Justis Case Knockoff Design Thief Exposed
- Thread starter Jack Justis
- Start date
Neither owning a Justis or Barton cue case, I cannot comment on the quality of the work other than by looking at some fantastic pictures. I also know neither of these people and have never met either one of them.
I am probably ill-equipped to do so but after reading the last 12 pages feel compelled to post on this thread. These are just my observations.
Firstly John Barton is obviously not the guy who made or brought in the cases pictured on the front page, he is getting crucified for something he hasn't done, it also appears some guys are using this thread to try and settle old scores.
John Barton comes across as a very passionate person who is prone to some petulant outbursts (the pm appearing to be one of them), he makes what many people say is a great product (including himself) and comes across as a bit of an egocentric person.
This means that while he does not strike me as the most immediately endearing of people, if I had the money and was looking for a high end cue case he would probably be my first port of call (perfectionists who don't like criticism don't make mistakes).
Jack Justis on the other hand has always struck me (from reading these forums) as having a really endearing nature and from what I have seen of his work it always looks fantastic.
Sadly in this case I do feel that he has behaved a bit poorly in the respect that he posted a question which then turned into an accusation, then after finding out that this accusation was false he did not try to bring a halt to the thread but instead allowed the thread to turn into a war (although he did not consistently fan the flames he did not help the situation by remaining quiet).
I sincerely hope this battle stops soon as there can be no winner. Is Jack Justis going to lose business due to these cases (the cases in question are on the first page in case anybody thought this thread was actually a John vs jack mud-slinging thread), I sincerely hope not and from looking at the Jack fans it would appear that he will have plenty of support even if new waves of copies come in as well. I also cannot see this hurting John Barton's sales as he seems to make a desirable product (as witnessed by the John Barton fans).
The thing these guys risk losing in this thread are respect from the causal observer (which will probably mean nothing to either of them) and respect for each other (this hopefully does mean something to them).
I am probably ill-equipped to do so but after reading the last 12 pages feel compelled to post on this thread. These are just my observations.
Firstly John Barton is obviously not the guy who made or brought in the cases pictured on the front page, he is getting crucified for something he hasn't done, it also appears some guys are using this thread to try and settle old scores.
John Barton comes across as a very passionate person who is prone to some petulant outbursts (the pm appearing to be one of them), he makes what many people say is a great product (including himself) and comes across as a bit of an egocentric person.
This means that while he does not strike me as the most immediately endearing of people, if I had the money and was looking for a high end cue case he would probably be my first port of call (perfectionists who don't like criticism don't make mistakes).
Jack Justis on the other hand has always struck me (from reading these forums) as having a really endearing nature and from what I have seen of his work it always looks fantastic.
Sadly in this case I do feel that he has behaved a bit poorly in the respect that he posted a question which then turned into an accusation, then after finding out that this accusation was false he did not try to bring a halt to the thread but instead allowed the thread to turn into a war (although he did not consistently fan the flames he did not help the situation by remaining quiet).
I sincerely hope this battle stops soon as there can be no winner. Is Jack Justis going to lose business due to these cases (the cases in question are on the first page in case anybody thought this thread was actually a John vs jack mud-slinging thread), I sincerely hope not and from looking at the Jack fans it would appear that he will have plenty of support even if new waves of copies come in as well. I also cannot see this hurting John Barton's sales as he seems to make a desirable product (as witnessed by the John Barton fans).
The thing these guys risk losing in this thread are respect from the causal observer (which will probably mean nothing to either of them) and respect for each other (this hopefully does mean something to them).
I just want to say that I own an Instroke case made sometime in the early nineties for deceased trick shot artist Chet Morris. It is the old model 3x6 with zippers, black and brown leather. It is in perfect condition to this day, and, to me, is an example of outstanding quality of materials and workmanship. I do not own, or have ever owned, a Justis case so I cannot comment on them, but I know their reputation for outstanding cases. I do not know either John Barton or Jack Justis. This has little to do with this drama, but I wanted to throw in my $0.02.
S
Snoogi
Guest
I think that's what Jack Justis is doing. I don't know Jack Justis. I also hardly know John Barton, only a few PMs, he said he's not the one. Fine, leave it as that. We can't really make conclusions by reading on the surface, what exactly happened between them could probably be a misunderstanding..they should settle gently behind instead of snoooking each other..Merlinium said:
Just my one dime..
John Barton
New member
ribdoner said:
There are really only that many ways to make cue cases really. So all cue case makers today are basically making tribute cases, knock off cases, imitations, replicas or what ever you want to call it. So basically all case makers today are all design thief?
So in order not to be labeled a hypocrite or to be known as supporting these so called knock off cases, we should all be carrying our cues in plastic bags!
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I dun believe that one case is prettier then another to everyone. I am probably weird as i find the Jay flowers case more appealing then a Justis.
Maybe the Asian imitators are also trying to pick up from where Jay left off or maybe there is some western mastermind behind all this?
Whatever it is, i say you are all craft mans. Do whatever you do best and better and let the consumers decide for themselves what they want to buy or use because you people alone are too small to dictate how the market is going to evolve.
So in order not to be labeled a hypocrite or to be known as supporting these so called knock off cases, we should all be carrying our cues in plastic bags!
Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. I dun believe that one case is prettier then another to everyone. I am probably weird as i find the Jay flowers case more appealing then a Justis.
Maybe the Asian imitators are also trying to pick up from where Jay left off or maybe there is some western mastermind behind all this?
Whatever it is, i say you are all craft mans. Do whatever you do best and better and let the consumers decide for themselves what they want to buy or use because you people alone are too small to dictate how the market is going to evolve.
John Barton said:ribdoner said:Except that you need to understand that when Scott chose the cues he had no frame of reference to know what was copied from whom. He was at that time a complete neophyte in the billiards business in regards to the part of the industry that we know so well.
Instead of consulting with "industry insiders" like CURLY, MOE and LARRY he could have solicited council from people that know something.
He was given a large catalog with 50 pages of cues in it and told to choose what he wanted.
Being a neophyte was all the more reason to have qualified council prior to undertaking something this critical with the attendant potential ramifications.
Then when the cues were already on the ship and the first wave of them came in he had to prepare them for the catalog and having no real clue about cues he asked for help.
And that is when several cues were identified as being copies of other maker's designs. Now, perhaps the absolute right thing to to would have been to send the cues back to China but I think Scott chose to try and make lemonade out of lemons.
I prolly would have done the same thing at this stage.
And he is right in that by giving credit he has introduced Gina cues to thousands of people who probably wouldn't even know that $5000 cues exist. It would have been different had he known and chosen to ignore it.
I'm not following you. I don't think bringing $100 knockoffs of $5000 cues to market affected ERNIE'S sales in any (up or down) way. If much cheaper cues were knocked they might have been affected in a negative manner.
I really wish sometimes that folks would be fair and give a person the benefit of the doubt. If you want to verify the veracity of the statements then contact the folks Scott mentioned, Charlie Fleming is well known as is Barry Hart. Some of you have to know these two so if it's important then just contact them.
I'm not villifying anyone or accusing anyone of having issues of moral turpitude. Just using 20/20 hindsight as we brainstorm and share opinions. I read, enjoy and learn from many members (you included) and hopefully you have similiar experience's.
On on balance how about giving Scott some credit for the good he has done? He has sponsored many pros, events, leagues and tours. As well as numerous charities and special events. Almost everyone who comes to Sterling with a request for some kind of donation gets something. We don't maintain a list for publicity purposes but there are those of you who know that what I say is true.
I'm sure Scott has learned a lot in view of how he hit the ground running.
So don't crucify him for a newbie mistake that he tried to correct in a way that he thought is win/win and which actually is win/win on net. How about looking a little deeper and being fair?
Please don't make this something it's not. Nobody is going up a hill with a cross. In the final analysis I doubt that the effect of this one time error warranted your responce to my post and this responce to your post.
BTW, I always appreciated constructive criticism because I was also a newbie once.
Take care, Archie
Last edited:
MasterClass said:
If there's no PATENT (especially internationally), LEGALLY, anyone can use it.
A Jack Justis design will always be a Jack Justis design even if you put another brand name on it (in marketing sense, there's already an "association" of a design to a specific brand) . HOWEVER, if Jack Justis wants to have an exclusive control over this design or every design that he makes, having it PATENTED is the only way to go...
But then again, PATENTS are quite territorial in nature: "The grant and enforcement of patents are governed by national laws, and also by international treaties, where those treaties have been given effect in national laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
I hope this WAR will end soon. May both parties shake hands, forgive and forget. And may we, the other members, all be instruments of spreading PEACE as there is already much hatred going on around the world; simple acts of kindness help build a better world
John Barton
New member
ribdoner said:
S
Snoogi
Guest
Absolutely right.sygfrid said:
That comes under ethics..sygfrid said:A Jack Justis design will always be a Jack Justis design even if you put another brand name on it (in marketing sense, there's already an "association" of a design to a specific brand) . HOWEVER, if Jack Justis wants to have an exclusive control over this design or every design that he makes, having it PATENTED is the only way to go...
But then again, PATENTS are quite territorial in nature: "The grant and enforcement of patents are governed by national laws, and also by international treaties, where those treaties have been given effect in national laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
I hope this WAR will end soon. May both parties shake hands, forgive and forget. And may we, the other members, all be instruments of spreading PEACE as there is already much hatred going on around the world; simple acts of kindness help build a better world
Well, my personal experience on a patent, it wasn't that straightforward..a much common item like a cue case..I mean from the cover to the base, it has to be worthy of a patent. Even if it passes through the national phase, it still has to go through the international phase..they call it PCT-patent cooperation treaty. This PCT-international preliminary examining authority will conduct a check to ascertain whether something qualifies for a patent. Novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability, are the things they look for..and also there must not be similar documents cited or similar ideas existing on the current market.
Just my personal experience..
Last edited:
Snoogi said:
International Patents are seperate applications from USPTO.
Improvements on existing designs may qualify for a Grant on thier own if the improvement is great enough.
A full Patent grant would not apply here but it is possible to Patent a specific design esthetic. AKA a design patent.
It's done all the time AND if your patent attorney is well versed , you can actually sneak other physical elements of the product in with it. We do it fairly aften when full Patent protection is not an option.The biggest problem with ALL patents is if you can't afford to defend it in court , it's effectively useless.
Been there , done that too.
S
Snoogi
Guest
Quite true..not sure if it can be partially protected under trademarks and copyrights or not..eg a unique design on the cuecase. And I believe this is no trial and error, several fees must be paid along the way..mine was the Austrian Patent Office..and the fee was not refundable..if I remember correctly..RRfireblade said:International Patents are seperate applications from USPTO.
Improvements on existing designs may qualify for a Grant on thier own if the improvement is great enough.
A full Patent grant would not apply here but it is possible to Patent a specific design esthetic. AKA a design patent.
The biggest problem with ALL patents is if you can't afford to defend it in court , it's effectively useless.
Been there , done that too.
NYC cue dude
Banned
ScottTaylor said:I think the previous post showing the Flowers case was a lovely end to this thread. Jack, John, and many others certainly owe a lot to the innovative design aspects of this case which continue to be used throughout the spectrum of cases available today.
In that John Barton is an employee of my company, and in that our company has been directly threatened by a poster in this forum, I would like to submit the following:
1. Sterling Gaming, Inc. has not at any time planned to import any type of pool cue case that could be called a knock-off of a Justis case. John Barton does not have the authority to make these kinds of decisions for Sterling.
2. I have spoken to Mr. Justis about this thread. We have no "issues" between us.
3. John stated, "I tend to get a little too involved in AZ and neglect work which I am sure some of you can understand.
4. The Sterling cue that was mentioned earlier in this thread requires a slightly longer statement. In 2002, when we were importing our first non-laser-sighted cues, we selected roughly a hundred models out of a catalog. We consulted several industry people about our selections, and were given the thumb's-up on what we elected to carry. Among this selection was a model very, very closely visually resembling a Ginacue. This was a complete surprise to us. I believe it was Charlie Fleming of Charlie's Pro Shop in Baltimore that first brought this to our attention. He had said that Ernie Guiterrez probably wouldn't be very pleased knowing that his $5,500 cue had been knocked off in an under-$100 model; a point well-understood. Charlie (I believe!) told me he'd contact Ernie, and to expect a call, where I could explain that our carrying of this cue was simply out of ignorance to the existence of the original. The call never came, and when we wrote the text for the 50,000 copy catalog containing this cue, we made sure to give credit where credit was due. We named the cue "Gina", and describe the cue as follows:
"This is a 'tribute cue,' the design being a replica of a very famous Ginacue. However, instead of costing $5,500, this one is in your price range. Though these aren't actual inlays, they appear to be the real thing."To this day, we have never heard a word from Mr. Guiterrez that he is displeased with the use of his design in this way. Some members of the ACA have expressed their disdain that we carry this cue, but the fact of the matter is, it is good publicity for the original. With 50,000 copies of the original catalog, and countless thousands of website page views, we are certainly helping to promote the high-value of the Ginacue brand. Should Mr. Guiterrez ever state to us that he is not happy with the situation, we would do anything required to satisfy him, including discontinuing the model. We also had two other cue models we ordered on that first order that greatly resembled a Viking and an Italian-made cue. Barry Hart had no problem with us selling that model (I approached him first and apologized for the situation once I learned of the similarity), and the Italian manufacturer simply asked us to not use their name in the marketing of that model. We obliged. In closing, our company does not willingly pursue the marketing of designs that are not of our creation, and we do what it takes to make things right if we hear of any problems.
If allowed a little more leeway, I would also like to state that John has been working with some very skilled craftspeople during the development of his new cases. Yes, these people are living in China. What language a person speaks, what country in which they reside, and the wages they earn are in no way factors concerning the quality of work that person can perform.
My familiarity with message boards and forums goes back to 1998 (the Gene Spafford days), when Usenet, IRC, and email were about all there was to the internet. Flame wars are nothing new, and I still don't quite understand why people continue to engage in them. Be sure to see Spafford's quotes, especially his takes on Sturgeon's Revelation. Yes, John Barton is a repeat offender...with emphasis on the "offense" part. While I seldom agree with the way he expresses his points (and I frequently disagree with the points themselves), I believe we can ALL agree that John is a very passionate and vocal evangelist for pool. I'd ask that you cut him some slack. Just maybe we can get him to realize that, just as in the movie Wargames, "the only way to win is not to play." For clarification, John "Mark" Barton, I'm speaking of your pool playing, and not your long-winded tirades. =)
May this thread rest in peace.
With kind regards to you all,
S. Scott Taylor, President
Sterling Gaming, Inc.
http://www.sterling-gaming.com/
PS: If you are a billiards professional, please contact us to get a copy of our new catalog, which just hit the streets about a week ago!
I am quite pleased that you addressed this thread. I am assuming, you were referring to myself in the bolded caption above. I must say, that you can rest assured that any ill will brought to bear from the actions of John Barton, himself, will have no affect on sterling gaming, whatsoever. My displeasure with him is a completely separate issue.
Having said that, i feel by commenting on this thread, you have done a great service to your companyy by way of damage control. I, like many posters here, have been under the impression that john barton is at the very least, an important decision maker at sterling gaming. I'm sure if you were to poll the community here, you would find that, through his own writing and innuendo, John would have us believe that he is the reason your neophyte company is in existence today. Look no further than this particular thread, where john states he decided not to import the justis knock offs. I sure I am not alone, in that through john's association with your firm, the mere mention of sterling gaming, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. His pomposity is only over shadowed by his skill in obfuscation, and his ability to vomit his ideologies onto this forum has done, imho, irreperable harm to the honor and sacrifice of your hardwork in building a succeful billiard related company.
In an effort to make this point, i'll give an example of how fragile this industry is. Few people know, i am guessing, that Olhausen is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. This is the 3rd largest billiard related compnay in existence. Some concerned parties approached me about my willingness to consider aiding them in an attempt to "right the ship". Unfortunately, with the state of pool today, there is nothing to be done at this time. Pool rooms across america are shuttering at an alarming rate. The state of mens pro pool is in a shambles. 2 years ago, I was formally asked to head the UPA. the numbers needed to "save" the game were astronomical, and in my view, only a band aid.
I say this to make the point that any one company can ill afford, in this industry, to let any one person harm their image. Furthermore, it would be astounding to contemplate, the cancer is from within.
I recentlyt received a private message, and am now convinced that john barton is indirectly responsible for the manufacturing of the whitten knockoffs coming to our shores. time will tell if that is the case, but surely it wont go unnoticed at the time they hit american shores.
In an effort to promote social justice and civility, two things i feel are lacking in John's constitution, I will hereby pledge to you sir, to, in the future, keep you comprised of all of john's outlandish behaviour on this very public forum, for the sake of your compnaies good name. In fact, I will forward all of the offending material directly to you. No need to search his history here, as i am sure that only in the very near future he will again cast a black pall over the bow of sterling gamings bow.
Respectfully,
Randy Goldwater
John Barton
New member
Geez now Whitten too? I am responsible for the Lindbergh Baby and Jimmy Hoffa's dissappearance as well.
Please call Dan and Joe Whitten and ask them what they think of me. I am sure that the answer will completely belie anything Goldwater has to say.
I am not in any way responsible for Whitten knockoffs. I know where they are made, I know who will be importing them, and I know what the quality level is. I have had nothing to do with them.
Boy oh boy, this is getting deep. Goldwater, way to go putting Olhausen's business on the street. I am sure that will do a lot to boost the confidence in the industry.
Hey potential investors - call randy Goldwater - he knows all. I would have thought Randy that someone of your astounding business acumen would be able to take Olhausen from the edge of bankruptcy to the number one table manufacturer in the world.
I don't want you to change at all Randy, you are about as much of a jerk as a person can possibly be. Having to look at yourself in the mirror each day is punishment enough.
Please call Dan and Joe Whitten and ask them what they think of me. I am sure that the answer will completely belie anything Goldwater has to say.
I am not in any way responsible for Whitten knockoffs. I know where they are made, I know who will be importing them, and I know what the quality level is. I have had nothing to do with them.
Boy oh boy, this is getting deep. Goldwater, way to go putting Olhausen's business on the street. I am sure that will do a lot to boost the confidence in the industry.
Hey potential investors - call randy Goldwater - he knows all. I would have thought Randy that someone of your astounding business acumen would be able to take Olhausen from the edge of bankruptcy to the number one table manufacturer in the world.
I don't want you to change at all Randy, you are about as much of a jerk as a person can possibly be. Having to look at yourself in the mirror each day is punishment enough.
That case looks familar..almost exact design as my justis in my avatar but mine is real..why can't people think of their own designs?
ScottTaylor said:
Mr. Taylor,
While you claim that Mr. Barton doesn't have the authority to make purchasing decisions for Sterling Games, which is a surprise to us all due to the claims made in Mr. Barton's posts, he is still an employee of your company and a representative of your firm on the various pool sites across the internet.
If this is "the face" of Sterling Games, since his behavior is known to you yet you allow it to continue, then you have lost at least one possible customer.
Sincerely,
BrooklynJay
Oy-Vey !
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water....
Doug
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water....
Doug
John Barton
New member
watchez said: