|
|
|
|
pfwein
Apr 5, 2010, 4:56 PM
Post #51 of 220
(4037 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
sidepull wrote: 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? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 5, 2010, 5:19 PM
Post #52 of 220
(4020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 5, 2010, 5:44 PM
Post #53 of 220
(3993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 5, 2010, 5:50 PM
Post #54 of 220
(3988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling:
ClimbX wrote: ...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... ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 5, 2010, 6:01 PM
Post #55 of 220
(3976 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
curt wrote: Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling: ClimbX wrote: ...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... ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock. Curt Of course! Don't you remember their original "press release"? It basically said that they are the *real* MadRock (under a new name), and Young Chu had been kicked to the curb. Here's an excerpt to refresh your memory:
In reply to: 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. GO
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 5, 2010, 6:03 PM
Post #56 of 220
(3974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
curt wrote: Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling: ClimbX wrote: ...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... ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock. Curt I honestly don't find it troubling at all.
|
|
|
|
|
blueeyedclimber
Apr 5, 2010, 6:31 PM
Post #57 of 220
(3956 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
|
Adk wrote: edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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. My point wasn't that the copy was inferior, it was that the original was inferior. They are a cheaper shoe, well, because they are a CHEAPER shoe.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Apr 5, 2010, 6:36 PM
Post #58 of 220
(3946 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: blueeyedclimber wrote: Adk wrote: edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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. My point wasn't that the copy was inferior, it was that the original was inferior. They are a cheaper shoe, well, because they are a CHEAPER shoe. Do you have any hard data to back that up, or is that just your impression? Jay A post merely asking for evidence gets one star. Only on rockclimbing.com Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Apr 5, 2010, 6:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 5, 2010, 6:39 PM
Post #59 of 220
(3941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Adk wrote: curt wrote: Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling: ClimbX wrote: ...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... ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock. Curt I honestly don't find it troubling at all. Nor do I. I find the soap-opera element purely entertaining, and the "live by the sword, die by the sword" (or in this case, theft) element to be sad, but also funny in an ironic way. GO
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Apr 5, 2010, 6:40 PM
Post #60 of 220
(3938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
My point was that its ironic. And hilarious. "You're trying to kidnap what I've rightfully stolen!!" The biggest name in cheaper climbing shoe copies is calling no fair on someone for copying them. *Pops the popcorn*
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 5, 2010, 6:41 PM
Post #61 of 220
(3935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Adk wrote: curt wrote: Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling: ClimbX wrote: ...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... ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock. Curt I honestly don't find it troubling at all. Well, some people have ethics and some people don't. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
karmiclimber
Apr 5, 2010, 6:43 PM
Post #62 of 220
(3931 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2004
Posts: 1058
|
Yeah, Mad Rock had mad ethics when they copied other climbing companies.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 5, 2010, 6:48 PM
Post #63 of 220
(3919 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
karmiclimber wrote: Yeah, Mad Rock had mad ethics when they copied other climbing companies. Oh, I'm not defending MadRock. I'm simply calling BS on ClimbX. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 5, 2010, 6:51 PM
Post #64 of 220
(3911 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
curt wrote: Adk wrote: curt wrote: Patents aside, I find this information on the ClimbX website to be quite troubling: ClimbX wrote: ...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... ClimbX is actually telling us that they are currently producing the same products "as before" - meaning when these people worked for MadRock. Curt I honestly don't find it troubling at all. Well, some people have ethics and some people don't. Curt Right. Ethics or morals?
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 5, 2010, 7:17 PM
Post #65 of 220
(3886 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
curt wrote: karmiclimber wrote: Yeah, Mad Rock had mad ethics when they copied other climbing companies. Oh, I'm not defending MadRock. I'm simply calling BS on ClimbX. Curt 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
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 5, 2010, 7:21 PM
Post #66 of 220
(3881 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Adk wrote: edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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. 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 make me one.
(This post was edited by edge on Apr 5, 2010, 7:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 5, 2010, 7:46 PM
Post #67 of 220
(3861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
cracklover wrote: curt wrote: karmiclimber wrote: Yeah, Mad Rock had mad ethics when they copied other climbing companies. Oh, I'm not defending MadRock. I'm simply calling BS on ClimbX. Curt 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 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. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 5, 2010, 7:47 PM
Post #68 of 220
(3858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
edge wrote: Adk wrote: edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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. 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've seen that some of the same basic designs or looks are being carried through though. The real question to some is who has the right to use them. I honestly could care less who has the right. That is for them to decide. I'm glad that the company has split. It will be a good thing in the end. One company will flourish and the other will either wither or finally pull it's head out of the sand.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 5, 2010, 8:01 PM
Post #69 of 220
(3848 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Adk wrote: edge wrote: Adk wrote: edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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. 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... Then you haven't been paying attention. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 5, 2010, 8:03 PM
Post #70 of 220
(3843 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Adk wrote: I haven't seen anywhere that they will be made in the same factory You quoted that yourself four posts up. Production facility = factory in Chinese.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 5, 2010, 8:06 PM
Post #71 of 220
(3837 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Adk wrote: edge wrote: Adk wrote: edge wrote: blueeyedclimber wrote: karmiclimber wrote: So, climb x is copying mad rock's copies and selling them for 10 bucks less. What an outrage. They're still not worth it. +1 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. 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. Then you're not paying any attention. They said quite clearly that they took over the Chinese operations (including the factory). GO
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 5, 2010, 8:08 PM
Post #72 of 220
(3834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Wow, Curt, Edge, and Cracklover all of the same opinion? Where's the wormhole, I don't remember tumbling into a wormhole...
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 5, 2010, 8:36 PM
Post #73 of 220
(3819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
D'oh! I posted too slowly... That's what I get for actually working. Anyway, in response to this:
In reply to: 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. Yeah, sure, there is no rock-solid evidence that the guy who left five ten under suspicious circumstances and then started making cheap knock-offs in China did anything untoward. You are absolutely right, I suppose, and perhaps we should all give the original founders of of Mad Rock the benefit of the doubt. But if so, then why not extend that same courtesy to the current "controversy"? One could argue that the whole thing may be a misunderstanding that's been blown out of proportion. Or even go so far as to suggest that Joe might have been the aggrieved party, who was summarily fired, but everyone except senior execs sided with him, and wanted him to keep running their company the "right" way, while the big bad executives moved to Vietnam just to cut out the workers demanding a fair wage. Any number of fairy tales could be dreamed up. But so far as I'm concerned, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... then the old saying about there being no honor among thieves seems apropos. GO
|
|
|
|
|
sidepull
Apr 5, 2010, 8:42 PM
Post #74 of 220
(3812 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 2335
|
pfwein wrote: sidepull wrote: 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? 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. Excellent! You've done a great job of proving why people hate lawyers!
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 5, 2010, 8:43 PM
Post #75 of 220
(4144 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
I thought Mad Rock moved their facility? ..just say....WRONG!!!!! I could have swore though. LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|