Glidelock out of patent now?

Thirdfox

https://rubberb.com/blog/rolex-glidelock-clasp-utilitarian-art/

This suggests the patents for Glidelock expired back in 2018... that's potentially very interesting for those who want to build a good diver's extension clasp.

Anyone else have any info on this? ...just asking "for a friend"

Wondering out loud too - would people be against using something like this in a microbrand? It is a very good implementation of the diver's extension and the whole point of patents is to encourage innovation and give companies a period of sole use, after which it becomes the public's property and anyone can use it.

But just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you should (if it would raise public ire for example).

Thirdfox

https://gearpatrol.com/2020/06/30/the-complete-rolex-buying-guide/

I wonder if that 1997 one was for the easylink and not glidelock.

Do Steinharts etc. use a glidelock system?

Actually the way to confirm this is to see when the DSSD was released - 2008 - so glidelock cannot have been invented/patented after this date.
https://www.rolex.com/watches/sea-dweller.html

Meaning that this should be well out of patent by now.

hitemfrank

So what I'm 100% reading here, and in no way interpreting what I want to interperate, is that the Solas dive watch is definitely going to have a glidelock

Thirdfox

Well as a politician might say - “you might say that, I couldn't possibly comment". But I'm exploring options certainly - the one that Strapcode sells for example is...fine - but I couldn't possible dive with it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/QUALITY-316L-S-S-SAFETY-RAIL-GLIDE-LOCK-BUCKLE-CLASP-FOR-GINAULT-OCEAN-ROVER-/143106926450 - I do remember Ginault (and some kind of controversy - Mr John Doe was apparently involved in that too) - seems like they can use these styles of clasps without issue or litigation - of course they can't be called the TM'd name. It'll just be a ratcheting deployant.

Something worth considering for sure... another few hundred/thousand in R&D fees coming up

Thirdfox

And of course I'd like to iterate on them too - I don't like the fact that they need to have a centre link to fit - I'd want to have a good deployant clasp that could be mounted on a wide variety of bracelets - not just one style.

Something to keep in the back of the mind then.

2shea

It should be standard on all dive watches. I have a ratcheting extension clasp on my Titanium Citizen and it's excellent, just to loosen when your wrist gets hot and expands. My Explorer only has the "Easy Link" that folds out to give you an extra 5mm, I would love it the had the "Glide Lock" as it would give a more exact fit.

2shea

Now that I think about it the Tudor Pelagos clasp is probably the best on the market at the moment.

Thirdfox

Yeah - but definitely still in patent (though that doesn't seem to have deterred some of the Guangzhou gangs :P )

unkel

2shea wrote: »

My Explorer only has the "Easy Link" that folds out to give you an extra 5mm

It's a great system. But for me the 5mm is simply not enough, my wrist swells more than that. I would love a glidelock. It's on the sub I'm on the waiting list for. Might get it sometime late next year

oxocube

Thirdfox wrote: »

Wondering out loud too - would people be against using something like this in a microbrand? It is a very good implementation of the diver's extension and the whole point of patents is to encourage innovation and give companies a period of sole use, after which it becomes the public's property and anyone can use it.

But just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you should (if it would raise public ire for example).

ABS and three point seatbelts come to mind. Drugs as well. The whole idea of patents is to give the inventor time to make good on his invention. Then the technology is in public domain.

I don't think this would cause ire if you used a good engineering solution and when asked about it, state that its based on the GlideLock and is out of patent.

Thirdfox

Always thought Volvo invented the 3 point seatbelt and then just offered it for free to everyone since it was such an important invention?...

https://www.arnoldclark.com/newsroom/265-why-volvo-gave-away-the-patent-for-their-most-important-invention - a good read and a very decent thing done by Volvo.

As for drugs - you'll find plenty of developing world countries who say "screw your patents - Indian/Brazilian/etc. children need these life saving medicines" and produce generics "illegally" in order to save lives. I do find it hard to say to an African child - if you can't afford to pay MSD these fees then no anti-viral HIV pills for you...

I do understand pharmaceutical companies' POV too - so many drugs research requires so much money and time - so for one new drug they develop, they could have 5-10 that failed - but need to be paid for.

...sure that's the argument for why drug development should be a nationalised/international cooperative affair rather than held in the hands of Pfizer/Amgen and the likes. But then that's probably the communist side of me coming out

oxocube

I may have opened a can of worms as I couldn't think of engineering patents off the top of my head and used car safety and drugs as (ahem bad) examples.

The point I was trying to make was if an invention is out of patent then you can use it without recourse.