|
|
|
|
pfwein
Apr 2, 2010, 4:22 PM
Post #26 of 220
(5790 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
cracklover wrote: . . . Anyway, the point is that China is not exactly known for patent enforcement, to say the least. . . . GO 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). 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. (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.) 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of patent. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 2, 2010, 4:53 PM
Post #28 of 220
(5776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
pfwein wrote: cracklover wrote: . . . Anyway, the point is that China is not exactly known for patent enforcement, to say the least. . . . 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.
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
Apr 2, 2010, 5:40 PM
Post #29 of 220
(5754 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
USnavy wrote: pfwein wrote: cracklover wrote: . . . Anyway, the point is that China is not exactly known for patent enforcement, to say the least. . . . 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. 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).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 2, 2010, 5:49 PM
Post #30 of 220
(5749 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
pfwein wrote: cracklover wrote: . . . Anyway, the point is that China is not exactly known for patent enforcement, to say the least. . . . GO 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). 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?
In reply to: 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. More than just theory. I have heard, for instance, that Five Ten has not patented its rubber because it doesn't want to disclose its formula. So your theory is supported by a rumored anecdote. Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 2, 2010, 5:50 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 2, 2010, 5:55 PM
Post #31 of 220
(5742 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
gamehendge wrote: 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
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 2, 2010, 5:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
Apr 2, 2010, 6:14 PM
Post #32 of 220
(5728 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
rubber_man
Apr 2, 2010, 6:27 PM
Post #33 of 220
(5717 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 273
|
jt512 wrote: gamehendge wrote: 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 I have been searching/waiting for a comment from them, I wish they would, kinda want to know if they're planning on doing/attempting to do anything about what's going on with climbx. and my money is on madrock too.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 2, 2010, 6:27 PM
Post #34 of 220
(5717 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
photoguy190 wrote: 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. Thanks for repeating my point for the rc.com audience. Clearly, my post was too succinct, grammatical, and well spelled. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Apr 2, 2010, 6:32 PM
Post #35 of 220
(5714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
jt512 wrote: 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? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
rubber_man
Apr 2, 2010, 6:33 PM
Post #36 of 220
(5713 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2010
Posts: 273
|
jt512 wrote: photoguy190 wrote: 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. Thanks for repeating my point for the rc.com audience. Clearly, my post was too succinct, grammatical, and well spelled. Jay You're just to fancy for us normalz folks
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 2, 2010, 6:57 PM
Post #37 of 220
(5698 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: gamehendge wrote: 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 I notice that this is on the Mad Rock website:
MadRock wrote: PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Customer Alert! Santa Fe Springs, CA February 15, 2010: Mad Rock Climbing is issuing a customer alert for Climb X products. Climb X products are an imitation made with the intention to deceive the consumer into believing it to be genuine Mad Rock products. Mad Rock and its parent company Nelson Sports Inc. has no affiliation with Climb X or its products, which violates numerous patent and copyright laws. We encourage any customers who have been approached by Climb X to contact us immediately. Contact: Kenny Suh Kenny@Madrockclimbing.com 800.959.5792 This could get pretty interesting... Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 2, 2010, 7:03 PM
Post #38 of 220
(5694 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
cracklover wrote: 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
|
|
|
|
|
photoguy190
Apr 2, 2010, 7:07 PM
Post #39 of 220
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
|
curt wrote: cracklover wrote: 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 At least Young Chu made different shoes, these are the same down to the colors, at least they could have changed the color
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Apr 2, 2010, 7:13 PM
Post #40 of 220
(5683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 2, 2010, 7:16 PM
Post #41 of 220
(5682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
curt wrote: cracklover wrote: 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 Thanks, I knew I wasn't remembering the story perfectly. GO
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Apr 2, 2010, 7:26 PM
Post #42 of 220
(5673 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
shoo wrote: jt512 wrote: 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? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Apr 2, 2010, 7:31 PM
Post #43 of 220
(5668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
squierbypetzl wrote: shoo wrote: jt512 wrote: 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? 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. I stand corrected. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Apr 2, 2010, 7:38 PM
Post #44 of 220
(5664 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: More than just theory. I have heard, for instance, that Five Ten has not patented its rubber because it doesn't want to disclose its formula. So your theory is supported by a rumored anecdote. Jay 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. Trade secrets, as you probably know, are extremely common, and can range (generally speaking as local definitions may on occasion vary) from customer and supplier lists, to industrial processes and formulas. The big major huge difference between a patent and a trade secret is that a patent grants you total and complete protection against any and all infringement. A trade secret on the other hand, is only good once its kept a secret. If someone arrives at the same conclusion by themselves, there´s absolutely nothing that can be done to stop them. Dunno if MR has its designs protected as well, since making carbon copies of the shows, color and all, would definitely violate that protection.
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Apr 2, 2010, 7:40 PM
Post #45 of 220
(5656 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
And if any Mad Rock (TM) people are out there reading, my comprehensive legal services are readily available.
|
|
|
|
|
squierbypetzl
Moderator
Apr 2, 2010, 7:42 PM
Post #46 of 220
(5648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2005
Posts: 3431
|
And if any ClimbX (TM) people are out there reading, my comprehensive legal services are readily available.
|
|
|
|
|
USnavy
Apr 3, 2010, 9:42 AM
Post #47 of 220
(5601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Posts: 2667
|
pfwein wrote: USnavy wrote: pfwein wrote: cracklover wrote: . . . Anyway, the point is that China is not exactly known for patent enforcement, to say the least. . . . 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. 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). It’s extremely obvious that Climb X simply copied Mad Rocks products. Suggesting anything else is just complete ignorance. Did you even look at their lineup? It’s completely identical to Mad Rock's. And not just one product, everything is identical. But there is more at work here then Climb X’s right to or not to manufacturer knock off product. As with all industries, there is a matter of trustworthiness and professionalism at work. If a company goes and simply copies another companies product; markets the product as their own; insists that it’s their design when its obvious its not; and steels the other company’s classified secrets, would you consider that company to be trustworthy and professional? Taking part in that type of business brings into question the competency, judgment, professionalism, and trustworthiness of the company. One may ask, "If I cannot trust this company to be honest about their product designs, how can I trust their product is safe for use? How can I trust it will hold my next whipper?". The answer is, you can’t. So there is more at work here then just legal right to or not to manufacturer the product. Trust and professionalism is key. Without it, no one will buy that crap. After all, none of their product is CE, EN or UIAA certified. I think they are the only company on the market right now that holds that title. So not only are they dishonest and untrustworthy, none of their product holds any type of certifications. Sounds like they are going to be a big seller...
(This post was edited by USnavy on Apr 3, 2010, 9:45 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Apr 5, 2010, 1:22 PM
Post #48 of 220
(5518 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage.
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 5, 2010, 3:42 PM
Post #50 of 220
(5710 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
adatesman wrote: areyoumydude wrote: What patents? 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|