The stealing of intellectual property, and opportunists in the industry

Shawn Armstrong

Shawn Armstrong

AZB deceased - stopped posting 5/13/2022
Silver Member
Just thought I'd rant in a new post. Some people are ticked that a company is selling an XB model jump/breaker that looks to be identical to the X-breaker by Richard. I realize Richard's health is an issue right now, but this post isn't about Richard, his illness, or the timing of it.

If we were to deem certain things, such as the construction of the X-breaker to be intellectual property theft, then these innovations from the billiard industry are as well:

The jump break cue - first created by Rick Howard of Mace Cues. He came up with the 3 piece multifunction cue designed for breaking and jumping. No one should be allowed to make another 3 pc cue.

The jump cue - created by Pat Fleming. First made the cue designed specifically for jumping. Therefore, no one can make a specific cue that is short that is specifically made for jumping.

Four point spliced forearm - Balabushka/Szamboti/Spain/Helmstetter. No one else can make a 4 point spliced forearm, as these guys were the first guys to make them popular. These rights would now belong to Tascarella, Szamboti, Hercek and Helmstetter. No one else can make a 4 point spliced forearm.

6 Point Hi/lo forearm - belongs to Southwest. Coker Cues has to close down, seeing as they are taking advantage of the price difference and the wait time associated with the original 6 point hi/lo maker, Southwest Cues.

2x4 tube style cue case - belongs to It's George. Sorry, no Instroke, Justis, Porper or any other cases. This was an innovation, and no one else can reproduce this intellectual property.

Now, the blatant rip-offs of the industry:
Predator Air = Stealth Airtime
X-breaker = Stinger = Hammerhead = Hurricane = Fury J/B - they're all blantant ripoffs of a phenolic tipped jump/break cue. If you want to reward innovation, give all your money to Mike Gulyassy. He invented it. G10 is phenolic - just glass based melamine instead of linen or canvas based phenolic. Look it up under any plastics manufacturers' web page. There's no innovation in merely changing the tip from C grade canvas phenolic to a G grade glass epoxy tip. Besides, the G10 tips leave white streaks on the table, which is worse than the C grade phenolic. (Trust me on this point, John. My table still has the white lines on it from testing G10 vs phenolic break tips)

Just my thoughts. I will sit and wait for the slamfest.
 
X-breaker = Stinger = Hammerhead = Hurricane = Fury J/B - they're all blantant ripoffs of a phenolic tipped jump/break cue. If you want to reward innovation, give all your money to Mike Gulyassy. He invented it.

Did he?
Or Eddie Prewitt with his Eddie's 747 years before Sledge came out.
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
Just thought I'd rant in a new post. Some people are ticked that a company is selling an XB model jump/breaker that looks to be identical to the X-breaker by Richard. I realize Richard's health is an issue right now, but this post isn't about Richard, his illness, or the timing of it.

If we were to deem certain things, such as the construction of the X-breaker to be intellectual property theft, then these innovations from the billiard industry are as well:

The jump break cue - first created by Rick Howard of Mace Cues. He came up with the 3 piece multifunction cue designed for breaking and jumping. No one should be allowed to make another 3 pc cue.

The jump cue - created by Pat Fleming. First made the cue designed specifically for jumping. Therefore, no one can make a specific cue that is short that is specifically made for jumping.

Four point spliced forearm - Balabushka/Szamboti/Spain/Helmstetter. No one else can make a 4 point spliced forearm, as these guys were the first guys to make them popular. These rights would now belong to Tascarella, Szamboti, Hercek and Helmstetter. No one else can make a 4 point spliced forearm.

6 Point Hi/lo forearm - belongs to Southwest. Coker Cues has to close down, seeing as they are taking advantage of the price difference and the wait time associated with the original 6 point hi/lo maker, Southwest Cues.

2x4 tube style cue case - belongs to It's George. Sorry, no Instroke, Justis, Porper or any other cases. This was an innovation, and no one else can reproduce this intellectual property.

Now, the blatant rip-offs of the industry:
Predator Air = Stealth Airtime
X-breaker = Stinger = Hammerhead = Hurricane = Fury J/B - they're all blantant ripoffs of a phenolic tipped jump/break cue. If you want to reward innovation, give all your money to Mike Gulyassy. He invented it. G10 is phenolic - just glass based melamine instead of linen or canvas based phenolic. Look it up under any plastics manufacturers' web page. There's no innovation in merely changing the tip from C grade canvas phenolic to a G grade glass epoxy tip. Besides, the G10 tips leave white streaks on the table, which is worse than the C grade phenolic. (Trust me on this point, John. My table still has the white lines on it from testing G10 vs phenolic break tips)

Just my thoughts. I will sit and wait for the slamfest.
Click to expand...

Your examples are way wrong and you are comparing apples to elephants. Take the 4-point splice forearm example you give. First off, these guys weren't the first to do them, and second, you are talking loosely about a method of point construction....not the end product. These XB jump breaks are clearly rip-offs of the X Breaker because the end product looks just like them. If stealing Richard's intellectual property and his design's established place in the industry wasn't the intention, then why doesn't it look somewhat different and why isn't it called the BB model jump/breaker ("ball buster") ??
 
Well Shawn as ususal your knowledge is severely limited and your premise extremely flawed.

To everyone - this is Shawn's MO. When he gets beat in one thread he runs off to start another, and it goes on and on and on.

Give it up loser. You are wrong, suck it up and go play with the kiddies in kindergarten.
 
JoeyInCali said:
X-breaker = Stinger = Hammerhead = Hurricane = Fury J/B - they're all blantant ripoffs of a phenolic tipped jump/break cue. If you want to reward innovation, give all your money to Mike Gulyassy. He invented it.

Did he?
Or Eddie Prewitt with his Eddie's 747 years before Sledge came out.
Click to expand...
Great point. Even better. Mike owes him. That's my point.
 
I figured long ago, there is no more intellectual property in this world.
Just brand, reputation and secrets/proprietary stuff.
 
cueaddicts said:
Your examples are way wrong and you are comparing apples to elephants. Take the 4-point splice forearm example you give. First off, these guys weren't the first to do them, and second, you are talking loosely about a method of point construction....not the end product. These XB jump breaks are clearly rip-offs of the X Breaker because the end product looks just like them. If stealing Richard's intellectual property and his design's established place in the industry wasn't the intention, then why doesn't it look somewhat different and why isn't it called the BB model jump/breaker ("ball buster") ??
Click to expand...
They're called the XB model J/B cue by DC Cues. They're not called the X-breaker, and they're different. If they had a phenolic tip, would it be OK?

Cokers look exactly like Southwests. 4 point Blacks look exactly like Balabushkas. The 1st Gen X-breaker is no longer available, and they don't look like Richard's cues. Also, do we know the whole story? No. Maybe this company has the rights to the cue, and Richard had the license for the X-breaker name.

Point it, you shoot first and ask questions later. This may be a totally legitimate operation. Cue companies that dont' actually produce their own cues (actually make them) run this risk. Do I like it? I don't care, because it happens every day in every industry. It's why John is able to go to China and knock off his old Instroke designs. It's why Toyotas and Hondas are made in Mexico now instead of Japan. Welcome to the modern world. A three piece cue made for jumping and breaking is original. Changing the tip and the taper isn't.
 
cueaddicts said:
Your examples are way wrong and you are comparing apples to elephants. Take the 4-point splice forearm example you give. First off, these guys weren't the first to do them, and second, you are talking loosely about a method of point construction....not the end product. These XB jump breaks are clearly rip-offs of the X Breaker because the end product looks just like them. If stealing Richard's intellectual property and his design's established place in the industry wasn't the intention, then why doesn't it look somewhat different and why isn't it called the BB model jump/breaker ("ball buster") ??
Click to expand...
http://cgi.ebay.com.hk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250084163001&ih=015&category=44077

This is a cue from the Adam line of cues. What does it look like?
 
Shawn Armstrong said:
They're called the XB model J/B cue by DC Cues. They're not called the X-breaker, and they're different. If they had a phenolic tip, would it be OK?

Cokers look exactly like Southwests. 4 point Blacks look exactly like Balabushkas. The 1st Gen X-breaker is no longer available, and they don't look like Richard's cues. Also, do we know the whole story? No. Maybe this company has the rights to the cue, and Richard had the license for the X-breaker name.

Point it, you shoot first and ask questions later. This may be a totally legitimate operation. Cue companies that dont' actually produce their own cues (actually make them) run this risk. Do I like it? I don't care, because it happens every day in every industry. It's why John is able to go to China and knock off his old Instroke designs. It's why Toyotas and Hondas are made in Mexico now instead of Japan. Welcome to the modern world. A three piece cue made for jumping and breaking is original. Changing the tip and the taper isn't.
Click to expand...

There are so many errors in your statements here...it is obviously just not possible to have an intellectual conversation or argument on these matters. Good day. :)
 
JoeyInCali said:
I figured long ago, there is no more intellectual property in this world.
Just brand, reputation and secrets/proprietary stuff.
Click to expand...

No there is plenty of intellectual property. In fact it is IP that creates a lot of wealth. But as with anything else of value it is up to the owner of it to protect it. No one will do it for them in most cases. But just because the owner of the IP can't defend themselves does not make the theft okay.

Brands are IP, secrets are IP, reputation is the result of successful branding and delivery of IP.

We can argue about who was first with a particular component and who deserves "credit" and whose products are derivatives of other's IP but the point is that it is really up to the person who "invents" something to secure it and defend it against all comers. And there is a difference between invention and discovery. If someone "discovers" that coffee cups also make great paperweights then they have not earned the right to stop people from selling coffee cups as functional for both holding liquid and holding paper down.

I am sure that many would like to claim that they first put a phenolic tip on a cue. Perhaps Bob Jewett really should get the credit for "discovering" that a tipless cue jumps better. (at least I think Bob discovered this) but if he did he didn't monetize it.

The law is pretty clear on this - if your product would NOT work without the use of someone else's invention then it infringes UNLESS you have permission from the patent holder to use their invention. But it's not a protectable invention UNLESS you patent it - and patent it correctly.

Someone who patents something that was pubic domain generally will lose against any competent patent attorney.

As for brand names - they are protected as soon as you use them in commerce. Which is why anyone selling an "X-Breaker" that is NOT authorized by Richard Chan is infringing on that trademark. Even the use of the XB category as is seen in the HK Ebay listing could be considered confusingly similar and thus infringment.
 
cueaddicts said:
There are so many errors in your statements here...it is obviously just not possible to have an intellectual conversation or argument on these matters. Good day. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry to see you feel that way. Obviously, you feel that there is no power in branding. Levi's makes more than 1 line of jeans. Toyota makes Lexus. Porsche makes Audi and VW. I guess if I built a car that looks exactly like a Porsche Boxster, and call it the Armstrong PB, then it's a Boxster.
Richard sells the X-breaker. DC Cues sells the XB. Adam sells their break cue that looks exactly like the X breaker. Just because I buy a cue that LOOKS exactly like a Predator, it's not a Predator. Even if it's the exact same cue, but labelled "BobCue", it's a BobCue. It's the power of branding. And it's why Richard can charge $300, whereas the other guys charge $120. Like I said, welcome to capitalism. Wal Mart exists due to this very principle.
 
John Barton said:
No there is plenty of intellectual property. In fact it is IP that creates a lot of wealth. But as with anything else of value it is up to the owner of it to protect it. No one will do it for them in most cases. But just because the owner of the IP can't defend themselves does not make the theft okay.

Brands are IP, secrets are IP, reputation is the result of successful branding and delivery of IP.

We can argue about who was first with a particular component and who deserves "credit" and whose products are derivatives of other's IP but the point is that it is really up to the person who "invents" something to secure it and defend it against all comers. And there is a difference between invention and discovery. If someone "discovers" that coffee cups also make great paperweights then they have not earned the right to stop people from selling coffee cups as functional for both holding liquid and holding paper down.

I am sure that many would like to claim that they first put a phenolic tip on a cue. Perhaps Bob Jewett really should get the credit for "discovering" that a tipless cue jumps better. (at least I think Bob discovered this) but if he did he didn't monetize it.

The law is pretty clear on this - if your product would NOT work without the use of someone else's invention then it infringes UNLESS you have permission from the patent holder to use their invention. But it's not a protectable invention UNLESS you patent it - and patent it correctly.

Someone who patents something that was pubic domain generally will lose against any competent patent attorney.

As for brand names - they are protected as soon as you use them in commerce. Which is why anyone selling an "X-Breaker" that is NOT authorized by Richard Chan is infringing on that trademark. Even the use of the XB category as is seen in the HK Ebay listing could be considered confusingly similar and thus infringment.
Click to expand...
This is hilarious. I make the exact same point, and John calls me delusional. Calls me names. Says rude things about me and my family life.

All I've tried to do is have intelligent conversations and discuss topics a little different than the norm. Because I have a different opinion than some, I'm viewed as confrontational, and a troublemaker. I don't see a problem with the listings on the HK eBay site. The other guy's listing? If he mentioned that they are X-breakers, and they aren't, then Richard should sue him, IF he trademarked the line. It's not up to us to judge. As far as I know, is anyone able to buy an X-breaker from Richard? If not, email Richard and ask if he has a problem with this listing. Otherwise, I don't judge. It's like the guy that lips off at my wife. I don't get involved, because I am the least of his concerns. He'll have his hands full with her alone...............
 
You are delusional and deserving of every name you were labeled with. Had you made the same point then we would not be arguing. Your point is that it is okay to rip people off and mine is that it is not.

Richard Chan is helpless at this point to spend time, money, and precious energy to stop these infringements.

I can help only in calling attention to them and providing a link to let others complain to the place that hosts the listings.

You however get on here and say MAYBE it's allright, MAYBE these are really OEM X-Breakers, and if so them MAYBE they are overruns, or MAYBE they have the right to build and sell the same design sans logo and therefore we should just IGNORE (condone) the practice of stealing because MAYBE they are REAL. Well Shawn, they aren't real, and neither are you.

You are a vile and a putrid piece of human garbage. The man is battling cancer for God's sake and you have the audacity to suggest that we should email him to tell him what he surely already knows? What a piece of crap you are.
 
it's funny, in the other thread about jump cues I found a 'patent' for jump cues in general:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5326329.html

Whether or not something is theft boils down to how specific someone got when they copied it. If you make a jump cue it's not theft, if you make a jump cue with almost the exact same construction, material, design, tip, and even similar name... probably it is.

Some stuff though is considered so so general and widely used that you just can't patent it, for example typefaces. This may fall into that category. There's almost no way to make a normal cue without it ending up being very similar to some other cuemaker's... maybe jump cues are now in the same boat. From the description though it sounds like a rip. Sadly lots of ripoffs are still totally legal.
 
FYI fellas, the first jump cues were SHAFTS! Who invented them? The first person to make a two piece cue?
 
jay helfert said:
FYI fellas, the first jump cues were SHAFTS! Who invented them? The first person to make a two piece cue?
Click to expand...
They should have patented it. You'd never be allowed to take apart your cue for fear of theft of intellectual property.
 
jay helfert said:
FYI fellas, the first jump cues were SHAFTS! Who invented them? The first person to make a two piece cue?
Click to expand...
Nope the first person to cut a one piece cue in half.:p :D
 
John Barton said:
Well Shawn as ususal your knowledge is severely limited and your premise extremely flawed...
Click to expand...

Additionally, he should educate himself further re: copyright/ patent infringement and intellectual property rights. Opinions mean little in legal discussions, less in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top