|
Post by sarak on Aug 9, 2005 23:06:44 GMT 1
I love my Freeform, but I can't say that it does look that conventional. Everyone always comments on it, so they must notice that it is a bit different!
|
|
|
Post by darkhorse on Aug 10, 2005 1:40:36 GMT 1
£1800 each though! Bit more than the Fhoenix Nearly TWO Fhoenixes in fact.
|
|
|
Post by JennyB on Aug 10, 2005 8:03:46 GMT 1
I too have seen Kay Humphries treeless in the flesh and they are beautiful, definitely on my list of must haves! Been lucky enough to ride in one too and they are fabulous.
|
|
|
Post by heather on Aug 10, 2005 9:17:45 GMT 1
This is a post that I placed in response to another on the Ansur egroup enquiring as to why my Fhoenix saddle could not be sold in the USA. Cameo, I have now given Mr DeCosemo three opportunities to put his side of the story forward on public forums to reassure myself, and potential buyers that his intention was not just to remove me from the market. He has not done so to date, but I feel that as I am also totally in the dark as to why I was sued, the least he can now do is give his reasons.
>>> Q.I don't understand how this saddle infringes on the Ansur and cannot > be distributed in the USA. In the end most English saddles look fairly similar, most use a similar tree and those that are treeless are also marketed in the US, i.e. Torsion, etc. So what makes the > Flexion saddle non-gratis in the US? >
A.Firstly, my apologies to moderator, Jean, who may well feel that she wishes to delete this post, but I feel that it is only correct that I should explain WHY the Fhoenix cannot be offered for sale in the USA. I applaud Jean's sensitive handling of responses throughout this whole case, and feel her to be a very fair minded person, so I leave this decision up to her.
The Fhoenix saddle does not infringe the Ansur patent, in any way, and I still vehemently deny the allegations of infringement with my Flexion SBS saddle. To this day, Ansur have never disclosed to us which element of their patent we are alleged to have infringed. Had I been informed of this, and truly believed that they had a genuine argument, I would of course have gone to them and said, 'how do we get round this', but I was never given the chance, a full jury trial being demanded from the outset.
A friend here in the UK, accidentally infringed someone else's patent, but went to them in a spirit of reason, and it was all settled amicably with him being able to 'design around' and get his saddle back on the market.
But, if you are never informed of the alleged element of infringement, how can you know how to work round it? We repeatedly asked Ansur to inform us of our supposed infringing act, and they repeatedly declined to tell us.
Ansur, despite being sent detailed construction information, insisted on including my previous part treed saddle, the Flexion Supreme,- ie it had a rigid pommel and cantle- but had never been sold to the USA- in the settlement I had to sign with them to avoid a default judgement (as I could not afford the extortionate amount of money to defend a lawsuit in the USA). This meant that I could not then sell the Fhoenix in the USA without risk of further litigation, and is the only reason it is is not for sale there.
I have recently publicly invited Mr DeCosemo to tell his side of the story, but to no avail. I for one, would greatly welcome hearing his argument, because if he has a genuine grievance, then I might understand that his intentions were not merely to annihilate competition.
I have lodged third party objections to the Ansur patent in the rest of it's world applications. Quite apart from amassing enough evidence of treeless saddles throughout history for me to write a book, there is a US patent for a saddle built on a flexible leather base, with no rigid components anywhere,except of course the stirrup bars, claiming flexibility in all directions, which predates the Ansur by 125 years. My patent attorney has prepared the necessary analysis of both patents and these have now been lodged with the relevent Patent Offices.
I have no need to do this, now that I no longer make a treeless saddle, but feel that it is a point of principle. No one company should be able to patent what is an age old concept, and contrary to belief, it is this that the patent covers, not just the design. It could prevent research and development of fully treeless, or even fully flexible treed saddles, for the duration of the patent, should Ansur choose to enforce again, and this is NOT for the good of the horse.
Heather Moffett<<
I rest my case, which, incidentally, I have full support of The Society of Master Saddlers, BETA, Worshipful Company of Saddlers, Barnsby Saddlery and Capt Elwyn Hartley Edwards, probably the best known saddlery expert in the world- all of whom have offered statements in support of my third party objections.
I just find it very sad that one company wishes to limit the choice of riders to just their saddle in this category.
Heather
|
|
|
Post by Rio on Aug 10, 2005 10:10:19 GMT 1
Does anyone know the web site address of Kay Humphries or how I can contact her. Have tried Google no luck. Rio
|
|
speedy
Grand Prix Poster
Once I was a racehorse...
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by speedy on Aug 10, 2005 11:26:44 GMT 1
Kay's treeless saddle is so expensive because it is completely hand-made by one of the best saddlers in the country, with the best leather available - it is truly a beautiful saddle to look at (I haven't been lucky enough to ride in one yet)
Kay doesn't have a website - she freely admits that she's a technophobe!! But try the web address provided earlier as it's run by one of her staff. Alternatively, try searching for Barry Swain/Saddle Fitting Centre/Lichfield Side Saddle as they make the saddles
|
|
|
Post by bertie1 on Aug 10, 2005 14:19:09 GMT 1
Thanks Guys!! I think the Kay Humphries is way beyond my price range (and you dont see them coming up for sale)!! Heather - have posted a note on your forum board for you!!! t x
|
|