Graham Mitchell
New member
They may be muzzled by the legal process if this action is still pending. Let's not jump to conclusions
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Save $
- Thread starter Rethmeier
- Start date
carstenw
Active member
Jack, the people who have said they would buy the copy have gone to extra lengths to point out that any legal issues are not their problem, and that Arca-Swiss has to deal with it, not them.
Dale Allyn
New member
Maybe if A-S excluded the designer "Corinthian" leather box they could lower the price to $1,250 and still make a comfortable profit.
This is kind of an interesting thread that crosses into so many areas. The "Cube" that A/S has built and is selling at a price that some find quite high, is quite an attractive and effective device, based on what owners and users have commented. They decided to put it into the marketplace, knowing that they either owned patents and are prepared to defend them or not. That is a simple, but important business decision on their part. Did they get it right or blow it? Time will tell. They knew how much effort went into the construction and build, and apparently, the earlier price, though maybe a bit shocking to some, was reasonable. When they were either unable, or unwilling to fill orders for it, and then elevated the price significantly, what did they expect others in the market to do? They set themselves up for someone to copy and produce more cheaply. Does that make what the Korean company did wrong? Maybe not, especially if the "Cube" is not covered under patents to protect it, or if A/S is not prepared to defend those patents. They saw a product that had building demand, low availability, and a price point that the market was straining at. Seems like a perfect "storm" set of conditions to come in and create a clone, sell it at a more reasonable price, and make some money.
With respect to IP.....well, if A/S feels "hurt" or infringed upon, they had the chance to flood the market with their version at a price that would have made it a lot harder for the Korean company to copy, tool up, and put into production to make a profit themselves. For all anybody knows, the Cube may only cost $50 in materials and another $200-300 in build labor and distribution. We just do not know that part of the equation. Obviously it has to be something reasonable to encourage somebody else to build it and sell it for a lot less than A/S. Fine machining can be done almost everywhere in the world today.
The interesting point, for those railing against "the Asians" and other such lumpings, is when some of these IP "kings" go out of business, or stop designing and building cool stuff like this. Then what will there be to copy? That is not saying the folks copying things do not have their own ideas or designs, as we know they do, but one of their strengths seems to be in the ability to produce things of high enough quality at low enough costs to be able to effectively compete in the marketplace. Anybody remember how much of toy the Hyundai or Kia automobiles were when first introduced? What about what they are building today? Maybe not the cost of a Mercedes, but gee, they are not horrible cheap heaps either anymore. Something to be said for that.
Policing the markets is not the responsibility of the consumer. They select things all the time based on the criteria that matters to them: price, service, availability, innovation, etc. They will seek it wherever they can find it.
In the case of the Cube versus the Clam-whaever.....if the clone does the job, satisfies the buyer and comes in a price that is attractive, it will succeed. If A/S is unable or unwilling to fight that competition, be it in court over valid patents, or in the marketplace by offering a competitive price, good service, and all those other things that buyers seek, then they will suffer. It is too bad if they fail, as a lot of their designs are quite slick and I would hate to see them be "lost", but why should I, as a consumer have to pay some quite high premium for something when it may be available elsewhere for considerably less? I have to deal with this myself when selling my prints and services.....A/S does also. If the Cube is vastly superior in build, and for what it does, the market will help select it to its top. If it is just overpriced, it will be relegated to collectors.
Just my thoughts on this.
LJ
With respect to IP.....well, if A/S feels "hurt" or infringed upon, they had the chance to flood the market with their version at a price that would have made it a lot harder for the Korean company to copy, tool up, and put into production to make a profit themselves. For all anybody knows, the Cube may only cost $50 in materials and another $200-300 in build labor and distribution. We just do not know that part of the equation. Obviously it has to be something reasonable to encourage somebody else to build it and sell it for a lot less than A/S. Fine machining can be done almost everywhere in the world today.
The interesting point, for those railing against "the Asians" and other such lumpings, is when some of these IP "kings" go out of business, or stop designing and building cool stuff like this. Then what will there be to copy? That is not saying the folks copying things do not have their own ideas or designs, as we know they do, but one of their strengths seems to be in the ability to produce things of high enough quality at low enough costs to be able to effectively compete in the marketplace. Anybody remember how much of toy the Hyundai or Kia automobiles were when first introduced? What about what they are building today? Maybe not the cost of a Mercedes, but gee, they are not horrible cheap heaps either anymore. Something to be said for that.
Policing the markets is not the responsibility of the consumer. They select things all the time based on the criteria that matters to them: price, service, availability, innovation, etc. They will seek it wherever they can find it.
In the case of the Cube versus the Clam-whaever.....if the clone does the job, satisfies the buyer and comes in a price that is attractive, it will succeed. If A/S is unable or unwilling to fight that competition, be it in court over valid patents, or in the marketplace by offering a competitive price, good service, and all those other things that buyers seek, then they will suffer. It is too bad if they fail, as a lot of their designs are quite slick and I would hate to see them be "lost", but why should I, as a consumer have to pay some quite high premium for something when it may be available elsewhere for considerably less? I have to deal with this myself when selling my prints and services.....A/S does also. If the Cube is vastly superior in build, and for what it does, the market will help select it to its top. If it is just overpriced, it will be relegated to collectors.
Just my thoughts on this.
LJ
stephengilbert
Active member
"[T]he price for the cube is ripping off customers IMO?" Does that mean that you are opposed to theft, to "ripping off"? If so, how is it okay to steal AS's design?
I find this discussion very interesting. People who think it's okay to buy the clone, that they have no obligation to avoid a copied product whether or not it violates someone else's legal rights. (I don't know whether it does; I'm just a lawyer.) Yet these same people feel okay about defending their rights vis-a-vis photos or designs they've created.
Pick one: (1) I have no problem with buying the copy, whatever the legailty of its production, and have no problem with people taking what I've created for their own use without paying me, or (2) I don't want to be ripped off, and won't buy from someone who's ripping someone else off.
For what it's worth, the purpose of the patent and copyright laws is to encourage people to create by offering them legal protection for a period of time, by giving them a monopoly on their creation. That's why patented drugs cost more than generics. (Now there's something you might complain about: medicine might be even more essential than a geared tripod head.)
Steve
I find this discussion very interesting. People who think it's okay to buy the clone, that they have no obligation to avoid a copied product whether or not it violates someone else's legal rights. (I don't know whether it does; I'm just a lawyer.) Yet these same people feel okay about defending their rights vis-a-vis photos or designs they've created.
Pick one: (1) I have no problem with buying the copy, whatever the legailty of its production, and have no problem with people taking what I've created for their own use without paying me, or (2) I don't want to be ripped off, and won't buy from someone who's ripping someone else off.
For what it's worth, the purpose of the patent and copyright laws is to encourage people to create by offering them legal protection for a period of time, by giving them a monopoly on their creation. That's why patented drugs cost more than generics. (Now there's something you might complain about: medicine might be even more essential than a geared tripod head.)
Steve
Graham Mitchell
New member
Well said, Steve. It's also interesting that some people are justifying the 'theft' based on AS's high price. Last time I checked a company was free to charge what it wants for a patented device, and the consumer is free to not pay that price if he finds it too high. Either it's ok to steal a design or it isn't - the price doesn't come into it.
Graham
Graham
Lars
Active member
Graham, Steve,
For all we know, A/S might have a design licensing agreement with the maker of the Clam, or possibly the manufacturing of the Cube has been outsorced to the maker of the Clam.
It's not unusual for precision manufacturing to be outsourced to China and Korea, and it's not unusual for the factory to run the night shift to produce rebranded runs, with the brand holder's silent approval. For example North Face does this in Vietnam - you can buy genuine North Face products locally for a tenth of the overseas price and it is literally the same product.
The point is we don't know so it's premature to talk about theft.
For all we know, A/S might have a design licensing agreement with the maker of the Clam, or possibly the manufacturing of the Cube has been outsorced to the maker of the Clam.
It's not unusual for precision manufacturing to be outsourced to China and Korea, and it's not unusual for the factory to run the night shift to produce rebranded runs, with the brand holder's silent approval. For example North Face does this in Vietnam - you can buy genuine North Face products locally for a tenth of the overseas price and it is literally the same product.
The point is we don't know so it's premature to talk about theft.
Therein lies the main issue....is the Cube protected under patents or not? If it is, then A/S should defend them. If not, then those bets are off. If the Cube is a patented design, then we should be paying up for whatever A/S thinks they can sell it for. That is their choice, and ours as well. I do not own a Cube, though I think it a pretty slick device, because I just cannot justify that cost compared to other things I need and use....my A/S B1 does a pretty decent job for my needs so far. I would not purchase the clone for the same reason....still too much money for what my budget wants to afford.
I do not like having my photos ripped off, and I have taken the time, energy and expense to protect them as best I am able. That is MY responsibility when I place things into the marketplace, and there are laws (copyright in this case) that are in place to help me. I expect the same from others. I do not like seeing anybody being ripped off, but if folks are creating and selling stuff to make money themselves, they have a responsibility to themselves or their firms to do what is needed to protect their work.
If A/S takes the actions it needs and wins, then good for them. If they do not....well, they will learn another lesson in business. As Jack and others have said, the goniometer is not something new, nor probably IP belonging to A/S. Plus, there are a limited number of ways to do some things. Folks were talking earlier about camera designs and who stole what from whom. Let's get real here also....there are limited number of ways to make a light tight box that takes a lens and is able to capture images onto a standard roll of film. That is why the fights were not over the design of the box so much, but more over how the lenses attached. In fact, that is still were most of the battles are. Think about the Leica S2.....still just a box with a sensor, but Leica is being very careful about what kind of glass will be allowed to go onto their body.
LJ
I do not like having my photos ripped off, and I have taken the time, energy and expense to protect them as best I am able. That is MY responsibility when I place things into the marketplace, and there are laws (copyright in this case) that are in place to help me. I expect the same from others. I do not like seeing anybody being ripped off, but if folks are creating and selling stuff to make money themselves, they have a responsibility to themselves or their firms to do what is needed to protect their work.
If A/S takes the actions it needs and wins, then good for them. If they do not....well, they will learn another lesson in business. As Jack and others have said, the goniometer is not something new, nor probably IP belonging to A/S. Plus, there are a limited number of ways to do some things. Folks were talking earlier about camera designs and who stole what from whom. Let's get real here also....there are limited number of ways to make a light tight box that takes a lens and is able to capture images onto a standard roll of film. That is why the fights were not over the design of the box so much, but more over how the lenses attached. In fact, that is still were most of the battles are. Think about the Leica S2.....still just a box with a sensor, but Leica is being very careful about what kind of glass will be allowed to go onto their body.
LJ
Last edited:
Graham Mitchell
New member
Graham,
Your example is not germane. If I saw an old lady being mugged, I would come to her defense, because she both needed it, and because there are clearly known and understood laws everywhere that protect her. A crime is being committed. (Interestingly, there are even issues over that right now, with victims bringing legal action against the good samaritan in some cases....go figure.) In the case of A/S, if the law is being broken, there is recourse for them to take, BUT it is unclear if any laws are being broken....maybe some feeling being hurt or some business being shifted, but until it is clear that laws are being broken, what is the point of the argument? People and firms come up with great ideas all the time. Those that act on the ideas and successfully bring them to market can benefit, but they also must take actions to see that the laws set out to protect them are enforced. A/S obviously knows about Clam. They are unhappy. Boo hoo. If their patents have been infringed, then they have the law on their side wherever it applies, and it is their right and obligation to protect their interest. How about that old lady pulling a 9mm from her purse and taking care of business? ;-)
LJ
Your example is not germane. If I saw an old lady being mugged, I would come to her defense, because she both needed it, and because there are clearly known and understood laws everywhere that protect her. A crime is being committed. (Interestingly, there are even issues over that right now, with victims bringing legal action against the good samaritan in some cases....go figure.) In the case of A/S, if the law is being broken, there is recourse for them to take, BUT it is unclear if any laws are being broken....maybe some feeling being hurt or some business being shifted, but until it is clear that laws are being broken, what is the point of the argument? People and firms come up with great ideas all the time. Those that act on the ideas and successfully bring them to market can benefit, but they also must take actions to see that the laws set out to protect them are enforced. A/S obviously knows about Clam. They are unhappy. Boo hoo. If their patents have been infringed, then they have the law on their side wherever it applies, and it is their right and obligation to protect their interest. How about that old lady pulling a 9mm from her purse and taking care of business? ;-)
LJ
Woody Campbell
Workshop Member
I think this thread has gone off on a non-productive tangent unless there is a patent lawyer in the group who has been fully informed of the facts who would care to comment. This is really technical stuff - reaching a conclusion requires careful parsing of the patent application and an understanding of the prior art, as well as a detailed understanding of the allegedly infringing device. The fact that a patent has been granted is not definitive - a substantial proportion of US patents don't survive judicial challenge because the courts in the US sometimes apply a higher standard of what constitutes an "invention" than the patent office.
What we really need is for someone who has one of these things to write up a brief review.
What we really need is for someone who has one of these things to write up a brief review.
Last edited:
Woody, I agree. I would love to see a good, unbiased review of both side by side, along with a clear statement from A/S, if applicable that there are patents or not, and what laws are being broken that would make the Clam "illegal" as some think. With that kind of clear, unbiased information and review, I think folks could more easily make their own educated decision on what to do or support.
LJ
LJ
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
My Panerai is real anyone wanna buy it. LOL
Woody I agree, without a patent lawyer in the house we are just talking in circles and it is not really our issue that would be interesting but more if this thing is actually any good at all and if it truly does work as advertised.
Woody I agree, without a patent lawyer in the house we are just talking in circles and it is not really our issue that would be interesting but more if this thing is actually any good at all and if it truly does work as advertised.
Dale Allyn
New member
Willem, congrats on your new toy. Do let us know your observations.
By the way: I can arrange a nice leather pouch for something less than the difference between what you paid and the price of the A-S Cube. Shall we say $975 U.S. ? I'll start on it right away.
Kidding aside, I do appreciate the sensitivity of this topic. The dearth of accurate information doesn't help the consumer make choices.
By the way: I can arrange a nice leather pouch for something less than the difference between what you paid and the price of the A-S Cube. Shall we say $975 U.S. ? I'll start on it right away.
Kidding aside, I do appreciate the sensitivity of this topic. The dearth of accurate information doesn't help the consumer make choices.
Wow this has been quite the read so far.
I'm going to take it down a notch
Airline lost one of my bags with a Gitzo 1228 and Markin M10 in it. :angry:
I had to replace them both, I came across the Photoclam ball heads, and since it was so close to the M10 decided to gamble and try it out.
short and long of it, the head is identical in feel and use to the markin, but less $
so I have high hopes for the cube twin...
I should also say that there was a time when people viewed the Markins as A/S rip-off and now Markins is viewed as a premium company.
I'm interested to read the user report of the cube twin specially if it could be arranged to have it side by side with the cube.
:salute:
am
I'm going to take it down a notch
Airline lost one of my bags with a Gitzo 1228 and Markin M10 in it. :angry:
I had to replace them both, I came across the Photoclam ball heads, and since it was so close to the M10 decided to gamble and try it out.
short and long of it, the head is identical in feel and use to the markin, but less $
so I have high hopes for the cube twin...
I should also say that there was a time when people viewed the Markins as A/S rip-off and now Markins is viewed as a premium company.
I'm interested to read the user report of the cube twin specially if it could be arranged to have it side by side with the cube.
:salute:
am