|
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too Dr.
Voo.
Tom,
I have been re-reading your book, "The Golfsmith
Practical Clubfitting Program." Have you written any other books on the
subject of clubfitting?
Jim McFerran
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:05
PM
Subject: RE: ShopTalk: What's fair
re;selling?
I suppose it is semantics, but a general browsing of some
dictionaries gives you the impression that clones are not dastardly but merely
things that look similar. Genetically speaking they are identical but in
common usage, it is merely things that look alike. Knock-off, on the
other hand, has more of a dastardly meaning. Basically they are cheap
imitations, or copies.
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
|
