Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Is it really true that Bowtech hasn't paid any royalties to Mathews for using their single cam bows? I wasn an archery shop yesterday and the subject of mathews and bowtech came up. I made the statement that mathews should use some of the royalty money and develop new designs, instaed of bashing hoyt. I just traded in three mathews bows after purchasing a Cougar shoot-thru. The shop owner said he's selling lots of Bowtechs but is worried what happens if and when they lose the patent infringement lawsuit. I thought all companies that make a single cam had to pay Mathews on a per-bow basis. Just curious what makes Bowtech different. The shop owner said that Bowtech's "official" response was that they have their own cam patents and don't need to pay anyone. How can that be? What would happen to their warranty if they get caught?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I may be wrong but I talked to a guy By the name of Marshal who is building bows. He told us that unless you are using a peremiter weight on the cam you do not pay royalties to Mathews but you do pay to North American Archery group which owns Fred Bear who holds the patents for dual feed single cams. If this is true then no one owes Mathews a dime unless they are using a copy of one of his cams. I don't believe the Bowtech single cam is perimeter weighted but it sounds to me like they owe Mathews nothing. Again I may be wrong I am sure someone on theis board may have more info on this issue. This guys bows were really good looking bows and he did pay $4 per bow to mathews for a perimeter weighted cam but the majority of royalties were paid to North American Archery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
If you do a search you will find a number of threads on this topic, as well as information on patents and licencing.

-CG
 

·
NC ASA Director
Joined
·
35,916 Posts
Mat McPherson sold the double feed single cam patent to North American Archery Group. Bear Archery at the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
BowTech has their own cam design's with patent's on them, it isen't mathews cam design that they are using, so bowtech doesen't have to give mathews a dime
 

·
NC ASA Director
Joined
·
35,916 Posts
I read somewhere that Bear Archery and Matt are sharing the royalites.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
One thing i was wondering, does bowtech, mathews, ar or any other company that use's parallel limb's have to pay royalties to oneida for using parallel limbs, oneida has always been using parallel limbs since 1980.
 

·
NC ASA Director
Joined
·
35,916 Posts
Sometimes companies don't realize a good thing when they see it and don't apply for a patent. As soon as the first one is sold, it is public property at that point. You really have to protect it very well to keep someone from barely changing it and getting around the patent.

Matt is claiming that he "invented" this phenomenom and I haven't heard Oneida jumping on him or make him pull his adds.

I remember seeing an XI bow about 12 years ago that had the limbs laid straight back at full draw. I remember thinking that it looked pretty cool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
O.K., so I did some searching and I see that Mathews did sell the rights to their patent to Bear Archery around 1992 . The patent lists Bear as "assignee" of the "dual feed single cam"patent. Bowtech uses a dual feed single cam, so how can they have their own single cam patent? It looks like the only thing Bowtech has a patent on is some "post feed" system. That does not circumvent the original "dual feed" utility patent. So actually it would appear that Bowtech owes Mathews AND Bear for the infringement. But I do not see how Bowtech could possibly claim to have their own design, when clearly they build bows with a "dual feed" single cam. Time will tell. As far as the parallel limb design goes, it looks like neither Oneida, Mathews or Bowtech created that. There's a bow on the archery history site called a rigid hunter that is dated mid-70's and it clearly exhibits parallel limbs.
 

·
NC ASA Director
Joined
·
35,916 Posts
archeryhistory.com rules!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I was amazed at all the old bow designs on archeryhistory.com.
When I started in archery, it seemed as though Mathews had invented the compound bow, now I find out he didn't really do all that much. I am still trying to learn more on this Bowtech thing. I was thinking of buying one to compare with my new martin, but I learned from a bad experience on replacement windows that you want to buy from reputable companies. The ones I bought were faulty, but when I went to the manufacturer for warranty service, they had gone out of business. Too bad for me. I found out from a lawyer that they were sued for a patent infringement and went bankrupt overnight. So until I know for sure that Bowtech does pay royalty on their designs, I won't be buying anything from them. Reputation and integrity mean everything when making a major purchase. Even though a bow is only several hundred dollars, to me a big buck means big purchase. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I would imagine that Bowtech is paying royalties to Bear but not Mathews. This Marshall guy that I talked to said everyone pays to Bear but unless you have a perimeter weight you pay nothing to Mathews. He said you even had to buy a licsence for the dual feed cam before having one made. His cams by the way looked like nothing I had every seen but he was paying royalties to Bear and Mathews. I found this very interesting to talk to this guys who had started his ouwn bow company and all the things he had to go through to build a bow it was really something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
anyone know for sure?

Does anyone who shoots Bowtech know for sure? I saw one I'd like to try but not until I know for sure they're not getting sued over a cam patent infringement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,684 Posts
Whether or not BowTech is being sued is irrevelant. You can sue anyone for just about anything anytime. Prevailing in your lawsuit however is a different thing. What you really need to know is whether BowTech has done anything wrong. Not whether they have been accused. That siad it has already been mentioned on this thread that Matthews doesn't own the single cam patent. They own the perimeter weighted single cam patent. BowTech doesn't make a perimeter weighted cam bow. Therefore how could they owe Matthews anything. As for will they still be around in a few years, consider the fact that the Dual Cam Patriot may well end up this years most popular bow. Think also about the fact that their growth rate over the past 3 years far surpasses that of any company in modern archery history. Then tell me in today's economy, would you bet on a company with a rising or waning star? Think about it. Logic will kick in and you will answer your own question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I said I might buy one....didn't I?

Bowtech may very well be the next # 1 bow company. If they used someone else's technology and didn't pay for it, then that could explain how they have gained a competitive market advantage over other companies who make similar bows, but are forced to pay. Obviously, Mathews didn't sell their patents to Bear for free. That aside, I would suspect that most, if not all, of the monies paid to Bear end up in Mathews bank account. The question is only whether or not Bowtech is paying for the use of the dual feed cam system, which they obviously use in their line-up. Do they pay royalties or don't they? Simple yes or no answer will suffice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Why not just call Bowtech and ask.
From the dealings I have had with them they have always been up front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,104 Posts
After some inquiries I made to Bowtech after seeing this thread, It is my understanding that Bowtech's cam does not fall under the Bear/Jennings or Mathews patent (and they are not paying any royalties for such)

If it did fall under that patent, Bowtech could not be licensing their design to Diamond, Parker, and Wheeler Archery (i.e. they could not license something that was not theirs to begin with).

I guess the post feed cam is different enough to keep Bowtech from having to pay a royalty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
hmmmmmm.....

Thanks JeffB for taking time to help answer my questions. I can understand how Bowtech licences other companies to use the "post feed", but this post feed system is used on a dual-feed single cam. As far as patent law is concerned, that in itself wouldn't let Bowtech off without first paying a royalty on a dual feed system. It would be the same thing if you had the patent claim on a widget. If I took your widget and added a watchamahooset, I'd still be using your widget and therefore I'd suspect I'd expect to pay a royalty on your widget. I might own the intellectual property on a watchmahooset, but I'd have to reference your widget and would be bound by the claims of that patent. Unless I'm missing something, a single cam is a single cam is a single cam. Post feed does not replace dual feed. Any Bowtech staff members on this message board?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,104 Posts
Well my inquiry was with someone in upper management @ Bowtech whom I happen to be friends with.

According to him, no royalties being paid to NAAG/B/J or Mathews.

EDIT: As Ausie said, I would just email them if you want to know details. They are very up front about stuff like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,384 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
Thanks again Jeff B.
That answers my first question. I am worried about buying one and not getting warranty service down the road, especially after seeing the pictures of the limb failures on 2003 Bowtech models on this forum a few months back. I like the advertised speeds, but I am not willing to get burned again. Apparantly it takes years to settle anything in patent court. It all comes out in the end.
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top