I work in an industry (Venture Capital Backed
companies that product system level computing and data
storage products) where tens of millions of dollars
are invested in product development and it often
results in a mere 12 month time to market advantage
before someone rips you off. (usually someone that
you disclosed your product to because they were
"interested in an OEM deal").
If you file enough patents you have the privilige of
going broke litigating the case or you can just steel
yourself and try to outperform them.
Seems wrong, but bottom line, thats the world we live
in.
If you need more evidence, go to Walmart and take a
close look at many of the products they sell there.
The package looks like the brand you are familiar
with, but upon close inspection you will see it is a
knock off. Walmarts procurement function alledgedly
will threaten a supplier with "Meet our cost goals or
we will go to Asia and get a knock off product
instead".
Meaning no disrespect, the Duchin Dash is a piece of
Aluminum with holes in it. If the competitors part
has the exact same holes in the exact same places it
is curious fact, but probably not a crime. Unless Mr.
Duchin filed some very specific copyrights, I would
guess its a lost cause. (I dont think you can patent
holes in aluminum).
There's a thousand precedent examples....
Bottom line, you have to vote with your wallet and do
business with those that you want support. That will
vary by individual.
Eric
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:41:50 -0000
From: "Conall"
Subject: Re: Stolen design, SCUMBAGS!!!
> Holy crap, Critchfield, who pissed on your
Post-Toasties? Jay has
been
> a worthwhile and respectable member of this group
for a long time.
For
> longer than KLR650.com has been known as a source of
knock-off
products,
> in fact. I know that Conall will say otherwise, but
what KLR650.com
> does is NOT a manifestation of free enterprise.
They do NOT say,
> "there's an interesting dashboard/fork brace/etc.,
but I can make a
> better one." They simply make direct knockoffs.
>
i don't like this type of dealings either so to speak.
I've been on
this list a long time and could argue either side of
this argument. I
have the right to change my mind if I want to but I
don't like the
tone of this so I'm going defensive and now that I've
been dragged
into the fray, I'm going to respond.
Quite simply,any company that wants to set itself
apart from the rest
of the market needs to consider intellectual-property
protection.
I don't believe any patents are pending on any of the
products reverse
engineered (copied) by Studebaker, correct me if I'm
wrong.
You could take 5 yrs to develop something, if you
don't get patent or
copyright protection someone can knock it off
overnight.
Legal protection of the property is key to securing
licensing deals
and venture capital.
If the parties who feel they have been infringed had a
patent or
copyright a simple letter to MASH could possibly
resolve things short
of filing a lawsuit.
Conall-
BTW, thanks for all your valuable input here and info. on your site.
Jim A17