Shhhhh.... listen...






Hear that?

It's the sound of a thundering herd of patent lawyers.

if they copied some good shoes i would think about maybe buying a pair for the gym.

really? why is everything 10 bucks cheaper?

Their web site is a little too busy for pleasant viewing.

http://www.rockclimbing.com/...rum.cgi?post=2283848

SO WHILE THE NAME MAY BE NEW, OUR MISSION HAS REMAINED THE SAME: TO GIVE YOU THE BEST PERFORMANCE AND CUTTING-EDGE DESIGNS AT THE BEST PRICE, WITH THE BEST SERVICE.

Now Under New Old Management. Welcome friends and fans the first Climb X website—as you will quickly notice, the company name may be new, but the products inside these pages are longtime favorites. While we’d much rather discuss our latest designs and leave the boring office talk behind, the short story is the original owners and management have decided to take a more prominent role in the direction, product mix and strategy of this business. With this change, a new name has been chosen to set us apart and differentiate this company from the previous one: we are now Climb X. Same sales team. Same distributors. Same production facility. Same product development staff. The same award-winning products.

In this catalog, you will find many of the same products as before (renamed, and with the usual running upgrades and color changes) as well as some fresh all-new offerings. For 2010, Climb X will have new warehouses and offices staffed with the best in the business and dedicated to quick delivery turnarounds and knowledgeable customer service. So while the name may be new, our mission has remained the same: to give you the best performance and cutting-edge designs at the best price with the best service.

Our future plans are both ambitious and attainable: for next season, Climb X will truly hit its stride and show what this company is capable of: a host of new products, improvements to existing products, stringent ISO 9000 quality certification, more efficient logistics to our partners and much, much more. The future is very bright indeed for this new, old company.

Sincerely,
Joe Garland President, Climb X

From the "About Us" page:

What a soap opera!

(Not so) minor point- he apparently was not an employee, but rather a contracted sales rep.

Geez.... I've seen salesmen walk out with customer lists, but this takes the cake!

They're here....

http://climbxgear.com/rockshoes-2.aspx

(Not so) minor point- he apparently was not an employee, but rather a contracted sales rep.

Geez.... I've seen salesmen walk out with customer lists, but this takes the cake!

. . . Anyway, the point is that China is not exactly known for patent enforcement, to say the least. . . .

GO

My favorite of the new names for ClimbX shoes is a slipper called the "Rad Moc". Get it? Rad Moc!

Hahahahaha!

GO

I have no idea whether ClimbX has infringed Mad Rock's patents or otherwise violated any of its intellectual property rights; the mere fact that its shoes look the same isn't really enough information to have a view one way or the other.

Clearly Climb X came up with those completely identical designs all on their own.

China may not be known for patent enforcement, but that's beside the point unless you're somehow interested in shoes being sold in China for use in China.
Assuming we're talking about shoes imported into the US, US patent law provides a remedy (see relevant part of US Patent Act pasted below).

But if the shoes really are the same, the only was I can see ClimbX avoiding patent infringement is if MadRock's patents don't cover its own shoes, which is theoretically possible.

Here's an article that should shed some light on this...

[snip]

Thanks for digging that up. It seems to be well written and is the first thing I've read about this new company that makes any sense.

If it is true that Mad Rock will have lower production costs in Vietnam than Climb X has in China, then Climb X might have trouble competing. My money is on Mad Rock.

Edit: Does anyone else think it strange that we have heard little, if any, public comment about this from Mad Rock?

Jay

For somethings its better to not patten, say the KFC secret recipe cause patents only last so long then you exposed it and its up for grabs. So if you feel like you can hide a formula go for it. But when all you have to do is look at it, say alien cams and know how to do it you have to patent. I think if Mad Rock holds any patents on the shoes Climbx will have trouble selling in the US at least with front channels, there is always ebay and maybe direct sales.

I was wondering about that. What about Europe? Do they honor US patent claims? If so, then could Climb X be left with essentially no Western markets?

Thanks for repeating my point for the rc.com audience. Clearly, my post was too succinct, grammatical, and well spelled.

Jay

Thanks for digging that up. It seems to be well written and is the first thing I've read about this new company that makes any sense.

If it is true that Mad Rock will have lower production costs in Vietnam than Climb X has in China, then Climb X might have trouble competing. My money is on Mad Rock.

Edit: Does anyone else think it strange that we have heard little, if any, public comment about this from Mad Rock?

Jay

There are two other very key bits left out:

1 - This is more or less exactly how Mad Rock was started in the first place. The guy who started it was an employee at Five Ten who set up shop in China to make cheap knockoffs...

As long as we're trying to get an accurate idea of historical events here, it should be pointed out that Young Chu was actually contracted to manufacture 5.10 products in China and did so for a number of years before having a falling out with 5.10--when he then began to produce Mad Rock products in that same factory.

Curt

As long as we're trying to get an accurate idea of historical events here, it should be pointed out that Young Chu was actually contracted to manufacture 5.10 products in China and did so for a number of years before having a falling out with 5.10--when he then began to produce Mad Rock products in that same factory.

Curt

In general, yes. All World Trade Organization (WTO) member states are required to participate in the WTO's intellectual property regime, called TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights). The rules regarding TRIPS gel very well with the US patent office. Since virtually all "Western" states are WTO member states, they must comply with TRIPS, and in general, US patents.

I´d argue yes but no on this one. One of the principal characteristics of a patent is territoriality, ie it´s only good in the territory of the state granting it. While there have been at least 2 major international efforts aimed at consolidating patent laws, these are not yet plainly enforceable in every state.

To make a US patent enforceable in a foreign country, one must file for a patent in that country.

A loophole opened to address the above (with the treaty of Paris on Patent Cooperation), is granting the patent holder&seeker a period of 12 months to file an International Petition, counted from the legal date of the original patent (the date the patent was petitioned/filed for). What that does is use the International Search Authority to seek out the worldwide state of the art, and then turn over its results to the patent seeker, who then decides in which countries they will file for patent protection. Overall, the patent holder has about 42 months to file for a patent in a PCT cosignatary country.

AFTER the 12 month grace period, if no Intl. petition is filed, the patented invention enters the state of the art, and is thusly no protectable via patent, in say Brazil or Mexico.

If MR did not seek out intl. patent protection for its products in due time, it is tres fuked in other countries, but not in the US market.

Coca-cola isn't patented for that reason as well... they'd have to disclose the recipe. Not an uncommon practice, from what I can tell.

US Navy--
I can see from your post that I didn't make my point clearly. Let me try again because I want to correct a misunderstanding that many people seem to have.

In general, a company is free to copy a competitor's products. It does not matter that it is a complete knock off. Of course there are many exceptions:

You cannot (legally) infringe another company's patents. But patents don't usually protect things like rockclimbing shoes (there exceptions to that, and I believe there were references to patents in this thread. One would have to read the relevant patents and see what inventions they cover, and compare the patents to ClimbX's shoes. Until that is done, it is premature to suggest that the ClimbX is or is not infringing Mad Rock's patents).

You also cannot (legally) copy a company's trademarks. So I could make a shoe that is identical to a Nike shoe EXCEPT I cannot include the swoosh or something confusingly similar to the swoosh. Here, the name ClimbX is of course in no way similar to Mad Rock.

There are exceptions to every rule of course and I've also seen allegations made of theft of trade secrets (without any suggestion as to what those trade secrets were).

My main point, and what I think many people fail to understand, it that it is generally OK to make knock off products. That's one reason why patents can be so important--they are in general the only way to stop other companies from making functionally equivalent knock offs of any products.

There is probably a valuable lesson to business owners to carefully consider what steps they can take to protect their intellectual property and also what agreements they should have with their employees and contractors in the nature of non-competes and such (which can be a complicated area of the law and the rules vary significantly across jurisdictions).

So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage.

Well, a quick search of the USPTO site turned up patents for the guy from MR:
D516783 (shoe heel)
6470599 (concave shoe sole)
6050003 (boot with outside preformed stress relief)
7107656 (safety buckle)

Looks like he has some provisional ones as well...
20070209114 (sleeping bag with air pockets)
20060037179 (another safety buckle)
20050229364 (the safety buckle from 7107656)
20050138848 (climbing shoe with tension support sole)
20040226193 (climbing shoe with hooking rim)
20030196354 (climbing shoe with hooking teeth on the heel)
20030196350 (climbing shoe with lateral sling shot band)
20030172555 (internal split toe with a creased sole for climbing shoes)
20030115776 (climbing shoe with multiple hardness rubber sole)
20030037463 (climbing shoe with hooking rim)
20020152642 (climbing shoe with concave sole)

So yeah, if ClimbX is using stuff from any of them I'd expect things to become rather interesting.

I don't understand the need for all the discussion about trade secrets, secret sauce, and the Colonel's recipe - all the patents were posted a few posts into this thread. So Mad Rock should have recourse, yes?

They're still not worth it.

+1

...Now Under New Old Management. Welcome friends and fans the first Climb X website—as you will quickly notice, the company name may be new, but the products inside these pages are longtime favorites. While we’d much rather discuss our latest designs and leave the boring office talk behind, the short story is the original owners and management have decided to take a more prominent role in the direction, product mix and strategy of this business. With this change, a new name has been chosen to set us apart and differentiate this company from the previous one: we are now Climb X. Same sales team. Same distributors. Same production facility. Same product development staff. The same award-winning products.

In this catalog, you will find many of the same products as before (renamed, and with the usual running upgrades and color changes) as well as some fresh all-new offerings...

Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling:


ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock.

Curt

February 5, 2010: Joseph Garland, a founding member of Mad Rock Climbing since its inception in 2002 who announced his departure from the company in early January has returned to the industry, and is now working for Mad Rock's parent company and manufacturer. Three of Mad Rock's original partners: Alex Kim, Ken Kim and Joe Garland will continue the business under the new name "Climb X," with Joe Garland being named its new President. Original Mad Rock President and partner Young Chu will retain the Mad Rock name, but is no longer a member of this group. Climb X will assume the former Mad Rock operation, its distributors, most of its sales reps, international staff, warehouse, factory & production, and product development facility, as well as its Chinese and international warehouse facilities.

Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling:


ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock.

Curt

A copy of a copy is not an inferior product.
"I used better ink than the copy so mine physical print will last longer if exposed to the elements"

The design may be stolen but the materials could be of better quality making them a better shoe even though they were cheaper to manufacture or maybe it's that Climb X isn't marking them up so much as Mad Rock.

Do you have any hard data to back that up, or is that just your impression?

Jay

I honestly don't find it troubling at all.

I honestly don't find it troubling at all.

Yeah, Mad Rock had mad ethics when they copied other climbing companies.

Well, some people have ethics and some people don't.

Curt

Oh, I'm not defending MadRock. I'm simply calling BS on ClimbX.

Curt

A copy of a copy is not an inferior product.
"I used better ink than the copy so mine physical print will last longer if exposed to the elements"

The design may be stolen but the materials could be of better quality making them a better shoe even though they were cheaper to manufacture or maybe it's that Climb X isn't marking them up so much as Mad Rock.

Oh come on, Curt. I know you have a soft spot for MR, but when you look at how they got their start, doesn't this simply seem like them getting their just desserts?

GO

So you are hoping that the stolen designs, made in the very same factory, will be made with increased care, better materials, and for a lower price?

I'm not a betting man, but that hypothesis may be an exception.

I haven't seen anywhere that they will be made in the same factory or with the same materials...

I haven't seen anywhere that they will be made in the same factory

I haven't seen anywhere that they will be made in the same factory or with the same materials.

I don't know enough of the details about the breakup between Young Chu and Charles Cole to comment definitively. It is my understanding, however, that at least some of the designs and product development that ended up in the MadRock shoes was done jointly between the two. My source for that information is a long-time 5.10 employee.

So, I am less certain about any impropriety that may have occurred at MadRock's inception--maybe so, maybe not, I simply don't know. On the other hand, ClimbX, in my view, is a blatant rip-off of MadRock.

You can't validly made that assumption without more information. Let me put it another way. The following is NOT necessarily true:
Company A owns some patents;
Company B copied some of Company A's products;
therefore Company B is infringing Company A's patents.

Here's one way to look at it: companies obtain patents for products that have not yet been released and may never be released. We don't know what products MadRock's patents cover without looking at the patents.

If anyone wants to see the patents, just go to the USPTO's website or, even easier, use Google's patent search feature: http://www.google.com/patents?hl=en

On a related point, while patents are presumed to be valid, that presumption is rebuttable, so perhaps ClimbX will take the position that MadRock's patents are invalid (to the extent it needs to). It's impossible to say in the abstract whether that's a good defense to the specific patents that may be at issue.

Also--patents and trade secrets are not necessarily one versus the other. It may be that certain aspects of a shoe are protected by a patent and other aspects (say, the formulation of the rubber) are protected as trade secrets. ClimbX could be liable for patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, both, or neither.

I thought Mad Rock moved their facility?
..just say....WRONG!!!!!

I could have swore though. LOL!

I am concerned about the athletes on Team Mad Rock that may suffer from the impact Climb X could potentially have on Mad Rock's sales and/or legal costs (probably both), which may result in a reduced operations budget for Mad Rock's sponsorship programs.

I wonder if Joe Garland considered the well-being of these promising athletes before he proceeded with this transparent sham of an enterprise.

I am concerned about the athletes on Team Mad Rock that may suffer from the impact Climb X could potentially have on Mad Rock's sales and/or legal costs (probably both), which may result in a reduced operations budget for Mad Rock's sponsorship programs.

I wonder if Joe Garland considered the well-being of these promising athletes before he proceeded with this transparent sham of an enterprise.

I am concerned about the athletes on Team Mad Rock that may suffer from the impact Climb X could potentially have on Mad Rock's sales and/or legal costs (probably both), which may result in a reduced operations budget for Mad Rock's sponsorship programs.

I wonder if Joe Garland considered the well-being of these promising athletes before he proceeded with this transparent sham of an enterprise.

I know that I have been praying for them every night before I go to bed.

I know that I have been praying for them every night before I go to bed.

I am concerned about the athletes on Team Mad Rock that may suffer from the impact Climb X could potentially have on Mad Rock's sales and/or legal costs (probably both), which may result in a reduced operations budget for Mad Rock's sponsorship programs.

I wonder if Joe Garland considered the well-being of these promising athletes before he proceeded with this transparent sham of an enterprise.

Don’t worry, the lawsuit that Mad Rock wins against Climb X will help compensate for any losses. However something tells me that money is more likely to go towards a new Ferrari then the sponsors.

Something tells me you like to post just to post.

A post merely asking for evidence gets one star. Only on rockclimbing.com

Jay

All this is a plan to boost sales. Mad Rock pretends to be Climb X who's pretending to be Mad Rock who pretends to have great gear. Sales of both fund the same parent owners as they plead for your loyalty and stop the bipartisan fleet from sinking.

I should've anticipated the 'Net nerd responses before making an earnest post, but I couldn't help it. I just returned from The Red where I happened to come across a few Mad Rock athletes projecting some hard routes in The Sanctuary. They were friendly and obviously stoked on climbing, so when I saw this thread I immediately thought of those guys. I don't really follow industry gossip, but watching those guys climb got me psyched to climb, and in the end that matters most to me.

Don’t worry, the lawsuit that Mad Rock wins against Climb X will help compensate for any losses. However something tells me that money is more likely to go towards a new Ferrari then the sponsors.

Than.

Evidence that they are a cheaper shoe? The pricetag.

Now, as for my implication that they are a CRAPPY shoe? That is merely my opinion, but an opinion based on trying two of their models, the Mugen and the Flash. They did not perform nearly as well as other shoes I have tried. Compared to La Sportiva, which I wear pretty much exclusively now, they fell FAR short.

As for the one star, it seems you are attracting a lot of those....

. . . climbing shoes in the US are overpriced, either because of imperfect competition or, less likely, actual price fixing.

That was an intelligent comment. You seem to be having trouble understanding your own statement.

Not exactly specific, but anyway, the reason behind my question (which, as usual, I have to explain to you), is that climbing shoes in the US are overpriced, either because of imperfect competition or, less likely, actual price fixing. To see this, compare prices for the exact same shoes in Europe. Thus the fact that Mad Rocks have a lower retail price than their competitors (in the US) does not imply that the shoes are lower in quality; they may just not be going along with the price structure in the market.

What? Blueyedclimber missed the point of a comment? Stop the presses!

Jay

Thus the fact that Mad Rocks have a lower retail price than their competitors (in the US) does not imply that the shoes are lower in quality;