RE: Mercedes has Gullwing replica crushed
Discussion
BarnatosGhost said:
MSPV12 said:
Although I hate to say this, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Peace.
Aye, no bother. 
Sadly, there is one regular poster, mostly in "Nostalgia", who does rather spoil things. He engages in quite malicious trolling by sending sneaky emails to all and sundry telling quite outrageous lies concerning me personally and my project. Goodness knows what he hopes to achieve by this ... perhaps to bolster his low self-esteem or maybe it is simply due to incorrect potty-training? Fortunately, some of the recipients have been so embarrassed and incensed by his communications they have passed them directly on to me. This has been happening for the best part of two years and you would be aghast at his antics if you knew who it was as he comes across "all sweetness and light" in public forum.
I refuse to stoop to his level of ungentlemanly conduct and do not intend to reveal his name publicly in this forum - he knows who he is and he should be warned that I will no longer turn a blind eye to his vicious campaign.
BarnatosGhost said:
Mercedes don't have property rights on 'the car'. If they did, one could argue they'd be mad not to exercise them. They do have rights on the gullwing. They took the risks, had the skills and talents, and went to the lengths of creating it, so why should they just give it away?
Why should anyone bother to innovate if there is no protection from theft?
Why should Kia have a styling department when they could just build Volkswagen replicas?
Someone obviously had property rights on the car, as someone first invented one didn't they? Why should anyone bother to innovate if there is no protection from theft?
Why should Kia have a styling department when they could just build Volkswagen replicas?
Fire, the wheel, and pretty much the internet you are typing on all got invented because they didn't just appear in a puff of blue smoke.
The only reason you don't pay a royalty to someone every time you use something that has a wheel on it, is because lawyers weren't invented at that time. The only reason you don't pay a royalty to use the internet is because the guy who invented it saw the damage that doing that would have caused to the internet, and was able to put the collective interest above his own.
The logical, and quite incomprehensibly daft gist of your argument is that everthing created today would have to pay multiple royalties to pay off interlectual property rights if lawyers have managed to get on the scene just a few thousand years earlier. IP law has ballooned in recent years because of opinions just like yours.
Can you imagine where your ideas are going to lead in a few hundred more years.
I accept that someone needs to have claim in order to protect their R&D budgets, but your defence of mercedes protecting a design that old just hasn't be thought through, and is nonsense IMHO.
Well said Julian. I said earlier, "be careful what you wish for people".
You could roll up infront of most of the 'masses' with a lit flame-thrower belching out fire and brimstone and the fools still wouldn't see it coming........... They'd all whine about how someone with a flame-thrower singed their nylon and polyester mix sweater and how 'someone' should have protected them with legisalation, outlawing fire for any use other than cooking, rather than simply stepping to one side when the bloke showed up with his flame-thrower!
Just to be pedantic, Fire was a discovered, not invented.
You could roll up infront of most of the 'masses' with a lit flame-thrower belching out fire and brimstone and the fools still wouldn't see it coming........... They'd all whine about how someone with a flame-thrower singed their nylon and polyester mix sweater and how 'someone' should have protected them with legisalation, outlawing fire for any use other than cooking, rather than simply stepping to one side when the bloke showed up with his flame-thrower!
Just to be pedantic, Fire was a discovered, not invented.
I've not read through all of this thread (read the first bit a few days ago) but I think it's interesting. The workings of the car in question I guess are Mercedes so the car would keep its identity. This for me throws a few questions about other German brands, Porsche for example; I'd like a 356, so realistically a Chesil is attainable, if a I wanted a ’73 911 RS a replica then I could buy a classic 911 and get some GRP panels fitted. Would these be crushed if I went to Germany? If I wanted a 996 Mk1 GT3, I could buy a 996 Carrera with a GT3 bodykit fitted by Porsche, should this be crushed?
julian64 said:
Someone obviously had property rights on the car, as someone first invented one didn't they?
Fire, the wheel, and pretty much the internet you are typing on all got invented because they didn't just appear in a puff of blue smoke.
The only reason you don't pay a royalty to someone every time you use something that has a wheel on it, is because lawyers weren't invented at that time. The only reason you don't pay a royalty to use the internet is because the guy who invented it saw the damage that doing that would have caused to the internet, and was able to put the collective interest above his own.
The logical, and quite incomprehensibly daft gist of your argument is that everthing created today would have to pay multiple royalties to pay off interlectual property rights if lawyers have managed to get on the scene just a few thousand years earlier. IP law has ballooned in recent years because of opinions just like yours.
Can you imagine where your ideas are going to lead in a few hundred more years.
I accept that someone needs to have claim in order to protect their R&D budgets, but your defence of mercedes protecting a design that old just hasn't be thought through, and is nonsense IMHO.
The thing is that lawmakers have considered the balance between protection of R&D budgets, and giving a company an out and out monopoly, and that's why the law exists as it does. Your assertion that the wheel would still be protected if lawyers had been about then is nonsense IMHO Fire, the wheel, and pretty much the internet you are typing on all got invented because they didn't just appear in a puff of blue smoke.
The only reason you don't pay a royalty to someone every time you use something that has a wheel on it, is because lawyers weren't invented at that time. The only reason you don't pay a royalty to use the internet is because the guy who invented it saw the damage that doing that would have caused to the internet, and was able to put the collective interest above his own.
The logical, and quite incomprehensibly daft gist of your argument is that everthing created today would have to pay multiple royalties to pay off interlectual property rights if lawyers have managed to get on the scene just a few thousand years earlier. IP law has ballooned in recent years because of opinions just like yours.
Can you imagine where your ideas are going to lead in a few hundred more years.
I accept that someone needs to have claim in order to protect their R&D budgets, but your defence of mercedes protecting a design that old just hasn't be thought through, and is nonsense IMHO.
as the maximum term of patent protection is 20 years, and that's presuming the renewal fees have been paid (which increase every year to discourage unworked patents being kept in force).You wouldn't be able to protect fire, as it had already existed in nature before, by way of lightning strikes etc, and you can't protect an idea or the result you want to achieve- only the apparatus or method for providing the answer. You could patent your apparatus for making fire, and even a method of making fire, but someone else could do it a different way and avoid infringement. I'm not willing to speculate on the colour of smoke generated upon discovery of said fire.
The reason no royalty has to be paid to use the internet is because a) most of the technology to make it work will have already been known and b) software is not patentable as such (and although code is covered by copyright as a literary work, there are different ways of coding the same thing). No doubt there are patents on items of hardware you're using, and I'm sure other manufacturers have managed to achieve the same, or an even better technical effect than the originator of the technology. Of course, there's nothing to stop someone improving one patented invention, then patenting the improvment themselves and cross-licensing.
The reason governments around the world grant monopoly rights isn't some big business conspiracy, but a bargain between the inventor and the state; that the inventor is granted a monopoly right for the agreed timescale in exchange for teaching the invention to the world- that's what is (and what must be) disclosed in the patent document itself. Once the patent is published (at 18 months after filing the application) anyone in the world can read that information- and there's no guarantee that a patent will be granted at that point. Even if a patent is granted, it is only granted for an individual state, and other patents have to be applied for in order to cover other states- so if they only patent it in one country, everyone else in the world is given the benefit of their invention for free. The idea of patents has been around long before the industrial revolution too, with the UK system dates back to the Statute of Monopolies of 1624, and the Venetian state formed the basis for modern systems in the Venetian Statute of 1474, so IP protection is by no means a new idea.
Generally, the legal system in this country is very good, and there has been much consideration of the lengths of protection, and the subject matter that may be protected, to provide an even-handed system. I'm always happy to debate whether the system we have is consistent and balanced, but suggesting that we'd all be paying royalties on the wheel if lawyers had been around back then is just plain wrong. I'd recommend getting a better understanding of the system we have before rebelling against it.
julian64 said:
The only reason you don't pay a royalty to use the internet is because the guy who invented it saw the damage that doing that would have caused to the internet, and was able to put the collective interest above his own.
Tim Berners-Lee didn't invent the Internet, nobody did. What he did do is set up the world wide web which is an application which runs on the internet. The world wide web is basically a set of standards URL, HTML, HTTP that allow common web browsers to request information from servers.If CERN had attempted to charge for www another standard would have been offered for free and would have been the one everyone used.
rrusston said:
Unless you took the car to Germany you'd probably have no problem, even with the EU being as it is.
I don't think that's applicable. For example, Italian (EU) companies even get their rights maintained/enforced by Swiss (non-EU) authorities:http://genevalunch.com/blog/2011/05/12/geneva-roll...
IP Law is not exclusive to only a few entities; it gets enforced almost everywhere on this planet. There is nothing unusual or noteworthy to this Gullwing-crushed news release. It's just that Daimler promotes the fact that they care for their trademarks, which a lot of companies from different industries and countries do as well.
Germans. Generally with very few exceptions, I have found them to be arrogant bullies. I wouldn't expect anything else to be honest.
I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
mickrick said:
Germans. Generally with very few exceptions, I have found them to be arrogant bullies. I wouldn't expect anything else to be honest.
I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
Bumping a 2 year old thread for some poorly founded racism. That’s some top douchbaggery right there!I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
I don't mind the country, very nice from some of the parts I've seen. (mostly around the Hamburg area) I'm just not keen on the people, generally speaking.
As I said, I know a couple of nice ones, I'm sure there may be more
I've seen a lot of the world, and generally get on with anyone. I don't consider myself racist. But maybe I am.
To be honest I didn't notice the date of the thread. It did look like a nice copy.
As I said, I know a couple of nice ones, I'm sure there may be more
I've seen a lot of the world, and generally get on with anyone. I don't consider myself racist. But maybe I am.
To be honest I didn't notice the date of the thread. It did look like a nice copy.
CampDavid said:
Bumping a 2 year old thread for some poorly founded racism. That’s some top douchbaggery right there!
Not sure its racism.. i think we're all classed as western European Caucasians now (anthropologists out there any ideas).. think its more nationalism.. Edited by m4tti on Friday 25th July 12:10
mickrick said:
Germans. Generally with very few exceptions, I have found them to be arrogant bullies. I wouldn't expect anything else to be honest.
I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
Don't get me started on British people. Every man jack is a drunken, racist, tattooed football thug, unable to speak anything more than a few coherent words, even in their own language and have no idea about good food or culture. It's in their genes I tell you. I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
Motorrad said:
mickrick said:
Germans. Generally with very few exceptions, I have found them to be arrogant bullies. I wouldn't expect anything else to be honest.
I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
Don't get me started on British people. Every man jack is a drunken, racist, tattooed football thug, unable to speak anything more than a few coherent words, even in their own language and have no idea about good food or culture. It's in their genes I tell you. I would never buy a German car or motorcycle, and having seen the latest offerings from merc. they should put those in the crusher!
I looked at a new merc. yesterday that parked close to me, and it looked like a Focus!
Even my German neighbours are arrogant bullying pricks that had me going to court. It's in their genes I tell you.
Good.
If you can't afford the real thing then look at something else. I hope Ferrari start doing this too; ridding the world of all those awful MR2 replica's.
I'd rather have an original MR2 than a fake Ferrari anyway. It's like getting your wife to wear a Berenice Marlohe mask when you're out in public; it's pathetic.
If you can't afford the real thing then look at something else. I hope Ferrari start doing this too; ridding the world of all those awful MR2 replica's.
I'd rather have an original MR2 than a fake Ferrari anyway. It's like getting your wife to wear a Berenice Marlohe mask when you're out in public; it's pathetic.
Old thread, but this is the first time I've seen it.
This sort of corporate behaviour is their legal right, but their values and ethics don't align with mine so whilst they have exercised their right to crush some little old man's new kit car he's been saving for, I shall not be blessing Mercedes Benz with any of my money any time soon.
Merc SL has just been scratched off my 'which sportscar for 2015' list.
This sort of corporate behaviour is their legal right, but their values and ethics don't align with mine so whilst they have exercised their right to crush some little old man's new kit car he's been saving for, I shall not be blessing Mercedes Benz with any of my money any time soon.
Merc SL has just been scratched off my 'which sportscar for 2015' list.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 25th July 12:28
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff