ROWINGADUBAY Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Mike I think I might disagree with you for the first time .But only because I make baits for a hobby and not for resale and I think that was the market Caney Creek was shooting for . Example 1 So say I buy a bag of stink kings purple wirlly gigs and catch a fish on every cast, being a hobby only bait maker that is what I would want for a mold an exact copy of a stink king wirlly gig. I do understand why this guy who has 40 molds bought for a profitable production is a little mad Just a thought George Edited February 9, 2013 by ROWINGADUBAY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 George, its ok if you disagree with me but i'm not sure exactly what you are disagreeing with. Whether it be for a hobbiest or someone selling the product off of the molds, illegal is illegal. And also when you sell a person 40 molds I think its pretty easy to figure that its more than a hobby, and like Garthsnooks said, they're continuing to advertise the mold for sale, and from reading their forum they have openly addmited that they dont know whether the mold is legal or not. I just dont call that being very responsible. Just as soon as Bear even thought that his mold might be in question he immediatly pulled it from his website, so as to not sell a customer a product that might be patent infringement. Why continue to sell something that you may have to at a later date tell your customers not to use it because its illegal. Since the product has been questioned, they should stop selling the mold until they get their facts straight and as much that has been posted on all the forums everyone should know that this mold may not be legal. The odds are a hobbiest probably won't get caught but the fact of the matter is illegal is illegal, until proven otherwise in this case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ROWINGADUBAY Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I guess my wording was a little goofy and didnt make my point, and that is I thought it was O.K. to make a bait that used parts from a patented bait or to exactly copy a patented bait as long as you didn't sell them. A company selling a mold that would be an exact copy of a patented bait that I like would be more appealing to me than a mold of a bait that is "close" .In fact just reading about this and the fact that they might change the mold in the future makes me want to go get one now before they change it. Just my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Prager Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 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. Mike, I have to disagree here.....If it was Delw, there wouldn't be any on the shelves to pull and the customer would have no worries because they would still be waiting for their molds......and have fun trying to get your money back for the product you haven't received! Edited February 15, 2013 by 152nd Street Baits 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteZipczech Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Has anyone else received a cease and desist letter about this issue? I would be interested in seeing how its worded and where it is pointed exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garthsnooks Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 google it...believe there's a case in Wisconsin courts this past year. It was Zoom's toad and another of there baits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteZipczech Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 But does that case pertain to this case or is it a seperate case all together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolinamike Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) U.S. patent No. 6,237,275 B1 Date of patent May 29,2001 Edited February 16, 2013 by carolinamike 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark poulson Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Why in the world would you chance being sued by someone with more money and more lawyers? If you've ever been involved with lawyers, you would never want to do it again. Life is too short to let them ruin your life, or, at the least, make you miserable and poorer. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
