As JC1979 pointed out. I never claimed interchangeable between brands, but interchangeable between tools. Bosch is another brand. One Bosch battery fits in multiple tools. Cameras are the same. One battery fits in multiple different models of the same brand. Some do not because of different power needs, but that’s a different story.
Define “intelligent and novel”.
SRAM introduced an idea / concept that had not been in the market previously. Seems like that is both “intelligent” and “novel”.
3 Likes
Which is why I am stuck in the Kobalt ecosystem. Cheaper to buy additional Kobalt tools than having to buy other brands and their required batteries.
1 Like
Yikes!
At least at the time I bought my bike, SRAM would not just give me a battery for that price, they’d throw in a rear derailleur for free! 
Creating waste is easy when components are not retro compatible with the previous genration. Sram has a great record of making things easy in that regard. Also about that battery, it’s amazing to see how long they have been using this format, for so many applications. Not sure there’s a lot of comparable example in the electronic industry. Still once they change the format (sooner or later this will happen, maybe when their patent expires) they will be under fire without deserving it.
3 Likes
I can’t address any of them except Dewalt but I have several Dewalt tools and can no longer get batteries for them as they have come out with newer models. If all of their tools used the same battery, that would be great.
Your other point is 100% accurate, keep the battery charged and this is a non issue.
Very interesting discussion with lots of insights. Thanks everyone for sharing.
Gotta say I tried their new E series front derailleur because I wanted to run 2x on my cross bike for winter training and spring gravel and I have yet to miss a shift or drop a chain. But I probably just jinxed it.
Would be a good move by shimano to increase compatibility - with electronic shifting at least the shifters should work with any derailleurs - I do get how supporting any number of speeds or teeth for derailleurs can result in worse shifting, so I’d be ok if that isn’t supported (though downward compatibility would be somewhat reasonable).
This would be a great defense against Chinese products getting better - I’m much more likely to remain in the ecosystem if I can upgrade piece by piece, then I’m also much less likely to consider the competing products. Also cross compatibility can be a great asset, eg being able to use my road wheels on the gravel bike for different gearing.
Sram solves that his to my knowledge, I just don’t like the shifting or breaks.
1 Like
I find the “in no small part” very hard to believe. Same battery different shape. No big deal. There is no way this is adding hundreds of dollars to the cost.
2 Likes
Yeah, I have an older Dewalt cordless drill that has batteries that are not compatible with my new Dewalt (purchased before I got into the Kobalt ecosystem). But my older drill is also over 10 years old and you can only expect reverse compatibility for so long.
I’d say a factor affecting the price magnitudes more than the need for two different batteries is them being sold in packaging that has Campagnolo branding.
Less tongue in cheek… the fact the batteries are proprietary also has significantly more impact on the price as any proprietary nature of any replacement part allows a company to get away with significantly inflated prices.
2 Likes
Sachs had some good MTB components in the 90s. There’s a definite family resemblance between the DIRT range and early X.0 etc..
I don’t think it is fair to say that SRAM are enforcing this patent. They have a patent and Shimano faces a commercial decision to design around it or risk an infringement case. Shimano could decide to take the risk if they think they could successfully invalidate the patent. Only then would SRAM need to make a decision as to whether to try to enforce this patent.
Typically, part of making a decision to enforce a patent is to consider the prospects of it being held valid. From a very quick look, SRAM don’t seem to have been able to get similar claims granted in other jurisdictions; this might influence their thinking.
It is also worth noting that Shimano could have opposed grant of this patent before the European Patent Office back in 2020 as a way to clear a path to use the same concept.
Also, this patent is only part of the story. SRAM have a number of other patents in the same family that relate to batteries on derailleurs. See here: https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/inpadocPatentFamily?CC=EP&NR=3165439A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20170510&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EPand
You can see that there are five patents in the US alone. Some of the patents seem very broad which is not unusual when a company finds a new niche in which to innovate.
So if Shimano does want to go down the path of batteries on derailleurs there will be other issues for them to navigate, not just this one.
1 Like
Patents are all about the claims.
This is a key reason for how it is possible to have a phenomenal idea or product - but a poorly written patent that allows for other vendors to easily produce a competitive product.
If you have done a good job with the claims, you have protected your idea while simultaneously making it difficult to create a competitive product (assuming you defend your patent) - while also not being so broad in your claims so as to get your application rejected.
A good example to also reference could be the filing by Hope for their aero track bike.
2 Likes
Camera batteries are rarely interchangeable, even within the same brand. Every few years a new, not quite the same battery appears, necessitating new batteries and chargers.
It’s like bike stuff - forced buying of proprietary spares.
The business side of things also plays into it…how much will it cost to fight the patent in court vs. how much will it cost you to just license the patent.
specialized was notorious for this with the Horst Link patent. The patent clearly called out two requirements for the patent….a chainstay pivot and a forward pivot that was behind and below the BB. So if you had a BB pivot that in a different location (say above and forward of the BB), you did not violate the patent.
But Specialzed focused almost solely on the chainstay patent when they would attempt to enforce the patent. If you used a chainstay pivot, regardless of BB pivot location, they came after you. They would then also offer a reasonable licensing rate (with stickering requirements on the bike), that made it unrealistic to fight the patent in court.
The end perception was that Specialzied had the best suspension design because so many licensed it and they also had a nice little side revenue stream.
Totally agree - was trying to not go too in-depth but maybe I should have touched on licensing angle. Another interesting case, related to your example, could be dw link.
I tried to focus my comment on claims to help answer the question ‘how could they patent this’ - where the answer is that what is patented is in the claims, which may or may not align with an individual’s perception of what this is.
2 Likes