken.

If you change the words you could easily argue that Reginald Boat (the inventor of the boat) and his linear descendants should sue Malibu (and any other manufacturer) for trying to gain market share in BOATS

"This technology modifies the wake formed by a boat travelling through water, which, in part, creates a better quality surf wake and enables users to surf on either side of the boat’s wake at the push of a button"

this technology modifies the world by creating a boat which travels through water, which in part, creates a better quality of life enabling users to travel through water without the skill to walk on water

after that case has been heard Clarence Carpet could follow the precendent suing anyone who improves his product (particularly in a boat sense whereby one manufacturer is rumoured to have invented waterproof carpet (to protect their market share) and another apparently uses press studs in some yet to be dertmined manner hence underming the Carpet family legacy.

Cyril Seat probably doesn't have much of a case as the bum has dropped out of that market but Rodney Rack, Bill Bung and Vera Vinyl (and their linear descendants) are all encouraged to join the class action. Fergus Fibreglass has apparently already attempted action but did not register his patent correctly and (spelling error) and is now left "praying for a judgement".

of course the bigger worry that Malibu will be pursuing in the future is that putting you foot in the water "modifies the wake formed by a boat travelling through water" and unless we have special dispensation from Malibu we must all register before putting a foot in the water and pay a royalty to Malibu each time we modify the wake,

I see it Less & Less about Brand X suing Brand Y to Me its not about One brand being Greedy or another Copying somthing, when it come to How these things end up in court. You wonder "How the hell did this ever get b4 a Judge" I do work in Buildings all up and down the Bay Aera. Some of the Most lavish well appointed office's and buildings are FULL top to bottom with patten Lawyers. I could totally see how a large company like Malibu & Natique have lawyers just waiting to Sue and more importantly BILL $$$$ hrs and go to trial. In some ways they are glorified Ambulance Chaser's "Better Call Saul"

Next up Supra , Moomba , MB, Tige and any other boat that makes a wake?

Guaranteed.. go after the biggest fish first, then go after the smaller ones.

Feral - Your reply is a bit silly IMO. Malibu came up with a surf system and they want people to pay for the rights to use something even if similar, it was still their idea. Just like when towers came out there are still royalties being paid, even though some were a little different. It's not fair for someone to invent something and then someone else to barely change it and then market it as their idea. My $.02 your comparisons don't hold water.

The timing of this announcement is definitely a little interesting with MC recently filing an IPO. Malibu had a long time to bring this lawsuit but now it's announced right when MC is filing... Seems pretty coincidental to me, doubt MC is very happy at all with this timing.

I don't know, I think BU has a case. All boat manufactures since BU have jumped on the idea of putting a device on their boat that would make it a wakesurf wave. Malibu was first to market it's tabs as a dynamic devise that changes wave shape and allows switching and all that Jaz. Yes MC had tabs, but these tabs were nothing more than a couple stock lenco tabs not the modified giant flappers they have become since surf gates.

I guess Im still confused how malibu won vs nautique. those are 2 very very different designs. is it because they are both mounted on the back of a boat? to me they are like comparing a water ski and wakeboard and saying they are the same becuase they both ride on water? just weird.
and the MC tabs are just that trim tabs that have been on boats for how long? 20, 40, 100 yrs ago. UH OH they are used on airplanes I guess malibu should sue BOEING too. per wikipedia "Trim tabs are most found on cruisers, sport fishing boats and center console boats ranging from 20 feet and up" I guess malibu should go after eveyone that puts them on their boat, plane, etc.....

when filling a patent, you file for the broadest use possible and leave even more open to interpretation. Protecting your IP is the right thing to do, no matter who agrees with it.

Matt, yes the patent is that broad
http://www.google.com/patents/US8539897

You're all acting like they should play fair in the playground. Business is war and Malibu is kicking ass right now.

I recall using trim tabs on a 2011 mastercraft to help improve the surf wake. Were they patented? I'm sure Leno or bennett marine has a patent out there somewhere. Were they patented for "surfing", doubtful.

Sanger was using them (ala MC Gen 1) as early as 2008.

Malibu is reaching for sure, but depending on the patent interpretation and legal teams, it might pay off for them.

I will tell you one thing though. Regardless if you hate Malibu, are the biggest 'Bu fanboy alive, or anywhere in between, Malibu winning this suit is bad for the towboat industry. Because if they win this one against MC, they have opened the door to be able to successfully sue EVERY boat manufacturer that uses ANY type of device to create a surf wake. Any guess who pays for the royalties that every boat company will have to pay Malibu? That's right, us, the boat buyers...

So if you invent something, and patent it, you're cool with people copying and slightly modifying it and selling it as their own?

Its as though you guys don't understand what a patent is or why you would protect your intellectual property.

Boat prices have more than doubled in the last 15 years. And we've had 1 lawsuit that I'm aware of. Helluva lot more going on with inboards than Bu vs CC

in order to claim someone is copying you it means you actually have to invent something... trims tabs have been around forever and that in effect what we are talking about... the mastercraft surf system is nothing like surfgate...

the whole thing is out of control and the system is broken... someone should just patent "a hull designed to produce a wake for watersports" and claim everyone else owes them...

trim tabs were not used on the port side to produce a better wave on the starboard -- as the patent clearly states.

Are you saying Mastercrafts tabs, which predate surfgate by the way, is a copy of surfgate and a slight modification? Does the MC system even work on the theory of delayed convergence???

Have you seen surfgate and MC's surf tabs? Yea, slight modification....:rolleyes:

Protecting intellectual property and over-reaching a patent are two different things. There have been plenty of law suits in the tow boat industry, and you can thank a ridiculous patent Nautique originally had on towers for added cost on 4-point towers for years.

Bingo

surf systems suck anyways LOL list your damn boat and you will get a better wave hands down, plus use less gas......I could care less who sues who, and if you have to have a system, make your own, it wouldn't be that hard to copy any of these systems out there. I doubt BU would come after the average joe for making their own.

trim tabs have been used forever for many purposes such as to even out the distribution of the vessel, which in effect, manipulates the wake behind it... so in essence this is not a new concept at all... the only part that is new is the surfing aspect, the physics and water dynamics have been around for a looong time...so "new application of old technology" is even a stretch. what we are really talking about is "old application of old technology for a new purpose" which is totally common place in the world.

to me, it seems like a travesty that the patent was granted in what appears to be such vague fashion. though I will say it is smart of Malibu to be pushing the limits of the patent, so not knocking them for that... if I were them I would do the same

My take on it as well. After reading through the claim

http://www.boatingindustry.com/wp-co...6713058359.pdf (for those that havent read it)

it seems its basis is the idea that Mastercraft has a system that creates a surf wake, it doesn't even matter how they create the wake. From the claim, "The ’873 Patent provides a system for generating a surf wake behind a watercraft travelling through the water." How the surf wake is created is not emphasized; any system that generates a surf wake could be contested.

Again, my concern is this opens the door for Malibu to sue everyone. Vague and ridiculous, especially considering others had systems to produce a surf wake that predate the surfgate patent.

Wouldn't a ballast system fall under- a system that generates a surf wake behind a watercraft?

Anyways, If I IPO'd at a ridiculous value, I too, would have money to spend on lawsuits. Gotta keep those investors happy

don't give them any ideas, haha. they might be coming after everyone's ballast systems now too ;)

Fair enough. Your call.
The comparisons are meant to be broad but when you read into it they are not suing over a copy of the surf gate, they are claiming its a device that alters the wake that they have rights too and I beleive that is far to broad to be fair.

My 2006 boat has a cab plate that altered the wake, there are plenty of old Skool boats with plates and devices (even hull design which alters the wake) and I don't think it should be patentable - the method or device you use to alter tha wake may be different but then again how do you deal with the fact that trim tabs have been around for many decades.

IMHO a Malibu type claim represents an unfair market distortion (limiting competition) which is not commensurate with the "IP" or "new knowledge" their version offered, particularly when they refuse to offer a retrofit or after market version. They are basically saying unless you buy a new Malibu from us you can't use it.

I bet if they advertise it as wake attitude adjustment system, Malibu won't have a case.

Mastercraft response.......



http://www.boatingindustry.com/news/...u-patent-suit/

For the lazy..

"It is our general policy not to comment in detail on litigation matters. However, MasterCraft strongly denies the allegations made in the lawsuit filed by Malibu Boats, LLC, on June 29, 2015. We do not believe that Malibu’s claims have merit and we intend to defend the company vigorously against these claims. MasterCraft is an award-winning leader in innovation, a fact our customers, dealers and industry know very well.”