RE: Mercedes has Gullwing replica crushed

[Bodo]

rutthenut said:

ZesPak said:

OllieC said:

how very German

Try making a Ferrari replica and travel to Italy, good luck with that.

Ferrari, guess not. Lancia though, not so bad.

I know a bunch of people who have taken their Stratos replicas to Italy, where they have been very well received. Not claiming the cars as originals, but with essentially the same dynamics as the original cars.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=765889&mid=0&i=0&nmt=RE%3A+Crush+Justice%3F+Fake+Fezza+gets+it&mid=0

[ZesPak]

Bodo said:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Exactly what I was getting at.
How weird that when Ferrari does it, these are the comments:

soad said:

Crush it i say. Horrible interior badging

another 3 points said:

...Tacky interior is just nasty. Should get the owner to press the crusher button.

pSyCoSiS said:

Serves them right for having a fake in the first place.

Stu_00 said:

Crush it !

Exactly what should happen to it, would you ever see an Italian building one of these..

I think not !

Dr_Gonzo said:

Why are companies allowed to sell these body kits? Surely they should be classed as counterfiet or some sort of copyright/design infringement?

And the best one:

Belfast Boy said:

All I can say they should put the driver inside when they squash it!

Then when Merc does the same for it's most iconic car, it gets an onslaught of hate

[richw_82]

lowdrag said:

Jaguar have never complained, except that they have never let anyone near enough to XJ13 to build another, including people I know who during the 1970's wanted to build a short run and were refused the loan of the car and even someone today who is trying but I doubt will get it rivet perfect.

Given the access to XJ13 and the archives the gent building the latest attempt has had, I think he'll get fairly close. Its certainly worth following.

http://www.xj13.eu/xj13/default.aspx

[hairykrishna]

ZesPak said:

Then when Merc does the same for it's most iconic car, it gets an onslaught of hate

There's plenty of people with the same opinions as in the Ferrari thread. Personally I see a difference between a replica of something fairly recent like a 355 and a car from the 50's anyway.

[Mr2Mike]

lowdrag said:

Dear oh dear oh dear

Do you write many letters to "Points Of View"?

[DonkeyApple]

Mr2Mike said:

lowdrag said:

Dear oh dear oh dear

Do you write many letters to "Points Of View"?

[XJ13]

richw_82 said:

lowdrag said:

Jaguar have never complained, except that they have never let anyone near enough to XJ13 to build another, including people I know who during the 1970's wanted to build a short run and were refused the loan of the car and even someone today who is trying but I doubt will get it rivet perfect.

Given the access to XJ13 and the archives the gent building the latest attempt has had, I think he'll get fairly close. Its certainly worth following.

http://www.xj13.eu/xj13/default.aspx

Did someone mention the XJ13?

Thanks for your kind comments Rich. Fortunately, I have good relations with Jaguar Heritage (I have looked after their website for the last two years and will be handing it over to the parent company soon) and regularly visit the museum so I can get my regular "XJ13 Fix". As well as the Jaguar archive, I have unearthed a mass of original and unpublished documents/photographs including original Malcolm Sayer 3D data. I am now at quite an exciting phase in my project (for me anyway ....) and am about to press the button on the body buck after two years research. I am increasingly confident the body/chassis will be as millimetre-perfect as it can be. After all, we need to keep the "rivet-counters" happy don't we?



Perhaps I should cross Germany off my "list of places to visit with the finished car" ... Funnily enough, I was at Essen last week where there was an excellent 1950's 190SL replica on display not too far from Mercedes' massive display. Perhaps our Teutonic friends forgot to trademark this car as well?

Edited by XJ13 on Tuesday 27th March 18:16

[MSPV12]

tommy vercetti said:

Might be harsh, but at the end of the day, rules are rules.

I don't mean to offend, but that attitude is what holds all of mankind back. We must always challenge the rules that are asserted upon us by those who serve to protect only what serves them by being protected.

[MSPV12]

gck303 said:

The Mona Lisa is out of copyright. The car is not, as it was produced comparatively recently.

Furthermore, authorised/official replica cars are sold by Gullwing GMBH. So, there is someone to file a complaint and stop the infringement via a civil (not criminal) action.

I am challenging the notion that a replica de-values an original.

[MSPV12]

Trevor M]SPV12 said:

PW said:

As a designer, I really don't like the way public consensus seems to be sliding ever more towards the notion that defending the ownership of Intellectual Property is just plain wrong.

quote]

And as a designer, you should know that;

a) everything has been copied
b) you've probably copied stuff yourself on your way to becoming a designer
c) if it aint for sale, there's no infringment
d) not many car manufacturers are free from the accusation of having copied other designs

When did you last see a truly and comercially viable original design, particularly in the motor industry?
(...) [/quote=MSPV12]

a) Nobody on planet earth made a gullwing car before Mercedes did. It was copied from NOBODY.

b) When on his own, working as a professional designer, PW couldn't have copied from nobody. If he did, he was laughed out a room and out of a job.

c) This rip-off WAS for sale or it wouldn't and couldn't have been confiscated. Period. Mercedes makes every part of the 300SL for a price and does indeed have a legitimate infringement on its hands.

d) See point a.

A lot of original, commercially viable designs come to mind -- even several recently. The Smart Car, Land Rover Evoque, the original Hummer, even the Ferrari Italia is quite original in its looks. Can you name where they were copied from? You cannot, because they weren't.

Edited by Trevor M on Saturday 24th March 04:55

Edited by Trevor M on Saturday 24th March 04:58

NO, I need more than that Trevor. I see where you are coming from, but I believe it goes deeper than you seem to suggest. In particular your point, d: see point a. Not convinced! Do you follow F1?

[MSPV12]

There is a difference between 'for sale' and commercially available 'for sale', surely. A lot of the posts that support MB in this case, seem not to be able to differentiate between the two. Enlighten me people.........

Edited by MSPV12 on Tuesday 27th March 23:01

[BarnatosGhost]

MSPV12 said:

gck303 said:

The Mona Lisa is out of copyright. The car is not, as it was produced comparatively recently.

Furthermore, authorised/official replica cars are sold by Gullwing GMBH. So, there is someone to file a complaint and stop the infringement via a civil (not criminal) action.

I am challenging the notion that a replica de-values an original.

You don't think owners of priceless original Cobras get fed-up of people asking them if they built it themselves in their garage?

You don't think lots of potential owners who'd actually love a Cobra think "fk that, if I'm going to spend £1m on a car, I want it to look like a £1m car, not a £15k wife-avoidance hobby".

The Cobra's 'legend' status in the perceptions of the half-interested has been crucified by the tens of thousands of crazed glass-fibre replicas farting around the countryside with 2.0 pinto engines and Fiesta seatbelts.

You think people who own a proper GT40 are touched to be impersonated by Gareth from Accounts Payable clambering out of his Tornado outside Charlie Chalks for a 'meet' with other adenoidal OEM-branded-clothing-wearing motorsport enthusiasts who all know a lot about Le Mans? Not cool.

Of course a replica devalues an original. If it wasn't a de-valued version, everyone would just buy the original.

[BarnatosGhost]

MSPV12 said:

tommy vercetti said:

Might be harsh, but at the end of the day, rules are rules.

I don't mean to offend, but that attitude is what holds all of mankind back. We must always challenge the rules that are asserted upon us by those who serve to protect only what serves them by being protected.

Now you sound like an frustrated art student who's read the first 3 chapters of Marx.

The shape of the Gullwing is the property of Daimler-Benz. It can choose to protect it, or not protect it, as it solely sees fit. And either way, its decision is none of our business.

Exactly like your decision to protect, or not to protect, the boundary of your garden.

[BarnatosGhost]

MSPV12 said:

There is a difference between 'for sale' and commercially available 'for sale', surely. A lot of the posts that support MB in this case, seem not to be able to differentiate between the two. Enlighten me people.........

Edited by MSPV12 on Tuesday 27th March 23:01

You can't rip-off someone else's protected design and sell it without their permission. Whether it is one unit or a thousand. Not complicated.

If you're doing it on a very small scale, you're still in the wrong, but relying upon being considered too small a sprat to worry the big corporation. But the big corporation in this case chose to take action. Fair enough, that was always a risk.

[lowdrag]

XJ13 said:

Did someone mention the XJ13?

Thanks for your kind comments Rich. Fortunately, I have good relations with Jaguar Heritage (I have looked after their website for the last two years and will be handing it over to the parent company soon) and regularly visit the museum so I can get my regular "XJ13 Fix". As well as the Jaguar archive, I have unearthed a mass of original and unpublished documents/photographs including original Malcolm Sayer 3D data. I am now at quite an exciting phase in my project (for me anyway ....) and am about to press the button on the body buck after two years research. I am increasingly confident the body/chassis will be as millimetre-perfect as it can be. After all, we need to keep the "rivet-counters" happy don't we?



Perhaps I should cross Germany off my "list of places to visit with the finished car" ... Funnily enough, I was at Essen last week where there was an excellent 1950's 190SL replica on display not too far from Mercedes' massive display. Perhaps our Teutonic friends forgot to trademark this car as well?

Edited by XJ13 on Tuesday 27th March 18:16

Theny bully for you Neville. I am really looking forward to seeing the finished article and it seems as if you have got it right, although how you've managed it what with Jaguar being so protective of the original I have no idea. Bob Smith tried to borrow it to build some replicas over 30 years back and even then they refused. When do you think it will be finished?

[Twincharged]

BarnatosGhost said:

MSPV12 said:

tommy vercetti said:

Might be harsh, but at the end of the day, rules are rules.

I don't mean to offend, but that attitude is what holds all of mankind back. We must always challenge the rules that are asserted upon us by those who serve to protect only what serves them by being protected.

Now you sound like an frustrated art student who's read the first 3 chapters of Marx.

The shape of the Gullwing is the property of Daimler-Benz. It can choose to protect it, or not protect it, as it solely sees fit. And either way, its decision is none of our business.

Exactly like your decision to protect, or not to protect, the boundary of your garden.

He's half right though- we have laws, but we must question whether these laws are still appropriate under the circumstances, or whether the laws need to be revised. In terms of IP law holding mankind back, I wouldn't say it does as a whole, as it allows people and companies to invest money in design and development of products without fear of copycat products appearing on the market from day 1. Whether the term for protection and the subject matter covered by it are appropriate is a different, and much broader question.

I'm not enough of an expert to comment on German IP law, but one would assume that the law in this case has allowed them to seize the replica and crush it- otherwise there would be a big uproar. In the UK, any design rights would have long since expired, and I think any attempt to rely on "passing off" would be somewhat tenuous (unless it has Mercedes badges on it).

[MSPV12]

BarnatosGhost said:

You don't think owners of priceless original Cobras get fed-up of people asking them if they built it themselves in their garage?

You don't think lots of potential owners who'd actually love a Cobra think "fk that, if I'm going to spend £1m on a car, I want it to look like a £1m car, not a £15k wife-avoidance hobby".

The Cobra's 'legend' status in the perceptions of the half-interested has been crucified by the tens of thousands of crazed glass-fibre replicas farting around the countryside with 2.0 pinto engines and Fiesta seatbelts.

You think people who own a proper GT40 are touched to be impersonated by Gareth from Accounts Payable clambering out of his Tornado outside Charlie Chalks for a 'meet' with other adenoidal OEM-branded-clothing-wearing motorsport enthusiasts who all know a lot about Le Mans? Not cool.

Of course a replica devalues an original. If it wasn't a de-valued version, everyone would just buy the original.

But you see, the values of originals are what they are. Have you noticed any discounted original GT40s? If there was such a stigma to owning a real Cobra, then perhaps the value of them would be less, because these people for whom you choose to speak, clearly wouldn't bother buying one for fear of being perceived as "Gareth from Accounts"! I suggest they don't give two shakes of a widget what people think?! Neither does it matter one jot, what Mavis O'Reilly in Sigma Street street thinks of a DAX, Tornado or anything else.

The value of my daily driver is not affected because a company makes replica's of it! Ask me how I know? Don'tbother, I'll tell you. I know this because I had to pay the market price for it. What a knob I would have looked if I walked into the showroom and asked for discount because there happens to be a replica available on pistonheads and my mate's granny is going to take the p1ss out of me and ask me every day if it's real!!!

[MSPV12]

[quote=BarnatosGhost]

Now you sound like an frustrated art student who's read the first 3 chapters of Marx. quote]

No, but I am frustrated.

[MSPV12]

Twincharged said:

He's half right though- we have laws, but we must question whether these laws are still appropriate under the circumstances, or whether the laws need to be revised. In terms of IP law holding mankind back, I wouldn't say it does as a whole, as it allows people and companies to invest money in design and development of products without fear of copycat products appearing on the market from day 1. Whether the term for protection and the subject matter covered by it are appropriate is a different, and much broader question.

I'm not enough of an expert to comment on German IP law, but one would assume that the law in this case has allowed them to seize the replica and crush it- otherwise there would be a big uproar. In the UK, any design rights would have long since expired, and I think any attempt to rely on "passing off" would be somewhat tenuous (unless it has Mercedes badges on it).

I can live with being half-right.

The Law is ever evolving as it should be. So is Mankind. That is why I sound frustrated by certain comments here stating, "it is what it is" and "it's the LAW so it must be right". Plus I like challenging ideas generally, perhaps making me a pot-stirer? However and whatever I may be, I most certainly am not a Marxist!

[julian64]

BarnatosGhost said:

You're getting it the wrong way round. They aren't valuable because they're often copied; they're often copied because they're valuable.

Part of the value of rare cars is in their rarity, and their perceived rarity. I would desire a real cobra more if i didn't see a replica every weekend from March to October

If potential owners of real cobras feel the same then that will artificially suppress their values. A real cobra would be worth more if it were not constantly mistaken by the general public for a replica. Mercedes naturally want to prevent that happening to the gullwing, owned as it is by some of Mercedes' very best customers.

Manufacturers owe nothing to people who want to look like an owner, but don't actually stump up the money. Manufacturers will look after owners. Quite rightly.

its a shame you don't give further thought to your arguments. What sort of world would we live in if someone had copywritten the wheel, fire, and a whole host of other basic, but invented stuff.

Do you consider if intelectual property for mercedes to have designed a car which is the same as any other car on the road apart from a bit of bodywork, and call it interlectual property.

Arguably mercedes invented the first car. Do you think its okay they exercise their property rights on the 'car' as pretty much all cars after are complete copies of the one wheel at each corner and an engine in the middle.

In summary, you are legally right, but you are also spouting nonsense of the sort that Judges are masters at.