Jaguar Land Rover goes after replica community
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
I know they need/want paying, but it must have been utterly heartbreaking to seel their Jag collection to pay the lawyers. They are just as much of a guarantee of empty pockets as JLR.
It's very sad. But it seems not too uncommon for an elderly man to bafflingly pick a near unwinable fight where the best possible outcome is over little to no material benefit yet they are putting at risk their entire personal security. The couple hasn't even begun to sell the replica and had absolutely no financial need to do so given their age and assets. Yet they chose to fight a corporate with deep pockets.
If the chap had no intention of flogging replicas then why didn't they fold the company and come to an agreement the following day after the first letter arrived? Why not settle for being able to keep your toy while assuring JLR that you will never seek to do anything commercial with it.
Events like the Suffolk case are a little more egregious as they had been manufacturing the replicas for years without JLR doing anything. Although I do suspect that the elderly owners decision to shut up shop had very little to do with any letters from JLR considering his accounts and the liabilities onnit along with his age.
I feel sorry for the daughter, she is almost obliged to do what she is doing. I possibly feel sorry for the wife if it's the usual casenof the wife just being in the books for tax reasons etc. But to me the whole saga comes across as a silly old, greedy man who wanted to make money that he didn't need from copying someone else's work and after asking a receiving their assistance as an enthusiast.
It strikes me as poor form compounded by greed and foolishness of a silly old fool who has now damaged his family considerably. The family he only existed to protect and shelter.
I spent 4 years disputing with the external lawyers for a US bank who said I couldn't use the word 'City' in a URL. My father spent years being told by a tobacco company that he couldn't use his own name in the GP paddock. Neither won because they were both external legal teams essentially just creating billable hours. But I wouldn't fight anything that jeopardised the people that I existed to protect. Nor would I seek to profit from ripping off someone else's designs or product or see any logical upside in persisting if they did ask me to stop.
This 'gofundme' and the general online promotion of one side of the story and possibly a heavily massaged series of events, smacks of just trying to play on people's fears of 'big business' and the naturally generosity of kind people. Which could be construed as yet another case of poor form and seeking to take advantage of others.
I come back though to the point that for 70 years Jaguar have done nothing except turn a blind eye, and then with only nine years left of the manufacture of ICE cars they suddenly decide to clamp down. If they cared, then between 1982 and 1996 Peter Jaye built perfect copies of the C-type, just like the Magnussons, and Jaguar did nothing. Other people built "real ones" too, and I know of three which at this moment are nearly finished. I built one, and Jaguar helped me. It just doesn't make sense.
lowdrag said:
I come back though to the point that for 70 years Jaguar have done nothing except turn a blind eye, and then with only nine years left of the manufacture of ICE cars they suddenly decide to clamp down. If they cared, then between 1982 and 1996 Peter Jaye built perfect copies of the C-type, just like the Magnussons, and Jaguar did nothing. Other people built "real ones" too, and I know of three which at this moment are nearly finished. I built one, and Jaguar helped me. It just doesn't make sense.
Things change, people change, managements change: "Jaguar" as such, isn't a fixed entity: 70 years ago, classic cars were barely a thing, & the company then was focussed on making new cars. Since then, classic cars have become a business, & as the gatekeepers of the companies heritage, the current management have moved with the times, & changed the companies position. As mentioned previously, Ferrari have taken a similar view for quite some time, it could be argued previous Jaguar management teams weren't proactive enough: but they've tested the classic waters, & found them financially lucrative, so now they're tightening up the legal side. It's a shame for those who always felt that way, but that's life. It's ultimately their trainset, they can play with it how they want. I suspect the move away from ICE is part of the driving force; they'll need to protect the "classics" asset they have, or risk others cherry picking the benefits of the classic market of the future. If they can't make the electric future work, it may be all they have...lowdrag said:
I come back though to the point that for 70 years Jaguar have done nothing except turn a blind eye, and then with only nine years left of the manufacture of ICE cars they suddenly decide to clamp down. If they cared, then between 1982 and 1996 Peter Jaye built perfect copies of the C-type, just like the Magnussons, and Jaguar did nothing. Other people built "real ones" too, and I know of three which at this moment are nearly finished. I built one, and Jaguar helped me. It just doesn't make sense.
I knowwwww there are two sides to every story. But this recent post by the OP makes for uncomfortable reading for JLR.Open letter to Mr. Dan Pink, Director Jaguar Land Rover Classic.
In response to your letter to the Jaguar community 11 February 2021.
Dear Mr Pink,
It is sad to have to conclude that your letter is full of false statements.
In this case you have in fact gone after two private citizens and life-long Jaguar enthusiasts, Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson. And at no point were they offered the “opportunity to retain their completed replica for private use and enjoyment” as you put it in your statement. To the contrary, JLR have throughout the process insisted on the destruction of Magnusson’s privately built C-Type replica, despite many attempts from the Magnussons to reach a reasonable settlement. We are attaching extracts from JLR’s initial lawsuit in 2018 and from JLR’s September 2020 settlement proposal clearly showing JLR demanding destruction. These facts stand in direct conflict with your public statement to the community.
With respect to the company Creare’s ambitions to build two replicas, you describe this as “using our Intellectual Property illegally for their own profit”, and that you will “take action to stop businesses” from doing this. This begs the question how it was possible for Karl Magnusson to be in correspondence with senior managers at JLR for many months discussing potential business collaborations, even being invited to JLR Classic HQ, receiving nothing but appreciation and encouragement. Attaching court document annexes 7, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 showing this. Here again, the facts of this case stand in direct conflict with your public statement to the community.
If JLR truly stands by the statements made in your open letter, how is it possible that we find ourselves in this situation? The company plans were ropped when JLR suddenly decided to object to them. All we are left with is a pensioner couple and their one and only C-Type replica. Who JLR decided to take to court.
Together with the Jaguar enthusiast community, we can only establish that your attitude towards replicas have shifted, conveniently lining up with the launch of your own continuation program. Actions speak louder than words, and based on your actions in this case we doubt that other owners
of Jaguar replicas feel reassured that Jaguar Land Rover will not come after them, demanding destruction.
Best Regards,
The Magnussons
---
Link to extracts showing JLR demanding destruction of Magnussons replica
Link to court annex 7 and annexes 25, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 showing correspondence between Karl Magnusson and JLR senior managers discussing potential business collaborations.
lowdrag said:
I come back though to the point that for 70 years Jaguar have done nothing except turn a blind eye, and then with only nine years left of the manufacture of ICE cars they suddenly decide to clamp down. If they cared, then between 1982 and 1996 Peter Jaye built perfect copies of the C-type, just like the Magnussons, and Jaguar did nothing. Other people built "real ones" too, and I know of three which at this moment are nearly finished. I built one, and Jaguar helped me. It just doesn't make sense.
The appeal mentions around 1200 C-type replicas are estimated to have been manufactured mainly in the UK since the 1970s by individual independent workshops, and around 3000 including other historic Jaguar models - without Jaguar intervening.Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
Bodo said:
The appeal mentions around 1200 C-type replicas are estimated to have been manufactured mainly in the UK since the 1970s by individual independent workshops, and around 3000 including other historic Jaguar models - without Jaguar intervening.
Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
I suspect a tactical exercise on the basis that Swedish law gives them a better chance of winning? Or something like that? For example, I know Sweden is one of the countries with more restrictive copyright law for things like taking photos of statues in public places.Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
InitialDave said:
Bodo said:
The appeal mentions around 1200 C-type replicas are estimated to have been manufactured mainly in the UK since the 1970s by individual independent workshops, and around 3000 including other historic Jaguar models - without Jaguar intervening.
Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
I suspect a tactical exercise on the basis that Swedish law gives them a better chance of winning? Or something like that? For example, I know Sweden is one of the countries with more restrictive copyright law for things like taking photos of statues in public places.Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
Deliberate, cynical and utterly despicable. Astounding arrogance with no concern for those enthusiasts who have celebrated and kept their heritage alive all these years.
The damage that will now undoubtably ensue to JLR's reputation and future sales prospects is well-deserved. They have brought this upon themselves.
Edited by XJ13 on Monday 15th February 16:26
I suspect (hope) the car is question will go missing before the hired JLR thugs arrive with a truck.
If they were to confiscate the car and put it in their museum at Gaydon it wouldn't be quite so reprehensible. This though is the ugly side of litigious business - BMW were engaging in some unpleasant and underhand behaviour 20 years ago with the 'Mini' trademark.
I can't really see old Bill Lyons taking such a heavy handed route.
If they were to confiscate the car and put it in their museum at Gaydon it wouldn't be quite so reprehensible. This though is the ugly side of litigious business - BMW were engaging in some unpleasant and underhand behaviour 20 years ago with the 'Mini' trademark.
I can't really see old Bill Lyons taking such a heavy handed route.
Edited by Touring442 on Monday 15th February 17:04
Touring442 said:
I suspect (hope) the car is question will go missing before the hired JLR thugs arrive with a truck.
If they were to confiscate the car and put it in their museum at Gaydon it wouldn't be quite so reprehensible. This though is the ugly side of litigious business - BMW were engaging in some unpleasant and underhand behaviour 20 years ago with the 'Mini' trademark.
Nicki Vrotsov (sp?) owned the Mini-Cooper name and was steamrollered by BMW. Just as Jaguar have steamrollered the MagnussonsIf they were to confiscate the car and put it in their museum at Gaydon it wouldn't be quite so reprehensible. This though is the ugly side of litigious business - BMW were engaging in some unpleasant and underhand behaviour 20 years ago with the 'Mini' trademark.
Ian Henry, the owner of the AutoAnalysis consultancy, said the Castle Bromwich plant had a paint shop and metal pressings facility that could be used for Jaguar’s special vehicle operations, a lucrative sideline in limited edition, high-performance cars. But its days as one of Britain’s great mass production car plants appear to be over.
From yesterday's news, I imagine that you could build and mantain a lot of "replicas" in a space like that.....................
From yesterday's news, I imagine that you could build and mantain a lot of "replicas" in a space like that.....................
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Hopefully it will mean Jaguar survives. Their heavily delayed move into diesel was a big blow and their search for volume via the fleet market when they could compete on finance or brand was also a big shame. With Ratan Tata slowly handing control over the ownership of Jaguar looks ever more likely to change but if they can carve a position as an EV firm it could be great news for them. Their brand and ethos fits well with the capabilities and inefficiencies of the EV product and the iPace is a lovely car that does show they are capable of delivering into the market segment where EV demand exists along with usability. It also makes it seem more likely that special ops will start converting post 60s Jags for that growing segment to keep the business occupied? Never understood why they stuffed an electric motor in that Etype. Just for the headlines and PR I guess?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I suspect that it's those legacy attitudes which are partly behind some of the activity moving operations about. A colleague was brought in by a couple of the rail operators to produce a road map on efficiency where the core problem was determined to be a very large number of protected, legacy jobs and out modes work practices. Ie a large number of old lags simply turning up to the office to sit there and do nothing. The simple solution was to relocate as that was the only cost effective means to get those people out of the building and off the books.
There is definitely something rotten inside JLR and it does feel like 20th century legacies. Also, if EVs are more simple to design and assemble then maybe the products will be less exposed to human failings?
The biggest hurdle though has to be brand image? The brand despite huge efforts and inroads hasn't exactly shaken off its Arthur Daily/golf club image which might inhibit flogging on trend EVs to lunatic apex consumers for whom image is everything? Maybe not a brand legacy that impacts China and the US like it does here though?
InitialDave said:
Bodo said:
The appeal mentions around 1200 C-type replicas are estimated to have been manufactured mainly in the UK since the 1970s by individual independent workshops, and around 3000 including other historic Jaguar models - without Jaguar intervening.
Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
I suspect a tactical exercise on the basis that Swedish law gives them a better chance of winning? Or something like that? For example, I know Sweden is one of the countries with more restrictive copyright law for things like taking photos of statues in public places.Why they would go after an elderly couple who completed one car and never offered any for sale baffles me.
That would also explain why JLR sexed up the verdict from first instance court to Swedish High Court, and omit the appeal by the Magnussons.
They seem to use their communication to help to build up opinion that a legal risk is founded for building replicas in the UK, while JLR themselves would not take the risk of taking legal action in the UK.
Touring442 said:
I suspect (hope) the car is question will go missing before the hired JLR thugs arrive with a truck.
If they were to confiscate the car and put it in their museum at Gaydon it wouldn't be quite so reprehensible. This though is the ugly side of litigious business - BMW were engaging in some unpleasant and underhand behaviour 20 years ago with the 'Mini' trademark.
I can't really see old Bill Lyons taking such a heavy handed route.
I don't think he'd be impressed by this case! If they were to confiscate the car and put it in their museum at Gaydon it wouldn't be quite so reprehensible. This though is the ugly side of litigious business - BMW were engaging in some unpleasant and underhand behaviour 20 years ago with the 'Mini' trademark.
I can't really see old Bill Lyons taking such a heavy handed route.
It does read that the genuine enthusiasts within Jaguar were simply doing what they had always done, which was to help out and encourage the project along, and at some point a "sharp suit" within the company got wind of it all, and that being in Sweden they could use that countries laws to try and get what they had failed to achieve elsewhere, and then simply use that as a legal precedent going forward.
I imagine those within Jaguar that had been helping the chap feel just as appalled as everyone else as to the heavy handed approach that was taken.
He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I imagine those within Jaguar that had been helping the chap feel just as appalled as everyone else as to the heavy handed approach that was taken.
He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
lowdrag said:
Nicki Vrotsov (sp?) owned the Mini-Cooper name and was steamrollered by BMW. Just as Jaguar have steamrollered the Magnussons
It was Rover that went after Nick, he was selling Mini Coopers through the Paul Huxford dealer group (and they were fantastic quality), when Rover wanted to reintroduce the Cooper (after John Cooper started selling conversion kits to Japan / converting cars at Ferring) they wanted Nicks cars gone, so he then used his Vortz brand to continue supply (mainly to Japan), as said before BMW then came along and got very heavy handed with companies that had traded for years and forced them to remove all references to the Mini from thier logos / namesanonymous said:
[redacted]
I could be barking completely up the wrong tree but I think that JLR's surprisingly slow entry into PHEV was down to ZF. You would have thought that being a manufacturer of premium, urban and suburban vehicles they would have entered into the hybrid market earlier but I don't believe it was possible due to their component partners,,namely ZF. The 3rd generation of the ZF8 was launched in 2018. That's the version which contains the plug in and mild hybrid tech and this fits with JLR's Q4 2017 announcements on hybrids.
Prior to that ZF box being available I think the alternate solutions were too clumsy and costly to be viable in what was a very small market back then.
Few manufacturers followed Toyota as Toyota had copied (allegedly) the Antonov system for switching between the motors and alternate solutions weren't viable. It was only when the full hybrid system was integrated into the gearbox by the supplier that it did become viable for most manufacturers.
I think this is why you get lurches in hybrid news from manufacturers all around the same time because their tech, in this regard, all comes from the transmission manufacturers.
The 4th gen ZF is due next year so my guess is that this will mystically coincide with all ZF8 customers announcing lower CO2 and better hybrid ranges etc.
But more importantly is whether the ZF PHEV system could fit in an XJ6 or whether it will just have to be pure EV.
MarkwG said:
lowdrag said:
I come back though to the point that for 70 years Jaguar have done nothing except turn a blind eye, and then with only nine years left of the manufacture of ICE cars they suddenly decide to clamp down. If they cared, then between 1982 and 1996 Peter Jaye built perfect copies of the C-type, just like the Magnussons, and Jaguar did nothing. Other people built "real ones" too, and I know of three which at this moment are nearly finished. I built one, and Jaguar helped me. It just doesn't make sense.
Things change, people change, managements change: "Jaguar" as such, isn't a fixed entity: 70 years ago, classic cars were barely a thing, & the company then was focussed on making new cars. Since then, classic cars have become a business, & as the gatekeepers of the companies heritage, the current management have moved with the times, & changed the companies position. As mentioned previously, Ferrari have taken a similar view for quite some time, it could be argued previous Jaguar management teams weren't proactive enough: but they've tested the classic waters, & found them financially lucrative, so now they're tightening up the legal side. It's a shame for those who always felt that way, but that's life. It's ultimately their trainset, they can play with it how they want. I suspect the move away from ICE is part of the driving force; they'll need to protect the "classics" asset they have, or risk others cherry picking the benefits of the classic market of the future. If they can't make the electric future work, it may be all they have...Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff