RE: [Paddlewise] Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying

Matt, Paddlewise

This thread is running several issues, the three I
want to pick up being:

1.    The general protection of sea kayak designs,
or lack of it,

2.    The specific instance of the Nadgee vs.
Mariner

3.    The side issue of lawyer bashing. Commentary
on this one is leading away from sea kayaking
issues, so I won't fuel the fire, but I do get
annoyed at idle snipes at lawyers. As Gordin
pointed out, people are prone to casually slag off
at lawyers in general, then rush to their own
lawyer when trouble strikes.



Nadgee vs. Mariner, and general boat design
protection:

We have reached a divide in values here, which won
't resolve by an agreement between you and I. I
don't find any problem with boat shapes being
copied and developed further, unless there is some
high level legal protection breached, like a
patent. You might pour scorn on your imitators,
but you can't stop them, and the only way to crush
them is to out compete them. I find it interesting
that bold advocates of rugged individualism and
free enterprise are also those who have no
hesitation is seeking legal and governmental
protection in the form of trade barriers and stop
suits etc. (Before you hit the roof and reply to
this, I am not automatically assuming you fall
into the category of state protected free
marketeers.)



Here is an example of the way things can work. In
the late 1960's, Roland Pauligk was a very
talented local rockclimber. There were no
protection devices suitable for very small rock
crevices. Roland methodically developed and
manufactured "RPs", a very finely made set of
brass nuts. (There's some easy fodder for the
Paddlewise court jesters!). They were immediately
successful, and for a while, unique. Larger
competitors, like Black Diamond, Wild Country,
copied the idea, some claiming they made better
micro nuts. But somehow, they didn't, and Roland
maintains a viable business by being the best.
Message: don't bitch about your imitators, outdo
them.

(Want to see these:
http://www.mtntools.com/cat/rclimb/nuts/pc_rps.htm)



Although the best way to compare would be placing
a Nadgee beside the closest Mariner design and
measuring, I have no doubt in my mind that the
Nadgee is so different as to be a different boat,
and not so close to any Mariner as to be a
thoughtless ripoff. The hull shape performs
differently, according to Matt's own testing. The
rest of the boat is very different. It has three
bulkheads, VCP hatches, a day hatch, a fitted foot
pump, perimeter decklines on the foredeck, an
offset rear oval hatch to allow the spare paddle
to be fitted and left in place, a much smaller
cockpit opening, recessed deck fittings. The hull
does not have a distinctive ridge or runner like
stern keel, rather it is faired into the hull
shape. Whatever variations the custom-built
Nadgees have, including rudders on many, custom
fitted bulkheads and variations, they fit
Australian seaworthiness standards, and are
designed to do this. No Mariner boat fits these
standards, the conspicuous problems being lack of
a hands-free pump, and no decklines around the
foredeck. I expect Matt to say these are mainly
fit-out differences, but when they are all built
in, they add up to making a different boat. A boat
is not just a hull shape, and in any event, the
Nadgee hull shape diverges from Mariner boats. It
was never intended by its designer to be a copy of
any Mariner boat. His design process was paper and
pencil, build a test boat, modify it, refine it,
and after lengthy testing, arrive at the Nadgee.
He has lately stated that he has never seen a Max
in the flesh, and only seen two pictures of the
Mariner Max in Sea Kayaker, and one of its hull on
the Mariner website, only after finishing the
Nadgee. I wonder if your attitude hasn't changed
since you passed on the message to "wish him luck"
(circa 1995)?



I am surprised to hear you (Matt) claiming that
you would be upset at a Nadgee created in your
market, when you have apparently done little about
NW Kayaks, a couple of suburbs away from you. NW
Kayaks hull design method, filling your mould with
foam, hacking into the foam, then creating a boat,
is closer to a flop mould ripoff than a designer
in Australia using a SeaKayaker review along the
way to creating a his boat. The Nadgee's designer
is no crook in this or any other respect. He is a
hard working craftsman who makes high quality
boats, and who has developed a number of very
practical new features on his boats, not seen on
yours, and which, if both boats were available in
the same market, would make me lean towards the
Nadgee. Why don't you adopt these features for
your boats? I would be surprised if Mariners
fitted with bulkheads, day hatches, thick
perimeter decklines, and a good foot pump, did not
sell, and maybe very well. Look at how many sea
kayaks with the three hatch arrangement are
selling. It is a good, practical arrangement. The
addition of these features to the type of hull you
have developed, a rudderless hull that works,
creates a new and better boat.



You say you have no problem with someone making a
kayak like the ones you have designed. So your
objection is really that they shouldn't do this by
the easiest method, say by flop moulding (=
splashing a hull). Like whether a boat is a copy
or is sufficiently different to be regarded as a
new boat design, we are talking about a question
of degree and asking what constitutes an unfair
copying method. Would you object if a boat
designer, admiring your designs, looked at the
hydrostatics supplied on your website or in
Seakayaker, then arrived at an identical hull
shape to a Max without enlarging the lines in a
photocopier? I find this sort of fine
discrimination about the method of take-off a
little artificial and unreal. It is easier to say
either that a boat shape has legal protection, or
it does not, and if not, anyone may copy it, by
whatever method they choose. At the moment, it
appears there is no legal protection, so free for
all applies. You win if you still make the best
boats and out compete the mimics. That situation
ends up with greater potential for the best boats
to be developed.



In a wider sense, all progress is based on what
went before. Matt didn't have to invent the naval
architecture principles laid out by Froude from
scratch, nor the mathematical methods used in
calculations, etc. No doubt Matt can say that he
has had a considerable hand in applying these to
sea kayaks, but his designs rest on a whole body
of prior knowledge.  The complaint is really,
"Please protect my bit of originality from
competition". There is a good public policy reason
for some protection of highly original ideas: to
give back some return for the costly investment in
developing those. But even patents and copyright
don't last forever. I think originality which
falls short of very high level originality, should
be open to copying and improvement, for the
competing public policy reason that competition
promotes better and better designs. The real
protection is to out-compete the clone factories.



Please email me your Nadgee picture.

Drew owns the Nadgee you paddled.



Cheers, PT.
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************