The plugs were made by talented shapers to fill a demand that the plug designers became aware of as surfboard design evolved. Those plugs were designed so MANY shapers could, through Clark, have access to a blank that would save them time/money. The shapers that were perceived as needing these blanks got to that design level by working with the better surfers. Clark wouldn’t make a blank unless he thought he could profit from it. So you’ve got the input of a) surfers b) shapers c) designers d) Clark. Sooo who do you pay ? Surfboard design has evolved over the years through the cooperation of so many. We’ve all “learned” from others that came before us, and hopefully even participated in taking it to the next level. As it is, the surfboard business has never been that profitable compared to many other businesses. I fear the contemplation of “money” can bring out the worst in anyone. I think the Clark Catalog should now be considered Public Property. Anyway, all those blanks had to be shaped (modified, tailored) to fit each shaper/surfer’s needs. Some were great, some sucked. Just one person’s opinion.
Actually simpler than that. It’s automatic.
The following is reprinted from the Library of Congress.
"HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.”
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.
If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date."
Thanks for that rlrhet,
4) The invention must have "utility". I.e. you can't patent something that doesn't actually do anything.</blockquote></div>Here’s another one to the list of copyright problems - I made the point earlier but here it is again. Does a blank do anything? A surfboard has utility - you can use it to ride waves - but a blank? it is specifically created to be a component of a manufactured good - it doesn’t have utility on its own - therefore I doubt you could patent it anyway
Aloha Bill,
There are many times I have read a post from yourself, Bert, Thrailkill, Ambrose etc. that I would have gladly sent a dollar for the tip, life lesson, insight or laugh. Perhaps I would have, IF, it was as easy as hitting the REPLY or QUOTE button. Hit the THANK YOU button and the poster gets 90 cents, Mike Paler gets a dime. Must be entered to play.
There are many ethical intelligent people populating Sways. The recent decline in foam production has many businesses and individuals are attempting to fill the gap, thats what businessmen do. While much of this thread has “argued” the pros and cons of solution for past history, perhaps Swaylocks could again become a trendsetter in the potential answer.
Just a thought… Gil
Bill-----------------You make an excellent point. One that I immediatly thought of as I read that particular thread. I believe that a good attorney or judge would indeed rule that all Clark blanks are intellectual property. It doesn’t matter how many shapers contributed specs(input) to Clark Foam, who shaped the plugs or whatever. Once the deal was done, money changing hands or not and those blanks were put into production by Clark : They became his intellectual property. I don’t think anyone producing blanks currently has to worry about being sued. As hard as they may try, scan the specs. or whatever they are still not even close enough to be mistaken(even in the dark) for a Clark of similar specs. If a foam co. ever starts to get close; all they have to do is alter the specs a fraction of an inch. It is the advertising that could be the undoing of these start-up companies. If they brag in adds that their blank is equal to a Clark or use Clark’s name in their adds or in any public forum they may be opening themselves up to a lawsuit by no one other than Gordon Clark himself. McDing
Blanks are in the public domain.
Many (40?) years ago someone invented swivel handles for a wheelbarrow. A picture of a wheelbarrow was featured prominently in the patent applicaton drawings. A patent for the handles was granted. The question was raised did the patent for the handles also cover the wheelbarrow?
The answer was a simple no. The wheelbarrow had been in the public domain for a time long enough prior to it’s inclusion in the art of the instant patent to prevent it from ever being patentable. That does not mean other imorovements to the wheelbarrow were not patentable. IE just as were the swivel handles. It just meant that the standard wheelbarrow as pictured was not patentable.
You could try and get a design patent on a specific blank shape if it was a unique design, but even that may be rejected. See, that is another factor we havn’t raised. Applying for a patent does not guarantee a patent will be granted. Rejection rate is high. It’s a gamble. There are various things you can do to better your chances like limiting your claims, but that weakens your patent. Generaly you want as many claims as you can get. It takes a very talented attorney to guide your patent through the process. And even if a patent is granted it is only as good as you have pockets deep enough to defend it. And finally even with the deepest pockets, even then you could lose.
I refer you to the Surfco/Rainbow patent infringement cases filed separately by FCS against Surfco and Rainbow, both of which were combined by a judge into one case. That case went back and forth (driven by money on both sides) all the way up to the US Supreme Court where it was heard. It was determined by the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices that the FCS patent did not preclude anyone from making fins that would fit into the FCS plugs provided they were called replacement fins.
I found that decision ludicrious (and no disrespect to either side), but that leads to my final point. Having money does not guarantee you have good attorneys or that they can steer the arguments down the path leading to the greatest chance for success. Remember it is a process the outcome of which is up for grabs.
Lastly, royalties. The owner of the patents, a one Brian Whitty, licensed to FCS, never received a dime of royalty until he sued and won, and even then the judge had to drag the FCS owner into court and force him to pay.
Like I said from the start (or at least I thought I did, this thread is too long to go back and look) fins are the most heavily litgated of surf grear.
Now, getting back to Bill’s question. Clark is over. It’s pretty much a vultures on a gut wagon scenario. Isn’t Grubby more interested in raising goats or something? Good for him. I hear the burgeoning immigrant population has increased the demand for goat meat. So if that is what he’s doing he is leading again. And that leads me to the best advice I ever paid for. Got a new idea? Grab market share, flood the market. Take your ten thousand dollars and flood the market with your product.
But if you want better odds go to Atlantic City, Vegas or bet it all on the ponies… Seriously.
NOw I have a headache.
Having made several plugs… I can tell you that after use, the plugs are returned to the owner/designer.
well then that changes things a bit. if that’s the case, then i’m fairly certain that Clark’s making a mould from the plug from which to create blanks is simply the manifestation of authorization from the designer (and owner of the design) to Clark to reproduce and distribute. the design, itself, still remains the property of the designer. aanyone else wishing to use the design would need authorization to do so, or be open to litigation.
"If they brag in adds that their blank is equal to a Clark or use Clark’s name in their adds or in any public forum they may be opening themselves up to a lawsuit by no one other than Gordon Clark himself. "McDing
Comparison is not copyright infringement. “Our product does what theirs does, for less than half the price” is common marketing practice. Placing Clark’s name on the product and selling it as Clark’s product is definitely a no-no. However, other than Grubby, who can/will sue for copyright infringement? For that matter, does Grubby even care?
I understand where Barnfield’s coming from, but with all due respect to the designers of Clark’s blanks, what do any of them gain if they are not being produced? If a quality foam product is made, doesn’t everyone, including the original shaper of the plug, benefit from the manufacture and availablility of a proven blank?
Howzit soulstice, Next thing you know there will be the blank police going around checking blanks to make sure they aren’t Clark knock offs. Aloha,Kokua
honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me. we are already the most litigious nation in the world by a very wide margin that grows by the day. and a good thing, too…otherwise i’d likely be on welfare. just the same, if Rennie Yater found someone selling 9’1"Y knock-offs, he could sue him right into bankruptcy.
It wouldn’t seem unreasonable, that anyone looking to benefit commercially off of any exising Blank Designers; blank designs, names or reputations, should in fairness, seriously consider compensating the Designers appropriately for it.
The guys that make plugs for blank molds should be compensated. They should have been compensated from the beginning from what ever company they made plugs for. However they were not. The original intellectual property was returned and they were given some blanks for there services. And that has set a precedent. For another company to nick a blank and make a mold would be wrong but, at this point in surfboard history plug designers have never been compensated. So why would anyone think they weren’t available for public use?
Although somewhat unrelated, anyone remember the Supreme Court case of Fin Control Systems Vs. Surfco Hawaii? FCS sued Surfco to stop them from making FCS compatible fins on the basis that their whole system was patented. They couldn’t get them for copying anything. I think in general, published dimensions are fair game because you can take that measurement yourself and make your own from it. Reverse engineering has always been and hopefully always will be legal to do. So, if you take a clark blank, take butloads of dimensions, then make your own… thats legal to do. BUT, if you make an exact copy, (not even possible) it would be illegal. It would be an interesting case and I’m not sure if its been played out since the invention of 3d scans and CAD/CAM. These allow for it to be possible to “copy” a physical part. Patent law is very vague and its not easy to get a patent unless its something completely unique and even that it doesn’t protect you from someone coming along and making a “compatible” part. Someone mentioned the software relationship… reverse engineering something to make a compatible piece of software is legal. As long as you don’t take their code, there’s nothing they can do to stop you (except scare you, the little guy with no money, with massive teams of lawyers) You could argue that like in the surfco hawaii case, the surfboard blanks (fin tabs) are an integral part of a surfboard (fins) which cannot be cannot be patented or otherwise. I don’t see the original designers getting a dime out of blanks unless they team up with new manufacturers for a new licensing deal.
In all fairness, I believe there was compensation. As trivial as some might think, the compensation of 10 or 12 blanks is something…let’s say $1000.00. Plus, my guess in the old ways of Gordon Clark he might have given priority to those few who designed there own property and lent it to Clark Foam. It’s now known that they were returned to the designers. Clark, being an old school surf industry business person held his cards close to say the least. I think that, “that priority” was significant in his thinking, and holding the monopoly was key to his success. He was one tough hombre.
What all this indicates is just how heavy Grubby’s thumb was.
What is $1000 to a guy who, according to the Wall Street Journal, was making $20,000,000.00 a year?
That’s $20 million/yr.
For that matter if he did pay a royalty of $1 per blank that would be $365,000.00 a year and what is that to a guy making $20,000,000.00 a year.
The main reason, if not the only reason, surfboard manufacturing has been restricted (stunted) is because of Grubby’s monopolistic business practices. I wager he will not sue anyone because he will never get past the counter suit by the justice department. If anyone ever decided to sue him for restricting free trade, racketeering, and a littany of other illegal business practices we all know about, he would probably get Martha’s cell, but for a much longer time.
And maybe that right there is the real reason he locked his door.
If anyone ever decided to sue him for restricting free trade, racketeering, and a littany of other illegal business practices we all know about, he would probably get Martha’s cell, but for a much longer time.
Hi Mark -
Please don’t take this personally… just wondering if stating alleged “crimes” as fact, in writing, on a public internet forum is such a good idea? Not even sure if this site might be an accessory for allowing such claims to stand? You seem to have a decent grasp of legal stuff - maybe check it out for us?
Mark----------------I would also like to know where and when in the Wall Sreet Journal you got the info. that Gordon Clark made $20,000,000 a year. I’d like to read that for myself. Maybe someone here with time on there hands could do a search? McDing
Dude, it was front page news of the Wall Street Journal!
DUDE!--------------What issue?
Dude,
I was being cautious on the low side not wanting to overstate things and make people upset.
“People who work with Clark Foam say Mr. Clark in recent years has been more detached from the business. People in the industry guess the closely held company may have booked annual revenue in the $20 million-to-$30 million range and was profitable.”
By Peter Sanders and Stephanie Kang
Source: The Wall Street Journal
(Copyright (c) 2005, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
12/08/2005
Next time do your own fact check before you come after me.
“Booked annual revenue” means gross.
“…and was profitable” is only a yes/no question.
$20MM gross with $19.999MM costs is still “profitable” in a balance sheet / P/L sense.