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.