Carl and all: The matter of OEMs hammering on component companies about heads or shafts that cause them enough anxiety that they bring their legal people into the matter has somewhat dropped in its intensity over what it was in the mid to later 1990s because the OEMs don't feel the threat from the component clubmakers and their suppliers today like they did then. What remains are the legal actions that the OEMs take against the people in the component business who "cross the line" and sell designs that really do tread on the trade-dress or confusingly similar aspects of the law. And more times than not, the reason they pursue actions like this these days is because there exists in the law a matter called "implied consent", which says roughly if you let this guy go on with no legal attempt to stop him, then you are saying you don't care to protect whatever legal rights you have with a TM, trade dress or patent.
Today the OEM world is quite different than it was in the mid-90s because you have 4 companies and perhaps 5 who now own something like 70%+ of the OEM market. That means the big 4 or 5 are so big that they are not really going to get hurt by a little company(s) that come along and sell a few heads that 'sort-of' look like one of their models. Add to that the fact that the marketing programs of these huge 4 or 5 OEMs have been successful in brainwashing the public into thinking that no matter what, to buy a look-alike is akin to laying down with the dogs, and you have less for these big OEMs to fear in terms of look-alikes causing them any real problem in sales. But look-alikes still do exist for sure because there are companies that cannot attract business any other way. Same thing for clubmakers. There are clubmakers who cannot attract business any other way because they have not polished their assembly skills, or learned the technologies of fitting, so they cannot "talk the talk" and impress the end user customer. What they have to offer then is only a club that "looks like" a popular model, OR, a club that they sell for such a cheap price that it virtually carries a 'label' that says to the customer and any other golfer who sees the set, "I am a cheap piece of junk that my owner bought because he was too cheap to really pay for a GOOD set". Maybe the clone set IS very playable - but as long as it looks very close to a popular model and the price was super low, that set will always stand as a low image set because of the way consumers are trained by marketing programs to think. Personally, the main reason I have always campaigned against clones and clubmakers who sell sets for cost + 10% is because that tears down the real essence of what component clubmaking COULD be. When you think about it at its most base form, component clubmaking has always held the promise of the very BEST set a golfer could buy. Think about it - a one on one fitting session between the clubmaker and golfer - what OEM can offer that? Getting to choose from a big variety of heads, shafts and grips - what OEM can offer that? And being there with the clubmaker to tweak, adjust and fine tune when the set is built - what OEM can offer that? For some people, component clubmaking IS THAT, as long as they are in the hands of a clubmaker who approaches the craft as just that. It doesn't matter if that clubmaker is making 1000 sets a year or 2 or 3 - it only matters if the clubmaker approaches each club with a sense of pride and real craftsmanship. And that's what made me decide to get back into this business with my own venture - that the essence of component clubmaking IS that if you have the best components built by a clubmaker who cares, that set just beat the sox off anything any one of the big 4 or 5 OEMs has EVER made and sold. TOM WISHON -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Carl McKinley Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 6:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ShopTalk: Selling it Hi All, I've followed these threads with alot of interest. Very good topics for discussion. My take is simply if it doesn't infringe on a trade mark or patent then its fair game. If you take an abstract view then every cavity back iron is a copy of the Ping Eye. We could get really nuts with this. I seem to recall some of the major component vendors sent copies of their products to the OEMs to be sure they didn't infringe. Tom Wishon, Jeff Summit, or some others might better address this. Colors are interesting. Someone actually copied the ughly yellow/purple/blue UST shaft. Of course UST didn't like this so they made them change it. Solution ... simply reverse the color scheme. Now everyone is happy again and everything is right in the world. If the OEMs are satisfied then so am I. I love these threads;-) Carl ===== Carl Mc Kinley, PCS Certified Class 'A' Clubmaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] P T Barnum is the patron saint of expensive club manufacturers. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
