Mr. Fisker not happy. Sues AML for $100 million.
Discussion
The Fisker Karma electric was well received, but I think that project ended.
After that, the Fisker Thunderbolt (very Vanquish looking) was stopped.
A Fisker Force 1 is/was due to be unveiled soon, but more trouble has arisen.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/henrik-fisker-sues-ast...
I think Fisker is a very talented artist. I liked the Karma (although in reality it wasn't that well built.)
That Thunderbolt is embarrassing though, he is (or should be) better than that.
Odd to prevent his next attempt based on an overhead sketch, although again given his history....it's not a surprise...
That Thunderbolt is embarrassing though, he is (or should be) better than that.
Odd to prevent his next attempt based on an overhead sketch, although again given his history....it's not a surprise...
"......which raised $1.2 billion in venture capital and a $192 million federal loan before filing for bankruptcy" ... this line alone describing his last attempt at dipping his toe in the car-building water should be enough to realise that Fisker is way out of his depth. He's never going to get finance to build his DB10-alike unless he raises it from some spurious legal action brought against a company who are simply protecting their IP. Action brought on the basis of a threat of legal action 'if' his new car looks like AML's DB10!
Now just to understand this, if Fiskers car doesn't infringe on any AML IP and looks nothing like an Aston Martin, AML can't bring a successful prosecution so he can ignore the threat and show his new car. If the new Fisker car is a rip-off of the DB10 then AML will carry out it's threat and sue, and Fisker will have failed again. So what is he actually claiming $100 million for?
Now just to understand this, if Fiskers car doesn't infringe on any AML IP and looks nothing like an Aston Martin, AML can't bring a successful prosecution so he can ignore the threat and show his new car. If the new Fisker car is a rip-off of the DB10 then AML will carry out it's threat and sue, and Fisker will have failed again. So what is he actually claiming $100 million for?
.I had always been under the impression that Henrik Fisker designed the Vantage.
A reported interview with Ian Callum gives a different impression, that Mr Fisker became chief designer only after the majority of the Vantage work was complete.
...................
Q: For the record, how much of the V-8 Vantage and the DB9 were done under your watch?
"The DB9, I’d say pretty much 100 percent, including the interior. Maybe not colour and trim and wood finishes, but certainly the surfaces of the car. And the V8, I would say a good 80 percent. In fact, we started the V8 first and then shelved it, while we did the DB9, that’s why they’re quite similar.
Q: And yet your name isn’t officially attached to either of them...
"Those who matter know. That’s fine with me. They’re in my portfolio. You only have to look at the DB9 to see who designed it. I’s a Vanquish with a dinner jacket on."
Edited by Jon39 on Tuesday 5th January 15:41
The Surveyor said:
"....... So what is he actually claiming $100 million for?
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/031122652301.pdfthe link to the proceedings pretty much answers your question, and whilst some paragraphs are a bit of a one sided stretch, its a very interesting read.
The last feud Fisker had with factory, there was little doubt the factory was in the right. Fisker had taken a product (classic Vanquish) produced by factory, he changed pretty much every panel to create his representation, but, because the Fisker design was applied to a factory produced product, although original in its appearance, the body kit clearly looked like it was an Aston based design. This caused Aston to rightfully allege Fisker had infringed their IP, and here is what that case turned on - because he applied his body to a product the factory had made and sold to market originally. However, had Fisker put the very same body kit on a non Aston produced rolling chassis, that would have probably been acceptable in eyes of the law.
So, because Force 1 is completely non Aston origin rolling chassis, the engine power mullers an Aston, the interior is probably totally different. Even if the silhouette has a fleeting resemblance to an Aston, so what, because Aston cant exclusively claim ownership to that style, no car company can, because cars of that breed all look similar / like that (this being a totally different scenario than a company from China 3d scanning a BMW and although not a BMW chassis is indeed a 'carbon-copy') Had fisker taken a Vantage rolling chassis and applied Force 1 Silhouette it would have been Vanquish all over again and Fisker would have been in trouble once again.
So with that crucial turning point in mind, the defendants have taken a look at Force 1 yet still threatened nasty stuff if he shows it at Detroit. In my opinion Fisker is quite rightfully claiming he has not infringed their IP, but should they follow through their baseless claim, Fiskers supply chain, media, investors and potential workforce (all the folk you sort of have to cajole on your side to get the product moving) will lose confidence Fisker could ever bring to market a car, meaning Fisker is claiming that potential damage, and unless i have got this bit wrong, he wont pitch up at Detroit based off the threat made. And because a no show at Detroit would prove fatal he rightfully claims that damage caused by the threat. Because there isn't enough time pre Detroit to hear the case of if he infringes Astons IP or not, if it is proven they issued the threat wrongfully and too early and Fisker as a result avoided Detroit as precaution, he win his damages.
We all have off days, and with the odd exception i think Fiskers designs are stunningly beautiful and Fiskers past and future work is something the current factory design director can only ever aspire to replicate - the phrase used in motorsport springs to mind - 'a very distant third' Fisker being a close if not equal P1 to Callum.
Court proceedings must be accurate or credibility is lost if a crucial element is misleading. Who really knows what went on behind closed doors of Fiskers previous attempts to get a car into production. With that in mind, a well respected figure in the auto industry who is capable and who has raised / run a billion dollar company, can indeed get a car into production, especially when the guy holding the styling pen, who just happens to be CEO, is a legend, and this potential is what worries Aston because quite possibly, Force 1 will indeed impact Astons slice of USA market.
I guess we hope the defendants have actually been legally advised correctly though, because the damages claimed makes savings from recent redundancies pale into insignificance and is even the budget to properly develop new product.
Will be interesting to watch this space!
Thanks for the detailed response. The thing I still don't see is that he is making a counter claim based upon a threat of action, rather than any actual action. If AML had actually presented the case to protect their IP then I could see where he has a right to recover losses should that action fail, not based on just a threat.
AML have simply put a marker down saying " if you make another Aston Martin clone, then we'll take action to protect our interests like we did last time" . i can't see what is wrong with that stance, and if Fisker has made another 'Aston-a-like' then he's an idiot and so are his backers. If he hasn't, what has he got to loose by showing his car at Detroit?
His $100 million claim looks more like a knee-jerk way of trying to keep his nervous backers on board to me, than a claim with any substance.
AML have simply put a marker down saying " if you make another Aston Martin clone, then we'll take action to protect our interests like we did last time" . i can't see what is wrong with that stance, and if Fisker has made another 'Aston-a-like' then he's an idiot and so are his backers. If he hasn't, what has he got to loose by showing his car at Detroit?
His $100 million claim looks more like a knee-jerk way of trying to keep his nervous backers on board to me, than a claim with any substance.
I have mixed feeling about this. On one hand, Fisker (probably like the rest of us), woke up one more and thought, "wouldn't it be great if some bits looked different". But taking someone else engineering and replacing panels to then re-sell, is a huge (and quite blatant) infringement, not just of IP, but also of someones hard work, dedication, financial involvement, risk and so forth. Undertaking a re-skin as a personal pet project is one thing, and I'm sure if that was the case, Aston might admire and commend him for his work - but to just take someone else's fundamental product and re-sell it as your own with some new clothes, I can see why Aston might take offence.
That said, on the other hand, the concept of licensing tech from Aston (such as the power plant, or even the way that Aston license tech from Volvo/Ford) in the same way that the McLaren licensed a BMW based engine for the F1, or that Ariel licence the fundamentals of the powertrain from Honda, I whole heartedly agree. I'm a big advocate of not re-inventing the wheel. However, I somehow doubt that Fisker has officially licensed the whole Vanquish from Aston as a starting point.
As for the discussion of credibility. I think he's pretty much already blow it my opinion. He may produce some beautiful designs, but sadly, that's all they are. Designs. I'd argue that perhaps his design work is his forte, not his ability to manufacture cars. He needs to change the way he goes about business - and realise that simply putting a pencil to paper in a studio doesn't get you a car.
Chris.
That said, on the other hand, the concept of licensing tech from Aston (such as the power plant, or even the way that Aston license tech from Volvo/Ford) in the same way that the McLaren licensed a BMW based engine for the F1, or that Ariel licence the fundamentals of the powertrain from Honda, I whole heartedly agree. I'm a big advocate of not re-inventing the wheel. However, I somehow doubt that Fisker has officially licensed the whole Vanquish from Aston as a starting point.
As for the discussion of credibility. I think he's pretty much already blow it my opinion. He may produce some beautiful designs, but sadly, that's all they are. Designs. I'd argue that perhaps his design work is his forte, not his ability to manufacture cars. He needs to change the way he goes about business - and realise that simply putting a pencil to paper in a studio doesn't get you a car.
Chris.
john ryan said:
I respect your opinion as an engineer Mike, but you should stick at that
what an odd thing to say, this is an internet forum of people with an interest making 'coffee machine' gossip by and largely taken with pinch of salt, we are mostly all layman on any subject. I would only think you make the comment because I'm a million miles off the mark and you have the facts, so do please enlighten, if not, why bother to post in the way you did, thwarting essentially what this / any forum is all about - engaging gossip?The turning point of the case does carry an interest to me though, in that take a commercial product that carries whoever made it IP, modify it significantly yet make it look as if the original manufacturer had made it still = bad times. Take that same body kit, lob it on a non related rolling chassis = happy times.
The rest of the matter; if Fisker could ever produce a car, if his designs are good and blah, blah, yeah - is open to opinion. Having been in his presence my pinch of salt opinion is i think he is a legend. His credibility whether he can make a car, well, away from Fords purse strings could Bez or Richards ever raise funds and make a homologated production car off their own backs either? Whilst that opportunity is still open to Fisker i would not put him down.
The Surveyor said:
Thanks for the detailed response. The thing I still don't see is that he is making a counter claim based upon a threat of action, rather than any actual action. If AML had actually presented the case to protect their IP then I could see where he has a right to recover losses should that action fail, not based on just a threat.
AML have simply put a marker down saying " if you make another Aston Martin clone, then we'll take action to protect our interests like we did last time" . i can't see what is wrong with that stance, and if Fisker has made another 'Aston-a-like' then he's an idiot and so are his backers. If he hasn't, what has he got to loose by showing his car at Detroit?
His $100 million claim looks more like a knee-jerk way of trying to keep his nervous backers on board to me, than a claim with any substance.
My layman / engaging gossip pinch of salt view is that it cant be a counter claim because Aston have not issued proceedings. They have [in eyes of fiskers legal team] issued a weak pre proceedings threat. Fisker must responsibly now behave in correct protocol way which is along lines of; OK, i hear your warning, i will not attend until the matter is resolved, but i think you are wrong, my body kit is not sat upon a rolling chassis which is wrapped up with your IP and you don't own the exclusive design rights on a particular silhouette, therefore I am in right and now the chain reaction. Because i dont go to Detroit my credibility is ruined, I'm dead in the industry, i wont reap the rewards from Force 1 or any other car so im going to issue damages proceedings against you. This is different from scenario of Aston saying; Oi, dont go, he sticks 2 fingers up and goes, factory then issue IP proceedings, he issues defence and counterclaim. Perhaps this is how it should have played out, but i think Fiskers legal team have spotted that the persecution / undermining attack they have made is a bit premature, before the case has been heard, and as a result ticks all the boxes of Fisker raising a good chance civil extortion case. Which is what i said earlier - i hope the factory were correctly legally advised to issue the pre proceedings threat, if they have even inadvertently ticked the boxes which form the building blocks of civil extortion case = a blunderAML have simply put a marker down saying " if you make another Aston Martin clone, then we'll take action to protect our interests like we did last time" . i can't see what is wrong with that stance, and if Fisker has made another 'Aston-a-like' then he's an idiot and so are his backers. If he hasn't, what has he got to loose by showing his car at Detroit?
His $100 million claim looks more like a knee-jerk way of trying to keep his nervous backers on board to me, than a claim with any substance.
john ryan said:
I respect your opinion as an engineer Mike, but you should stick at that
A touch harsh, I thought.
I have never met Mike (next service perhaps), but his contributions to this forum are always interesting for me to read.
I don't know, but perhaps Mike was at AML at the same time as Henrik Fisker. If so, that might allow for some additional insight.
From a purely personal (industry ignorant) point of view, although I do appreciate the historic shared stable, I already experience more than a whiff of plagiarism when ever I see one of these:
Do I want to see even more like that,,,,no thank you,,,,the unique identity of our Aston Martin cars is why they command the prices they do, after market comparisons with the 'look-alike' above make my point.
No-one in any creative profession (myself included) would sit idly by and watch a competitor market a product clearly bearing a copied DNA.
I mean no disrespect to Mr Fisker but there has been too much hard work, absolute dedication, hard earned investment, decades of evolution, to allow a Johnny-come-lately to exploit all that.
Do I want to see even more like that,,,,no thank you,,,,the unique identity of our Aston Martin cars is why they command the prices they do, after market comparisons with the 'look-alike' above make my point.
No-one in any creative profession (myself included) would sit idly by and watch a competitor market a product clearly bearing a copied DNA.
I mean no disrespect to Mr Fisker but there has been too much hard work, absolute dedication, hard earned investment, decades of evolution, to allow a Johnny-come-lately to exploit all that.
AML are taking a legitimate line with a mild warning. Amateur opinions on the legitimate use of IP rights are just that, but in recent years AML have undoubtedly been a little slow to stop unfair competition. That has now changed from what I hear and read. Fiskers action is characteristic of the US legal system, where legal action can be commenced with little risk because the losing party does not pay the winners costs - so this is in my opinion all about publicity. In any event Fiskers designs are now derivative - I would like to see something which is clearly new and distictive.
Edited by john ryan on Friday 8th January 11:59
Y100 said:
From a purely personal (industry ignorant) point of view, although I do appreciate the historic shared stable, I already experience more than a whiff of plagiarism when ever I see one of these:
Do I want to see even more like that,,,,no thank you,,,,the unique identity of our Aston Martin cars is why they command the prices they do, after market comparisons with the 'look-alike' above make my point.
No-one in any creative profession (myself included) would sit idly by and watch a competitor market a product clearly bearing a copied DNA.
I mean no disrespect to Mr Fisker but there has been too much hard work, absolute dedication, hard earned investment, decades of evolution, to allow a Johnny-come-lately to exploit all that.
Hi Bob. Without doubt and including current CEO, you are the most passionate fella about the brand i have come across.Do I want to see even more like that,,,,no thank you,,,,the unique identity of our Aston Martin cars is why they command the prices they do, after market comparisons with the 'look-alike' above make my point.
No-one in any creative profession (myself included) would sit idly by and watch a competitor market a product clearly bearing a copied DNA.
I mean no disrespect to Mr Fisker but there has been too much hard work, absolute dedication, hard earned investment, decades of evolution, to allow a Johnny-come-lately to exploit all that.
I agree we all want Astons to keep the specialness, but here is the problem, the factory struggle to keep that standpoint because no one car company can claim exclusive rights to a style / silhouette.
Fiskers legal team point out the differences which is enough separation to not infringe IP if it was a 100% carbon copy - which it is not.
Take the Ford grill gate saga and Aston which was resolved behind closed doors to best of my knowledge? yet Ford still produce cars with the grill and Aston (to best of my knowledge) dont show line item on accounts named 'damages from Ford'. Here, no legal precedent exists / is set which states car companies have exclusive design rights over a grill shape meaning a budget car could indeed carry the grill similar to a premium car. What did the factory do - the only thing they could, stop making that grill and go with completely new design and better design(V12VS), which, if they are feeling pinch from other makers who quite lawfully start making cars with a silhouette similar to Astons, is what they must do regarding their own silhouette - move on, achieve something greater that the rest of world can not. But, and as pointed out in the claim from Fisker, Aston appear incapable (his opinion) for many reasons to make that quantum leap, and are resorted to protecting their position by weaker / baseless means.
Based on this way of the world, like it or not, and no IP law is broken - who should we be niggled at? Designers who nudge shapes to collectively how that sector in general is going, or the so called best not making the best, better to keep abreast the world we live in?
BamfordMike said:
... no legal precedent exists / is set which states car companies have exclusive design rights over a grill shape meaning a budget car could indeed carry the grill similar to a premium car. What did the factory do - the only thing they could, stop making that grill and go with completely new design ...
I can remember finding a webpage to do with registered trade marks. It showed that, probably many years ago, Aston Martin had registered trade marks for their grille shape, and also the side strake air outlet shape.
The drawing of the outline grille shape was the one used on the DB4, DB5, DB6 and the current Vantage.
Presumably, and commenting without any legal knowledge of the subject, as Ford are using a different outline shape for their grille, then AM have no protection from their trade mark.
Quickmoose said:
AFAIC Callum does a beautiful 'curve'....Fisker adds/added 'edge'...they're both one trick ponies stylistically, but then an enthusiastic 'drawer' myself you do get used to drawing a certain way....have a style
Oh but what a beautiful trick 
I recall Calum drawing a sketch on Top Gear, I think, many moons ago and thinking: wow!
Then the Vantage and DB9 were revealed. Timeless beauty.
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff