Re: [Paddlewise] Nadgee, Max, Boat Copying

Matt asked:
"What if just the front half is identical? What if just the top was
identical? How about three quarters or only one eighth identical and taken
directly off another kayak?"
Asking these sorts of comparison questions is why you need to know
who is asking and for what purpose. The clearest and easiest answer is that
anything short of a fully identical shape is not a copy for the purpose
of legal protection. A broadly similar hull style, let us say round bilges,
concave
fine bow sections, long overhang, may be a reminder of a Nordkapp, but I
can't see cause for complaint about copying. A convex V-bow, swede form,
stern keeled boat may be in the same general boat shape family as a Mariner,
but not be a copy. For purposes other than attaching legal rights, a
designer might look at a boat and detect resemblances to his own designs,
and there may be, but if the boat is not identical, when is it legitimate
for the designer to squawk "ripoff" and when not? How much new design work,
or in Matt's world, how little change does the thief need to apply to
deceive, before a boat design is new? I am reduced to just posing these
questions, because try as I might, I can't come up with anything better than
something like "It's a matter of degree."
It is in fact much easier not to allow that the designer should be offended
at all, and go with Steve Brown and the semi-conductor industry practice: if
it's not illegal, it's acceptable, and the basis for new developments.

"Why don't you answer the simple questions I put to you in my last long
post?"
For the reasons set out in my last long post. I've asked once, I've received
an answer satisfactory to me and relayed it. And a further one, I fear an
endless series of questions from you beyond the next answer. At the end of
that unwelcome cross examination of my friend, if there was an end, you
would not be satisfied that the Nadgee was not a copy of the Max,
and I would not be satisfied that it is. Another reason to suggest you'd
be better going direct, is that chinese whispers lose accuracy in telling.
Just look at thestory of the Nordkapp to see how things get changed
in the telling, and accuracy lost.
Here is another possible, but troublesome and expensive method of
checking for direct hull copying. Take a mould off one
boat, and place the boat to be compared inside it. For this purpose, the
mould materials do not need to be made as robust as a production mould. I am
confident the Nadgee is highly likely to pass such a comparison.

"If the visiting paddler told me I don't recall it now" Your lack of memory
serves you well.

"Of course, there is a lot of difference in somebody making themselves a
copy for their own use and somebody selling that copy and potentially
competing with the originator."
Do you approve of one-off copies of your boats being made by
do-it-yourselfers?

">>I don't agree that two boats with the same hulls cannot be different
boats if they differ in other respects< So it appears you are saying here
that the hull of the Nadgee is substantially the same as the Max."
No. I would ask "What do you mean by substantially?", but I think that leads
back to vagaries and subjective opinions.

"Had Sea Kayaker's section lines showed the keel better I suspect the Nadgee
would be even closer in this respect than it is."
You are being too suspicious. For you to come up with that sort of
supposition makes me certain that one enquiry of Dave is enough. Comparing
my boat, and my photograph of the stern of the Nadgee, with the Mariner XL
photograph on your website, they are different. You will believe that they
are different because of faults in the copying method, I will accept that
Dave was not copying the Max, and came up with his own keel shape.

">>>>>>>>>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.<<<<<<<The
reasons for this is likely because someone who cuts corners and starts with
an existing kayak doesn't usually have the same understanding of hull
function the original designer has."
That wouldn't have any effect for an identical copy made by flop moulding.
The copies I am thinking of are poorer because the copiers are not sea
kayakers interested in the sort of trips for which the boats were designed,
they are outdoor industry people perhaps just interested in seeing the
bottom line numbers. It  usually appears to be because the flop copier is
cutting costs in construction, and doesn't lay up the boat as soundly or fit
it out as well. There's a tip for boat buyers: buy your boat from someone
who paddles real trips.

"So far the electric pumps have been a hard sell in the Seattle market."
That must be partly due to culture and habit. If a bit of effort by a long
standing senior figure in the sea kayaking world was put in to get the idea
out there, the culture could change. Give it a shot before retiring and
travelling the world paddling.

"The foot pumps I've seen only have a small fraction of the output of a good
hand pump."
The foot pump fitted to my boat is slower than a hand pump, but not a small
fraction of the output. This slower output is outweighed by the ability to
paddle at the same time as pumping. I sometimes carry a handpump as well,
when expecting to paddle with people who might not have their boats properly
fitted out. One drawback of fitted foot pumps is that you can't use them to
empty someone else's boat.

"Which particular raised fittings do you think you would bark your knuckles
on?"
Several I have seen fitted here. Some raised deckline fittings are worse
than others, but just as you don't like lumps and bolts under the deck, I
don't like hard lumps above the deck, as far as they can be avoided.

"Blatant rip-offs are mainly done by small time operators (a few of which
have become large). If this was to become a well respected practice, as you
seem to be proposing it should be, the risk of being ripped-off would be
far greater to potential designers."
Careless stuff. Take out the "well respected". I am not proposing that,
and no reading of what I have said should conclude that. The risk
at present, with little practical legal protection (here), is there already.
That risk does not stop anyone (that you or I know of) making kayaks.
I am not advocating taking identical copies and going into competition.
I am not advocating taking copies without seeking permission,
whether it is required or not.

"Copying seems to be rampant down under." And everywhere else.

"Others have straightened you out about the origins of the Nordkapp."
But the point of the story was not the precise history (interesting though
that is).
Using previous designs as the basis for the next development is the
way to progress.

"I'd love to have every kayak designer hooked up to a (perfect) lie detector
and ask them just how their designs came about."
You are suspecting what I say is an advantage for the kayak buying public.
Do you know of other chains of kayak development other than the descendants
of the Nordkapp? You have data on 700+ boats. Do some DNA testing and trace
them all back to a few common ancestors.

Cheers
Peter Treby
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************