anyone else just fed up of top brands stealing ideas!

General Discussion
1

This has got so rediculous, I can understand a local shaper taking ideas from Brands such as ...Lost, Channel Islands, and rusty etc. as the big makes put so much more money into research that your average local shaper can. That is fine, what I don't get is the way the big makes copy each other so much, so obviously. I am going to just list a few reasons. Check out the new “chunnel” entry on the Channel Islands blog – one of kelly’s most recent experiments. I like the way that this bottom channel is just another borrowed principle. It is channel island’s way of doing the phazer bottom, I know that because someone (tom i think he was called) suggested the phazer bottom to channel islands on the blog, and the guy running the blog said he was sure it would have been something Kelly was going to go into soon, and he would mention it to him, obviously channel islands would not give credit to this forumer so they have decided to just use a slightly different method of the same theory, but in actual fact it is the same. This way of creating air pockets in the bottom of the board to make the board go faster, as it reduced friction against the water.

It is also somewhat funny that the nose on the manta ray surfboard is another principle taken from Jeff alexander (Gemini surfboards), and kelly claimed the nose was just there to look goofy and cool. Now, I mean come on, the best surfer to ever have lived, whose going through this whole board experimentation would just chop the nose off the board and then add a weird looking shape to it, just to make it look goofy??.. Did anyone else not buy that?

Another odd coincidence in channel islands massive experimentation phase that they are going through is the dumpster diver / robert’s surfboards argument, I don’t think i even need to go into it. The fact that Channel islands had to get surfermag to remove the video of dane on the white diamond just proves they have something to hide.

I’ve just been on the ..Lost website. 2 copies of channel islands boards, one is a copy of the “dumpster diver” named the “trashcan lid”. There is a shared theme there – did anyone else pick up on that. Here is ..Lost’s description of it; (AKA...The Trashcan Lid) "I wanna board for 1' mush. Something really short n wide, but still a shortboard..... something like Danes board" -Kolohe Andino. The challenged was laid down. Starting with an old SD2: We squashed the dims to 5'5"x18.63"x 2.13", lowered the entry rocker and shallowed the concave through the center to straighten the rail line (for drive) and make it easier to lay such a wide platform over on a rail.

Viola'! Our stubbiest shortboard yet, but it still carves like a real board. Kolohe wanted call it "The Trashcan Lid" because you don't need to go dumpster diving to get one of these! Think 4-6" shorter than a high performance shortboard and same dims as the Shark! Board shown 5'5" 18.63" 2.18.

Look at the …Lost blunt and the biscuit. …Lost have even copied the bloody
logo, just reversed it slightly and changed the letters!

I’ve lost a lot of respect for these companies after all of this, Anyone else
slightly fed up? Anyone else got any examples?

Sorry for the Rant,

JonnyShaper

2

Yeah And I…

invented the candy bar.

Yoou can imagine how I feel…

 

especially when I stART

to melt …

 

…ambrose…

 

everythin’ comes from

Velzy outlines

and he copied 

copies…

 

lets reverse engineer

abboriginal designs.

 

dont get upset

prematurely.

 

 

 

3

been going on for fifty years that i know offBuggin

 

 

**round&round we go &round we go    i am begining to get dizzy.
**

 

 

 

 

 

 

**
**

4

I read this thread and scratch my head?????????

There is nothing new.  Everything as far as shapes goes is pretty much a copy of something else.  Its all been done before.  About the only innovation I see out there is with materials.

I guess I'm just getting old or something but I just see old shapes being rehashed and brought back.

Next someone will bring back the golf ball style dimple bottom from 1984 and claim it as their own.

5

Reminds me of something that happened when I worked as a mailman in Santa Barbara.  The post office announced a contest: money saving ideas - the best ones would be implemented and the contestant will receive a check for 10% of the projected savings for the first year.  A guy I worked with suggested we go to self-serve gas in our vehicles, instead of the full service (they pump for you) we had been using.  Projected savings, when you figured the gas consumption for the whole fleet in the city for a year, were huge.  They picked his idea, implemented it, told him "Great idea.  We had already thought of it, and were just about to implement it when you suggested it."  Then they fired him.  No good deed goes unpunished.

6

food for thought from

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/read/730

 

No. 1076:
SLAVE INVENTORS

by John H. Lienhard

Today, we ask, "Who should own a patent?" The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.


I'm troubled by the patent and copyright system. It lets one person invent something and another one own the patent. Inventors can sell patents. Survivors can inherit them. Employers can own their employees' inventions. Then, too, one person often files a patent when others have provided key ideas.

An event from 1857 puts all that in a particularly ugly perspective. That year, a plantation owner named Oscar Stewart wrote the secretary of the interior. His slave, Ned, had invented a new, and very effective, cotton scraper. Stewart wanted to patent it.

Historian Portia Jones explains that Stewart walked around the patent office because he knew the commissioner of patents was a Northerner. He might not understand about masters and slaves.

But the secretary of the interior went straight to the patent office anyway. And they wrote back saying Ned would have to swear an oath that he was a citizen before they'd give him a patent. Of course, as a slave, he was not a citizen.

Stewart blew up when he read that. He was certainly not so foolish as to think Ned could hold a patent. After all, Ned was just property! Stewart obviously meant the patent for himself.

A nasty North-South issue had landed in the attorney general's lap. So he made a draconian ruling: henceforth, patents would not be given for slave inventions -- neither to master nor to slave.

So Stewart went into business making Ned's cotton scraper without the luxury of patent protection. No matter, he made a pile of money anyway. And his advertising said openly that the scraper was "the invention of a Negro slave -- thus giving the lie to the abolition cry that slavery dwarfs the mind of the Negro."

Jefferson Davis, soon to be president of the Confederacy, ran afoul of that ruling a year or so later. His brother had a slave named Benjamin Montgomery. Montgomery was a smart mechanic who'd invented a propeller to replace steamboat paddle wheels. Now it couldn't be patented! When the South broke away from the Union, Davis saw to it that Confederate patent law clearly made slave inventions into the property of their masters.

The Civil War ended that, but the larger matter of one person owning another's creative output remained. We can hardly argue against rewarding invention. But how far from the inventor those rewards often land! A friend, an English teacher giving a TV course, recently had to pay a book company to let him quote from its edition of John Donne's poetry. And Donne has been dead since 1631.

I'm troubled by the words intellectual property. For invention has no material being. When you try to treat it like material property, you create contradictions. In the end, you can no more own ideas than Stewart or Davis could own -- the people who created them.

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.