----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday,
December 18, 2002 1:05 PM
Subject: RE:
ShopTalk: What's fair re;selling?
I suppose it is semantics, but a general browsing of
some dictionaries gives you the impression that clones are not dastardly but
merely things that look similar. Genetically speaking they are identical
but in common usage, it is merely things that look alike. Knock-off, on
the other hand, has more of a dastardly meaning. Basically they are cheap
imitations, or copies.
The computers we are writing these tomes on are clones. From the keyboard
to the sub woofer, there is little difference from one computer to
another. No one has argued the exclusivity of these components or design
for years now. An HP and an IBM look identical from 3 feet but if HP
decided to make an HBM computer, the lawsuit would make headlines. Cars
have 4 wheels (generally), doors, engines, speedometers etc. They are all
clones, more or less. The term automobile and car became generic many
years ago as did most of their components. In fact, though it might have
something to do with age, I haven't been able to tell the difference between
most of the hundreds of car models, for years now. The same can be said
about golf clubs. The USGA has set physical restrictions on the golf club
and those manufacturing to those standards are all making clones. In
fact, the golf club has also become generic and clone is probably not an
appropriate term. Golf clubs are golf clubs and are clones to each
other. They all look alike. You could then even argue that none of
them are clones.
Knock-offs are another matter. These are intentional attempts to look
like another's product. If they all look alike, how can that be? It
happens with trademarks and copyrights and trade dress. When you take a
club head that legally and legitimately is shaped similar to another manufacturers
head and call it War Hawk, like the War Bird, or the King Snake, like the King
Cobra, you have then ventured into the dastardly world.
Most everything I own is a clone of something, none of them are
Knock-offs. Maybe it is just me, but I have no problems in the area
of golf clubs. I sell tons, of what might be called clones, and do so
gladly. I have never sold a Knock-off. Pretty simple in my world.
Al
At 04:25 AM 12/18/2002, you wrote:
Cub,
Maybe a
little deep in Poi!!!
No,
perhaps not full of crap, just that your interpretation of "clone" is
different than what another person would have, I just believe that we all set
our limits of ethical behavior based on what our personal standards are and our
relationship to the device. We keep that range and definitely will not go
beyond it. You have a standard and measure it by your stick. Others
have their stick and measure it by their own devices. 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. If you
utilize a clubhead that is partly like a GBB, a TM, a Cobra, a Ping, a
whatever, then is it a 'clone". You might say no, it is a new design
since the total product is different than all the source designs from which it
came. We can split hairs and say yes or we can say no, depending on which
side of the fence your concern is. My contention is, you cannot
distinguish a look-alike and a perform-alike and a NEW breed without taking
some license from some previous design. Now if your design does super-duper
things to a golf ball to get it in the hole, then your combination is
revolutionary, but it is still a "clone" of the devices from which
you take the original design to make your super duper clubhead. Again,
simply put, if it looks like a club it is a "clone" of
something. If it swings like a club, it is a "clone" of
something. If it neither performs like something nor swings like
something then you have a new device.....and it might not meet the
specifications of the USGA or the R&A, and thus make your $$$$$$$ as an
"illegal" club!
For
example, the Ping thin faced design...... which I believe at one time or
another had been attempted before, but without modern manufacturing processes
failed, or did not give the expected results. Now everyone is on the
wagon getting their take on the thin faced design into the ad department for
their spiel for selling their variation on this "unique"
process. Are all thin faced clubs a "clone" of the Ping head or
of the original design? Or because they use the aerodynamic properties of
a Mizuno, the thin-faced properties of a Ping, and the hosel bore through
properties of a Big Bertha and various other design characteristics shadowing
the good components of other clubheads then by definition a "new design"
and thus reference all other integral patents in their design patent
application. Is this a "clone"? By definition in
reference to the design components of other registered patents, a
"new" patent is issued and thus is it not a "clone"?
You or
others here surely have more access to various distributors and component
foundries than I have and have possibly seen how designs come to fruition from
the drawing board to your shop than I. I agree that a "King
Snake" or other closely similar trademark name is dramatic license of an
OEM club and would be reason to not sell or otherwise use a certain club.
Other people however might not see the problem in name copying and since it is
a slightly or dramatically different physical design, they would be ok with that.
Each had a line that they draw as to what is ethical and what is not.
Different positions and definitely a result each can live with. However,
what about the original owner of the Trademark or the component property that
makes this club unique and desirable. They each would have their limits
as to what is a "clone" and what is not.
My belief
is that a "clone" has a coat of many colors and must be recognized
for each and every one of those colors. Your ethical limits permit you to
allow certain properties and not others. Mine are different. Each
of the others on ST have their own, as we have seen on this thread. In
the end we each have to decide what we believe is ethical and be able to sleep
on it. We might all be full of CRAP, but at least we have set the limit
to what "FULL" means and can sleep or live with it.
And the
epistle continues..........
and by the
way Cub,
"Mele Kalikimaka and Hau'oli makahiki hou"
Dr. Voo
RxGolf
Custom Clubs
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve "Cub" Culbreth
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002
10:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: What's fair
re;selling?
Hey Doo,
"Oh I am "ethical" and will
not sell a "Clone". CRAP!!!"
I don't need to sell a "Trailer
Mode", "Big Bubba", or Starlight which happens to look exaclty
like a Mizuno when there are good designs from companies with design teams.
Plus, I have never done it intentionally. By that statement I mean selling a
club because I believe or express that it is "like" an OEM. I don't
have to use that ploy to make a living, and I refuse to.
Do you think I'm full of
"Crap"?
Cub
