or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Pro Shop › Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting › Gigagolf Golf Clubs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Gigagolf Golf Clubs - Page 7

post #109 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abu3baid View Post

From a pure capitalistic point of view I would say thy the market will deal with this correctly over time.. There is a big difference in my mind when a knock of is being sold with the originator having no retribution avenue and when there is a huge manufacturing operation being run and the big corporations have millions they can spend in taking the offender to court and putting a stop to this "stealing" if you want to call it that.

Like I mentioned since I'm not vested in the industry, ie I don't earn a living dealing with these big manufactures or am sponsored by them, then from a moral stand point do I really have an obligation to society to help in bringing this knock off down? This is what I question, and that is why making this issue a moral ground issue is not correct in my opinion.

I mean, it's a moral decision whether or not you want to characterize it that way. We're just talking about the morality of intellectual property protections as opposed to the morality of killing or stealing tangible things, which is what we typically consider when we label questions as "moral." 

 

Why don't these companies sue and shut down gigagolf? I don't know enough about IP law to answer that. My gut reaction can't believe that Taylormade can't get after them for trade dress violations, but that's an uneducated reaction. Patentwise, I don't know what these companies have been able to patent or not because they might be failing the "non-obviousness" requirement. Sort of how Apple can't sue someone for making their phone smaller and thinner; it's an obvious direction of the field. But whether we (society / law / whatever) have provided the means to give the major manufacturers recourse against gigagolf is a side question. The real question is whether people think that what knockoff producers is acceptable, especially in light of what it can do for the golf club business long term. The sustainability of it, if you will. I don't work in golf, but I'd like to continue enjoying manufacturers having incentive to push technology forward and make the game more interesting. I think the only way to do that is by shunning knockoffs. You may disagree, and you're welcome to.

post #110 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoan2 View Post
 

Every thing you do requires a moral decision.

 

Anyway, being bored at lunch probably is leading me to be:offtopic:

Better said in fewer words. Chapeau.

post #111 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkolo View Post
Why don't these companies sue and shut down gigagolf? I don't know enough about IP law to answer that.

 

I think it's because Gigagolf isn't actually borrowing any innovative technology from them. If you look at the clubs, they are mostly using some design cues to give a visual resemblence to similarly positioned clubs, but not enough to violate any laws. You can't patent making drivers black and white, for example.  

 

I honestly have no problem with what Gigagolf is doing here. The truth is, there has been no major technological innovation in golf irons in recent years; most of the things that can be done with an iron, that will actually impact performance, have been thought of long ago. But a small company like Gigagolf maybe lacks the marketing budget to be able to create 8 different lines of irons and then market them in a way that  consumers will recocognize the differences in all of these and be able to figure out which one is right for them. Instead, they use these visual cues so that the newcomer looking at their website can recognize instantly where some of these models fit in.

 

So visually, the TRX irons are similar to various Taylormade models, the GX to Callaway, the Verve,  P3, and C9 to Pings, the MPX to the Cobra Amp, etc. But this isn't stealing technology. The MPX looks like the Cobra mainly because it's orange, for example. The powerslot is different from Taylomade's speed slot (and slots are not an original Taylormade idea, they've been around since at least the 1970s). If they are copying some design trends within the limits of what's legal, so are all of these bigger companies. They all copy popular design ideas. 

 

Do people avoid buying the Callaway Supersoft, because it's a "knock-off" of the Wilson Duo?

 

With woods and especially drivers, there have been more technology improvements in recent years, but even there, I think the quality is starting to get close. When it comes to performance, even the lower cost manufacturers are now starting to run into the USGA limits.  Sometimes the biggest advantage of more expensive clubs might be that they may sound or feel better on impact. 

post #112 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by acerimusdux View Post

I think it's because Gigagolf isn't actually borrowing any innovative technology from them. If you look at the clubs, they are mostly using some design cues to give a visual resemblence to similarly positioned clubs, but not enough to violate any laws. You can't patent making drivers black and white, for example.  

I honestly have no problem with what Gigagolf is doing here. The truth is, there has been no major technological innovation in golf irons in recent years; most of the things that can be done with an iron, that will actually impact performance, have been thought of long ago. But a small company like Gigagolf maybe lacks the marketing budget to be able to create 8 different lines of irons and then market them in a way that  consumers will recocognize the differences in all of these and be able to figure out which one is right for them. Instead, they use these visual cues so that the newcomer looking at their website can recognize instantly where some of these models fit in.

So visually, the TRX irons are similar to various Taylormade models, the GX to Callaway, the Verve,  P3, and C9 to Pings, the MPX to the Cobra Amp, etc. But this isn't stealing technology. The MPX looks like the Cobra mainly because it's orange, for example. The powerslot is different from Taylomade's speed slot (and slots are not an original Taylormade idea, they've been around since at least the 1970s). If they are copying some design trends within the limits of what's legal, so are all of these bigger companies. They all copy popular design ideas. 

Do people avoid buying the Callaway Supersoft, because it's a "knock-off" of the Wilson Duo?

With woods and especially drivers, there have been more technology improvements in recent years, but even there, I think the quality is starting to get close. When it comes to performance, even the lower cost manufacturers are now starting to run into the USGA limits.  Sometimes the biggest advantage of more expensive clubs might be that they may sound or feel better on impact. 

I think that's a very generous interpretation of what gigagolf does, but even so, it's hard not to construe all of that as saying that they're coopting the goodwill that the famous brands have built up through their design history, reputation, and marketing. By the nature of their business model, they need to, well parasite would be a loaded term, but they need to have others laying out interesting designs, building up interest among consumers, and showing how well their products perform in order for gigagolf to then come in and apply their design cues so that consumers can think, "wow, I know how great those Mizunos or Callaways or whatever work, and these guys are telling me they can get me into those for a fraction of the price." I don't see why we should encourage that kind of behavior. They're not creating anything.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Pro Shop › Clubs, Grips, Shafts, Fitting › Gigagolf Golf Clubs