Re: [Paddlewise] Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying

Warning, long post. Make yourself a coffee, sit down, get comfortable.
I offered to continue this off the list after receiving an email stating
that it was getting too personal, and asked John and Matt, who have
continued posting on list, so on we go.

I have now become aware of the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (US), and
would be interested in anyone who knows something of this
legislation contributing to Paddlewise. It appears that there is
similar legislation in the European Union. I don't know of anything similar
in Australia, but it is possible that the situation may change if a
Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the US comes into being, and
Australia is pressed into aligning its intellectual property rights with the
US. This legislation apparently allows a designer bringing a new hull shape
out to register it within two years, and gain protection from copying for
some period of time (how long?). I would think this legislation would need
to be reviewed after a few years of operation, to try and determine if the
protection has encouraged a more viable boat industry, or suppressed design
development, or is too expensive, etc. I wonder what is treated as a
copy for the purposes of this legislation.

One of the real issues in this discussion is the one John stated: What is a
copy? I lobbed back "That is a question of fact". But the more I think about
that, the more it seems intertwined with its context. Who is asking the
question, and for what purpose?
If you ask what is a copy for the purpose of granting legal rights to the
designer of the original, then the copy needs to be a close one, even an
identical shape. If you ask "What is a copy?" such that the new boat will
offend the designer of the original, but not grant legal rights, a much
looser resemblance may give rise to irresolvable opposite opinions, as it
has done here.

Matt: "Their is nothing I can legally do about it, but that doesn't mean I
have to shut up about it, does it?"
Not at all, in fact where legal protection does not exist, sounding off may
help. It'll make you feel better anyway.

"A Nadgee competitor who has seen both boats firsthand even offered to pay
for an ad in Oz exposing the Nadgee as a copy."
And you think I'm conspiring! "Exposing" the Nadgee as a copy! That
competitor would need to consider his position in relation to defamation. I
think negative advertising attacking the competition is less appealing to
the market than positive advertising. Are there any marketers watching in on
Paddlewise? Is that sort of advertising worth paying for? Getting away from
sea kayaking here, but it is interesting. I seem to notice more direct
negative advertising in the
last two years or so, lately with supermarket-sold pain killing medication

Nadgee vs.Mariner
"You have either been mislead or are trying to mislead the readers about
this."
I don't think I am misled, and I am not trying to mislead. I trust
what Dave tells me about his design process, and accept it. He is a paddling
friend and honest. But I'm not carrying a brief for him in any way, he
didn't pick this issue, and as you know Matt, I did not acquaint him with
this
discussion until recently. In the end, if you think the Nadgee is a ripoff,
it is between you and Dave, not my problem. I know a little more now
about the creation of the Nadgee, and what further I have found out just
confirms my point of view, but I decline to be the post box. If you want to
get the detail of events which occurred some time ago, go direct and sort it
out. You've been in touch with him in the past.
Since you now seem prepared to call him a crook, I'm surprised that you
haven't taken this issue up directly with him in the past. You've been
reminded of it by an Australian competitor of Dave's, and you knew at the
time the visiting paddler turned up in Seattle and test paddled your boats.
Perhaps you haven't felt the need, because the issue is old hat, and as
you rightly say, you are not in the same market and haven't suffered any
loss, which you now complain about in the context of a
Paddlewise discussion. Legal systems parallel these ideas, there are
limitation periods to stop people bellyaching many years after some slight,
and there usually won't be any legal recourse where there is no damage.

"I'm talking about the hull of this kayak. How the deck has been changed or
the cockpit sizes differs etc. etc. is just so much obfuscation of the real
issue."
Your real issue.
I don't agree that two boats with the same hulls cannot be different boats
if they differ in other respects, the more so if those other differences are
major, and are innovative themselves. Some of these features have an
important effect on performance and handling.

"Although the best way to compare would be placing  Nadgee beside the
closest Mariner design and measuring< No, the best would be to take cross
sections of both kayaks and match them up."
Agreed, said as much back channel. "Placing them side by side" was a figure
of speech, really. If I attempted this, I would take overall measurements,
length, beam, depth, at various points, and take patterns of the cross
sections at various points, as if to make a cedar strip boat. Once done,
these sections could be mapped one on the other, and compared.

 >The hull does not have a distinctive ridge or runner like stern keel,
rather it is faired into the hull shape.<
"That is an outright lie."
Be polite. I own a Nadgee, I know what the keel looks like. It differs from
the picture of the XL hull. I still haven't received your image of the
Nadgee, as offered.

"You obviously haven't seen a Max."
No, I haven't and I am prepared to accept the limitations of what I
know in this exercise. The hull similarities you point to don't make the
Nadgee a Max, nor a ripoff to me. It is actually important to me to feel
OK about the boat I paddle. While I am pointing out that there is no
apparent legal
problem, as far as I know, in my jurisdiction, with a direct flop mould type
ripoff, (as long as it is not "passing off") I wouldn't want to support that
behaviour by buying such a boat, for the very same reasons as you advance as
your reasons for disliking copies. There are instances of flop moulding in
Australia. The copies that I can think of are not as good as the originals.
Word gets around, and paddlers prefer the better originals.

".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.< How did these become
"problems" rather than differences? "
New topic, which I've always wanted to tackle, and I hope this isn't just a
two-way discussion. Problems or differences, I think a seaworthy boat must
have handy and effective lines to grip on front and back decks.
Perimeter decklines are a good solution, and they should be thick enough not
to cut into wet soft hands. They are needed by a swimmer to keep hold of the
boat, and by a rescuer holding onto a boat while the swimmer gets back in. I
have always wondered about the central cords on the front decks of Mariners,
and whether they are as good as perimeter decklines. OK, I know you offer
any arrangement a buyer wants, but the arrangement depicted in your boat
drawings is the central running line. Decklines are often useful to rotate
the boat on its long axis against the capsizing efforts of the swimmer
scrambling aboard, so lines at the edge are good.

"The foot pumps I've tried in kayaks all ended up giving me cramps in my
foot or calf. "
I have used a foot pump in the two boats I have owned and never had cramp
problems. If this is a problem, an electric pump, well maintained is an
alternative. I do think a hands-free pump is a better solution to boat
flooding than any other. In fact, one hesitation about experimenting with a
sea sock, is that fitting a hands-free pump inside a sea-sock does not seem
to be easily accomplished.
Anyone ever done that? If it can't be done well, that's a negative. Without
a hands-free pump, the boat needs to be able to be paddled while flooded to
somewhere you can empty it by a hand pump. You can't paddle and operate a
hand pump effectively at the same time.

"So that's how he blew up the cross sections from the magazine. Was it an
overhead projector he used to project them onto the paper so he could trace
them with a pencil at near full size? Well no, it was actually a copy
machine with a zoom function. So then just how did the pencil get used?
Why don't you ask to see the original set of cross sections he drew with his
pencil, blow up the Sea Kayaker cross sections with an overhead projector
and see if they are the same? You might question him in your lawyerly
fashion about the basic process of drawing the lines of a boat beginning
with the ideas in his head and then lofting and fairing them. I'll bet you
could nail him to the wall in court with those kinds of questions because
the odds are he can't tell you because he never did it."
Just to say this again, I accept Dave at his word, he never intended to copy
a Mariner and come up with a ripoff, and he hasn't. If you want the detail,
get on to him directly, I'm not the go-between for your recently whipped up
vendetta. I won't be assisting you in trying to nail him, as you put it.

". your kayak was likely a Nadgee and therefore would be just like my Max in
regards to maintaining its trim when adding a gear load (and therefore your
trim finding method wouldn't even work correctly even for you because of
that)."
My trim method seems to work well. There must be something lost in
communication here.

"Actually, it looks to me that you are a very competitive personality type
(and have certainly found the right occupation--were you not also a
competitive--class 14 level was it--rock climber as well?)."
A sideline confession, the number 14 can't be used in relation to me and
climbing. I have only climbed to 5.11, 21/22, and have never climbed at the
top level. I'd love to leave a vague impression that I have had something to
do with the 5.14 level, but that was never even a faint possibility.
" I'd guess that not liking to be shown to be
wrong in public, you chose to drop that trim discussion abruptly when you
realized you were wrong and then chose to attack me, with all your lawyering
skills sharpened, on a different front at the first opportunity. Steve soon
provided that opportunity when bashing sliding seats, probably in
retaliation for me pointing out that skegs in general had a thousand times
the failure rate of the sliding seat (when someone lumped them together as
both being failure prone mechanical devices). Although you had never seen a
sliding seat you went for the jugular anyway and I recognized the lawyer
type tactics and correctly guessed your profession."

Matt, you give me more credit for conspiracy than I am capable of. I am
quite prepared to be shown to be wrong if I am wrong, and note different and
valid choices in sea kayaking issues. And obviously, I am quite prepared to
put up questions and argue a point, because something educational and useful
comes out of that, sometimes. Anyone who doesn't have
a taste for this sort of process can simply hit the delete button, and not
get affronted.
In fact, the sliding seat matter brought to my attention something I didn't
know, that your sliding seat is easily moved back while underwater. I said
at the end of that discussion, that this moderated my line on restraining
the slide forward. Prove me wrong, go for it. I will keep asking questions
and lobbing ideas in now and them. Come in if you are interested.

"NW Kayaks...I think my previous paragraph explains why we did little about
"flattery" from NWK even though we would have liked to many times."
Well if you bring out any more models, get some legal advice about the
VHDPA.

"Day hatches are a fad, but now that they have become popular (and many
manufacturers have jumped on the bandwagon) many more users are discovering
that while it looked to be a good idea on paper that third bulkhead severely
impacts their useable storage space (and many who have them have told me
they don't like them)."

I agree day hatches are not a perfect solution to the problem of getting at
gear while on the water, but they are a workable solution. And as you
mentioned a while ago, a fix to one problem may create others. I'm sure
you'll tell if I'm wrong, but Mariners don't appear to provide access to
gear
while on the water. Things are best kept simple, and it is best not to need
too much gear. But there is the chart, camera, snack food, and drink. And if
night comes on, a torch. And a kite... the list can build. I have paddled a
boat with a hatch in the deck right in front of the cockpit. The hatch box
provides knee bracing. That seems worth developing. The offset day
hatch behind the paddler has a few issues: leaving the lid off is one.
Difficulty accessing the far side, flooding (it is best considered as a wet
area), preventing loading heavy gear close up behind the cockpit. Like many
fit-out choices, it is a compromise and not perfect.

"Recessed deck lines are hard to get a hold on because they are pulled down
into the deck every few feet."
I disagree. (How tempting it is to say "That is a downright lie!")
I have recessed deck line fittings, with 6 mm cord as the
decklines. They are easy to grab. I have assisted quite a few paddlers back
into their boats, and never had trouble getting hold of the decklines, which
on most boats around here run through recessed fittings. I would rather not
bark my knuckles on a hard plastic raised fitting.
The raised fittings can be catching points when crawling over boats in
rescues.

"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.<
I disagree with your last sentence. What fool is going to put in years of
work developing a product that he knows will just be ripped off by some big
deep pocket company if he is lucky enough to make it a success after all his
hard work. If the originator doesn't proceed then everyone loses."

What fool? You and many others are producing boats and are out in the
marketplace, aren't you?
The notion that a boat designer will hesitate to enter the market and
produce boats does not seem to be supported by the great number of kayak
manufacturers making boats at present.
If the originator does proceed, and someone takes that idea and improves
upon it, boat buyers win. I agree there is a tension between the need
to give protection to originality, and freedom to imitate and improve. The
situation described by a post about the Netherlands seems to be just what
you are talking about here, so maybe some people are put off producing
their ideas because a rapacious market will share their idea and profits.
If so, those people are perhaps a small minority, and plenty of kayak makers
are in the business. Do you know of instances where people have been
deterred
from producing boats by the prospect of being ripped off?

"After his closing arguments the defense rests. Yes, copying and even
splashing may all be legal, but it is not ethical, and you know it (but
chose to take the case anyway)."

Yes, there is a difference between what is desirable to protect legally, and
what people may feel is legitimate morally. I do know this, but I don't find
the Nadgee raises my indignation because I am aware of the lengthy trial and
error process that went into it, Dave's intentions, as far as I know the
different hull shape, and being a markedly different boat in other respects,
so I think of it as a boat in the same family of kayak hulls as yours, but
developed into something new and different.

"Here is a website that says it is copyrighted to us and implies that the
reader who found it by typing "Mariner Kayaks" into Google has arrived at
our website. We had nothing to do with it. Is it legal? I don't know."

There is a developing field of law as applied to IT. I think there are a
few legal possibilities to shut this down. Check it out. Seattle must have a
pretty high concentration of lawyers familiar with the law in this area. Be
sure to check if the defendant is somebody or some corporation of substance
before wasting your time proceeding.
Whoops, free legal advice!

In favour of copying and imitation, just have a look around at the sea
kayaks around now, and consider how those
designs evolved. Copying earlier designs and building is the way a lot of
kayaks have come to be what they are now. The Nordkapp was modelled on a
Greenland boat in a museum. Frank Goodman makes the Nordkapp in the UK,
around 1977. The design is made under royalty in New Zealand by Sisson
kayaks. Noel Sisson designs the Arctic Raider, described as larger and
faster, but unmistakably derived from the Nordkapp. The AR arrives in
Australia, and Canoe Sports makes an Arctic Raider, which influences further
boats based on the same general hull shape, Southern Raider, Ocean Raider,
and Raider-X, this last being a longer boat, and is currently fairly
popular: one was used in the first non-stop crossing of Bass Strait by
Andrew Macauley. Do you think the Raider X is a copy of the original museum
boat which inspired the Nordkapp? Are royalties due to the Greenlander who
made the museum boat? Is this a chain based on a ripoff, with more along the
way? There are many lines of boat development: another one leads from the
Icefloe
to the Pittarak in Australia. See the story on
http://www.pittarak.com.au/news.html and go to "Pittarak, the Story". In
fact, would kayaks designed by engineers and naval architects be in a small
minority?
The more I think about the issues raised in this hull copying business, the
wider it gets.
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/
***************************************************************************