Zoom going after the "little guys"!!

[tubinator]

It don't matter how you have protected your design, people will find a way to ripped you off. Real "Designers" know that, and prior to releasing their original design should already be working on the next. It sucks!, but that's the way it is! Think about the Senko, Chatterbait, Basstrix, The names are safe but the baits are copied by every tom, dick, and harry out there. Tell me about one style of bait that patents, copyrights or trademarks have protected, and I'll tell you about an american retail store that went through a Korean wholesaler, that had it manufactured in china!Sue? Sue Who?

[BassnRandy]

Matt I am in complete agreement with you: but I need to play devils advocate for a minute. In my tournament heydays i repped and prostaffed for several bigger companies. (I am not going to say names because most are not this way.) I have sat in meetings where baits were talked about for design and marketing. And i can tell you straight out that there are big companies who would not care in the slightest about that little trademark letter ect.They might make tiny changes to the bait and change the name, but would copy it as close as they could to get in the market. If one of us produces the next Senko you can bet there will be a pile of big companies on it right away. And i actually heard this at a meeting. ''The smaller company can't afford to come after us so lets try to match it almost exactly''

So the moral is guys. Make your baits. Learn to design your own and if one takes off RIDE THE WAVE as long as you can and then move on. There are plenty of designs yet to come and I most of us are capable of inventing them.

Matts lures are proof of what hard work and ingenuity can do for you!

[GB GONE]

Hope you guys understand that Matt's opinion on this one is very valuable and he speaks from a position that many of us are not in. He is a major player in the bait business!

One of the big issues I think we face (me included) is that our access to molds is somewhat limited to copies of the popular baits out there. While we can do the work and design a new bait, make the molds and test everything, most will opt to buy what is on the shelf and go forward.

In essence, this really is a challenge to all of us to step up and put our "hobby" talents to the test to see if we can make baits that are eventually "borrowed" by a large company. Imitation is the best form of flattery...right!!!

I must also say that in know way did I mean to imply that just because a company is big that it makes it right for us to attach ourselves to to their product and rely on that companies marketing, sales reps, etc to push our products forward or to take a slice of their pie.

Our abilities to pour baits and design baits set us aside from many of those large companies already (most have an army of individuals that do what each one of us does) so... why should we want to copy them?

Get ready to Go Ghost with some new stuff come 2008....

Jim

PS The copyright, trademark info did not come from me but Ryan (millsryno). I'll make baits, catch a few ghosts (yes..I have been asked before!!) but no way am I becoming a lawyer!!! My family would starve!!!

[Senkosam]

Jim, at first I thought you only used the name Trick Worm and then visited your site. I can see their point. It's like making a Senko or Beaver copy and using the name or something very similar. I guess according to the law, even using the name or logo is illegal for a totally different design as long as it's deemed a trademark for a product or company. I know of a few handpourers who sell their own Trick Stick which look like the Senko.

As far as knockoffs go, the Beaver has 5 copies (with minor modifications)that I can think of made by other big companies; the same for the Chatterbait. The Super Fluke name may be a trademark name, but not Jerk Fluke or or Motha Fluker or even Duke Fluke, regardless of design similarities (which incidentally has also been copied by the big boys and sold by the millions.)

Trademark and design patent are totally different and patents do cost thousands plus time to obtain. I don't know if Andre (Reaction Innovations) has recouped his Beaver patent fee by suiing, but from what I've seen, modified copies are all over the place, causing me to believe no lawyer is going to waste his time on a contingency law suit or for anything less than $15k up front to initiate legal proceedings.

The little guy provides custom and sometimes better service. His sales couldn't keep up the mortgage payments much less pay for a new bass boat. For Zoom to come down on Jim IMO is petty stuff if they've never gone after other large companies that make the same lures. The Brush Hog design is sold by 4 different companies under different labels and names. Did Zoom give them permission? Doubtful. The Bacon Rind by Gambler is an example of a modified Brush Hog. You can still buy them. No big deal.

The k/o's (large company or small) have the same basic action and profile as the original, so what's the big deal when k/o's are never challenged by patent suits? The Senko is a prime example and Gary Y paid over a million to Gene Larew for using salt in his plastic, a patented idea. Even Zoom's Ribbon Tail and U Tail worms were copied from a design sold by Toledo Tackle years before Zoom even existed.

Everyone borrows ideas form past designers and the result is reintroduced products under a different name. Unless patent or trademark proetected, it's all fair game. Would you have Lurecraft close shop because of all the molds they sell that produce old, discontined designs?

Would you blame anyone for bringing back those designs and selling those baits?

[GB GONE]

Jim, at first I thought you only used the name Trick Worm and then visited your site. I can see their point.

Not sure what you mean Frank? I never received a letter, a friend did and sent me an email to alert me if I needed it.

My "trick worm" is really nothing like Zoom's except it is 6" long. Mine is from a 1 piece mold, much thinner, no salt and a much better fish catcher;)!!!

Not to many ways to re-do a worm like that but there are other baits to be designed!!!

We will see a lot of them on TU first!!

Jim

[Senkosam]

The Slick Worm looks very similar (ie the club tail). But that's my point - modifications are creative design in action. A tire might be a tire, but a Goodyear isn't a Michelin.

[carolinamike]

Alright guys here's my situation. One of the stores that I supply is a long time customer with a great business, and sells a lot of my baits. He calls me up and asks me if I can make the sweet beaver. This was when the secret of the bait was just being let out and was peaking in popularity. He repeatedly contacted RI (manufacturer of sweet beaver) trying to order and purchase the baits. He also contacted his major distributors and was not able to place an order. He was told that they were so far behind that they could not give him any idea when he could receive their product. LC offered a very similar mold. Should I have not made them? I use a completely different formula of plastic I'm sure. The baits are flat on one side, but are very similar in looks. I agree with Matt completely about the person that comes up with the idea. But then again, if there is a demand for the product and the customer wishing to obtain the product can't purchase it in one way does he not have the right in a free society to try to get the product in another way. From what I understand, as long as there is at least a 20% change in the individual bait, then you are not infringing on anybody's rights. I really don't feel like I was wrong by not turning down my customer on this. I don't even call it a beaver. I classified it as I do all baits like this inlcuding the brush hog and others as a creature bait, just like most small straight worms are called finesse worms. I hope one day that I can come up with a bait that is so popular and catches fish so well that everybody wants to copy it. To me, in the plastic business, this means hey I've made it. Don't mean much, just one redneck's opinion.

carolinamike

[eugene]

Hi all. Stop and look at what a lot of people did to the Beaver and look at all the names it got.

[Senkosam]

Excellent points Mike! I feel the same way that if a customer asks if I can modify a certain mass produced bait and give it to him in whatever color or salt content he asks for, the similarities in design mean nothing. I've changed the bait significantly such that it is now unique. Plus, I'm providing a source where none existed and removed the middleman to provide the product cheaper and faster.

Do Del or Bob pay royalties to the inventor of the computer-progamed lazer process? They own the machine and produce molds of copies. End of story.

If a person tries to pawn off a k/o of a branded product as that product, of course he should be prosecuted. That goes for everything from expensive pocketbooks to pirated DVDs, but products that are generically similar and packaged under ones own trademark, shouldn't cause upsets.

I came up with a design 4 years ago, posted pictures of it that contain a date of entry on the website/blog. Two years ago Charlie Brewer company coincidentally started putting out the same exact designed bait. Would a patent pending declaration have prevented the company that mass produces Slider Worms and Grubs from producing them. Doubtful.

There is a video on Lunkerville.com that shows the hardnose idea to make a soft plastic bait more durable, a year before Tom Mann bait company started making hard-plastic sections in their soft plastic line up. If I even asked them for recognition, they'd laugh and say coincidences happen.

That's the reality of using design ideas others have thought up. Unless the idea was patented (like Zoom's Speed Worm cut tail), you're up the creek. What's worse, is when they come back and try to sue you for using your idea as their creation!

Alls fair in business unless it is spelled out by law and you have the resource to sue a violator. When money talks, ethics walk.

[Mattlures]

Senksam , you and I have gone about this issue before. It is very evident that morarls and ethics mean nothing to you. All is fair in buisness right?

Just because sombody wont get prosacuted or sued over ripping sombody else off doenst make it OK. There thieves, and they only get away with it because its too much trouble to go after them. In many states its not breaking a law if you cheat on your wife. does that make it ok? If the guy in front of you drops a $20 you wouldnt be breaking a law by keeping it and not saying anything. Obviously you would run over and pick it up and shove it in your pocket before the guy noticed. I wouldnt. I would give back to him since its his. Every one of your arguments on this subject is all about money and the bottom line. "its ok because the retailer would just buy sombody elses copy, so I should sell them mine and save them the trouble" There are many crooks in this industry. MANY! but there are aslo still some honest decent guys out there trying to make a living with thier own hard work.

Steeling is not ok even if you dont get caught.

I also love when guys say every lure is a knock off of something old or there is nothing new left. That has to be the most pathetic excuse to be lazy and not use your own thought or ideas. There are plent of new designs and ideas out there you just have to quit trying to copy other designs and work on your own. Do you honestly think 50 years from now there wont be anything new? well if it werent for guys who actualy design there own things than that would be true. Thank God thats not the case.

You mentioned Delw and Bobs, soo becuase you can buy a mold that makes it ok? YOUR STILL STEELING! Yes I have some of thier molds too, they are very nice. I make some baits out of them but I would never sell them. All my baits that I produce are made from molds that I personaly made.

I understand why guys copy baits. Its fun and easy and can save you some money. Selling them is wrong.

Just because thier are a lot of other guys doing it doesnt justify it.

Here is a thought for all of you with own bait buisiness.

There are thousands upon thousands of guys just like you, making the same baits. copys of copys of copys that are the hot biats of the month. How many of you beleive you cna have a succesful buisiness and make a good living doing this? Verry few succeed at this and usualy they need massproduction capabilities to pull it off. This is very dificult to do for the "little guy"

On the contrary, design your own bait, if the design is good enough and you do your homework and then YOU are the creator and YOU are the one who is making the money and You will establish yourself in the industy. You will most likely be copied but you will still be the original.

If Basstrix puts out another design it will be an instant succes. If one of the knock off co put something out nobody will care.

I am expect to be bashed because I am sure I have struck a nerve but thats ok. I still have no har feelings towards anyof you.

[challenger]

well said mattlures and if you are the same mattlures that make the swim baits , I just want to say you do a great job and I would love to see some one try to copy your work becuse it can not be done.

[millsryno]

I tried to stay out, but I can't...

Matt, I agree with what you say 90%....but...

Your stance that everybody here is stealing and that making knockoffs of other worms is wrong is rediculous. You seem to be pointing fingers at the "little guy" when knocking off designs is a common practice in the industry. How many senko knockoffs are there? Is Zoom frowned upon because they make thier own version of a Senko? I don't think so.

You have valid points that nobody here will likely make the big time by selling a copy of a copy of a copy...but do you think anybody here is really thinking they are going to make their millions doing that? For most everybody here it is a hobby. Part of that hobby, for some, is selling some baits on the side. Most of everybody here still has a regular job. Yeah, it is fun and a little stroke to the ego when somebody shoots you an email and asks if you sell your worms. So what? What is wrong with selling them some baits?? Give me a break!

Isn't this how America works?...somebody invents something...then somebody improves on it...then it evolves into something else...etc. etc. That is how American has operated for the last 200+ years.

If you and your "big time" friends don't like the laws, then go get them changed! To sit here and chastise people for doing what is within their legal and moral rights to do is just plain wrong! That's right, I said their moral rights! You might see it one way, but you know what, others see it the complete opposite way. Who made the first T-Shirt? I guess we should chastise all other T-Shirt makers for using the same design??

For the record, I agree with everybody that has stated it...to infringe on somebody's patent, copyright or trademark is WRONG....whether it is a large company or a small company. What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. It seems pretty black and white to me that you don't infringe on a company's rights, regardless of who they are or what size they are.

Also, Matt, I am debating the issue, not starting a flame war...please don't take the wrong way.

[Mattlures]

I am in the minority so I will likely get dogpiled but thats ok. I am not chastising, I am encouraging people to do what is right.

ZOOM absolutly did something wrong when they copied the Senko. Maybe not leagaly but moraly. If GY had a patent them it would be leagaly wrong to. Not having the desing pateted doent make it right to copy it just meanst you wont get sued over it.

Yes baits evolve but I would estimate that 98% of the copies are sugnificantly inferior. The original Senko is still the best.

Again just because a bait isnt protected that doesnt make it right to steel it. That is why the whole patent process was started. To keep people from steeling intulectual property. However Patents are not always feesable. I know the reality of the situation. If its not protected it will get ripped off if there is a profit in it. That is the reality. It aint right but thats how it is.

I choose to not copy.

[alsworms]

Tough call for me. I agree with both sides. However, this is one statement I DO NOT agree with.......

Yes baits evolve but I would estimate that 98% of the copies are sugnificantly inferior. The original Senko is still the best.

LOTS of guys on TU are making (and have been making) better stickbaits than the original senko. Same design, same fall rate, same this, same that, etc. etc.......BUT.....better durability, more color options, and MUCH better prices. Sure......maybe the first guy to "copy" the senko was ethnically wrong in doing so, but if you are attacking those who copy the senko, then you are attacking 90 percent of the plastic manufacturers in business today. Not to mention that I honestly believe a guy who "copies" a bait does so in an effort to improve on that bait, not to sell a direct copy.

Same thing can be said for this Basstrix craze. There are guys who are working diligently to make (and improve upon) these baits. Should I spend a month on the internet searching for Basstrix baits, order them, wait another 3 months to receive my order.............all this AFTER paying 25 bucks for 4 baits?? Should I spend 40 bucks on Ebay and get 4 Basstrix baits now?? Or........should I buy some from a TU member and get a bait that's as good as (if not, superior) than Basstrix, recieve my order in less than a week, and pay half the price??

For me, it's a no-brainer......

[carolinamike]

Matt I see your point of view, and I understand what you are saying totally, but I wonder if you see mine. My customer sought me out to produce the bait, I did not advertise the bait or even offer to make it until after I received the demand, but again it was not an exact copy. There is at least a 20% difference in the bait. You keep using the word stealing. I think this is the term that is upsetting everybody. One side of the bait was completely flat, there were no appendages on the side wings, completely different plastic formula and it came from a mold that was purchased from a company that makes their livelihood from selling molds and other components. My question to you is: Say you have a customer to call whose been buying Castaic Baits products. Although there are a good many similarities they are not your bait. Who modeled after who? If this is a long standing good customer of yours do you not try to fill their request? I didn't steal anything, and I do design my own baits. I specialize in a lot of straight worms, specifically for shaky head fishing. How much more can you do to a straight worm except shorten it, lengthen it, make it fatter, skinnier, or give it a different tail or a different head. And with so many on the market, I would love for someone to come up with something that could be classified as different and new, but I'm afraid no matter what you make or I make, I can sit down with Bass Pro catalog, Cabela's catalog or numerous websites and I guarantee there is always something similar. Not exactly like it, maybe flat sided body, groove sided body, different tail, different head but this is the plastic bait manufacturing life. And in this business, imitation is definitely the highest form of flattery. Notice the word imitation, not exact copy. I'm steadily working everyday in hopes that my company would have the next big thing that everyone wants to copy. The American dream is still alive.

Don't want to bump heads but I don't want to feel like I'm stealing because I filled a customers order after he exhausted every possible way of getting the "Name Brand" bait, and by the way, the flat side and much softer plastic makes for a much more superior bait.

[GB GONE]

I will chime in and add that many are perceiving baits as knock-offs in some cases but the baits are completely different.

I can use my swims as an example. Are they a knock-off of the Basstrix.. Heck no!! I designed a completely different process to make my baits, they are not tubes, not dipped more than once, not scales with paint or an application, more durable and available in color schemes that Basstrix wishes they could do. Did I steal from Basstrix, heck no! Just because they both have a paddle tail does NOT make them the same bait.

Are my baits inferior to Basstrix? If you have used both, you can say yes or no. If not, you have no way to know.

If we apply some of the former posts logic, all swimbaits must be knock-offs of the first swimbait as they are all swimbaits.....just as all stick baits are senkos and all straight worms are trick worms.

PS Has everyone seen the "new" money lures bait that is hollow BUT has slots in the bait for weights thus allowing you to fish the bait without a weighted hook. Immoral and stealing. I don't think so. Innovative and taking a new look at a different way to do something with a bait...Yep. Also, look at the "new" bait that is EXACTLY like a trick worm but contains metal powder (tungsten) to alleviate the need for a weight. Genius!!!

Just my ideas... Don't get me started on the companies that have their swimbaits baits poured in Mexico by individuals working in deplorable conditions. Now that is immorality for you!!!

Jim

Baits that look similar are not necessarily knock offs and they most certainly are not always inferior.

[Mattlures]

The words steeling, thief, thieves, rip offs. shouldnt bother anybody unless they apply. If a store wanted me to make a Castaic type bait I would simply say no, or I would make my own version. By my own version I mean I would make my own master, my own molds and my own internal weighting system. I have several competitors and we have similar designs however we all have our own style and look to them. If I designed a trout that looked too much like a Hudd or a Rago I would change it. My baits look like my baits. The biggest diference is when I make a bait, I am not trying to make another bait. I am making MY bait.

There are many opinions and a lot of gray area on this whole subject. I state my opinion on what is right and wrong. I honestly beleive that deep down most if not all of you know I am right. IMO when a bait is purposly made to look like another bait, then the guy is steeling. When a bait looks like another bait and it is named similar or with a tricky ryhming name it is trying to be assosiated with the original. It is a rip off. If a beaver has diferent colors and a flat side its still a rip off. If the beaver had a good strong defendable patent and you actualy went to court over it and tried to tell the judge that your bait is diferent because its flat on one side, YOU WOULD LOOSE.

Again there is a ton of gray area that could be argued either way. I am not talking about those cases. We all know that the 1000's of sticks are ripping off GY PERIOD. We all know that the beaver bait are ripping off RI and we all know that the chatterbait copies were ripping of Rad or who ever first made them. The issue I have is when a company tries to do this. This whole thread started because Zoom was protecting one of its properties and guys started bashing Zoom.

I know this is a very personal subject. It has and will be a very heated debate. To each thier own. I am just staing my opinion.

When I started making baits I copied Fish traps. I did this for about 2 years then I made my own. It was much more satisfying. When I did this my intention was not to make a slight modification. I just wanted to make my own bait.

Chris about the Senko and its copies. I beleive if given a choice for the same qauntity at the same price and colors and being availble almost nobody would buy a copy over the original.

I am sure somehow I am a hypocryte. I do my best not to be but I make mystakes too. It just makes me mad when I see people bashing a company for defending its self. It always comes up when sombody gets a letter from an atorny. Well geuss what, there is a reason they got that letter!

I see guys on here like Jim from ghost baits(I only mention him because he is arguably the best hand pourer on the site) and I am disapointed. Why, because his baits are beautiful. His pours are perfect and his craftmenship is top of the line. He could pour with anybody and he could most certainly out pour me. I think he has more than enough talent to make a name for himself if he made some good orginal designs. I beleive he is selling himself short by making all the popular copies.

It seems to have become such common place that most dont even try to designing their own anymore.

I gaurantee that if and when one of you put in all the hard work to make a bait succesful and sombody copies you, you will be mad. Thats when you will understand my point of view. I remember when sombody on this site used a picture for an ebay auction without permision and everybody jumped down the guys throat buy nobody seemed to care that the auction itself was for a beaver rip off!!!!!!!!!!! I know my perfect world where nobody ripps anybody off is not and will not ever be a reality.

I know the game and how its played. I just wont sugar coat it.

BTW these opinions are generaly speaking. They arent realy directed at any particular person. I do not dislike any of you for making your copies. I think its wrong but I aint perfect and I do plenty of thing wrong to. Like I said earlyer I am sure somehow I, just like every other person am also a hypocryte. I have many friends in the industry that rip each other off all the time. They are still my friends because I understand the nature of the buisiness. I dont agree with them but i still like them. If they rip me off they are no longer my friends.

[carolinamike]

Please remember that there is a large market based on generics in this country. Be it a drug store using its own store brand to sell a popular name brand medicine or a grocery store having its store brand to sell food items and they're certainly not ripping anybody off. The type of baits that you make (which look killer) sell for a premium price, remember people like me deal with items that I'm lucky to get .25 for a piece. To see some large leader in the industry such as Zoom to go after a little guy over a name seems petty. To me the trick worm, finesse worm, senko and floating worm describe a type of worm and not a particular brand anymore. But look at Zoom's record. The tab tail 10 years ago was the shaky tail without the tab. When Zoom discontinued the shaky tail and the guys around here panicked, I don't feel I was wrong by purchasing the mold and making the bait. Even though they came out with it again a couple years later, discontinued it again, and now it's back as the tab tail. How much of that do they own now? The speed worm was discontinued, brought back two years later as the speed worm with the cut in the tail. Now by some miracle the speed worm is back in our area. The one with the slit in the tail was not a very good seller around here. For the 2 years that people couldn't buy the speed worm I had a high demand for a generic product. From what I understand, most production machines in an 8 hour period can produce up to 25,000 pieces. How could one man, hand pouring, ever be a threat to anything like that? And also look at Zoom's colors and their marketing technique. I am sure that pumpkin chartreuse came about by someone not paying proper attention to the heat of the chartreuse coloring. It was marketed in our area when it first came out as a limited one time Zoom color. When you are the king of the hill, things like that are easy to get by with. When you have the money to hire an attorney to write letters, you are fully aware that this will intimidate any small hand pour operation. The best thing that happens to me is when Zoom discontinues a color. As a smart business person, I take full advantage of this. I am still producing a color that they came up with but I still don't feel like I am stealing or ripping off. It's a generic service. To me when you take up for a large company like this so strongly, bottom line, in my opinion, is you tend to support the modern day golden rule and that is the man with all the gold makes all the rules, and that's not America. Don't get me wrong, I respect everything everyone has to say on this subject good and bad and even though making an exact copy and trying to pass it off as the original is definitely wrong, for Zoom to feel threatened by a hand pour operation, I think really says a lot for that hand pour operation. Sorry, but when I feel like the little man is being beaten down, the Southerner in me jumps out.

Matt I think your baits look great. Although that type of bait has not really taken off down here yet, I can think of a couple places that the pumpkinseed bluegill would get your arm broke. I appreciate your opinion and hope you kind of get an idea of how the guys that pour one worm at a time four to six inches at a time for .06 a piece feel when such a large company comes down on them.

Go Fishing, not fighting.

[millsryno]

The words steeling, thief, thieves, rip offs. shouldnt bother anybody unless they apply.

Well according to you that is about 99% of us as I am sure we all have a Del-Mart or Bob's Tackle Shack mold.

You mentioned Delw and Bobs, soo becuase you can buy a mold that makes it ok? YOUR STILL STEELING!

[clemmy]

Ijust thought I'd chime in....

After reading this thread, I must say I agree with Zoom's position on WHAT THIS THREAD'S TOPIC WAS. I personally don't believe that you should be able to call your version "trick worm", "trix worm" or whatever. It's protected, and would lead to brand confusion (otherwise why bother calling it something similar?).

As for copying the bait, If you take a direct mold of a lure and then sell it as your own I think that is wrong. In this case though, a trick worm looks like a nightcrawler, so no infringement/copying/stealing there.

Similarly, GYCB copyrighted the name Senko for soft plastic baits, so I don't think one should call their version of a stickbait a "senko" or "sank-o" or whatever. That said, I don't think Senko would hold up in court anyways (if you had the werewithal to hire the lawyers) as I think it's become too common of a term, much like xerox or kleenex. (I also always thought it was interesting that you don't usually see GYCB call em "senko" but usually "yamasenko", which although I never looked, I don't believe is protected.)

That said, are we wrong in any way making stick baits and selling them?

OF COURSE NOT!

There are thousands of both design and utilitarian patents out there, but the senko is not one of them. GYCB chose not to retain the rights to the bait, and forever gave up those rights the first time they were offered up for sale and/or advertised/shown to the public. He could have filed for a design patent, stating that the design was unique and couldn't be reproduced without permission. Of course a design patent infers that the shape or design is ornamental rather than utilitarian. (I always thought this was hilarious when lures get design patents, unlessthey are truly meant as showpiece art like Funny Farm's work. If I ever get my lure business goin, I'm going to advertize any competiting bait that has a design patent on file proclaiming: "look! so and so bait company has actually filed federal papers stating that their bait design is only ornamental, and DOES NOT help to catch fish!"...lol.

Or GYCB could have filed a utilitarian patent, claiming the design and/or compositin allowed for a horizontal drop, thereby improving on previous designs.

But they didn't, so stickbaits are fair game, it's business. It's not small business vs. big, it's business. (not that it's fair that a small business can't afford to defend their patents, but thats a seperate issue).

So Guys, I sort of agree, but sort of don't. If something makes your bait better, and you don't protect it, it's fair game, NOT stealing or unethical. So when the hard-nosed was published, Manns had every right to bring it to market. But if you showed it to the late Tom Mann with a letter of secrecy/non-compete and they used it, that

[clemmy]

Cont.

WOULD be theft/unethical, and you would have legal protection even without a patent.

I will say that Zoom has absolutely no problem stealing lure ideas legally, just look at the Ed Chambers WEC lineup: he steals it twice over: Poe's as modified by Fr5itts, Bagleys as modified by Calvin Johnson, sweet peas, tenn killers, blazers, etc etc...Although he states they are Zoom's VERSION, so I guess that might mean you could call your plastic worm your version of the trick worm, but I don't know.

Clemmy

[clemmy]

One more thing I forgot. If a company does not come after people using a tradmark/copyright, It's my understanding that they then lose the rights to it, so it REALLY ISN'T the big company after the little guy. If they don't come after some, It wouls allow Pradco and BPS ecetera to copy the name EXACTLY without ramifications....

Clemmy

Sorry, I'm sleepy and keep forgeting things to add...

Although I don't agree, I think it was Rick Clunn who said there are no more original baits....

After all, most cranks are copies of Fred Young's Alphabet Big O, Stickbaits are Lauri Rapala, Swimbaits either ACplug or cAstiatic, Soft plastic Creme (not plastics of course, but I think the first soft), Heck, we are all copying James Heddon, Harry Comstock, even plastics and rubber baits are turn of the century Enterprise, etc. I just think there are new takes and new modifications. You could argue that one bait is an improvement upon the previous...but what if your improvement was a better color pattern like the repainters? Or a big company shipping it out to Mexico to be made. That's an improvement in a lure as well from a business perspective, they can make it cheaper, so more profit = better. (not that I support this).

[Mattlures]

HPW you took my quote out of context. There is absolutly nothing wrong with buying and using a mold from Delw or Bob. I have molds from both and I have made baits from them. I have even caught fish on them. I was arguing the point from the earlier post that was claiming because they bought the molds from Bob or Dewl that it is perfectly ok to copy.

There is a big diference between legal and ethical/moral. IMO it is unethical to sell a Senko copy, however it is completly legal to do so. many of you could argue the point that because its legal then its also ethical and there is nothing wrong with it. I disagree but it is a matter of opinion. However its the same guys that say the companies who send a letter to protect their property are wrong for doing so. Soo when you say its fair game because there is no patent what about when there is one. Or a copyright or trade mark?

As for Zoom I only defend them in this one particular case. They may have ripped of many other companies but I dont believe that gives sombody the right to rip them off unless Zoom ripped off one of your baits.

The little hand pour guys may not be a threat as one operation but when you consider how many there are as a whole then they become a big threat. If Zoom was to actualy sue a smaller compnay over this and win every single small company would be scared and stop if they recieved a letter, so it would definatly be worth it for them. If they have something protected then they have every right to defend it, Ethicaly, Moraly and Legaly.

Also many of you seem to take the threat of a lawsuit too lightly. Just because you havent heard of any big companies following through with thier suits doesnt mean they dont. I hear about the lawsuits all the time. Many are settled out of court and many of the smaller companies just go bankrupt. My point is they DO SUE!!!! If you get a letter then there is a darn good chance you have done something wrong and you should heed their warning.

I personaly have some of my designs protected. I will not disclose witch or how but I will defend if sombody ripps me off. I have an attorney that will take my cases on percentage. I pay him nothing. He gets a big percentage if we win but its worth it. This arangment is not unusual and I know many smaller companies do this. So if any of you think your not worth going after, I wouldnt take the risk.

Now back to copying and steeling and ripping off. Like I said befor there is a ton of gray area.

When I use these terms I am referring to trying to make sombody elses bait. If you carve your own then its yours unless your trying to carve a trickworm. If you buy a mold that looks just like a trick worm and you sell them as a slick,flick or tricky worm than you know what you are doing. You know you are wrong.

I do not have all the answers to the problems. I have a concious. I know when I make a bait its mine. I know if I made a beaver and sold it, it would be wrong. If I wanted to do that I would make my own design.

Right now the Basstrix is the hot bait, I have met Bruce Porter. He is a very likable guy. If you met him you might feel diferent about the Basstrix copies. It might not stop you but I am pretty sure you would be trying to find ways to justify it to yourself.

BTW when I say "you" I am directing this to whom ever is debating this issue with me, not anybody in particular.

Can you tell I failed at grammar and spelling

[SwampBaits]

I personaly have some of my designs protected. I will not disclose witch or how but I will defend if sombody ripps me off. I have an attorney that will take my cases on percentage. I pay him nothing. He gets a big percentage if we win but its worth it. This arangment is not unusual and I know many smaller companies do this. So if any of you think your not worth going after,

I think you would have a hard time suing anyone for copying most of your baits, Since your current swim baits are just replica's a real fish with standard swim bait tails. Or are you talking about something other than the look of the bait?

[smirkplug]

I did a tradeshow with a free flier i passed out for the Boy Scouts who i do some charity work for and on the flier it saod 'lets go fishing' and some jerk got in my face saying he had 'rights' to the phrase 'lets go fishing' since i was stuck at a booth alone all i could do was try and ignore the maniac until he got tired and left. good luck to all and 'LETS GO FISHING'