Pinkbike thing

Edit: “Oh shit, they’re catching on. Better write something — anything — that he hasn’t written about so they don’t think we’re copying him”

Published 4 days after:

One bite. Success. That was a close one…

First and foremost, I appreciate everyone’s support. It’s been nice to see a large level of integrity in the biking community.

I’d like to clarify my position on this whole Pinkbike issue. This comes from my belief in a lack of coincidence, not plagiarism. I’m not using that word here because they didn’t use any of my words, and that’s a very serious accusation. I’m not accusing anyone of explicit plagiarism. But, I’m having a very hard time believing they just happened to pick four straight topics that overlap with my research – those are some incredibly low odds.

Here’s a list of every single patent article Pinkbike has released in 2021, along with a link to my website. All of these are published after they published me in Dec. 2020.

On these first two, you can see they’re related patents, not the exact same ones. Companies will do this to broaden the scope of an idea or build on a related concept. They have the same images and the same or very similar language in them. If you write about a different patent number with the same info, there’s no need for a cite, right? Hmm…

Shimano wireless:



SRAM derailleur:



Then, we’ve got these two. Same patent number, same material. Having an especially hard time believing they just so happened to find and understand that carbon recycling one, out of all the other excellent ideas released by SRAM.

SRAM recycling:



SRAM shock:



“Maybe they don’t know you exist.”

Doubt it

“It’s public information; they can write about it too.”

They absolutely can. I’m arguing the lack of coincidence after 4 straight articles without a cite. There have been hundreds released this year; anyone can write about any of those as well.

“Writing about patents isn’t new.”

No one is saying it’s new. IP watchdog, for example, has been around forever. Anyone can write about any of these. It’s the coincidence I’m questioning.

In the end, maybe this is just a giant coincidence and I’m absolutely incorrect. Maybe they did just pick 4 topics that overlap my research. While the odds are low, it’s possible. All I’m looking for is a cite, that’s it. If my writing helps you in any way, just cite it.

10 thoughts

  1. The editor’s note they appended to their most recent article makes it sound like you were the only one that’s upset… Personally I hope you never succumb to the same soft influence that has made PinkBike the gatekeeper to the bike cartel. Please keep sharing your findings and opinions on what you find.

    I appreciated this extra salty comment from @mikekazimer: “it’s not very hard to type in “SRAM LLC” into the patent search box; it’s something we do occasionally, and will continue to do in order to get glimpses of what might be coming down the road. Give it a try yourself if you’d like:

  2. Unfortunately this is how all journalism works. It certainly seems like they may be following your blog and picking up stories they see here, but it would be unusual for a journalist to site another journalist unless they were citing research they hadn’t duplicated. Once they duplicate the research, it’s totally normal to publish without citation.

    1. Question is whether they duplicated research at all. Kazimer’s snarky “it’s easy to type ‘sram llc’ into the search box at” comment kind of proves that. There is _nothing_ in those search results that would lead directly to any of PB’s articles.

  3. I don’t know man. Might be worth taking a quick step back for your own sanity here. For reference, you’re taking the ideas/drawings/information that were created by someone else (info from the patents), adding your own thoughts and commentary, and then publishing them both on your website in an attempt to attract readers. Someone else is doing the same thing. Maybe you both report on the same thing every once in a while (IMHO four is a fairly small overlap when you look at the number of articles both of you produce on a fairly niche subject). You assert that their author/editor saw something you had spotted first and decided to write their own commentary about it. Maybe. Or maybe they didn’t and they really did stumble on the same few patents independently. But does it even matter? It feels a lot like when that friend from middle school was the first to hear the new cool song, then somehow claimed ownership over it when they hear other kids talking about it in the hallway. “I heard it first!” To be clear, you’re both using the drawings, words, ideas produced by other people, without really asking for permission from the original creators. I’m not saying this is not legal or anything. It is of course, since those people were required to publicly submit these things in order to apply for the patent, but it’s still worth taking a hard look at the mechanics here if you want to get on your moral high-horse and accuse someone else of stealing something from you.

    1. Also, to clarify, I don’t mean to make it sound like your work isn’t appreciated. The write ups, insight, and analysis is all super helpful. That’s the real value, and a value that is uniquely yours. My goal wasn’t to detract from that point, but more to point out that claiming ownership over the subject matter itself detracts from the other good work that you’re doing.

  4. You’re right, 4 isn’t a lot on it’s own, but it’s like a solid half of PB’s recent patent stuff. And half of anything is significant.

  5. Don’t stress it man. It’s pretty aparent to anyone with half a brain what pb are doing, and Mr parks retort just comes across as a snarky, defensive, and salty so and so. You can practically hear the conversation “Yeah that yeti article got a good response, fuck paying him though. “X” get on it and just re word that “Y” article.”.

    I enjoy your work mate, makes the morning dump just that little bit better. Peace out and keep up the rad work.


Leave a Reply