John Barton us open ban
- Thread starter mvp
- Start date
- Status
Zerksies
Well-known member
He must of ran out of customer complaints videos to do.
(john barton, this very thread!)
And now I continue to deliver cases that are better than what is out there. How does one do this? By studying everything out there and taking what works and leaving the rest.
(end included text)
john of course puts his own spin on things. You know "She hit me back first!" Him copying from others is fine. When he perceives others to be copying him he screams like a wounded virgin. Makes me think, "homage" "Omega". Swap the e and the a in omega and it becomes omage, phonetic of "homage" I have seen cases won in court on weaker evidence.
Hu
And now I continue to deliver cases that are better than what is out there. How does one do this? By studying everything out there and taking what works and leaving the rest.
(end included text)
john of course puts his own spin on things. You know "She hit me back first!" Him copying from others is fine. When he perceives others to be copying him he screams like a wounded virgin. Makes me think, "homage" "Omega". Swap the e and the a in omega and it becomes omage, phonetic of "homage" I have seen cases won in court on weaker evidence.
Hu
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
CASE:. Copy And Steal Everything
finding out the good and bad of what’s out there isn’t stealing. It’s how you build something better.
It sounds like you're alleging that JB studies competitors cases in an effort to refine his processes to create the best product he can.
While Omega copies JB's trade dress "in homage" to capitalize on the recognition of his product.
Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
I hate it when that happens...
Does the Rugged case have a lifetime warranty? I can’t find it on your web site.
Finding out the good and bad indeed isn't stealing. It is what you do next that matters. Using the other party's design is generally over the top. Just looking at what a component needs to do then going out and seeing what you can do to accomplish that task better is fair. john's own words, "taking what works" seem pretty damning.
The whole "Homage" thing is pretty much BS unless the original makers are no longer in business and the design no longer available. I have several case designs in mind, as far as I know unique designs. I won't be silly enough to put the designs on a public forum, particularly not one with a member that proudly proclaims he takes what works!
Hu
You can cross the line I would agree.
All I know is at one time i had a jack justis case with a JB interior. I had what I thought was the best looking case on the market with the best interior (I hated how cues bounced around in the justis case). Still regret selling it
i didnt read all of this but if you dont bother to get a patent on your product or idea then it is open to be copied.
or at least will be. and that is how it should be so products can be improved.
most things cant be patented because they are already in common use.
or at least will be. and that is how it should be so products can be improved.
most things cant be patented because they are already in common use.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
Until you look into one, patents and patent law would seem to be straightforward but they are not. Then there is the ever present burden of litigation expense. Many small businesses just cannot afford the cost of obtaining a patent or defending it against infringement.
Not attacking/defending anyone but if its not covered by a patent/copyright why does it matter? People look at other's stuff and copy-improve all the time. A pool case is kind of a generic item and you'd have to come up with up something pretty slick to warrant legal coverage.
Yes. Look at the warranty repair section.
I was told by someone who did some consulting in China , you're better off not patenting anything .
By patenting, you give them the blueprint . It will just make it easier for them .
Your best option was to get as many made and make as much money before they start copying your design .
Most of you don't understand the situation nor do you understand patent law. This isn't about any patent or other intellectual property. It is about poor quality knockoffs being sold with deceptive and dishonest descriptions that claim a quality level that the knockoffs don't actually have.
That said there is a part of patent law that is called trade dress which applies when a product has such a distinctive appearance that it is associated with the original brand simply due to the appearance. That is why Samsung lost a billion dollars when they were sued by Apple for making phones that were easily confused with iPhones based on the shape and button placement.
I have a decently legitimate trade dress complaint but trade dress disputes can only be ajudicated in court. In the end it is not worth pursuing because even seemingly clear cases are often not granted to the plaintiffs and the process is expensive.
I wish people on these forums would educate themselves on IP law before they try to tell me the merits of my position.
In my OPINION it is fraud when a consumer is lied to about the quality of a product.
But in the billard industry committing this type of fraud is extremely unlikely to result in any sort of charges by law enforcement or relevant regulatory agencies. The billard industry is an effective license to steal by fraudulent misrepresentation.
And the fact that lay consumers are generally ignorant of IP law they often confuse the issue and try to tell the originator of a design that they have no recourse when they are knocked off.
Any company can sue any other company and claim that they are acting fraudulently and using illegal and unfair trade practices. The court would then have to decide the merit of the accusations.
This is somewhat correct. But the large corporations often have law offices in China that aggressively protect their IP. Sometimes this is effective and sometimes it isn't. For small to midsized companies it's often just better to try and outrun the knockoffs.
China also has ip sharing requirements that force foreign companies to partner with domestic Chinese companies and essentially give up their ip in order to be allowed to produce in China.
Correct.
- Status