The computers we are writing these tomes on are clones. From the keyboard to the sub woofer, there is little difference from one computer to another. No one has argued the exclusivity of these components or design for years now. An HP and an IBM look identical from 3 feet but if HP decided to make an HBM computer, the lawsuit would make headlines. Cars have 4 wheels (generally), doors, engines, speedometers etc. They are all clones, more or less. The term automobile and car became generic many years ago as did most of their components. In fact, though it might have something to do with age, I haven't been able to tell the difference between most of the hundreds of car models, for years now. The same can be said about golf clubs. The USGA has set physical restrictions on the golf club and those manufacturing to those standards are all making clones. In fact, the golf club has also become generic and clone is probably not an appropriate term. Golf clubs are golf clubs and are clones to each other. They all look alike. You could then even argue that none of them are clones.
Knock-offs are another matter. These are intentional attempts to look like another's product. If they all look alike, how can that be? It happens with trademarks and copyrights and trade dress. When you take a club head that legally and legitimately is shaped similar to another manufacturers head and call it War Hawk, like the War Bird, or the King Snake, like the King Cobra, you have then ventured into the dastardly world.
Most everything I own is a clone of something, none of them are Knock-offs. Maybe it is just me, but I have no problems in the area of golf clubs. I sell tons, of what might be called clones, and do so gladly. I have never sold a Knock-off. Pretty simple in my world.
Al
At 04:25 AM 12/18/2002, you wrote:
Cub,
Maybe a little deep in Poi!!!
No, perhaps not full of crap, just that your interpretation of "clone" is different than what another person would have, I just believe that we all set our limits of ethical behavior based on what our personal standards are and our relationship to the device. We keep that range and definitely will not go beyond it. You have a standard and measure it by your stick. Others have their stick and measure it by their own devices. Semantics surely are a device by which we all measure what we call a "clone". The person buying it has his standards, the person selling it has his, and the guy who made the "original" design has his. When a designer makes a clubhead, he starts from some point of reference. That point is to make a golf clubhead or entire club with certain characteristics. Those characteristics have various properties; weight, material, angles, COG, hosel dimensions, sole, etc etc and so on. Each of these characteristics are the components of good clubhead design. Someone has made each of the original component designs or very similar designs at one time or another. Each of these components of clubhead design have theoretical and empirical properties that compose the overall design. To make something completely new requires use of some or all of these components. If you utilize a clubhead that is partly like a GBB, a TM, a Cobra, a Ping, a whatever, then is it a 'clone". You might say no, it is a new design since the total product is different than all the source designs from which it came. We can split hairs and say yes or we can say no, depending on which side of the fence your concern is. My contention is, you cannot distinguish a look-alike and a perform-alike and a NEW breed without taking some license from some previous design. Now if your design does super-duper things to a golf ball to get it in the hole, then your combination is revolutionary, but it is still a "clone" of the devices from which you take the original design to make your super duper clubhead. Again, simply put, if it looks like a club it is a "clone" of something. If it swings like a club, it is a "clone" of something. If it neither performs like something nor swings like something then you have a new device.....and it might not meet the specifications of the USGA or the R&A, and thus make your $$$$$$$ as an "illegal" club!
For example, the Ping thin faced design...... which I believe at one time or another had been attempted before, but without modern manufacturing processes failed, or did not give the expected results. Now everyone is on the wagon getting their take on the thin faced design into the ad department for their spiel for selling their variation on this "unique" process. Are all thin faced clubs a "clone" of the Ping head or of the original design? Or because they use the aerodynamic properties of a Mizuno, the thin-faced properties of a Ping, and the hosel bore through properties of a Big Bertha and various other design characteristics shadowing the good components of other clubheads then by definition a "new design" and thus reference all other integral patents in their design patent application. Is this a "clone"? By definition in reference to the design components of other registered patents, a "new" patent is issued and thus is it not a "clone"?
You or others here surely have more access to various distributors and component foundries than I have and have possibly seen how designs come to fruition from the drawing board to your shop than I. I agree that a "King Snake" or other closely similar trademark name is dramatic license of an OEM club and would be reason to not sell or otherwise use a certain club. Other people however might not see the problem in name copying and since it is a slightly or dramatically different physical design, they would be ok with that. Each had a line that they draw as to what is ethical and what is not. Different positions and definitely a result each can live with. However, what about the original owner of the Trademark or the component property that makes this club unique and desirable. They each would have their limits as to what is a "clone" and what is not.
My belief is that a "clone" has a coat of many colors and must be recognized for each and every one of those colors. Your ethical limits permit you to allow certain properties and not others. Mine are different. Each of the others on ST have their own, as we have seen on this thread. In the end we each have to decide what we believe is ethical and be able to sleep on it. We might all be full of CRAP, but at least we have set the limit to what "FULL" means and can sleep or live with it.
And the epistle continues..........
and by the way Cub,
"Mele Kalikimaka and Hau'oli makahiki hou"
Dr. Voo
RxGolf Custom Clubs
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve "Cub" Culbreth
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 10:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ShopTalk: What's fair re;selling?
- Hey Doo,
- "
Oh I am "ethical" and will not sell a "Clone". CRAP!!!"- I don't need to sell a "Trailer Mode", "Big Bubba", or Starlight which happens to look exaclty like a Mizuno when there are good designs from companies with design teams. Plus, I have never done it intentionally. By that statement I mean selling a club because I believe or express that it is "like" an OEM. I don't have to use that ploy to make a living, and I refuse to.
- Do you think I'm full of "Crap"?
- Cub
