Dufferin New Improvement ~~> Lambros & Rc3 COPY!!

Jazz said:
Nice photo JV.

There is a similar topic in Jimbo-land and someone (perhaps the fat-fvck in purple) was able to get Mr. Chudy, himself, to comment on the topic himself.
Click to expand...

Well thats nice. Someone should take a hand count of people that have NEVER used a design in their cues that hasn't been done before, ever. This includes construction techniques, inlays, rings, 2 piece joint, shorty splice, converting a house cue, etc.. all of these would be considered "design" to some degree.

If you wanted to be all original, you better tip a hoola hoop because there will always be SOMETHING that will tie a cue to some other cue, somewhere, someplace, that was made at sometime. At some point someone "designed" the A-joint, that means every cue that has an a-joint is guilty of design theft. The list can go on and on.. hell you can even take it to the extreme and say well someone inlaid a cue with something, that would mean every inlaid cue is guilty of design theft.

It boils down to who wants to draw the line, who wants to enforce the line, and has that person ever done it. Only the truly innocent are never guilty. I do find it humorous to a degree that some of the more vocal opponents of design theft always say there are some things that are "standard". Well who the hell determined that? I'll tell you who, people who have used other design items and need to mask it. Who, now due to the "innovation" of the cnc machine want to claim their intellectual property is now off limits, but don't want to send a royalty to the person's family that first put a joint in a cue, attached the first rubber bumper to a cue, the first person to put a phenolic ring under a joint, etc.. things that are "standard" practice. It seems to me copying also seems to be "standard" practice. But no one wants to admit that.

You want to think about something.. there isn't a cue made today that doesn't incorporate someone else's design component somewhere in that cue. This is a FACT.

JV (--glass houses, stones, and all that crap...
 
classiccues said:
Well thats nice. Someone should take a hand count of people that have NEVER used a design in their cues that hasn't been done before, ever. This includes construction techniques, inlays, rings, 2 piece joint, shorty splice, converting a house cue, etc.. all of these would be considered "design" to some degree.

If you wanted to be all original, you better tip a hoola hoop because there will always be SOMETHING that will tie a cue to some other cue, somewhere, someplace, that was made at sometime. At some point someone "designed" the A-joint, that means every cue that has an a-joint is guilty of design theft. The list can go on and on.. hell you can even take it to the extreme and say well someone inlaid a cue with something, that would mean every inlaid cue is guilty of design theft.

It boils down to who wants to draw the line, who wants to enforce the line, and has that person ever done it. Only the truly innocent are never guilty. I do find it humorous to a degree that some of the more vocal opponents of design theft always say there are some things that are "standard". Well who the hell determined that? I'll tell you who, people who have used other design items and need to mask it. Who, now due to the "innovation" of the cnc machine want to claim their intellectual property is now off limits, but don't want to send a royalty to the person's family that first put a joint in a cue, attached the first rubber bumper to a cue, the first person to put a phenolic ring under a joint, etc.. things that are "standard" practice. It seems to me copying also seems to be "standard" practice. But no one wants to admit that.

You want to think about something.. there isn't a cue made today that doesn't incorporate someone else's design component somewhere in that cue. This is a FACT.

JV (--glass houses, stones, and all that crap...
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be like saying anyone who has painted has stolen from someone else because he used a set of brush, paint, canvas and frame?
In this case Joe, it's pretty obvious Lambros' and RC3's distinct look were copied.
I hope all self-respecting dealers and buyers boycott Dufferin.
 
JoeyInCali said:
Wouldn't that be like saying anyone who has painted has stolen from someone else because he used a set of brush, paint, canvas and frame?
In this case Joe, it's pretty obvious Lambros' and RC3's distinct look were copied.
I hope all self-respecting dealers and buyers boycott Dufferin.
Click to expand...

No, saying that you use wood and glue is closer to your analogy. Lets face it the A joint was a design feature. So was the ferrule. Technically every ferrule is a rip off of the design of the first person to do it. Again its easy to just say well that is the way it has always been, but that then leads to my point of there has always been design theft in cues.

I used to design machinery for the plastics industry. I designed or redesigned 100's of extruders, cooling baths, etc.. it took about a week for some improvement I made on our equipment to show up on someone elses. You know what, never even thought about it.

JV
 
maybe this is a wrong analogy too, but what about everytime you go to walmart or walgreens and buy a generic drug. Either way there is one major difference in this cue than the others. This was made by dufferin. That's why it's gonna sell for 50 when the lambros/chudy sells for 2k. People who have been around long enough know quality when they see it. If you had the dufferin in one hand / and the lambros/chudy in another and both logos were taped up......I GUARANTEE you could tell the difference, if not then at least after you hit a few balls. If it was that good of a copy then these chinese / japanese makers would have put every custom maker out of business by now and we'd all be playing with $150 KC cues.
 
classiccues said:
No, saying that you use wood and glue is closer to your analogy. Lets face it the A joint was a design feature. So was the ferrule. Technically every ferrule is a rip off of the design of the first person to do it. Again its easy to just say well that is the way it has always been, but that then leads to my point of there has always been design theft in cues.

I used to design machinery for the plastics industry. I designed or redesigned 100's of extruders, cooling baths, etc.. it took about a week for some improvement I made on our equipment to show up on someone elses. You know what, never even thought about it.

JV
Click to expand...
I think we need to separate construction techniques/systems from art/look design Joe.
 
There is no design infringement unless copyright or patent has been applied for and granted. Once an 'unprotected' design gets out into the world, it's available for anyone to use. It's in the public domain.

Dufferin is free to use whatever unprotected design they choose. There will be no litigation and the trial WILL NOT be televised.
 
KJ Cues said:
There is no design infringement unless copyright or patent has been applied for and granted. Once an 'unprotected' design gets out into the world, it's available for anyone to use. It's in the public domain.

Dufferin is free to use whatever unprotected design they choose. There will be no litigation and the trial WILL NOT be televised.
Click to expand...


Well the above post has some merits when the poster said "unless copyright or patent has been applied for and granted." What about a pending copyright or patent.
 
JoeyInCali said:
I think we need to separate construction techniques/systems from art/look design Joe.
Click to expand...

Well then that is my point. That is the easy way out. You think because someone made a cue pretty that he is entitled to more protection against intellectual property rights than the guy who invented the ferrule, or the first guy to make a 4 point splice?

All I am saying is that cues themselves are copies of an original design that was fabricated by someone long ago. IMHO the first guy to put a motor on a 4 wheel chassis is owed money by ALL car companies, because he in fact was the designer of the basic car concept that all the others fed off of. Without his original design, where would they be?

The argument, like any other topic will always be tilted to whatever way the other party needs to have it tilted. It's a very broad concept, people only want to see and protect what affects them.

Let's take Chudy's one sides veneer point. Don't you think the originator of the 3 hi and 3 low point style deserves the same consideration that Mr. Chudy may be looking for? It wasn't that long ago that this design became popular, regardless of the innovator be it Kersh, Franklin, or whomever? So now the question is, if someone makes a cue that has the one sided veneer point but does something totally different with the rest of the cue is RC still being violated? If the answer is yes, then why isn't the same said for the more recent 6 point cue of the last 20-30 years? When does his (RC) rights to the design run out and then it becomes a "common" design item?

You cannot have it both ways, this has always been my point.

JV
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Well the above post has some merits when the poster said "unless copyright or patent has been applied for and granted." What about a pending copyright or patent.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I should have said pending instead of granted. Oops.
 
So....do you fault all the cuemakers who have copied SouthWest? I can name at least 5 WELL known cuemakers who use almost every design from SW. I mean, if we really boil it down, about 90% of the cuemakers out there today have copied the designs of someone before them. Just because someone like Dufferein did it does not make it wrong. The Asian cue makers have been blatently ripping off other designs for years! As have many guys who make and sell $1500 cues. Show me an original cue.....
 
BHW said:
So....do you fault all the cuemakers who have copied SouthWest? I can name at least 5 WELL known cuemakers who use almost every design from SW. I mean, if we really boil it down, about 90% of the cuemakers out there today have copied the designs of someone before them.
Click to expand...

True statement.
 
Last edited:
KJ Cues said:
You are correct. I should have said pending instead of granted. Oops.
Click to expand...

Patent, trademark, or copyright is only as good as you have the MONEY to Pay Lawyers to enforce your RIGHTS. IMHO.
 
I was looking for a recent example

and I found it... the jump cue. The first person to cut down a butt for the extra joint therefore making the FIRST jump butt is owed a lot of money. This is a very recent invention. Whomever this person is has been the ultimate victim of recent design thievery. In fact any cuemaker that has ever made one of these cues IMHO can never cry design theft on his so called intellectual property. Whomever can lay claim to the first jump break needs to start sending out flyers demanding cease and desist orders.

JV
 
Link above not working.
spiderdrop.gif
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Link above not working.
spiderdrop.gif
Click to expand...

Works for me, but you will not be able to read it. It is yahoo Japan. Look close you can see the name of the cue they are copying right next to the pic. You can also see some good pics.
 
jbullerjr said:
Works for me, but you will not be able to read it. It is yahoo Japan. Look close you can see the name of the cue they are copying right next to the pic. You can also see some good pics.
Click to expand...
I got it translated through yahoo babblefish. :thumbup:
 
Well it loks like Dufferinangry: is busy making FAUX Cues, and Knock offs. Southwest has been knocked off also.:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top