Dave, Yes, a "clone" is something dastardly!
And what I am saying is that there are very fine degrees by which we all think someone is a cad for building, selling, or otherwise using a club "we" deem as a "clone". Each participant in the naming of a "clone" has their own interest at heart and will view the "clone" in varying degrees. On the example, "Two Ball" putter. I believe, somewhere along the line, long ago, someone made a putter with a ball cut in half and stuck some variety of the two halves on a putter head for alignment. I think I saw one at Golf House when I visited there on different occasions in the Mid to late 80's during a lot of business trips to Basking Ridge, Bedminster, Netcong, and Morristown. Hence the "Two ball" moniker. I think the Peltz Patent must be unique enough to distinguish it from this design. Certainly, or he would not have gotten a patent for it. Anyway, then "Two Ball" anything would be a "clone" by one aspect of your description. How about "Three Ball" or "Four Ball" or "No Ball" or "Double 0 Ball", or "00 Ball", or "Zero Ball. The list could go on as long as any marketing spiel will allow it without repercussions. Are these "names" then disallowed for use in naming any putter? NO I think not. How about if we do like Spaulding has just done and call it a different name like " BOSS" which is also the name of another putter but have done the following example from: http://www.golfindustryonline.com/body.html: Bottom of the page. "Spalding has come out with an identical version of Callaway's "2-Ball" putter. It is called the "BOSS" and is selling at retail for $69. They are selling like hot cakes in South Africa." Is that OK? Well if it is in fact exact, then they will come under fire from the Patent holder and/or the person paying the Patent holder for a license to use it. Perhaps Spaulding paid Peltz and Callaway did not have an airtight contract. They chased the "Two Ball" clones from smaller component companies. I wonder how Spaulding will handle the repercussions. I thought Golfsmith took in the Spaulding name and are selling Spaulding components. Are they associated with this dastardly deed? Again, someone here is a cad. Who, depends on where you take your point of view on the device. I might look at the Spaulding putter and decide the "name" is ok and the design, since it is some millimeter different from the original and meets patent infringement laws is ok. Spaulding might also see it this way since they brought it to market this way. What makes this different from one named "Two Ball" is in your example, wrong because it capitalizes on marketing outlay by Callaway. Market spiels throw in a lot of myth and blend in a little truth to sell you a device. So you might think that market mumbo jumbo is a unique criteria by which you can determine the cad. I think personally, I would rather say Spaulding is the cad because of the exact replication.... maybe not in color, but in basic design. Because you call a "rose" by any other name, it still is a rose and should be recognized as such. A "Boss" is a "Two Ball" putter and should be recognized as such. Shame on you Spaulding! As usual, my 2c far exceeds my meager knowledge. Epistle shortened. Dr. Voo RxGolf Custom Clubs -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave Tutelman Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 9:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: ShopTalk: What's fair re;selling? At 04:25 AM 12/18/02 -0500, James T. Voorhies wrote: >Semantics surely are a device by which we all measure what we call a >"clone". The person buying it has his standards, the person selling it >has his, and the guy who made the "original" design has his. When a >designer makes a clubhead, he starts from some point of reference. That >point is to make a golf clubhead or entire club with certain >characteristics. Those characteristics have various properties; weight, >material, angles, COG, hosel dimensions, sole, etc etc and so on. Each of >these characteristics are the components of good clubhead design. Someone >has made each of the original component designs or very similar designs at >one time or another. Each of these components of clubhead design have >theoretical and empirical properties that compose the overall design. To >make something completely new requires use of some or all of these >components. You failed to mention the most important characteristic of a clone -- if you mean "clone" to brand something as inherently unethical. That characteristic is not an engineering characteristic but a marketing one. If your goal is to piggyback on someone else's (generally an OEM's) marketing campaign through cosmetic (as opposed to performance) characteristics, then that is a "clone" in the worst sense. I don't have any problem with trying to copy the performance characteristics of any other club, as long as you don't violate patents in the process. (BTW, patent violations are seldom an issue in clone cases -- a couple of interesting exceptions below.) If you are trying to give a customer something that will behave like a TaylorMade driver, it's fine (and probably necessary) to copy the head volume and weight distribution, as well as other things. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem if you then also: * Copy the [completely non-functional] design on the sole. * Choose a paint color that is as close a match as possible. * Give it a name like "Tour Made". That goes from a "performance clone" to a "market leech"! Here are a couple of interesting patent-related tales from the clone wars: (1) Adams sued the maker of the Super Concorde for patent infringement. Adams actually had a patent on an aspect of their design to lower the CG. But the courts decided that Super Concorde did not infringe that patent; it used a lot of the same techniques as the Tight Lies to get a low CG, but did not use the one thing that Adams had patented. That's OK in my book, since it didn't use a hokey name (like "Loose Truths") or an Adams-like paint job. BTW, I did wait until the suit was decided before I made any Super Concorde clubs. (2) It is possible that you won't get clones of the 2-ball putter -- at least not clones that withstand a lawsuit. Pelz holds the patent, and he described the principle and why it works in his 1989 book (I just looked it up). I once read the patent, and it looks pretty defensible. Of course, by now it's probably less than ten years from expiration -- so maybe you WILL see a legal clone before TOO long. (Hmmm! Just looked it up. It is patent 4,688,798 from August of 1987. Took a REAL long time to market it properly. If the patent lifetime is still 17 years, then it will expire in 2004!) Just my 2 cents, DaveT
