Interesting take on the patent dispute,  I think I'll be ordering some spares just in case.

Agree with Dylan. Safer than sorry.

Who new! Good to know.

Don't know why there isn't more traction on this? Could Autel force DJI and 3rd party vendors from making replacement props? My MP2 could be all dress up and with no propellers to fly.

I'm stocking up

There will be zero issue with buying accessories for the drone, even if they get the ban through the courts.  

Further, the ban would be temporary at worst.  

Woe Posted at 5-21 14:59
I'm stocking up

Me too.  

method007 Posted at 5-21 16:27
There will be zero issue with buying accessories for the drone, even if they get the ban through the courts.  

Further, the ban would be temporary at worst.

The listing on amazon that I marked as favourite the other day which had lots are now sold out when I went to order.

I think they will find a way.

DAFlys Posted at 5-22 01:03
Me too.

Placed an order last night.

DAFlys Posted at 5-22 01:04
The listing on amazon that I marked as favourite the other day which had lots are now sold out when I went to order.

Considering nothing has changed legally, what you’re implying doesn’t make any sense.  Further, bans apply to the patent covered item, not its accessories.  

Interesting take on the patent dispute,  I think I'll be ordering some spares just in case.
Rather than the uninformed and alarmist nonsense that been posted on this non-issue, here's some genuine commentary from real lawyers:
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/ip-updates/latest-development-in-the-dji-autel-disputes.html

Seems Autel has already lost:    The patents seem to be void. https://dronedj.com/2020/05/22/d ... tent-dispute-round/

Woe Posted at 5-21 14:59
I'm stocking up

Me too, better safe than sorry.

Paul_ Posted at 5-23 03:38
Me too, better safe than sorry.

Agreed

Woe Posted at 5-22 05:18
Placed an order last night.

Hotrod in Daytona Posted at 5-23 02:10
Seems Autel has already lost:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tTWqDLZm3I  The patents seem to be void. https://dronedj.com/2020/05/22/d ... tent-dispute-round/

That link didn't work.

method007 Posted at 5-22 14:58
Considering nothing has changed legally, what you’re implying doesn’t make any sense.  Further, bans apply to the patent covered item, not its accessories.

The patent was for the propellors. thats the point.

DAFlys Posted at 5-22 01:03
Me too.

Smart

Woe Posted at 5-25 05:38
Smart

thanks Woe,  I don't think there's much loose really.

DAFlys Posted at 5-25 05:41
thanks Woe,  I don't think there's much loose really.

I agree my friend, I agree.

Woe Posted at 5-25 06:23
I agree my friend, I agree.

I don't think were alone either.

DAFlys Posted at 5-25 06:25
I don't think were alone either.

My friend stocked up as well, so your right we are not

Woe Posted at 5-25 06:31
My friend stocked up as well, so your right we are not

I might start a poll.

DAFlys Posted at 5-25 07:35
I might start a poll.

You should. It would be interesting to see the results.

Woe Posted at 5-25 07:43
You should. It would be interesting to see the results.

I have started one.

DAFlys Posted at 5-25 08:02
I have started one.

I already voted.

DAFlys Posted at 5-25 00:55
The patent was for the propellors. thats the point.

The dispute was over multiple patents.  In regards the the propellers specifically, their claim was regarding the design of the attachment on the drone itself, not the propellers (patent 184).  Further, the patents have already been invalidated as was expected from the beginning of the suit.  The patents were ridiculous vague.  This was merely a desperate plea by Autel to gain market share.  It’s no coincidence this coincided with the release of their new drone.  

At no point were the propellers themselves ever in danger of being banned.  Also, as of May 20th, patent 184 has been invalidated.  There is now no concern at all.  

DAFlys Posted at 5-25 07:35
I might start a poll.

Why?
Go back and read post #12 to get up to date with this ridiculous non-issue.
And stop making so many posts about it.

Woe Posted at 5-25 08:10
I already voted.

Well done.

method007 Posted at 5-25 19:08
The dispute was over multiple patents.  In regards the the propellers specifically, their claim was regarding the design of the attachment on the drone itself, not the propellers (patent 184).  Further, the patents have already been invalidated as was expected from the beginning of the suit.  The patents were ridiculous vague.  This was merely a desperate plea by Autel to gain market share.  It’s no coincidence this coincided with the release of their new drone.  

At no point were the propellers themselves ever in danger of being banned.  Also, as of May 20th, patent 184 has been invalidated.  There is now no concern at all.

Its only been invalidated one person, it requires the entire council to concur.  And I could argue the attachment of the propellor is critical to its use.  

DAFlys Posted at 5-26 00:11
Well done.

....

Woe Posted at 5-26 05:15
....

You're very welcome.