Jaguar Land Rover goes after replica community

[DonkeyApple]

A pivotal element now seems to be the age of the people who tried to set up a company to profit from someone else's IP after extracting the information required to do so under different pretences?

Out of interest, at what age does the law stop applying to us as I have a raft of enterprises that would be fun to do but I can't due to the law.

The counter obviously being that Karl Magnusson is only 68 so not elderly at all. He is educated and affluent. More importantly, he is old enough to know better. Not some child with limited understanding of the law and full of youthful exuberance but a fully grown, mature, educated man who knew precisely what he was doing.

Certainly old enough to have read his daughter's kind words on her gofundme page and ask her to correct them and to include the facts. But has chosen not to.

Elderly is doddering, struggling to move and with faded thoughts. It is not a perfectly healthy, middle class 68 year old building cars and trying to run a business on the back of other's property.

Frankly, an insult to those who are elderly. But Jaguar always did attract the shifty type back then.

[mgtd]

Seems people in the US are now unloading XKSS reps by Lynx...


https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1965-jaguar-xkss...

[XJ13]

A couple of days ago, JLR legal team sent in their bailiffs to demand £450,000 from the Swedish couple who dared to build a privately-owned SINGLE C-Type and who, after JLRs encouragement, dared to suggest they wanted to build TWO more for sale. Seeing an opportunity to gain a legal precedent against a soft target in a "soft" jurisdiction, JLR have ruined this family.

For what? To protect the exorbitant prices of their own 6 or 7 C-Type replica/continuations? Cars they could not have produced were it not for the replica industry that has celebrated and supported their heritage over the years.

JLR IP/Legal is out of control and are ruining the reputation, future sales and heritage of that once-great brand.

[DonkeyApple]

XJ13 said:

A couple of days ago, JLR legal team sent in their bailiffs to demand £450,000 from the Swedish couple who dared to build a privately-owned SINGLE C-Type and who, after JLRs encouragement, dared to suggest they wanted to build TWO more for sale. Seeing an opportunity to gain a legal precedent against a soft target in a "soft" jurisdiction, JLR have ruined this family.

For what? To protect the exorbitant prices of their own 6 or 7 C-Type replica/continuations? Cars they could not have produced were it not for the replica industry that has celebrated and supported their heritage over the years.

JLR IP/Legal is out of control and are ruining the reputation, future sales and heritage of that once-great brand.

The first para isn't correct as you know. You, I and everyone who can read knows that the plan on paper was for at least 6 copies and to turn what had claimed to be a hobby and had been very kindly backed by Jaguar just as so many enthusiasts had been supported in the past, into a commercial business built on IP that wasn't theirs and support that had been given under different pretences.

There remains the appeal.

And how do you know that they are 'ruined'? That's information none of us can know and the only source of any such claim has been from the daughter who omitted key facts when penny the gofundme text.

And why is Jaguar ruining the reputation, future sales and heritage? They are protecting their heritage from people who aren't customers but seek to devalue the original product by creating copies for other non customers, all for personal financial gain.

The only people who actually seem upset appear to be those who have these copies as opposed to those who have the real thing. Does it not seem plausible that those who have the real thing and those who are fans of the real thing have precisely zero upset at some random bloke getting stopped from trying to make half a dozen copies?

Would it not be fair to suggest that your view is very heavily skewed due to the side of the fence that you find yourself firmly on, chose to be on and knew from the outset you were on? The legals on your website even attest to that overtly.

Is JLR's legal dept out of control? It wouldn't be the first time that sales and marketing push for a legal dept to reign themselves in but that legal dept isn't a team of well balanced, humanitarian, caring humans but typically a room of disfunctional drug addicts having to do more charity work than the average disfunctional human to try and mask their true nature and they exist to be released. And frankly, any adult with more than two shillings and an ability to string a sentence together knows that when a statistically twice divorced, alcoholic comes knocking on your door with a remit to try and rinse you out for a fat hourly fee, you need to up your game and get smart very quickly.

[GoodOlBoy]

DonkeyApple said:

A pivotal element now seems to be the age of the people who tried to set up a company to profit from someone else's IP after extracting the information required to do so under different pretences?

JLR have taken to court a Swedish couple who are over 65 and haven't made, let alone sold, a single replica commercially.

They haven't taken to court dozens of under 65's who don't live in Sweden and yet have made, and sold, hundreds of commercial replicas and continue to do so.

Surely that makes JLR either racist or ageist

[craigjm]

GoodOlBoy said:

DonkeyApple said:

A pivotal element now seems to be the age of the people who tried to set up a company to profit from someone else's IP after extracting the information required to do so under different pretences?

JLR have taken to court a Swedish couple who are over 65 and haven't made, let alone sold, a single replica commercially.

They haven't taken to court dozens of under 65's who don't live in Sweden and yet have made, and sold, hundreds of commercial replicas and continue to do so.

Surely that makes JLR either racist or ageist

How do you know they haven’t? How do you know that people targeted haven’t just stopped what they were doing to avoid it?

Like I said earlier anyone who received a cease and desist letter would be ill advised to go shouting about it so in reality nobody on this thread has any idea who has been targeted

[DonkeyApple]

GoodOlBoy said:

JLR have taken to court a Swedish couple who are over 65 and haven't made, let alone sold, a single replica commercially.

They haven't taken to court dozens of under 65's who don't live in Sweden and yet have made, and sold, hundreds of commercial replicas and continue to do so.

Surely that makes JLR either racist or ageist

Racism would be difficult due to the Swedes polluting the fine English gene pool quite significantly around 1200 years ago. . Ageism is just as fraught given they aren't elderly and are in fact notably you get than most on the Board who own JLR. Ratan is 83.

Those trying to make out that this unfortunate event is akin to birching Capt Tom would probably be offended in the other direction if they were referred to as elderly while out reliving their missed youth in their Jaguar copies.

We simply don't know who has been pursued, or how, after receiving cease and desist letters. We don't know who has enough documentation to turn round and say 'bugger off'. Just like we have no idea re the financial impact on the clearly well enough heeled Magnussons. Nor is it relevant how many copies they made as the intent was to take the copy they said was for themselves and was built using help from JLR to rattle off as many copies as they could produce and sell. That could have been the two, the six or the shipping of the operation to a partner in China to run off a hundred. Whether their plan was one or a thousand copies is somewhat moot as the scenario is like pregnancy.

We also don't know how many other manufacturers of copies would have been emboldened by the case being lost or how many have looked at what has happened, looked at their firing shot from JLR and decided to start talking or walking.

What we do know is that JLR remained happy to continue to support enthusiasts who wanted to make their own copy of their product up until Magnusson ended that for everyone and that one man who wanted to make more money than he already had has brought an era that was beneficial to many to an abrupt end. But somehow it is all the fault of JLR, who clearly were forcing him to commercialise his personal project that they were quite happy with and that this has brought about the end of JLR and the wrath of people who own the real thing as well as everyone who has a copy and has been told they won't be being chased over it.

It's a miserable affair but it categorically isn't the one sided argument nor victimisation that a few are vociferously claiming.

[aeropilot]

DonkeyApple said:

XJ13 said:

A couple of days ago, JLR legal team sent in their bailiffs to demand £450,000 from the Swedish couple who dared to build a privately-owned SINGLE C-Type and who, after JLRs encouragement, dared to suggest they wanted to build TWO more for sale. Seeing an opportunity to gain a legal precedent against a soft target in a "soft" jurisdiction, JLR have ruined this family.

For what? To protect the exorbitant prices of their own 6 or 7 C-Type replica/continuations? Cars they could not have produced were it not for the replica industry that has celebrated and supported their heritage over the years.

JLR IP/Legal is out of control and are ruining the reputation, future sales and heritage of that once-great brand.

The first para isn't correct as you know. You, I and everyone who can read knows that the plan on paper was for at least 6 copies and to turn what had claimed to be a hobby and had been very kindly backed by Jaguar just as so many enthusiasts had been supported in the past, into a commercial business built on IP that wasn't theirs and support that had been given under different pretences.

There remains the appeal.

And how do you know that they are 'ruined'? That's information none of us can know and the only source of any such claim has been from the daughter who omitted key facts when penny the gofundme text.

And why is Jaguar ruining the reputation, future sales and heritage? They are protecting their heritage from people who aren't customers but seek to devalue the original product by creating copies for other non customers, all for personal financial gain.

The only people who actually seem upset appear to be those who have these copies as opposed to those who have the real thing. Does it not seem plausible that those who have the real thing and those who are fans of the real thing have precisely zero upset at some random bloke getting stopped from trying to make half a dozen copies?

Would it not be fair to suggest that your view is very heavily skewed due to the side of the fence that you find yourself firmly on, chose to be on and knew from the outset you were on? The legals on your website even attest to that overtly.

[aeropilot]

ruhall said:

Interestingly, referring to the link to the Lynx XK-SS referred a few posts above, I note that the spiel states 'registered as a 1965 Jaguar Lynx XKS (sic)'.

I also seem to recall that there was a post several years ago where the keeper of a car had written that his/her (Lynx D-type) V5 stated it was registered as a 1967 LHD Jaguar 2+2 E-type.

Should such vehicles be registered as 'Jaguars', when it would seem that they weren't built by Jaguar?

You are now getting into DVLA issues regarding registration, which includes recent changes and statements from them regarding the 12 point rules etc., for kit cars and the like, and their 'amnesty' regarding vehicles built prior to 1988, which is a separate subject on its own, and also been discussed on here over the past 5 years or so.

[lowdrag]

ruhall said:

Found it! From August 2011 on PH (10-years ago )

Original post edited to here:
Quote "So I guess that there could never be another Lynx D-type as we know it. Of course, if you can find a donor log book from the period you can construct the car and have it registered as a 1964 or whatever the log book (or V5 as it will become) then like my D-type you are home and dry, because my V5 shows my car as a 1967 LHD 2+2 E-type!" unquote.


As an aside, a friend of mine has received a cease and desist letter in the not-too-distant past; I won't go into detail on here but it was NOT from JLR but it was motor-trade related and from a manufacturer. It clearly isn't just JLR reviewing things.

Be careful for what you wish. The XJ220 wasn't built by Jaguar and neither really have any of the recent "continuation" cars. Lynx were visited by the DVLA in the 1980's and were informed that everything they were doing was fine and no worries. Just like Jaguar, they too have done an about face. It was my "2+2D-type" by the way.

The DVLA problem stretches far wider than Jaguar replicas; it covers all modified cars. If the body isn't original, it should now be subjected to an IVA. As I pointed out to the DVLA, if the owner of a 1930 Austin 7 alloy bodied hill climb special didn't ask for his V5 to be changed during the amnesty, it is technically an illegal car now. And what of Rolls Royce? Not one car in the day was as it "came out of the factory" since they didn't sell cars, only a rolling chassis. It is a right mess, and if the DVLA were honest they would offer another amnesty and publish it widely to put an end to this problem. Cars were built according to the regulations in the day (which frankly didn't exist anyway) and now they are retrospectively being declared illegal.

But that isn't the point of this thread. I know what is going on with the Magnussons, and I am curious why Jaguar would even think of sending in the bailiffs if the matter is still sub judice.

[MarkwG]

lowdrag said:

Be careful for what you wish. The XJ220 wasn't built by Jaguar and neither really have any of the recent "continuation" cars.

That's a red herring, & completely irrelevant to the IP issue - the XJ220 was built for Jaguar, as are the continuation cars! Therefore the men & women wielding the tools had JLRs permission to build them. I'm struggling with why that is confusing people here.

[craigjm]

MarkwG said:

lowdrag said:

Be careful for what you wish. The XJ220 wasn't built by Jaguar and neither really have any of the recent "continuation" cars.

That's a red herring, & completely irrelevant to the IP issue - the XJ220 was built for Jaguar, as are the continuation cars! Therefore the men & women wielding the tools had JLRs permission to build them. I'm struggling with why that is confusing people here.

The "XJ220 wasnt built by Jaguar" argument is as pedantic as the continuation cars. If we applied that across the board then the E-pace and I-pace are not built by Jaguar and other manufacturers would have the same problem.

[DonkeyApple]

It won't be long until someone tries to argue that a DB7 isn't a real Jaguar.

[MarkwG]

DonkeyApple said:

It won't be long until someone tries to argue that a DB7 isn't a real Jaguar.

[Blib]

DonkeyApple said:

It won't be long until someone tries to argue that a DB7 isn't a real Jaguar.

Or, the X-type a proper Ford.

[lowdrag]

You have forgotten that the S-type is really a Lincoln LS.

[MarkwG]

lowdrag said:

You have forgotten that the S-type is really a Lincoln LS.

Nope I remembered : I also recalled the the SS100 was built on a Standard chassis with a Standard engine, but of course, all done with the express permission of the owner of the IP

[MarkwG]

XJ13 said:

...JLR said it is acting after changes to copyright laws since 2017...

so hidden in there is the answer to "why now...?". Because the law changed.

Edited by MarkwG on Sunday 16th May 21:29

[TarquinMX5]

That article, referring to the Magnussons, states that ''They have been ordered to destroy their replicas", or words to that effect. Plural. I thought that part of the argument was that they'd only made one, or have I become confused.

[Bodo]

TarquinMX5 said:

That article, referring to the Magnussons, states that ''They have been ordered to destroy their replicas", or words to that effect. Plural. I thought that part of the argument was that they'd only made one, or have I become confused.

Absolutely not: the court documents just mention one car existent.