Post by: jhutch769 on January 29, 2007, 06:45:44 AM
Post by: MegaMav on January 29, 2007, 02:47:19 PM
Post by: triggerman on January 29, 2007, 02:54:32 PM
I dont
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com
Triggerman
F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud
Lane #1 Baby
Post by: Joe Jr on January 29, 2007, 02:59:47 PM
--------------------
- Joe
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Post by: EboKnight on January 29, 2007, 03:01:10 PM
--------------------
Brunswick & Storm together what a combo!!!
"Good Luck & Good Bowling"
Email me at: PreciseMatt@hotmail.com
Post by: Brickguy221 on January 29, 2007, 03:43:59 PM
quote:
That Torsion core has more R&D in it then all Lane 1s cores combined.
ROTFLMAO.....Joe go back to your Brunswick Forum and tell your jokes over there.
--------------------
Brick
Post by: Steven on January 29, 2007, 03:59:57 PM
Generally, asking a few questions that forces them to provide substance makes them disappear at least for a little while.Otherwise, it's just best laugh their non-sense off.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: MegaMav on January 29, 2007, 04:06:01 PM
You Lane #1 guys need to chill out, and get over yourselves.
Richie sucks you in with marketing.
"So, consider yourselves sucked"
Post by: Steven on January 29, 2007, 04:37:16 PM
quote:
You Lane #1 guys need to chill out, and get over yourselves.
Richie sucks you in with marketing.
"So, consider yourselves sucked"
Mav: LOL. It didn't take much to flush you out. Hammer should sue Richie if they in fact 'stole' their bomb core design. In our sue happy world, you have to figure Hammer would have nailed (no pun intended) Lane#1 if they could. Given that Hammer didn't, there is apparently much more to this than you understand. Another weak attempt on your part to discredit Lane#1.
Nice try though.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: Sawuser on January 29, 2007, 04:46:28 PM
quote:
Does look familiar...
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=164
But I still think it's just a rumor..
--------------------
New computer. New office. New ID.
Yes, it be I, the Inverted 1.
Did they have a patent as Richie does on his diamond design?
--------------------
Righty
Think about it!
It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible. - George Washington
Post by: Steven on January 29, 2007, 06:24:35 PM
quote:
Joe is right. How much R&D has there been? IT'S THE SAME CORE EVERYTIME.. just with little modifications along the line. It's like the Inferno core.. similar shapes everytime just different densities in place.. same thing with the Lane #1 core dude.. wether you like it or not.
Conspirator: Frankly, none of us know exactly how much R&D there has been. What seems simple and obvious to you might in fact represent considerable time and effort to get right. There are an endless number of potential cover/core combinations possible, and it's presumptuous to assume it's easy, even with so called 'little modification' to get a combination right.
Frankly, I don't care, because regardless of what you think, it works. I look at it as an advantage that Lane#1 uses the base diamond for all their balls. I can look at a picture/specs and based on modifications, have a good idea ahead of time what a new ball will and will not do.
It's a little more of a crap shoot when buying balls from other companies. In many cases, they're constantly coming out with 'new and improved' cores that may or may not work as advertised. Many companies change ball designers more often than you change your underwear, so each year brings a new adventure. Since it's a completely new design with no frame of reference, you're buying on total faith -- kind of like buying a car without a test drive. If it doesn't work, you lose!
I'll at least give you credit for getting much of the rest of your post right.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: MegaMav on January 29, 2007, 06:40:32 PM
quote:
Brick: The trolls can't resist. Generally, asking a few questions that forces them to provide substance makes them disappear at least for a little while. Otherwise, it's just best laugh their non-sense off.
How about, I think you're a joke, coming into the Lane #1 forum with house hack credentials, throwing around rumors and giving an overall snotty attitude to the posters that make the most sense.
quote:
Mav: LOL. It didn't take much to flush you out. Hammer should sue Richie if they in fact 'stole' their bomb core design. In our sue happy world, you have to figure Hammer would have nailed (no pun intended) Lane#1 if they could. Given that Hammer didn't, there is apparently much more to this than you understand. Another weak attempt on your part to discredit Lane#1.
Hey, works only one way with you, this time the Bomb core resembles the Spike core much more than the FURY to the Diamond. Same deal, whether you want to accept it or not.
quote:
Many companies change ball designers more often than you change your underwear, so each year brings a new adventure. Since it's a completely new design with no frame of reference, you're buying on total faith -- kind of like buying a car without a test drive. If it doesn't work, you lose!
oh really? you think so huh? Wow, I must have had you all wrong this whole time. You MUST be in every R&D department of EVERY company out there to make that statement, forget me discrediting Lane #1, you just discredited yourself.
Post by: Brickguy221 on January 29, 2007, 06:53:56 PM
quote:
Joe is right. How much R&D has there been? IT'S THE SAME CORE EVERYTIME.. just with little midifications along the line.
Conspiator, how do you know Joe is right? How does Joe know he is right? How do you know you are right? How much R&D did Brunswick do to get that core? How much R&D did Lane 1 do to get the cores they have? Simply put, you and Joe don't know. Neither of you offered any facts/proof to back up your statements. All either of you did was simply shoot off at your mouth without proof/facts or knowing what you are talking about as trolls always do.
With both you and Joe being Brunswick loyalists, naturally you are going to make statements against another company that you don't like and of which you know nothing about. It is natural for trolls to do that. Until you have proof to back up your statements, you need to go back to your Brunswick Forum and troll there.
--------------------
Brick
Post by: MegaMav on January 29, 2007, 06:55:51 PM
quote:
Balls with 2" to 3" Pins seem to work best for me.
"Consider yourself sucked"
Post by: T-GOD on January 29, 2007, 07:03:18 PM
Megamav, how do you know that the Hammer Spike isn't infringing on Lane #1's patent..? Without the flip block, what do you have left..?
Back in the day, all cores had round centers, i.e. Hammer core, light bulbs ect... The diamond core is the first that didn't. Now most of them don't. Who's copying who..? It seems to me that Richie is the smart one..!! =:^D
Post by: Brickguy221 on January 29, 2007, 07:07:00 PM
quote:
From Brick's Profile:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Balls with 2" to 3" Pins seem to work best for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Consider yourself sucked"
Wow, I gained another fan even if it is a troll.
--------------------
Brick
Post by: MegaMav on January 29, 2007, 07:11:45 PM
quote:
Megamav, how do you know that the Hammer Spike isn't infringing on Lane #1's patent..? Without the flip block, what do you have left..?
because Hammer came out with the "bomb" core first.
quote:
It seems to me that Richie is the smart one..!! =:^D
Marketing smart, yes, bowling smart, no.
Post by: Steven on January 29, 2007, 07:15:45 PM
quote:
How about, I think you're a joke, coming into the Lane #1 forum with house hack credentials, throwing around rumors and giving an overall snotty attitude to the posters that make the most sense.
Yes, I'm an admitted house hack, so what? Do you have a problem with honesty? If our profiles are accurate, we're both house hacks, so I'm not sure where your attitude is coming from. I 'come into' the Lane#1 forum owning and extensively using 10 balls in their line-up, so I'm hardly crashing the party (unlike the trolls). Please indicate the rumors, and I'd be happy to respond, but cut the generalities. In your world, 'posters who make sense' are any that have a bone to pick with Lane#1. That really brings a lot to the table.
quote:
Hey, works only one way with you, this time the Bomb core resembles the Spike core much more than the FURY to the Diamond. Same deal, whether you want to accept it or not.
Sometimes you reply like you're high on drugs. The only thing I said on that subject was that if Hammer had a case they'd probably sue. I try not to pretend to be an Engineer and make sweeping generalized conclusions.
quote:
oh really? you think so huh? Wow, I must have had you all wrong this whole time. You MUST be in every R&D department of EVERY company out there to make that statement, forget me discrediting Lane #1, you just discredited yourself.
I carefully say "in many cases" and "many companies", and you turn my words around to "MUST" and EVERY". Is that the only way you can defend your thoughts? Try to comprehend the following real world example: Track went from Phil Cardinale to Del Warren back and to Phil Cardinale over the past few years, which will represent three totally redesigned lineups in that period. What's difficult for you to understand as far as continuity to the customer?
The bottom line is that you're in no position to talk about who is discredited.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: MegaMav on January 29, 2007, 07:31:28 PM
quote:
Yes, I'm an admitted house hack, so what? Do you have a problem with honesty? If our profiles are accurate, we're both house hacks, so I'm not sure where your attitude is coming from. I 'come into' the Lane#1 forum owning and extensively using 10 balls in their line-up, so I'm hardly crashing the party (unlike the trolls). Please indicate the rumors, and I'd be happy to respond, but cut the generalities. In your world, 'posters who make sense' are any that have a bone to pick with Lane#1. That really brings a lot to the table.
You're obviously in here fueling the fire, so far you have contributed just as much as everyone else.
and about rumors, and generalities:
quote:
Given that Hammer didn't, there is apparently much more to this than you understand.
If you know so much, and I know so little about it, how about you shed some light on the subject?
quote:
Sometimes you reply like you're high on drugs. The only thing I said on that subject was that if Hammer had a case they'd probably sue. I try not to pretend to be an Engineer and make sweeping generalized conclusions.
We can make the rational induction that if Hammer didnt have a case on Lane #1 for the Bomb/Spike design, then Lane #1 has no grounds for suit with Brunswick.
The similarities between the Spike/Bomb are greater than that of the FURY/Diamond.
I guess Lane #1 should throw up their arms in protest with every vertically tapered core, you can make a diamond with any object of 6 planes or more.
quote:
I carefully say "in many cases" and "many companies", and you turn my words around to "MUST" and EVERY". Is that the only way you can defend your thoughts? Try to comprehend the following real world example: Track went from Phil Cardinale to Del Warren back and to Phil Cardinale over the past few years, which will represent three totally redesigned lineups in that period. What's difficult for you to understand as far as continuity to the customer?
Well, you mentioned one, Track, where are the rest?
You're also making the assumption that a bowler in general is unable to shop for themselves.
quote:
Frankly, I don't care, because regardless of what you think, it works. I look at it as an advantage that Lane#1 uses the base diamond for all their balls. I can look at a picture/specs and based on modifications, have a good idea ahead of time what a new ball will and will not do.
Tell me this steven, with all of these hybrid coverstock blends of lane #1, how can you make a fair assessment of the ball without knowing what the blend ratios are, let alone the base grits that are not mentioned anywhere on lane #1's site?
Edited on 1/29/2007 8:40 PM
Post by: gnlover16 on January 29, 2007, 07:38:58 PM
--------------------
GO STORM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cant wait to get up to Buffalo
I have a NIB 15 lb Original Inferno for trade/sale, PM me for any questions
Post by: qstick777 on January 29, 2007, 08:09:02 PM
quote:
twoheadedboy
Posted: 1/19/2007 1:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That ball has quite the backend movement for a symmetrical dull reactive!
I cringed when I saw the starting point for the core though...that definitely is going to get the Lane #1 folk in an uproar. The end result is vastly different from any shape Lane #1 has used in a production ball, however.
230-n-up-or-bust
Posted: 1/19/2007 1:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That ball has quite the backend movement for a symmetrical dull reactive!
I cringed when I saw the starting point for the core though...that definitely is going to get the Lane #1 folk in an uproar. The end result is vastly different from any shape Lane #1 has used in a production ball, however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the Fury utilizes a similar core to the Lane #1 products at a fraction of the cost, who cares? Now, all of the Lane #1 folks clammoring about how the core gives them a reaction shape or look on the lane that they're happy with can give another ball a try that's $30-50 less.
--------------------
I always thought the Ravage core looked similar to the 3D-offset core.
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=2296
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=662
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5
Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html
Post by: J_Mac on January 29, 2007, 08:23:25 PM
quote:
I always thought the Ravage core looked similar to the 3D-offset core.
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=2296
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=662
--------------------
I'd hope so... the same individual is responsible for both core designs.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
Post by: Sawuser on January 29, 2007, 08:32:29 PM
--------------------
Righty
Think about it!
It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible. - George Washington
Post by: qstick777 on January 29, 2007, 09:14:20 PM
quote:quote:
I always thought the Ravage core looked similar to the 3D-offset core.
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=2296
http://www.123bowl.com/ball.asp?ballid=662
--------------------
I'd hope so... the same individual is responsible for both core designs.
--------------------
"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." Bill Cosby
"Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."
I thought so, but I couldn't find anything doing a quick search. I remember one of the guys being the guy that did the JPF Axe, and thought Mo was with Faball but wasn't sure.
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5
Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html
Post by: GTX on January 30, 2007, 07:36:03 AM
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Post by: Charles on January 30, 2007, 08:31:54 AM
Quote
Just reading this I think we cant make a safe assumption, no one really knows waht is going on. No one knows if Lane #1 was really trying to develop another core, we dont know if it was just a publicity stunt. Wait until the facts come out before you attack each other.
--------------------
I can say that none of this effects any of us, so you are right. I can attest that I was personally told on more than one occasion by people in the Lane #1 Company, that the newest release was going to be a "brand new, never seen before core." In their same words, they turned around and told me that many companies had tried this but Richie had perfected it. OK, here is my problem with this. That is a contradiction in itself. How can it never been seen before if othr companies had tried it? I asked if it was an assymetrical version of the diamond and I was told, "No. It's something brand new." Low and behold, the release comes and it's a twisted assymetrical diamond. Now, either I was lied to (Possible) or they were working on something else. I don't know. All I know is these are the facts that I have. I will not argue or dispute anybody's views or opinions of this issue as that is not my purpose in posting this inofrmation. I just thought it was interesting and relevant. Having thrown 95% of Lane #1's releases, I keep finding that the next release is something to replace something in the past. I am still waiting for that new technology that sets the next ball apart from the past. Again, just my opinion.
Post by: Steven on January 30, 2007, 09:15:51 AM
quote:
If you know so much, and I know so little about it, how about you shed some light on the subject?
You started this off by stating Lane#1 stole the bomb core design from the Hammer Spike. At any level, a very presumptuous accusation without some proof to present beyond some ridiculously simple one dimensional picture (goes to the whole trolling thing). Again, I responded that if Lane#1 'stole' anything, Hammer probably would have taken legal action. Stealing only has meaning in the context of legal rights. Unless you have inside information to the contrary, there is nothing there.
quote:
We can make the rational induction that if Hammer didn't have a case on Lane #1 for the Bomb/Spike design, then Lane #1 has no grounds for suit with Brunswick.
Wow. What a reach. There is nothing rational about the above at all. Are you a Ball Design Engineer who has examined both cores, in a lab, with the provisions of the Lane#1 patent in hand?
quote:
The similarities between the Spike/Bomb are greater than that of the FURY/Diamond.
Same as my response above. You're not even close to having the information necessary to start reasonable speculation.
quote:
Well, you mentioned one, Track, where are the rest?
Ebonite went through massive line-up changes with Brian Pursel (notably the creation of the Apex asymmetric line), canned him when he got off on unpopular tangents like the TPC, and went to Ronald Hickland who has created an entirely new asymmetric line-up.
quote:
You're also making the assumption that a bowler in general is unable to shop for themselves.
That's a loaded statement, but in general, true. We have a bowling ball industry built on feeding an army of recreational bowlers equipment they don't really need or know how to effectively use. Talk to most bowlers about covers, cover adjustments, cores, drilling, matchups, and you get back a 'deer in the headlights' stare. To be fair, Lane#1 has fallen into the same mode. They're a business, and they have to try and maximize profit like everyone else.
quote:
Tell me this steven, with all of these hybrid coverstock blends of lane #1, how can you make a fair assessment of the ball without knowing what the blend ratios are, let alone the base grits that are not mentioned anywhere on lane #1's site?
Actually, many of the Brunswick based Lane#1 balls have tried and true covers with long track records. The Cranberry has PK18; Golden Nugget has PK17; the pearl and solid Uraniums have Inferno based covers; the Hybrid DB has a PK18 based resin, etc. At least when Lane#1 used Brunswick covers, it wasn't hard to figure out roughly what you're getting. I do all my own cover modifications, and I really haven't found any surprises in cover reaction, or making modifications by sanding sanding/polishing.
Mav, I really don't want get into contest with you. I give you a lot of credit in the Miscellaneous forum for posting your video and asking for input. It takes a lot to put yourself out like that. So don't undo the good stuff by trolling in the Lane#1 forum. You have more to offer than that.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: GTX on January 30, 2007, 10:06:09 AM
quote:
OK, here is my problem with this. That is a contradiction in itself. How can it never been seen before if othr companies had tried it?
what is really so hard to understand about this ??
idea itself doesn't count until you provide a prototype .. god knows what all these companies are developing/trying/researching right now .. as long there is no production, it is brand new to whoever perfects it first
quote:
I keep finding that the next release is something to replace something in the past. I am still waiting for that new technology that sets the next ball apart from the past. Again, just my opinion.
you wanna tell me bigB, storm, ebonite .. etc have a unique balls .. that none of ALL the balls they produced did replace another one !!!
not long ago, I was looking at storm CURRENT line up and I can name 3-4 balls that are identical based on the graph that storm provided
and btw, just to say someone told me, I was told ... etc .. any company doesn't have to tell you anything about future production .. and more likely you have interpreted whatever they told you to something you wanted to believe in
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Post by: Charles on January 30, 2007, 10:19:16 AM
--------------------
Boss of the Texas Syndicate
Post by: Floridarevmachine on January 30, 2007, 10:37:23 AM
--------------------
mmmmmmmmmm Beer
Post by: MegaMav on January 30, 2007, 11:47:26 AM
quote:
To be fair, Lane#1 has fallen into the same mode. They're a business, and they have to try and maximize profit like everyone else.
We'll keep it at that.
Post by: Joe Jr on January 30, 2007, 12:22:22 PM
Why can't you people just act civil instead of acting like soccer moms whos kid just got thrown out of the game? Of course my comment was nothing more then my opinion(and an exaggerated one at that), but in no way did I attack Lane1 or it's followers, but I still get insulted by people who fit there words better then me.
I still stand by my first sentence, Lane1 has no case, Brunswick has modified the core enough so that even in a simple outline of the core it doesn't resemble the Diamond core, let alone in real life.
PS currently switching between about 10 balls and only 1 is a Brunswick, so you can't play the loyal card on me anymore.
--------------------
- Joe
My Vid (http://"http://youtube.com/user/BLefty")
Banned under the user name Richard Cranium
Post by: Steven on January 30, 2007, 01:32:15 PM
quote:
PS currently switching between about 10 balls and only 1 is a Brunswick, so you can't play the loyal card on me anymore.
Joe: the issue isn't loyalty, it's ignorance. That's why people jump all over you. Stop making outrageous statements you can't back up, and maybe you won't get abused.
As an aside, I just watched the Fury video on the Brunswick site. They did a very nice job with it. The roll of the Fury is very similar to the solid Uranium, and the core is the closest thing I've seen to a diamond outside of Lane#1.
The irony is that the Fury core has the same simple shape characteristics the trolls always jump over Lane#1 for producing. Anyway, the ball looks like a winner.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"
Post by: handmeDN on January 30, 2007, 02:42:13 PM
quote:
The problem with patents is that a company can take your design, improve apon it and have a patent of their own. Now if Brunswick had not twisted the core then there would be an obvious issue, but the minute that core is twisted it becomes something different entirely.
--------------------
Patents can only be held for so long (1 year),then it is fair game as long as it not duplicated exactly. Hence the Weed Eater came out then the next year Weed whacker etc...Then everyone has one out.
Now there is another aspect foriegn patents are different, Japan has been doing this for years to our technology,economy, taking picture while on tour all those years when actually they were investors.
If Lane #1 doesn't have a Mexico patent, on the core, there then all they had to do is apply for it the buy the rights from mexico investors/ patent holders. Now the same applies with coverstocks. If Lane #1 had the recipe for the High Octane mixture. All they have to do is open a plant in say canada/cuba/south America/Iraq/Iran/Spain, apply for a patent and buy it from the special intrests. As long as no one else has already applied for that patent and granted to them there. See the Picture!
Post by: Brickguy221 on January 30, 2007, 09:17:04 PM
quote:
What can I say? I'm no psychic, it's just that Trolls are so predictable
Fixed....
--------------------
Brick
Post by: Brickguy221 on January 30, 2007, 09:35:45 PM
quote:
I've realized that arguing with Trolls is more like arguing with monkeys, they don't have anything to say so they just fling crap at you.
Fixed
quote:
Why can't you people just act civil instead of acting like soccer moms whos kid just got thrown out of the game? Of course my comment was nothing more then my opinion(and an exaggerated one at that),
Joe, you made a statement and not an opinion. Had it been an opinion you would have said that the core "probably" has more R&D, but instead you said it "has more" R&D.
quote:
I still stand by my first sentence, Lane1 has no case, Brunswick has modified the core enough so that even in a simple outline of the core it doesn't resemble the Diamond core, let alone in real life.
I won't debate that one because I honestly don't know either way.
--------------------
Brick
Edited on 1/30/2007 10:45 PM
Post by: Brickguy221 on January 30, 2007, 09:45:43 PM
quote:
Patents can only be held for so long (1 year),then it is fair game as long as it not duplicated exactly. Hence the Weed Eater came out then the next year Weed whacker etc...Then everyone has one out.
Now there is another aspect foriegn patents are different, Japan has been doing this for years to our technology,economy, taking picture while on tour all those years when actually they were investors.
If Lane #1 doesn't have a Mexico patent, on the core, there then all they had to do is apply for it the buy the rights from mexico investors/ patent holders. Now the same applies with coverstocks. If Lane #1 had the recipe for the High Octane mixture. All they have to do is open a plant in say canada/cuba/south America/Iraq/Iran/Spain, apply for a patent and buy it from the special intrests. As long as no one else has already applied for that patent and granted to them there. See the Picture!
A lot of truth in what handmeDN posted here. I am retired from managing a Brick Manufacturing Facility and we applied for and got patents on several things over the years in regard to manufacturing Brick. Our company lawyers handled that part of it so I wasn't directly involved in that part. The only thing I question in handmeDN's post is the 1 year limitation. I was thinking it was longer than that, but I could be mistaken here.
--------------------
Brick
Post by: novawagonmaster on January 31, 2007, 09:55:52 AM
--------------------
Jon (in Ohio)
CHROME WON'T GET YOU HOME!
F.O.S. Proud Saw user...see profile.
Post by: triggerman on January 31, 2007, 10:01:22 AM
--------------------
www.bowlingballexchange.com
Triggerman
F.O.S Loud, F.O.S. Proud
Lane #1 Baby
Post by: Doug Sterner on January 31, 2007, 12:12:10 PM
Throw what you want and make it work...suck it up and enjoy.
--------------------
Doug Sterner
Doug's Pro Shop
Owego, NY
http://dougsproshop@aol.com
www.dougsproshop.net
Lane 1 Buzzsaw...The Official Power Tool Of Bowling
Post by: Law on February 21, 2007, 10:00:54 AM
quote:quote:
Patents can only be held for so long (1 year),then it is fair game as long as it not duplicated exactly.
The only thing I question in handmeDN's post is the 1 year limitation. I was thinking it was longer than that, but I could be mistaken here.
--------------------
Brick
In the simplest sense, a patent is good for 20 years from the filing date. The old rule was that it was good 20 years from the filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer.