[Gooserider]

I'm not terribly surprised, my post dealing with modern economics and the workings of a free market seems to have generated a bit of controversy. :shrug:

Just to make one thing clear, I have no particular stake in this arguement, as I am not in the market for a WB from any maker. (I have a mill, I make my own, using my own variant on a #rotor style design)

Another random thought that I just had - It is known that there are other WW 'clones' out there, how and why is everyone assuming that it was the *WW* that was copied? Couldn't it be asserted that one of the clones was copied and the modifications reconverged back towards the original design (since after all it was better...) via independent R&D? Not saying it is, but is that not also a possibility?

To take things one at a time....

unregistered: "So Mr block maker, why aren't you asking me "How can I serve you better?"" such is a consumer's plaint, not a technical issue the comments are about innovation, or lack of same

True, but the customers are the ones that drive the business because without them the business goes away. The company in question has made the technical decision that providing more of the same is what the customers want, as opposed to innovation.

those inclined to copy are welcome to their profits, that is their heading - not mine obviously

Never said it was, there are innovators and copy cats... Need I point out that these PC's we are banging on are in large part due to copy cats 'stealing' IBM's innovative ideas? (and not paying royalties either for much of it)

don't need a design engr to make a copy eh ? (the engr's pride more important than profits ?)

The engineer is still needed, but perhaps of a different sort - the target of the 'copy' still needs to be reverse engineered, and the design altered enough to prevent problems with lawsuits. I will admit I have not followed the history of the WW from the first, but my understanding is that neither Cathar nor D-tek secured patents on the design, and the detailed dimensions have been repeatedly published on the net - and this website. If that is the case, the plans are legally public domain, and the grounds for any suits are thin to non-existant (IANAL, but that is my understanding of the law in any case)

look at the new wbs of the last year, plenty of different implementations - some fairly good too for initial offerings this thread is about a blatant copy made by a company who, in the estimation of some, should have been able and willing to do better

There may be back chat I haven't seen, but from what I've seen in this thread, I haven't seen that much evidence that it IS a 'blatant copy'! There are comments that the picture LOOKS like a copy, and even that acknowledges that the top is different (and what about any changes in the jet dimensions, spacing, etc. that might go with that different top design) but no actual HARD comparisons between the two. As to whether the company should have done better? Well the customers are going to have a chance to vote on the matter, just as they do on most everything else, by the act of opening their wallets and deciding who to give their $$$'s to. If they think the company should be punished for copying or a lack of technical innovation they can do so simply by giving their money to a competitor and urging their friends to do likewise.

EDIT: BalefireX not how its done in the commercial world, think price-performance point not an absolute performance contest at all, its 'bounce for the buck' will I give up 0.5°C for a reduction of $5 in the mfgn cost ? most of the time, yes

Certainly, it's a legitimate engineering decision, the question is whether or not the consumers will punish you for that decision or not?

-------------------

jaydee116:
GR: Ever compared Ford and Chevy V-8 engines? Think they were both invented by the same company? JD:Yes, they are cmpletely different. Also manufactures BUY tech and licences from each other to avoid law suits and make it legal.

True on both counts, but the design differences are subtle, and the tech cross licensing is limited, usually to what is cheaper to purchase than to reverse engineer...

GR: Innovation even in the form of knockoff's is part of the competitive process - products are patentable, but not design concepts. If one person designs a product and patents it, then that product is protected, but not the idea of doing something in a way that is SIMILAR to the patented product. If there was no patent on the original design then that it is fair game for a direct copy.
JD: There is no innovation in this block. It is a direct copy of the white water with some fancy BS around it. I bet if you measured it everything would be identical.

That 'fancy BS around it' does make it different, and I take it from your comment that you HAVEN'T measured it, so how do you know? ISO Certified calibrated eyeballs?

GR: Cathar invented the Whitewater concept, and the initial design, and that is good. Other companies take the concept of fins with a center impingement jet and exhausts on each side, and create variations on it - perhaps a different configuration on the jet, or changes in the fin spacing and number, or putting bumps on the fins or ...... So long as there is a significant difference in the two products then all is somewhat fair - the question of just HOW MUCH difference is required may be a matter for the courts, but as long as there is enough, then it is legitimate.
JD: Sorry, but this is just BS. It shouldn't have top get to the courts as these places should be designing their own blocks, not variations of one's already made.

True from a philosophical standpoint, and we all should come with harps and haloes too... I'm talking the real world, where people can disagree on where the border between innovation and copying exists. The courts are the mechanism that most of us have decided for better or worse (to the extent that they are gov't run I think worse, but that's a different matter) to decide on such disagreements. For whatever reason, as I mentioned earlier, my understanding is that neither Cathar nor D-tek did much to preserve their rights in the WW design, which makes it a lot less of a problem for someone wanting to copy it. (Also probably a reason why people don't try to copy Swiftech designs since Swifty DOES take efforts to protect them)

GR: This may even lead to a technical improvement. I have no doubt about Cathar's genius, but I also don't think he has tried every possible manner of jet and fin configuration, let alone top design and material choice, and I see it as entirely possible that a knockoff could infact find a configuration or manufacturing method that improves on the original.
JD: Sure, hasn't yet though since 2001.

Permit me to 'copy' from all the mutual fund adverts "Past performance does not guarantee future results"

They are not interested in performance. They are interested in selling blocks. How do you do that? Make a copy of a popular block or design one better. Which is easier and quicker?...

EXACTLY RIGHT!!! This just so happens to be WHY they are in business, to sell blocks. Performance is only important insofar as it helps them to sell blocks. Even on these supposedly performance driven forums, I see as much if not more attention being given to how blocks LOOK as how they perform...

(Would BR get as much cred here as he does if he just lapped his blocks enough to mount them, and showed them in 'as soldered' condition? No, he gets his well deserved accolades because his blocks are works of art as well as decent performers. I actually suspect that if given the BillA test, they would only score in the mediocre range, not in the WW/Cascade range - but I see constant efforts to purchase them, is it for performance or looks?)

Given that they are interested in selling blocks, why should they spend extraordinary amounts to get performance that does not improve their bottom line? Reproducing an internal design that has been proven to perform well and has good customer acceptance allows them to focus more attention on creating an innovative and (they hope) market share attracting top design and mounting hardware. Their management felt that this was the best way to expend their R&D dollars and get a product to market quickly. Your WB company may choose to do things differently, and see how the market responds.

GR: I would also point out that no company. no matter how ethically challenged, profits or gets rich strictly by ripping off the designs of a competitor. ALL companies can profit only by finding an answer to the key business question of "How can I help you today Mr. Customer?" that is better than the answer offered by a competitor. This might be done by offering a knockoff for less money, a better design, or a copy that can be gotten instead of just lusted after. In each case, the customer gets something he needs, and the market is guided towards the optimal use of resources of all types.
JD: No, something he "wants". And he is whilling to do whatever it takes to get what he "wants". Even if it means disrespecting.

Customers are the only ones in a free market (The situation which exists when no government interferes) that can differentiate between "Needs" and "wants" and they do so by opening their wallets. IIRC, one of the early posters in this thread expressed a desire for an original WW, and his dissapointment that they couldn't be purchased any more. It's my understanding that Cathar and D-Tek no longer make the WW, so exactly who is being offended against when a company serves the customer by giving him what he wants, especially when the original producers choose not to do so (which is their right)
[Quote}GR: Given that in the WC market, there seems to be such a small amount of difference between the top level of blocks that even the honest testers have trouble reaching a concensus as to what is the best, it seems to me that there is little room for competition on technical merits, as one will probably be reasonably happy with any of the top tier blocks. So what is left? Price? Availability? 'Bling Bling' design? Build quality? All copper vs. mixed metals? Use of a design concept that is known to be effective? JD: Plenty. [/quote]
Define? Provide examples? How many variations on the re-invented wheel do you want?

GR: So Mr block maker, why aren't you asking me "How can I serve you better?" instead of kvetching about people that are doing it?
JD: They can serve me better by being innovative and making somthing original that works and giving credit were credit is due. Once that is acheived I have a reason to make a commerial block. Untill then I have no reason what so ever to make a block for people to use as all I can expect is for some other company to rip it off and sell it themselfs. What reason does a new company have to make their own block in the current state of jacking designs? How is this benifitting the WC world? There is no innovation in the current WC world. Proof is all these WW knock offs that don't work as good as the original. Innovation is making something new and BETTER or taking something old and making it BETTER. So far that has not happened from anyone. You are wrong in your thoughs above. These companies are simply wrong in the ways they are doing business and taking advantage of the ignorant buyer and of work done by others.

It isn't impossible to protect an original design. That some have failed to do so doesn't mean it can't be done. Cathar already has more credit than most engineers get (Quick, give me a list of the engineers that did new and innovative work on the design of your car?) much as we'd like to see him get more.
The creation of additional blocks, even if copies that don't perform as well as the originals (another non-proven assumption) still serves the WC world by providing a greater range of choices and helping to drive the price of W/C systems down so that more can afford them. It also does represent slight incremental innovation, even if you don't choose to recognize it as such. You are also free (as always) to express your opinions of the companies by purchasing elsewhere, or making up your own blocks.

: Gooserider Quote: jaydee116 have you considered the limits of manufacturing blocks. Thanks for the insult. I see my work on this site really shows. Yes, I know it all to well and there are hundreds of combinations yet to be done. Some even work.

HUHH??? That one isn't mine, and I don't know where it came from - please be more careful in your attributions, and give credit where it's due!

------------------------------

unregistered(again): <snip>
kaotic504
quite agree with you, so why did Asetec not 'cut a deal' with Cathar ?
shit, pay him $1000 to 'be happy' ?

It might have been good PR to have done so - if you can figure out how they could have made it known that Cathar was 'happy' - but I don't know what legal obligation they would have had to do so.

Gooserider