MonteSS Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) This was posted by someone else at the CCM forum. Apparently for the Caney Mad Dad Craw. Waiting for more details. ...Bill Edited January 17, 2013 by MonteSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Bill, I went over and read some of the posts that are being made about this subject and so far there is nothing but bad advice being given. It does not matter if it looks like the bait or not. What matters is the patent points and where they are located. One person even suggested that if they had the money, to fight them. Keep in mind that if it's taken that far, that there's not really any backing out of it. I have personally dealt with Zoom's lawyer, he is not a nice fellow and does not like to be challenged. If you lose a case like this, it can result in having to pay as much as 3 times what the company says that you made from the product, plus lawyer fees. Cases like this do not go before a jury, it is decided by a single judge. And most of the time, the patent holder wins. You can bet with $12,000.00 worth of molds I can't use, I investigated this subject extensively. Someone needs to advise that gentleman to be very very careful. Do-It may have the money to challenge this, but most individuals don't, and if they do the odds of winning are very slim. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Maybe zoom sees a bigger check book now that doit is there. You never know. Frank 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonteSS Posted January 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 So what is the difference between Zoom and Rage patents on the ridge? ....Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Rage tail craw is a Strike King patented product Zoom Speed Craw is a patented product There seems to be some confusion over these products and their respective manufacturer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bass-Boys Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I would say the part in question is the body not the claws ?? bigger ck book... I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingoil Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 I am the one that received the cease and desist yesterday from Zoom's lawyers. The bait that Zoom has a patent on is the super chunk. Its the ridges on the claws that I was in so called patent infringement. The bait itself doesn't matter its the patent points. Frank 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallmouthaholic Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Rage tail craw is a Strike King patented product Zoom Speed Craw is a patented product There seems to be some confusion over these products and their respective manufacturer I need to make a correction after some extensive research on the Zoom Speed craw- the bait is not patented but the design of the claw is. You have to go through their numerous patents to find the drawing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhahn427 Posted January 17, 2013 Report Share Posted January 17, 2013 Shoot ........ just make them and give them away for free ............ then they can get 3 times nothing ........ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bass4Me Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Can this be an easy fix by modifying your mold? Just file the ridges flat in the claw area. Once flat, then alter the craws by grinding a few grooves on each one.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingoil Posted January 19, 2013 Report Share Posted January 19, 2013 Bass4me I'm not real sure how you could file the ridge on the craw flat since it is recessed in the mold. I have about 40 of them between the 2 molds if I could do that it would take more time than I would want to spend on it. CCM and DO-IT are looking into the whole situation hopefully they can come up with a solution. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbj11lbs Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 They really get sideways about those ridges on the edges of craws, everyones frog has little bumps and protrusions like ridges on their frogs so zoom must not own bumps and details and ridges on frogs, the zoom horny toad patent on the package refers to the ultravibe feet if i am not mistaken. Hopefully CC will make something different and better than the super chunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I've been following along on this one and I personally feel that before they design another chunk they need to step up to the plate on this one. They have sold a mold that is possibly a patent infringing product and they're always bragging about their customer service. Well it's time to put your money where your mouth is. I feel they should do a recall on this mold and either refund the money or redesign it at no cost to the customer. I really don't think it's fair that one of their customers should even have to consider the legalities on something like this, mainly because someone didn't do their homework. They should do the legal battling themselves and not just leave their customers holding an unusable product. This is not one person's custom design, it is a standard company distributed product and it's something that they need to address and take care of. After all it would be the Christian thing to do. This is just my personal opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveMc1 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I've been following along on this one and I personally feel that before they design another chunk they need to step up to the plate on this one. They have sold a mold that is possibly a patent infringing product and they're always bragging about their customer service. Well it's time to put your money where your mouth is. I feel they should do a recall on this mold and either refund the money or redesign it at no cost to the customer. I really don't think it's fair that one of their customers should even have to consider the legalities on something like this, mainly because someone didn't do their homework. They should do the legal battling themselves and not just leave their customers holding an unusable product. This is not one person's custom design, it is a standard company distributed product and it's something that they need to address and take care of. After all it would be the Christian thing to do. This is just my personal opinion. it's DoIt's problem now, so they are the ones looking into it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel2345 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 I've been following along on this one and I personally feel that before they design another chunk they need to step up to the plate on this one. They have sold a mold that is possibly a patent infringing product and they're always bragging about their customer service. Well it's time to put your money where your mouth is. I feel they should do a recall on this mold and either refund the money or redesign it at no cost to the customer. I really don't think it's fair that one of their customers should even have to consider the legalities on something like this, mainly because someone didn't do their homework. They should do the legal battling themselves and not just leave their customers holding an unusable product. This is not one person's custom design, it is a standard company distributed product and it's something that they need to address and take care of. After all it would be the Christian thing to do. This is just my personal opinion. Did you happen to read what they said on their forum? http://www.caneycreekmolds.net/index.php?topic=2841.0 Here is a link to the patent.Patent US6237275 - Artificial bait structure - Google Patents http://www.google.com/patents/US6237275?dq=zoom+bait+co.+patents&ei=CJfsUI2hF5Og0gGHhoGQDg Here is a picture of both: Mad Dad Claw Example Their ridge runs the entire outside from tip to body. The MD Craws runs from the inside of the appendage tip partially around the outside - not connecting to the body, and also has a ridge running on the inside, also not connecting to the body. Like I said above, research needs to be done. I don't see an infringement on their claim, and overall see a unique improvement by wrapping the tip to the inside and adding the additional inside ridge. With all that said, error on the side of respect until this can be worked out. I have always taken an approach of intellectual respect, protected or not. Once something more is known I'm sure it will be posted here. Jason And It will all work out the way it should. It will get reviewed by the right people, companies will talk, it will be resolved. I think everyone knows my personal view on knocking off someones bait / intellectual property. I don't have a crystal ball that predicts the future, but I think everything will be fine. We are going to do the leg work on this and will report back. We just need to wait while the wheels turn.Jason Seems like they are doing just what you asked so far... Those two baits look NOTHING alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Rebel2345, like I said I have been folowing along with this, and yes I have read his forum. I couldn't help but notice that in his last statement he says "he thinks" everything will be fine and that we need to just wait a while, in the mean time Frank has a thousand dollars worth of molds that he has to just "wait" on. Do you feel like this is fair to him? Its obvious by being a good customer and purchasing 40 molds that his intentions were to sell the baits, how is waiting profitable to him? Caney Creek should have immediatly stepped in just as soon as the customer recieved the letter and offered to change the mold or to refund his money, but no, they're continuing to advertise the mold on their website for sale and they're not sure if they are infringing or not. Again, the customer is suffering due to someone's lack of knowledge of patents, they just didn't do their homework. It dosen't matter what the bait looks like, if Zoom's patent points are included on the bait, then its patent ifringment. The only way to know for sure is to run this past a patent attorney, it shouldn't be left up to an inocent customer. I bet if it was Bear Baits or Del's you would have a difference of opinion, and if it would've been Bear or Del's they would have immediatly pulled the mold off of their website, and I know Bear would have given a refund to anyone who wanted it. His company would have taken it on theirselves and not told a good customer (such as Frank) to wait and see what happens. I know what I'm talking about on this one, I went through the same thing with the same patent and I hired the patent attorney, like I said the looks of the bait has nothing to do with it. If I was making molds that were not custom and sold genericaly, then I would do my homework on every mold that I produced, that way I could be sure my customers would not have to go through such an inconvienence. Its not fair to spend your money on a mold and be told you have to wait before you use it. Is that good customer service and is that standing behind your product? Rest assured, if it would have been any other company my opinion would have been the same, and I would have stated it. Edited January 22, 2013 by carolinamike 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel2345 Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) No, They don't do ANY research into patents... http://www.caneycreekmolds.net/index.php?topic=601.msg3015#msg3015 http://www.caneycreekmolds.net/index.php?topic=390.msg2023#msg2023 http://www.caneycreekmolds.net/index.php?topic=1744.msg10860#msg10860 http://www.caneycreekmolds.net/index.php?topic=592.msg2982#msg2982 Those are just the ones I knew of from reading. I'm sure he's made mention of other things before. Edited January 22, 2013 by Rebel2345 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Rebel, what does any of those links have to do with Zoom's patent? One of them is just a link to register on his forum, another is about Strike King from August of last year, and from what i've read some people have already recieved these types of letters for other baits. The only thing the links do that you posted is confirm that someone didn't do the responsible thing to ensure that there were no patent infringments. Just guessing and hoping is not the proper way to handle a situation like this, the bottom line is Caney Creek, by Do-It, should assume all responsibility and should stand behind their reputation of great customer service. A customer shouldn't have to wait to find out if they can use a mold after they purchase it especially when they've spent their hard earned money. Someone should step up to the plate and not force the customer to take the loss, that would be quallity customer service. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Has anybody got an update on this one yet? Swingoil, I seen the molds were over $40 bucks a piece, thats over 1600 dollars your just having to sit on. I noticed on their forum that their thread is already down to the bottom of the second page. With all of the bragging about the great customer service, I hope you've heard something by now. I talked with Bear and I'm hearing that one of his baits may be involved too, he said if that was the case then he was definatly going to pull the mold from his website and offer anyone their money back who wanted it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingoil Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Mike I spoke with both Bear and Jason from ccm. Bear offered a refund on all the molds involved that I have purchased from him as well as Jason. I'm just going to sit on the molds for right now and see what happens. CCM and do-it are contacting zoom and their attorney's so we'll see what happens. Bear did pull the molds in question from his website. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigerfire Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Sounds like great customer service. I'm glad we have guys that take care of their customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted January 29, 2013 Report Share Posted January 29, 2013 Swingoil, that is great that they offered you your money back, afterall, it was the right thing to do. You are also a great customer to be willilng to sit back and wait especially when you purchased the molds to sell baits from. Bear's Baits has always been a leader when it comes to customer service, that is one of the main things that has kept him in business all these years. Unlike other companies that still advertise questionable products for sale. He is very quick to handle a problem the right way. He himsself will take the chance on losing money rather than letting his customers, he is very well known for setting examples for newer companies to follow. I hope all involved in this gets it straightend out and I also hope that Do-It is not infringing. Like I told one member, it would make the fix to my molds alot cheaper and easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubbardsm Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 I own a patent on a fishing lure. Based on the research I did, it appears the patent office grants patents they really shouldn't. Putting a ridge along the edge of the claws is not something that should earn a patent. What the patent office does is grant patents (they make money off patents but nothing off not issuing patents) even to products that don't deserve patents, and then let the owner of the patent fight it out in court with those who would produce a similar product. Not the best way to do things, and obviously costs businesses alot of money, and generally the little guy doesn't have the money to fight the big guys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garthsnooks Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Hubbard, whether they should or should not get a patent isn't the issue...it's the fact they have one. I agree patents are granted that don't make sense...lots of things in Washington don't make sense, but they are the law of the land. I'm surprised Do-It/Caney still has the craw molds on their site...maybe they feel they are in the right and haven't infringed!! Garthsnooks, non-member FDIC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonteSS Posted February 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Can you fight the fact that they were issued a patent based on something that is "common sense" and not anything new or inventive. As said these patents should never have been issued in the first place. To be honest. the claws on the BT craws like the 702 have better action then the ridges anyway If so that would be the way to go and not challenge zoom or SK Rage directly. ...Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
