From: Rafael Mier-Maza <silidriel_at_prodigy.net.mx> wrote: >>>>>>I don't know in what direction will the discussion end. What I do know is that Matt and his boat, and the others referenced have gotten a lot, and I mean, a lot of publicity. I guess the company doesn't mind that the discussion keeps going for ever.<<<<<<< Peter Treby, sea kayaker & lawyer wrote: >>>>>PS. Q. What's the difference between a sea kayaking lawyer with a good cause, and a pit bull terrier lunching on your leg? A. The pit-bull eventually lets go.<<<<<<<< Raphael, I'd argue with "good cause", but otherwise I think that joke summarizes the problem. Maybe you could tempt Peter to bite into your kayak designs and you too could get a lot of free publicity for your designs. Actually, I would have liked to drop this whole discussion way back when Peter couldn't admit he was wrong about his method of determining a kayaks trim and kept hounding me with questions. Questions that I first took to be rather dense but then later realized were more like they were trying to weave a web of confusion and obfuscation. That's when I guessed "lawyer". Answering his questions and attacks has been a lot of work for me and I'd happily trade any publicity for the time I spent on this returned to me. I'm now going to take another wild guess that Peter is retired from the practice of law (at least temporarily), with maybe too much time on his hands now, and misses the kick of attacking arguments and trying to make a case that seems to miraculously float (out of a lead fill boat) that he got when actively practicing. Just a hunch. I agree this entire thread has gone on far too long but I have a problem letting distortions and twisted truths go unchallenged and I tend to try to answer questions put to me in enough detail to make my answers clear and understandable (apparently sometimes without success). It is very frustrating though, answering essentially the same questions over and over again in what seems like just an attempt to use the answers and the imprecision of language to split hairs. I think very few who have stuck with the discussion thus far (if any are left at all) don't see what is going on. I don't blame anybody for wanting this discussion to end, I do too. Any publicity I've garnered from this is unwanted and means nothing to me anyway as I'm planning on retiring soon. Warning to Paddlewiser's, if I can't find anything better to do with my time when I retire you might find yourselves even more inundated by postings from me than you already are. Once again with his last post to me, Peter has twisted reality many times. While I'm tempted to point out all the things he has implied that aren't true line by line I'm only going to restrain myself and answer only his main question. >>>>>>>>Would you object if I took the hydrostatic information published about a Mariner kayak, and designed a sea kayak which had similar (within 1%, say) hydrostatics, and the general look of a Mariner. In other words, is your objection to photocopied blow-up cross sections, or to anyone making a Mariner style boat? It sounds like the latter.<<<<<< Wrong again, I have no problem with somebody designing a kayak that has features similar to those on our kayaks as long as they don't use my work without my permission to cut corners and then make a profit from it (that I don't share in). I'd be a lot more pissed though if I had to then compete directly with my own design. Vastly different kayak designs could have exactly the same basic hydrostatics. My objection is to my work (hull, offsets, cross sections or plans) being used directly (or scaled--thank you John for that one precise word description) without compensation (or even any credit) given, as was the case here. While the law was different when the Max was designed that has now been at least partially corrected (but is, unfortunately, not retroactive). So what may not legally have been "theft" back then would now be considered to be an offense against a designer who registered his designs since the new law was passed. I was willing to let this go since it was happening in Australia (as long as the kayaks didn't start showing up in my major market areas). What got my back up was Peter trying to distort the record and make it appear like what I knew had happened didn't really happen. If the Nadgee builder gets any negative fallout from this he can thank Peter for goading me into responding to his questions (or himself if he intentionally misled Peter about the origins of the Nadgee design when asked). Matt Broze www.marinerkayaks.com *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************Received on Wed Aug 25 2004 - 13:31:39 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:16 PDT