krypt speaker thread?

Mikeski,

I appreciate your input, but Krypt Marine Audio is not marketing to people who have the stereo investment you are talking about. The more power you are pushing the more it exposes the flaws. Our unit is being marketed to the guys who put $1000 - $2000 (average after market wakeboard boat stereo system) into their system. I have the prototype in my boat right now, and when I'm in a cove: everyone really likes the modulator. We are using the latest FM Modulation technology called Digital PLL (not the crap that is put in cars). However, I would bet that 20,000 watts would still sound great with our FM modulator (maybe not perfect, but still very good). BTW it will retail around $150.00

We have Mini Class H amplifiers coming too..

Krypt Marine Audio is a new company in a new market, so I'm sure we will be improving everything as we go just like any other young or growing company. Everyone here will be very surprised when they find out who the primary investor is, and the amount of capital that is behind Krypt Marine Audio: the company is not going away, and failure will be very unlikely.

Will you be sharing the information of who the primary investor is? I'd be interested to know.

Mike, sorry for exploiting your story. It was mentioned in conversation with me and I felt as you had originally mentioned that it should have been a straight across trade. I did not mention your name in my conversations with anyone as I didn't want to drag you in. Glad you spoke up and enlightened all of us.(p.s. did you return the light in one of my boxes from the group buy as ken said?)

I don't care for Ken or his business model, as I'm sure every one now knows. That was never a secret though.

Funny thing at the lake this weekend I probably had 15 people come up to me and mention they had been watching this thread and 14 of them didn't care for Ken's business practices, and one person mentioned they didn't care if Ken copied everyone else as long as it was cheaper.

I have spoken my piece, thrown alot of good info out there. Develop your own ideas and if you chose to do business with Ken thats your personal choice. I personally choose to support the companies that support our community not just on the forums by answering questions but by also advertising and supporting local events.

Why didn't you advertise on WakeWorld Ken?(you said you and David couldn't come to an agreement? wetsounds, monster towers, bullet, and all the boat manafacturers didn't have problems? Heck Tige and MB advertise even though the malibu wakesetter is the offical boat of WakeWorld? Obviously they can see the advantage of supporting our community!)

^^^Dude everyone and their mother knows how you feel about Ken....let it go. Why do you want to keep dragging this on....IMO your beating a dead horse.

I have spoken my piece...
No argument there.

thrown alot of good info out there...
No, you continue to bash Ken and his companies. That shouldn't be confused with "good info".

Develop your own ideas...
See above. He is. Drop it and let it go.

and if you chose to do business with Ken thats your personal choice....
Exactly. You've spoken your piece, now drop it and go work on that bilge pump that you can't get figured out!

If I can have free things from Bullet/Krypt I will be a huge fan.... whacha think Ken?

quote "Ken specifically said he had the new speakers made custom and paid for all the tooling, it was not just a copy. Also, I know of a few items that Ken has come up with that are original (his 2 wake 1 surf combo board racks) and one that he is coming up with that I will be the first in line to buy myself. I don't understand how you can flame Ken Robert when you sold the same LED's yourself."
well heres the scoop on the rack, he stole it from me ... i came up with that rack in june of 2005 , i sent it out to a few people in texas and i sure he saw it and copied it ..... i saw my rack on his website a few nights ago at first i was pissed , and as i continued looking at his site ... i had seen lots of copied items , some people just can think out side the box ...

This thread is ridiculous and I am surprised it isn't being deleted.

A speaker with an HLCD horn can only be packaged so many different ways...performance and customer service will distinguish the good companies.

The wakesurf/wakeboard rack falls into the same category and is simple to design. Seriously, give me a bridgeport and a grinder, I will make my own rack, date a picture to 1997, and say Ken Land stole my design.

Robert...give it a rest, if Ken is a douche his business will fail.

just stating the facts ... you think is that simple ? go for it !!! how do you think jesse james feels when people copy his cross? your right there is only so many ways to make something... but at least change it up when your going to say thats your design , he completing copied bullets speakers with the can and the speaker and the grill... thanks china

(Message edited by mikewills on August 25, 2009)

(Message edited by mikewills on August 25, 2009)

Who is Mike Wills? Just wondering since you signed up just to Ken bash.

slow down .. lets get a couple of things straight . this is not my first time on this site , i have been reading these post for years .. however this is the first time i have wrote anything on here , in the past i have never really wanted to chime in on anything , until now .. this is a good topic. finally someone gets called out for being a bitter, i was in this business for a few years , and i saw it all the time when someone would come out with a pretty cool idea and of course someone would take that idea and change it and make it better , im cool with that, what make me mad is completely copying someone idea and calling it there own , thats b.s. competition is good for consumers and company's , it gives the consumers more choice and keep company's on there toes , im not here to bash anyone , i am here to speak the truth , and the truth is bulletlines is copying many company's products , is that a lie ?

how should the German military feel when Jessy James copies their cross?

thats a good point mr. craig you know what , when i was typing that i told my myself, someone is going to say something stupid like that lol lol and the point is jesse ( with a e not a y ) may not have came up with it , but when jesse james used when no one was using it and then used it for himself and marketed for his shop , and made it cool then people want to use it for there own profit , there the diffrence , no one would be wearing iron cross tee-shirts , hats, sunglasses , stickers , or even speakers covers , if is was not for jesse making it cool, thats being said answerer this question whats the difference it chevy made a truck that looked the exactly the same as a ford and and called it a chevy im pretty sure ford would not be happy .. get it now

Mike,

I don't know how old you are but that cross has been "cool" for a lot longer than Jesse James' use of it. I remember my brother and me buying surfer's cross necklaces at Daytona Beach over 35 years ago. Guess what a surfer's cross is? Yep, the iron cross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfer's_cross

Jesse is just copying others use of it.

If someone invents something of value, it is their responsibility to protect it from being legally copied by getting a patent on it. Yes, there is a cost in getting a patent, but if the invention is valuable it is just like paying for insurance on a boat, car, home, etc.

Mike, since he's not calling the speakers NVS, Wetsounds or any other recognizable brand, your analogy doesn't apply. And, in general, your posts don't make sense. Work on that if you don't mind.

"If someone invents something of value, it is their responsibility to protect it from being legally copied by getting a patent on it. Yes, there is a cost in getting a patent, but if the invention is valuable it is just like paying for insurance on a boat, car, home, etc."

To me, that's where the rubber meets the road. If the products and concepts weren't protected by patent, then it's fair game.

I just want to correct the notion that copying a product and, therefore, lowering the price for that item is healthy competition. It is not.

When companies "knock off" products strictly for offering the same product at a lower price, it may lower the price of that product in the short run, but in the long run it will raise prices and reduce the amount of innovation that goes into products.

Copying can result in one of several outcomes...

1. When the maker of the original product (the inventor, innovator) sees that his product is being copied, he will have to patent his product. Getting a patent is expensive and so is suing a competitor because he violated that patent. These expenses are added to the cost of the product, which raises the price for the consumer. Once the patent is in place and enforced, the lower cost copied product will no longer be available. So now the cost of the product is higher than it was before the knock off artist got involved.

2. When the maker of the original product (the inventor, innovator) sees that his product is being copied and nobody wants to pay his asking price any more, he goes out of business. Here's where your short term price reduction comes in. Enjoy those knock-offs because the guy customers are now keeping in business is less likely to come out with any innovative products in the future. The guy who does innovate was put out of business because customers jumped on the short term savings and didn't give any thought to who was going to bring them the next great innovation.

3. When the maker of the original product (the inventor, innovator) is put out of business and is considering what to do next for a living, he's less likely to start a new business that innovates new products because the last time he did that the marketplace treated him like crap and put him out of business as a thank you for bringing the marketplace something innovative. He's more likely to go work for the man and simply collect a paycheck since he's found that there are no rewards for bringing cool stuff to market.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about a direct copy of a competitors product, not a situation where a current product is improved upon. In that situation, there are obviously some gray areas that my be covered by what I said above and maybe some situations that are not.

Hmm.. Dave, I can appreciate those scenarios, but they seem to lack "real world" situations. For example I think it's completely foolish NOT to protect an invention with a patent. But you outline patenting a product as a negotiable expense. In reality, it's one of the costs involved in bringing a product to market.

Sure there are negatives, as you describe, but there's a lot more gray area than feasible scenarios...

Great points Dave.

We might also recognize that this was more a question of morality and ethics than legality. It's recognized that one is within one's legal rights but should one?

Actually, I'd argue that it's the other way around. Whether or not you patent a product is completely negotiable and simply a business decision. If you take our industry for example, most of the innovations are not patented for various reasons. Some because they don't anticipate the life of the product to be very long. Some because the extra expense wouldn't be worth it. Some because they want the product to be copied to create an industry standard of some sort. I'm sure there are many other reasons not to patent a product as well, so saying that it's "foolish" is not close to "real world."

A product has to have a pretty good potential for profit before the maker can justify the cost of a patent. It's all a calculation made by the manufacturer. The insurance analogy above was a good one. Some choose not to insure certain things and some choose to take that risk. It's a business choice.

You also have to take into account that there is a small segment of products that can be invented and sold profitably as long as the maker does not have to pay for a patent or defense of that patent. If the patent expense is added to the equation, the product will not be profitable and will not be brought to market. So by supporting copycat companies, you are eliminating this entire segment of innovation.

Yes, it's a choice made by the innovator, but he or she is forced to make that choice because the consumer made a particular choice. Unfortunately, the only reason that choice has to be made is because there are people that would rather not innovate and try to make money off of other people's innovations. It sucks that the innovators have to pay extra (for patents, lawsuits, loss of business, etc.) to cover losses caused by the existence of non-innovators, but that's the way our world is.

Just remember that when you're spending money, where you spend it determines future prices and future innovation. Feed the companies that bring innovation or feed the companies that bring low prices and hope it doesn't bite you in the ass down the road. It's all up to the consumer.

thank you david , you hit the nail on the head, as for jman i have never see any "surfers cross" stickers on the back of trucks , how many of these were sold , my point is they were never main stream , jesse made the cross main stream . quote"To me, that's where the rubber meets the road. If the products and concepts weren't protected by patent, then it's fair game." what happened to morality and ethics when i was make product i never tried to copy someone's idea , have any of you ever applied for a patent its very cheap ... plus if you go to china with some money you can have anything you want made...

(Message edited by mikewills on August 26, 2009)

I find it interesting that the issues of morality and ethics have come up with regards to Ken. I completely agree that ethics and morality are important in the business world. I also believe it's a 2 way street. I question whether it is "ethical" or "moral" to throw out wild accusations against an individual or entity without being able to back them up with fact. There have been some facts thrown out there, but there have also been a lot of wild theories and 3rd-hand (at best) recounts of events.

I will throw out there that I had a less than positive shopping experience with Ken a few years ago, but I still don't think he deserves all of this. The guy has made some mistakes and its only fair that he lives with some consequences, but he readily admits that.

I agree 100% with what David said! I think he was able to articulate what I felt and was saying with out mixing any personal feelings.

I well continue to support the innovators and originals that fuel our sport.

Since I've been gone at the lake I noticed someone also made the comment about didn't I flame Ken with copying his LED's and selling them. And the answer is yes 100% I wasn't happy with the bull he was feeding all of us so i organized a group buy to buy directly from china. The funny thing is in here he says its a dog eat dog world and doing that stuff is okay. Remember how upset he got when the tables where turned? Didn't feel good did it Ken?

Well I'm out. Heading back to the lake for 4 days! Its so much more peacefull out there! Well with the exception of yesterday! lol

I'm all about innovation and the creation of new and better products. And No, I don't always support the low cost product or service.

I'm also of the opinion that innovators are innovators. The spirit of capitalism will always bring them to the drawing board. Should we run them out of the industry with low cost copies? NO, but we don't need to bash the hell outta the guy who chooses to make that his market. There's a market for a reason: people will pay his asking price without the need for Bling or service or whatever else makes competitors higher prices justifiable.

"A product has to have a pretty good potential for profit before the maker can justify the cost of a patent."
IMO a product has to have VERY good potential for profit before even considering bringing it to the market. If gross profit margins can't support a simple patent to protect future revenue streams, then the deal should be scrapped altogether. All part of a business plan that should be in place before the first prototype.

I think the problem with patenting a product in the boating community, especially the aftermarket world is the limited market place. Unlike cars where everybody has one or two or more in there driveway, when it comes to the boating world there is a limited and small market place to begin with. So instead of spreading the cost of a patent over 1 million or more products where its not really noticable your spreading the cost over 100's or 1000's of products where we the consumer would really feel the impact of it. I appreciatte the fact that companies can pass those saving onto us.

Just imagine if every product we bought cost twice as much as it currently does to absorb the cost of patenting and hiring lawyers to protect there rights.

Exactly Nacho.

It's called protecting your investment. It is part of the necessary cost of bringing something new and innovative to market. Just like you wouldn't buy a $70K wakeboat or car and NOT have insurance for them. It is a part of the total cost of ownership.

BTW, what is so innovative about most of the things we are talking about here anyway? Speakers, EQs, board racks, rope? Sorry, but I just don't see where anyone spent a fortune designing any of this stuff. Speakers and EQs have been around for a long time. Some good ideas have been used to taylor these to the marine industry.

And regarding Hate's comment, how many here have movies or music that they didn't pay for? Oh, but that's different. How?

I'm not trying to fight or call anyone out here. This is just healthy discussion to me and I enjoy hearing others thoughts and opinions.

Jman

To spend thousands of dollars on R&D and then not apply for patent or copyright protections is absolutely absurd. Not only does it protect you from "copy cats", it also allows for the possibility of a second revenue stream from licensing your patent and/or copyright to secondary companies. The lack of patents in our industry indicates that most of these products are not the result of original idea or design, rather copies or improvements on existing products, and therefore a patent or copyright can not be obtained. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn. Yes, we would all like to believe in business that everyone would share their ideas and innovations and hold hands and sing kumbaya. Unfortunately you're not very likely to turn a profit in that scenario.

do any of you know how much is is to get a patent? heres how its go, i patent a product for around 20-30k by the time your all done , them someone copy's it, so i sue , i need to get attorneys and then chase the guy around to get my money by the time your done your well in the 80-100k range how many rack do i need to sell make that up, in the long run the customer is the one that suffers

---

quote:

There's a market for a reason: people will pay his asking price without the need for Bling or service or whatever else makes competitors higher prices justifiable.

---

Yes, there is a market. There will always be a market for a lower cost copy because there will always be short-sighted customers willing to support those copycat companies. However, your comment makes it sound like it's a completely ethical niche where the copycat company is simply offering less customer service or "bling" in exchange for the lower price. You neglect to mention that the innovator of the product being copied bore the cost of the innovation. The copycat company bore no such cost and that is where the real savings comes from.

Some would say too bad, the innovator should have patented his product. That's certainly one opinion and if they see no ethical dilemma and they disagree with me that running the innovator our of business will hurt them personally in the future, then they should jump on that copycat product.

I personally don't think much of a person who chooses this as their market niche. It shows a propensity to choose an easy path to profit by using the hard work of others to enhance the bottom line. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's right or a healthy way to encourage future innovation and lower prices.

---

quote:

If gross profit margins can't support a simple patent to protect future revenue streams, then the deal should be scrapped altogether.

---

You obviously don't deal with product innovation or patents in real life or certainly not in a small industry like wakeboarding. There is no such thing as a "simple patent," especially for a small business. I would guess that 90% of the innovations in our industry are not patented. If our industry followed your statement, we would be 10 years behind where we are now. Robert makes a good point that the high cost of patents do not make a lot of sense in a small industry such as ours. If your line of think were followed everywhere in business, it would actually eliminate a lot of small industries. Like it or not, non-patented innovations are a very big part of your life and mine.

Jman I agree with your comment "This is just healthy discussion to me and I enjoy hearing others thoughts and opinions"

My opinion is a little different however. Like I said patenting is a very expensive process and then if someone infringes on your patent you have to hire a lawyer and sue, which again is very expensive. Thats why you don't see more patented products in the wake community.

As for speakers being innovative, yes they have been around for 130 years but not in the same shape and form. What these people have done is taken an exisiting idea or product and improved and changed it to better fit our listening enviroment. They aren't making the same speaker that Siemens made 130 years ago. Same goes with any innovator, find a better way, thats what causes products to evolve and improve, not direct copying.

As for your second point how many of us have movies or music we didn't pay for? I don't have any music or movies i didn't buy or pay for either through the store or itunes. Maybes thats why I dont have a library with 20,000 songs. I have respect for artist and there craft wether its making music or designing the speakers we hear the music through.

I think what it really boils down to is some people well always respect the innovators by supporting them and there products and some people who either don't care or can't afford to support them well support the copycats who bring cheap products to market.

When someones infringes, they are in the wrong. You can sue for your own attorneys fees and court costs.

Helluva lot cheaper than someone slicing my profit margin b/c they found a cheaper source. Now I've got my balls stuck to a lightpole in 20* weather and a bunch of inventory I can't unload...

Good point Mike. Obviously, many people think that getting a patent is just a matter of signing your name on a piece of paper and sending in a photo. Not so.

Mike,

What is so special about your rack that you would even be granted a patent in the first place? Just because you apply for one doesn't mean you'll get it. Not being mean, I'm just asking.


I do know a little about the process. I work directly with the production of some new ideas. Ideas that have already been patented. As said by David, not getting a truly innovative idea patented is a risk. A gamble that may pay off more, or put you out of business.

This is a funny thread to read.. why? because the products that everyone puts on their boats are pretty much all dime a dozen with a dozen brands to choose from that all do the exact same thing..

Board Racks .. I cant count how many companies out there there are that make billet board racks with rubber inserts and a bungee that holds it down....

Speakers - Im willing to bet you I could play 5 different speakers, subs, tower speakers and you wouldnt be able to tell which one was which

Amplifiers - right there with speakers you can put 10 different branded 500watt 4 channel amps hooked up and you wouldnt be able to tell which is which..

speaker systems with compression loaded drivers is not something someone has to innovate.. just like coax and midbass speakers.. theres a dozen of brands to choose from and you can build them yourself for a fraction of the price that NVS, Wetsounds, Bullet, Krypt or the 20 other companies that offer HCLD systems for your tower..

this is a stupid post because pretty much everything out on the market with the exception of some true innovating original products (like the auto flag) that you can get for your boat, you have your pickings from 20 different companies with a price range that will meet anyones needs..

Isaac,

I agree with everything you said except...(there always has to be an exception,lol)...the part about this post being stupid. People are stating facts and expressing their opinions here. Some are learning stuff. It's always good to hear someone elses perspective. Even when it is the opposite of yours.

Let me ask the 64,000 dollar question or questions. And I am not just picking on you Robert. You state that "Like I said patenting is a very expensive process and then if someone infringes on your patent you have to hire a lawyer and sue, which again is very expensive." Just because you hold the patent doesn't mean your have to sue when your feel it has been infringed upon, correct? With out the patent/copyright you basically have no legal recourse, correct?

Isaac, excellent point and it points back to one of my original posts. Why are the major consumer speaker manufactures (Alpine, Kenwood, etc..) not suing everybody? Because at the end of the day none of this in new technology and there is a price point and place in the market for everyone.

"Cost of innovation" = R&D. And no, I'm not saying that "premium company" is unethical for this being their business model.

Short-sighted customers: You're saying that buying the low-end stuff completely removes all innovation from the market??? uh ok. Not sure how substantiate that one.... Other companies will continue to bring innovation to the market and they will be supported by a certain % of the market. Other customers will support other vendors with different ideas... It's not an absolute.

It's a business decision and a risk. As we can see here, one that may not make sense to take.

No I don't deal with product innovation. I do however, deal with small businesses on a daily basis. We like to see how the entire picture is going to impact the bottom line before the deal is "bankable". The inventor either needs to hedge his bets (with a patent) or be prepared to have competition slice his profits at some future point.

---

quote:

Short-sighted customers: You're saying that buying the low-end stuff completely removes all innovation from the market??? uh ok. Not sure how substantiate that one.... Other companies will continue to bring innovation to the market and they will be supported by a certain % of the market.

---

Why would companies "continue to bring innovation to the market" in a small industry such as ours (i.e. patents not very practical) if they know there is a knock-off artist out there just waiting to undercut them? Plain and simple: they would not.

To argue that knock-offs do not inhibit innovation in small industries just defies basic logic.

Nubb, your right in saying "Just because you hold the patent doesn't mean your have to sue when your feel it has been infringed upon" but why else would you have the patent? Its there to protect you and your product. Now hopefully if you have a patent people won't copy you in the first place but if they do that is what you have to do otherwise patenting your product would be a waste of money.

The second point "Why are the major consumer speaker manufactures (Alpine, Kenwood, etc..) not suing everybody? Because at the end of the day none of this in new technology.." Well they are not directly copying each other. For an example lets look at the wheels on your car. The wheel has been around along time so its not a new concept however some manafacturers use steel belting some use cloth and some use kevlar so even though they're all wheels they have different technology inside them. Further more even though they may appear to all look the same they have different rubber compounds and different tread patterns. Some are making a tire that can last longer, some are making a tire that gets better traction, while none of these as you would say are truely innovative they all bring to market a unique product! A direct copy of one manafacturer by another would bring a lawsuit. But again how many tires are there?

Boating and our niche sport of Wakeboarding is a small community and we can't afford to bear the costs of lawsuits and patent attorneys for every product that comes to market.

Jman, I love the saying.. theres a seat for every ass and an ass for every seat.. personally Im a bang for the buck type of guy and for the most part cannot afford the high end stuff on anything that im into (aside from dirtbikes and atvs) so I look at bang for the buck.. I personally cannot afford NVS, Wetsounds, Zapco etc.. so because I cannot support the "innovators" I shouldnt buy the "knock off" stuff? thats obsurd.. theres people that are into the brand name and have the mentallity that the more you pay the better it is..

I worked at a company that I was friends with our marketing guru.. he told me a phrase that has always stuck in my head.. "Good Enough will always beat out the best"... There are more people that will buy "good enough" vs people that buy the best.. so if Kens speakers, handles, lines or whatever else he is selling are "good enough" and the price is right he will hit a certain market.. you dont like what he sells, dont buy it.. you want to support and spend all the money.. hey all power to you..

Again, theres a seat for every ass and an ass for every seat

From the US Patent office:

"In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word “process” is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term “machine” used in the statute needs no explanation. The term “manufacture” refers to articles which are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term “composition of matter” relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products."

If I understand this correctly you can not patent any of the items we are talking about in this thread except for maybe the rope.

Example 1: You can not Patent a HLCD tower speaker, but you could patent a special material created by the innovator that makes the speaker louder, better, different then anything else on the market.

Example 2: You can not patent an amp, but you could patent a water cooling system designed specifically for use in a marine application.

These examples assume that someone has not already done so.

So in the end all the talk of patents and why they have not been filled is not relevant to this thread, nothing above falls into a category stated by the US patent office.

Dave, obviously they have or we wouldn't be having this healthy debate now would we ?!

New technologies will emerge and the companies that bring them to market will profit. Moreso if they can protect their product.

I forgot to mention something earlier. The companies with "new whiz bang" ideas enjoy a monopoly until the one off companies catch on... You would think a patent would be in reach for some of them.

Great sayings, Isaac! And great points too! I know people that won't buy name brand stuff at outlet type stores because it is cheaper. It can't be as good if it doesn't cost as much. LOL

As someone earlier said, there is a price point for everyone. Speakers are a great example of this. There are $50 pairs of speakers, $50,000 pairs of speakers and all prices in between.

Oh and as to new innovation being stifled, remember "Necessity is the mother of invention".

If there is a need, someone will meet that need.

And if they patent it, they just might get rich!

There are some serious business idiots in this threads. "He didn't spend tens of thousands of dollars in R & D to come up with the same product! Blasphemy!"

Jesus.. Take a business 101 course.. 99% of the •••••••• buy every single day whether its your car or the gas in your car or the food you eat is a "knock off" of something that cost a lot more to produce (that you also couldn't and wouldn't pay for)..

Good for Ken.

Some serious butt hurt ••••••• in this thread.

This is an extremely subjective debate depending on which side of the money you are on.

For example, business principles who identify with investing several hundred thousand dollars to launch and stock a product will almost unanimously take one side.

In contrast, some consumers will support any scenario that will save them money for the here and now.

Either perspective is generally predicated on to what degree you see yourself benefiting. Others are skirting the big picture and are just arguing the fine points.

But here's the acid test. Many will recall how defensive and protectionistic Ken became when the table was turned on him by Robert during the underwater lighting issue. His tune changed 180 degrees when his role was reversed.

Ken brought real clarity to at least a portion of the debate by his polarized positions depending on which side of the situation he found himself.

David
Earmark Marine

Would duplicating products be more difficult if American manufacturers were used? I'm not in manufacturing, but from what I understand, Chinese manufacturers are notoriously bad about ignoring patents. I was just curious if domestic manufacturers were more prone to protecting their customers who do not have patents.

How about an english course too?

Your sentence has more periods than a female junior high locker room.

What I find odd, is that true innovation isn't the always the most expensive option. in fact, the innovation may be what makes it cheaper!

Case study:
Monster Tower.

When Monster Came to market, they had a brand new, innovative product that fitted stacks of boats and featured many new developments (Which were eventually patented). The Monster Tower took the market by storm... and was cheap! It benefited from mass manufacturing and a standardized design. I'm not sure of many comparable options that were anywhere near on price. Back when they launched, you could have a monkey bar, or a a similarly slimmed down tower.... or you could buy a full custom unit.

Monster was innovative and priced very well... and filled a gapping void in the industry... which Thousands of you jumped on board with.

Now That was innovation, and, relatively cheap (under 900 bucks at launch with free shipping and a 5 year warranty).

If ken wants to compete with the big boys - chase this route. Something new. something that doesn't cost the earth to develop and offers something new.

Why rip someone else off when in actual fact, this industry still bares opportunity for fresh ideas that don't put someone else out of business for being innovative.

hey jeff have you ever did r&d before if you have then you would know how much it cost.. it not cheap.. from the time you start with your first drawing to the final phase it get really costly ...

jman i never said i was going to patent it..second did you see the pic.. if was the first rack that would hold 2 wake and a surf, NOBODY had a rack like this ... now you have a few different companies make rack similar to it but not the same thats cool, what ken did is saw the rack and shipped it china and said make this please , on the rack the surf went in the middle and the board went on the out side ... go to his website look at his then look at my... there is a reason that i got out when i did , this industry went to crap, at first you good quality products , now well you guys see whats going on ....

(Message edited by mikewills on August 26, 2009)

^^^Don't look now, but a living example of what I tried to point out above...innovation leaving our industry because they were knocked off. Who knows what Mike would have created for you and me? Maybe nothing, maybe the next great boat accessory. I guess we'll never know.

Have you guys ever heard of "Patent Pending" Look it up. Most of these products don't qualify because they are just new looking was to do the same old thing. When people come up with NEW ideas they get a Patent Pending bring the product to market see how it goes, usually by the time the Patent Pending has lapsed people in our industry have moved on.
R and D is expensive but not really that bad in this industry, I have made all kinds of things there is no FEA studies to do, or any studies for that matter, that's when R and D get pricey.
Plain and simple if you want your stuff to be protected then PROTECT IT otherwise shut your mouth!!! ITS CHEAP IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. Not the suing part though Lawyers well...That's a different topic all together.
Case in point. DO you think Hyperlite was the first to make "Wake Skis" NOPE I know of a certain guy that made a set in his garage years before. AND he probably wasn't the first either. It wasn't a good idea so he didn't protect his idea.
Dave, do you think you could find that picture? I'd like to have it in my file.

CIE...HAVE MANY PATENTS DO YOU HAVE ?

I haves nose mores Patent pendings, Profechinallys I haves 10 or so patents. WHY DOES YOU ASKS??!

Innovate not Imitate

Some say
plagiarism is the highest form of flattery
I say
plagiarism is the highest form of Doushe-Baggery

"Doushe-Baggery", that is a good word, I'm going to use it more. You coming to visit us this Christmas?

He who participates in "Dousche-baggery" is known as a "Dousche Monkey"..... just in case you were wondering.

it is called free enterprise

^^^ No, it's not.

CIE UMMM IM NOT SURE WHAT YOU SAYING , BUT ANY HOW I WAS JUST WONDERING, FROM WHAT I CAN MAKE OUT OF THAT YOU HAVE SO THAT GOOD THEN YOU KNOW THE COST OF THIS, NOW I CAN SEE MICROSOFT DO A PATIENT FOR SOME SOFT WARE . LETS SAY 50% OF THE U.S. CAN OR WILL USE IT,THAT MAKE SENSE THATS COST EFFECTIVE, NOW IN OUR SMALL INDUSTRY LESS THAN 1% OF THE U.S. IS EVEN ABLE TO USE THESE PRODUCTS AND IF YOUR LUCKY YOU WILL GET 3-6 % OF THE 1% , NOW WERE DO YOU JUSTIFY SPENDING 10-30K ON A PATIENT , PLUS I PRETTY SURE A PATENT WOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE , THEREFORE YOU WILL JUST BE WASTING YOUR CASH. JUST BECAUSE A PRODUCT IS NOT PATENTED DOES NOT GET SOMEONE THE RIGHT TO STEAL YOU IDEA ( LEGALLY YES ,BUT THAT MAKES THEM AS GRANT SAID A "Doushe-Baggery" ) WHAT IT ALL COME DOWN TO IS THE WAY YOU WANT TO RUN YOUR BUSINESS. DO YOU WANT TO BE KNOW AS THE COMPANY THAT CREATES NEW COOL PRODUCTS OR THE COMPANY THAT STEALS, THE COOL IDEAS , THATS UP TO THE OWNER, AS WE CAN SEE FROM THIS TOPIC , MANY OF YOU SUPPORT THE COMPANY'S THAT RUN THEIR BUSINESS WITH A LITTLE BIT OF MORAL, ETHICS AND PRIDE IN THE INDUSTRY , AND I SURE THEY THANK YOU , AND SOME OF YOU REALLY DONT CARE AS LONG AS YOU CAN GET IT CHEAPER, THATS COOL TOO , BUT WHEN YOU KEEP SEEING THE SAME PRODUCTS OVER AND OVER AND OVER, (WELL MAYBE WILL A DIFFERENT NAME ) YOU WILL KNOW WHY.. IN THE END YOUR ONLY HURTING THE SPORT YOU LOVE....

^^ worst post evar (with an a)!! Dude your posts are so annoying to read since you have horrible grammar and spelling!.. learning english and turn your caps off..

thank you !!! never said i was an English major !!!!!

(Message edited by mikewills on August 26, 2009)

(Message edited by mikewills on August 26, 2009)

I started to post something that would have not been very nice, but I deleted it. I just hope a recent, previous post speaks for itself. Unbelievable!

I think Ty-one-on meant "free enterprise" as it relates to capitalism. Where economies are controlled by the laws of supply and demand... just a guess...

lol...
i am just tired of this thread and how angry it is making everyone...it is not healthy.

Nice edit Mike

TY,

Who is getting angry? I hope no one is. It is an open discussion about a subject that people have differing views on. I think it is healthy. It makes us think and that is good. At least most of us are thinking before we post. I respect the opinion opposite of mine even if I don't agree with it.

Maybe I need to clear something up, I don't in any way support stealing Ideas EXACTLY, I do support changing and making someones idea better. I also say that if your ideas are so great that you are going to get pissed when some one takes them, find ways to protect your ideas, but remember this is America (and China) nothing is safe!!!

I thinking that Mikes first language isn't English, But his profile doesn't say where he is from. So I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I am commenting on the instance with Mike. Between your rack and Kens, it is not an exact replica. Your rack is totally different in many ways besides the fact it is a combo rack. I understand you are mad but i have never seen your rack marketed anywhere... where was it for sale? And didn't you say you came out with it in 05? Krypt didn't start selling this rack until this year. how long does someone have to wait to use the same idea to produce their own rack.

If you can be mad at someone for making a 3 board rack that doesn't look like yours then shouldn't the person who made the first wakeboard rack be pissed at everyone else too? Again, the comments are specifically about Mike's 3 board rack only. I can certainly understand some of the other beef's manufacturer's have with Ken but this one I'm not on board with...

Pic of Kens 3 board rack

Don't shop at Wal-Mart! They are a knock off of major brands that cost 4 times more!

Down with Capitalism! Up with expensive R & D !

Now you've gone and done it, Ian! The picture that you posted of Ken's rack shows that he copied Jesse James' iron cross too. You are just stirring the pot now!

Just kidding of course.

Mike, why didn't you start producing the rack 4 years ago?

^^^ Spent too much time/money on R & D - couldn't afford to produce it.

Well its easy I did not have the cash at the time , I was pretty young and green behind the ears back then, I did not have the backing like ken does I'm only 30 now , and I'm prettysure the racks look pretty close to the same. And for everbody that keep bring up my grammer , if it makes you feel more like man then go for it. I thought we were out of high school.

Yea, it looks a TON of R&D went into that rack . Jeff thanks for laugh! this thread was starting to get "all business"

Mike, so you sent it Texas, not wanting to make/market the thing yourself. And someone "stole" your idea 4 years later... What is that "S" in the middle of your rack?

No, we're not in high school, but that crap is hard to read... FYI

Mike,
All we have to judge each other by is what we type here. A typo here or there in a message is one thing. When I have to go back and re-read a message three or four times and still can't understand what is being said because of mispelled or the wrong use of words, no capitalization, no punctuation, etc. it is easy for me to think that I am dealing with someone that is uneducated. That is not always the case, but it is an assumption that is easy to make. Sometimes, as someone else commented, it turns out that english is not the person's first language. That is completely different. I know I try to take the time to proofread my posts in preview before posting because I do want to be taken seriously. Typos and such still get by me, but I do want to seem credible. I'm not just saying this about your posts, Mike, or even just posts on Wakeworld. I find this problem at other sites that I visit daily. It is a shame that people don't take the time to proofread what they are about to send out for the world to read. It is a representation of themselves.

Seriously, There is no R&D in those racks, Period, stop saying that Mike. There is no RESEARCH or DEVELOPMENT in a wakeboard rack. You dream up the idea,(or copy it) you build it DONE!!!
I built a set of racks for a buddy it took me a day to design them, mill them and polish them. Funny they were surf racks, even better they looked a lot like yours, but I haven't seen yours ever. There is only a few ways to skin a cat!!!! Know what I mean?
MOVING ON!!!!

I cant believe i just wasted 15 minutes on this thread...