Anyone here got the "real" version willing to do a head to head? If so, I'll buy the tool and have it shipped to them for a comparison, then send it on to me and I'll give it a long term torture test and report back.Anyone willing to help out, send me a PM.Def
I'll do it. I'll compare the knockoff to a couple different Atwood Prybaby versions.Send me the knock off and I'll see what breaks when.
By the way, he does indeed have a patent on the original Prybaby.
Quote from: Gadget Guy on September 07, 2011, 06:40:51 PMBy the way, he does indeed have a patent on the original Prybaby.You wouldn't happen to know the number, I'd like to look it up. My best friend is a patent attorney, maybe he could work out a contingency deal with Peter to go after some knock offs.
I'm not here to change your guys minds but simply state my opinion. The way that Grant talks about Peter is really frustrating. Grant, if Peter were to pay you would your view change? That is surely how you makes things sound buddy. Oh buy the way, makes sense that you would have this view since you can hock the fakes over at EDCSource.
Quote from: Gadget Guy on September 07, 2011, 06:40:51 PMI'm not here to change your guys minds but simply state my opinion. The way that Grant talks about Peter is really frustrating. Grant, if Peter were to pay you would your view change? That is surely how you makes things sound buddy. Oh buy the way, makes sense that you would have this view since you can hock the fakes over at EDCSource. Since this is the part that is addressed to me, this is what I suppose I should respond to.The bit I said about charging Peter has nothing to do with changing my opinion. It has everything to do with this being my forum and as long as I own it lock stock and barrel, we'll keep an open mind about things. If Peter (or anyone else) wants to have a share of this site then my open mind will listen to them. Until then, I pay the bills, the site is run my way. Tough titties to anyone who doesn't like it.That's an unfair shot about me hocking things on EDCSource. First off, nothing is free, but for the most part this forum is for members. I pay for everything out of pocket, and I don't think a commercial end is out of the question, and it is separate from the forum so you don't have to go to EDCSource if you don't want to. And, find me an item I currently have for sale at EDCSource- I don't sell anything there because I feel it would be a conflict of interest since I'm the owner and the seller, which could cause issues with any disputes.At any rate, feel free to keep posting your thoughts- as I said, you are entitled to your opinion. Def
Drifting back to the tool for a bit ...I applaud your passion John, but I suppose I draw the line in a different place as to what is a fake. Is a vaccuum cleaner other than a Hoover a fake? What about a mass produced car other than a Ford? Too diverse - OK - what about ball point pens?I must echo again that these are not counterfeit. These are not items pretending to be something they are not, or pretending to be made by someone they are not. They are just cheaply produced similies. You relate to the Atwood tools as an art form made by someone who is an artist first and a tool maker second, so lets examine other art forms .... fashion ... yes you have firms making knock off Levis, trying to scam buyers into buying their inferior good by fraudulently assuming the name of a market leader ... then you've got other firms just making cheap jeans with a nondescript totally seperate branding. I would not knowingly buy knock off Levis - I would buy otherwise branded cheap jeans - even if they were styled after one of the bigger name's products.Hopefully this clarifies the differentiation that a lot of people are putting on this topic. Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and it's not IMHO fraud or theft is this particular scenario. If I thought it was theft, I wouldn't condone it and I'm very sure there ain't many others here that would either.EDIT: I ought to add I've been in manufacturing all my working life, both from the perspective of a service provider and a OEM so I fully understand the passion behind your views. We just have different interpretations of where imitation/inspiration becomes theft
That's interesting. It seems that the courts ignore functional features, and only look at ornamental features when deciding on infringement.So in this case they would most likely disregard the wrench, cap lifter and pry bar, leaving only the ornamental imprinting and edge design. Both of which seem to have been purposefully changed in the Chinese model.Very interesting indeed...
Quote from: turnsouth on September 07, 2011, 10:46:35 PMThat's interesting. It seems that the courts ignore functional features, and only look at ornamental features when deciding on infringement.So in this case they would most likely disregard the wrench, cap lifter and pry bar, leaving only the ornamental imprinting and edge design. Both of which seem to have been purposefully changed in the Chinese model.Very interesting indeed...Actually, I saw the Egyptian Goddess ruling as having a positive effect in a case like this. Would it pass the "ordinary observer test"? I wouldn't think so. There is just too much similarity overall. If Mr. Atwood had a design patent in the US I would bet a simple "cease and desist" letter from an attorney would be enough to get the importer to drop it from their line. Most companies don't want to get involved in a lawsuit they know they can't win.
The Navy tools all have their own branding applied quite clearly to them. There is no attempt to pass them off as Atwood tools. You give an "ordinary observer" an Atwood and the Navy tool and it would be easy for them to tell the difference.
And there are no US-based importers, so a cease-and-desist letter wouldn't do anything anyways. If the Navy tools end up anywhere except China they're sold as one-offs.