Full Version: Johnny Chooper
You Australians are good in my book. Except for the guy who keeps emailing me thinking I stole my images of Bottemas frames from BMXMuseum.com. I pleasantly responded and he demanded I take picture of the frame with an object of his request in the photo. He hasn't even bid and he's busting my chops with 7 years of eBay and 100% feedback.
quote:The new school designs suck. How ghey would it look to have some new style welded construction bars on an 80's bike.
then bars is bars. go to the local bike shop and buy a couple good quality bars for the bikes
about as ghey as repops...
sorry. you asked.
sorry. you asked.
He he hehehehehehe, Lmao.
Gary Turner went to the trouble of patenting a set of handlebars in 1986 , but unlesss he had a deal with someone to manufacture them for him & pay royalties I doubt it would do him any good.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...ay&OS=%22Gary+T urner%22+OR+Skyway&RS=%22Gary+Turner%22+OR+Skyway
Bitd I think Jeff as a racer & small business owner was lucky enough to be able to afford to pay for a 3 or 4 issue block of small advertisements in BMXA in order to sell his forks.When you are young & running a small business paying people to submit Patents & other Legal protection for your products as well as the cost of enforcing the breeches if they are infringed upon are not economically viable.
If you really want to use Patent & Trademark protection to it's full extent you have be a fairly large company with an active team of hungry sharks patrolling your protected waters.....
Jeff may possibly have some Legal claim to his forks _if_ he was able to Trademark his Name & Logo it would probably require some very creative legal work , I think that is the way SE was able to introduce & enforce their no repo stuff for sale on Ebay gag order.
Lyons , Todd ? Lyons.....Lyons ?.....
The best example of Trademark protection & enforcement is Coca Cola's "Dynamic Ribbon Logo Device" (or similar legal term) they keep that device _extremely_ well protected using the international Trademark Laws , if you have ever dealt with Coke they take that design very seriously & have a specification sheet with the colours , tolerances , sizes etc etc etc etc that you must adhere to if you want to reproduce their name for a non Coca Cola produced sign to advertise something that they are "into"from small time local sponsorships to product placement in film or TV. They have hoards of hungry sharks , wolves , dingo's & numerous other viscious carnivores all hyped up illicit stimulants & performance enhancing drugs vigilantly protecting their interests.
Given the choice , I'd rather mess with Texas than Coca Cola.
JB
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...ay&OS=%22Gary+T urner%22+OR+Skyway&RS=%22Gary+Turner%22+OR+Skyway
Bitd I think Jeff as a racer & small business owner was lucky enough to be able to afford to pay for a 3 or 4 issue block of small advertisements in BMXA in order to sell his forks.When you are young & running a small business paying people to submit Patents & other Legal protection for your products as well as the cost of enforcing the breeches if they are infringed upon are not economically viable.
If you really want to use Patent & Trademark protection to it's full extent you have be a fairly large company with an active team of hungry sharks patrolling your protected waters.....
Jeff may possibly have some Legal claim to his forks _if_ he was able to Trademark his Name & Logo it would probably require some very creative legal work , I think that is the way SE was able to introduce & enforce their no repo stuff for sale on Ebay gag order.
Lyons , Todd ? Lyons.....Lyons ?.....
The best example of Trademark protection & enforcement is Coca Cola's "Dynamic Ribbon Logo Device" (or similar legal term) they keep that device _extremely_ well protected using the international Trademark Laws , if you have ever dealt with Coke they take that design very seriously & have a specification sheet with the colours , tolerances , sizes etc etc etc etc that you must adhere to if you want to reproduce their name for a non Coca Cola produced sign to advertise something that they are "into"from small time local sponsorships to product placement in film or TV. They have hoards of hungry sharks , wolves , dingo's & numerous other viscious carnivores all hyped up illicit stimulants & performance enhancing drugs vigilantly protecting their interests.
Given the choice , I'd rather mess with Texas than Coca Cola.
JB
I 'm not trying to get in to a peeing contest with anyone. I have used reproduction parts on cars that I have restored and I use repro parts on my bikes. I guess I just don't see the big issue with it.
I had NOS 1970-72 Oldsmobile Cutlass/442 Holiday coupe full quaterpanels that I got a long time ago for a project 3-4 cars ago and never used. There is a company that makes repro QPs for ~450 dollars using the original Fisher Body tooling. If you didn't know any different, you would not be able to tell them apart. I've compared them side by side personally. You might think that because a person can find QPs in any catalog dealing with such items that the ones that I had would not be worth much more than the repops. Not true, the sale of those QPs paid for my last complete restoration project.
Tim, you have a spectacular collection, that I would say quite possibly is the standard. I'm not putting anyone down for being a purist, every hobby needs them to make sure everything is "right" if that is what you are going for.
Dave
I had NOS 1970-72 Oldsmobile Cutlass/442 Holiday coupe full quaterpanels that I got a long time ago for a project 3-4 cars ago and never used. There is a company that makes repro QPs for ~450 dollars using the original Fisher Body tooling. If you didn't know any different, you would not be able to tell them apart. I've compared them side by side personally. You might think that because a person can find QPs in any catalog dealing with such items that the ones that I had would not be worth much more than the repops. Not true, the sale of those QPs paid for my last complete restoration project.
Tim, you have a spectacular collection, that I would say quite possibly is the standard. I'm not putting anyone down for being a purist, every hobby needs them to make sure everything is "right" if that is what you are going for.
Dave
Off-track but here's a crazy example of attempted trademark protection that failed.....As JB mentioned to bring these cases to court requires huge legal resources and big $$$$$:
Cadbury loses 'purple' case
April 28, 2006 - 10:44AM
Multinational chocolate maker Cadbury has been told it does not "own" the colour purple, as its attempt to sue a rival was rejected by Australia's Federal Court.
The company, which uses a dark shade of purple in its global marketing effort, launched legal action in 2003 in a bid to sue Australian-based confectioner Darrell Lea over its use of similar colours.
Cadbury had objected to Darrell Lea's use of various shades of purple in Darrell Lea's store signage, uniforms and product packaging.
The Federal Court in Melbourne also heard Cadbury had written to a string of other rival Australian companies to highlight their use of purple, and threaten legal action if it continued.
But in his finding, Justice Peter Heerey said the case against Darrell Lea would not proceed because Cadbury had no exclusive claim to the colour.
He was also not convinced Darrell Lea had attempted to pass off its goods as Cadbury products - illegal under the Trade Practices Act - or that it would attempt to do so in the future.
"Cadbury does not own the colour purple and does not have an exclusive reputation in purple in connection with chocolate," Justice Heerey said.
"Darrell Lea is entitled to use purple, or any other colour, as long as it does not convey to the reasonable consumer the idea that it, or its products, have some connection with Cadbury."
Justice Heerey also pointed to Darrell Lea's legal bills spanning three years and said: "The question of costs will be adjourned to a date to be fixed."
Outside the court, Darrell Lea chief executive John Tolmie said the family-owned company was relieved at the finding.
It also signalled an end to a "legal case which, in the company's opinion, should not have come about in the first place".
Cadbury loses 'purple' case
April 28, 2006 - 10:44AM
Multinational chocolate maker Cadbury has been told it does not "own" the colour purple, as its attempt to sue a rival was rejected by Australia's Federal Court.
The company, which uses a dark shade of purple in its global marketing effort, launched legal action in 2003 in a bid to sue Australian-based confectioner Darrell Lea over its use of similar colours.
Cadbury had objected to Darrell Lea's use of various shades of purple in Darrell Lea's store signage, uniforms and product packaging.
The Federal Court in Melbourne also heard Cadbury had written to a string of other rival Australian companies to highlight their use of purple, and threaten legal action if it continued.
But in his finding, Justice Peter Heerey said the case against Darrell Lea would not proceed because Cadbury had no exclusive claim to the colour.
He was also not convinced Darrell Lea had attempted to pass off its goods as Cadbury products - illegal under the Trade Practices Act - or that it would attempt to do so in the future.
"Cadbury does not own the colour purple and does not have an exclusive reputation in purple in connection with chocolate," Justice Heerey said.
"Darrell Lea is entitled to use purple, or any other colour, as long as it does not convey to the reasonable consumer the idea that it, or its products, have some connection with Cadbury."
Justice Heerey also pointed to Darrell Lea's legal bills spanning three years and said: "The question of costs will be adjourned to a date to be fixed."
Outside the court, Darrell Lea chief executive John Tolmie said the family-owned company was relieved at the finding.
It also signalled an end to a "legal case which, in the company's opinion, should not have come about in the first place".
TIM has nailed it in his simple and clear explanation.
Forget for a minute about whether you can 'get away' with reproducing a part because there are no copyright issues or trade mark owners of said copied product etc.
That's missing the point.
Forget for a minute about whether you can 'get away' with reproducing a part because there are no copyright issues or trade mark owners of said copied product etc.
That's missing the point.
repro is weak ....
quote:
about as ghey as repops...
I'm all for the repo Bottema's. They are not deadnuts "copies" of the originals, therefore, I don't see ANY problem with them.
Man, I sure hope Johnny Chooper doesnt decide to start making repro Bango's!!!
Let it go man, just let it go. Hal hit it right on the head, there's only a market if people by it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Pretty simple concept.
Yo Dugga - BTW off topic.......Barbie (Mattel) owns their "pink", Hot Wheels (Mattel) owns their blue, and See's Candies owns their "white". Colors can be "owned".
Back on topic...Jeff's involvement aside is anyone else thinking of SE 's right's.
To me the whole "there's only a market if people by it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Pretty simple concept." is BS. There is a market for almost any "illegal" product does mean it's O.K.?
[ July 06, 2006, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: lownslow ]
Back on topic...Jeff's involvement aside is anyone else thinking of SE 's right's.
To me the whole "there's only a market if people by it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. Pretty simple concept." is BS. There is a market for almost any "illegal" product does mean it's O.K.?
[ July 06, 2006, 01:03 AM: Message edited by: lownslow ]
quote:That's not even funny dude....
Man, I sure hope Johnny Chooper doesnt decide to start making repro Bango's!!!
welcome to reality people no matter how anyone feels about it people will always do what they want. Thank God some of you guys are not Car Restorers/Collectors lol theres hardly an original part on the market for anything pre 1995. The choice is yours like it or not, buy it or dont, but get over it just take a look around you right now, exactly where you are now, I bet there are many things like wall fittings, Furniture and even the clothes on your body that are proberly rip offs from someones original design. No amount of Crying is going to change that. We just need to be smarter in "our" choice and make a educated desision as to what we want and or need.
Just my 2 cents worth, I mean not to offend and will leave it at that.
cheers
Richie
[ July 06, 2006, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: rsrichie ]
Just my 2 cents worth, I mean not to offend and will leave it at that.
cheers
Richie
[ July 06, 2006, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: rsrichie ]
Ok, I have my JC forks now. Heres a pic or 2 of the differences. First one is very obvious.
2 very different cuts for the headset lock ring. Cut using 2 different methods.
Welds.
and last but not least.
serial #
I have both real and JC forks. They are different and very easy to pick. You decide.
[ July 06, 2006, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: COASTVL ]
2 very different cuts for the headset lock ring. Cut using 2 different methods.
Welds.
and last but not least.
serial #
I have both real and JC forks. They are different and very easy to pick. You decide.
[ July 06, 2006, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: COASTVL ]
I dont like the attitude of the forks on the left in the first pic, trying to tell me who he is
nice serial number idea though
nice serial number idea though
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.