Topic
Become a member to post in the forums.
Wow- that's ridiculous. I guess you don't have to answer, but have you sold 1000 cone setups yet?
I personally don't own any patents, but I have been involved in getting a few patents filed. My first original "invention" is in the patent process right now. It is a total pain in the butt, and I really dislike the way our patent attorney writes patents.
BM
Patent law is a complex area in most countries, presumably also in the US: personally I wouldn't be commenting on it or making any presumptions about enforceability or legality of a patent unless I was an experienced practitioner. Bush lawyering aside, from a non-lawyer perspective I'd suggest the smell test: if it doesn't smell right then don't do it.
Personally I think that making something that so clearly copies someone else's product is clearly wrong. I had thought several times over the years about how the principle which Trangias operate on could be used to make a lighter product. At the time no-one at TLB or BPL was interested because, since Trangias were and are little known in the US, it wasn't understood that it wasn't simply a case of whacking a windscreen around a meths burner: there is a different process at work in a Trangia. I also remember repeatedly posting that you got better burning by turning the Trangia's holes into the wind (and that you could add water to the methylated spirits) but to no avail. There were some earlier products like the Clikstand but they didn't get the design principle. So, in my view, what Trail Designs came up with WAS original – it's a brilliant, elegant design because it works and it's as simple as it needs to be. It wasn't a minor change or refining of an earlier product (like most "soda can" stoves or the cut-down Trangias that some people used) but a new approach.
Can the same be said for the clones?
> what Trail Designs came up with WAS original – it's a brilliant, elegant design because it works and it's as simple as it needs to be. It wasn't a minor change or refining of an earlier product
Thanks! :-)
The cloners calling their projects "Caldera Cones" says it all.
By the way, the new website looks great, Rand!
> By the way, the new website looks great, Rand!
Thanks again! :-)
Many people don't care for my opinions, so here it is anyway…
"Interesting point- but what if there's no loss of sale? For the form factor reason's I've already outlined, and that fact that I'd never pay $35 plus tax and shipping for something so relatively simple to make, with tools and materials I already have on hand"
TD came up with the design that works. Lots of R&D invested here in addition to the costs associated with a patent. TD RISKED a lot of money to bring it to market, with no guarantee they would make a dime. By posting your design and a link to a template is stealing… IMO a moral issue, aside from the legal.
Does it? There were lots of MP3 players before the iPod. There were millions and millions of cell phones before the iPhone. Those two products made Apple on of the most valuable companies in the world. Build and better mousetrap, don't copy one. If something is in the public domain, then legally you can use it to develop your mousetrap.
How did backpackers exist before the Caldera Cone? TD owns the patent, the public's need has nothing to do with it at all… other than if it serves a need they can purchase a Cone from TD. This is why they developed it, so they could sell it to the people who need it. They own it, it is their's and that is the most important point. And that is why I pointed this out early on. Same goes for life saving equipment and drugs… just because some may benefit from an invention/product does not mean they have a right to it; what would they do if the person/company did not invent it in the first place? A consumer has a right to a product if they enter into a buyer/seller agreement. And that is why people/companies develop new products, to make money. If a product costs $1 or $10 million it is the same; the invention belongs to the owner. Lastly, IMO, a patent should run forever unless the owner (person/company) perishes intestate.
P.S. I have 3 Caldera Cones, all purchased legally. Fantastic product. Thanks Trail Designs!!
>"as much as you may hate the philosophy of the patent office"
I don't hate the idea, I'm in favor of it. But I think the procedures and time frames of 50 years ago were better than they are today, likewise with copyrights.
Extending copyrights to 75 years and then beyond just to save Disney from Mickey Mouse going into public domain?!? I see how it benefits Disney, a progressive, creative company and a nice place to work. But how does it motivate creativity? Disney (the man) is dead. Everyone who worked on the Steamboat Willie is dead. Why should their heirs (and more commonly the companies that bought the rights) continue to tax the consumer for the creative work of dead people, who were financed at times by shareholders who are now dead?
The New York Philharmonic can record Beethoven or Bach, and they have rights to THAT RECORDING but not to the original work, nor did they have to pay some Austrian who is the 4th cousin, 5 times removed of some dead composer who died childless. And I think that is appropriate. Disney picked of the bones of Hans Christian Anderson (Little Mermaid), and so many other classic tales (Snow White, etc) as they are now doing with A. A. Milne's Pooh. Yet they want their creations to remain theirs forever. I disagree with that double standard.
Patents have been following the trend in copyrights as corporate interests try to capitalize on historic intellectual property. The framers of the constitution allowed for patents and copyrights and clearly saw there needs to be a balance between motivating creativity but not letting one entity lock up a concept forever. I think that balance has swung too far towards corporate interests and away from socetial interests.
Again, none of this is to speak for or against TD's work. I'm giving my thoughts about patent and intellectual property in general.
And I think for truly innovative work – not tweaks on prior art – it shouldn't cost an inventor >10k to get through the process. Innovation happens in the lab, design group, and on the drawing board, not in a lawyer's office.
>"There were lots of MP3 players before the iPod. There were millions and millions of cell phones before the iPhone. Those two products made Apple on of the most valuable companies in the world."
My recollection of the 1970's is that Apple became the faster company to reach $1,000,000,000 worth in the history of the world on the strengths of the Apple II. I've built a few Apple II from bare boards (they used to sell bare circuit boards), and there's a little bit of stuff in their from HP but more from Atari. So while Jobs was a incredible marketeer decades later and Woz was the ubernerd in the 1970's, it's not like they they didn't pick a few bones themselves.
Obviously we're aware of tremendously successful companies. That doesn't mean the process couldn't be better. I see cases where a company shies away from using a technology because another firm has a broad, somewhat vague patent on the process. Okay, maybe that company should be more aggressive, and challange the patent's validity, but often that doesn't make financial sense. I'd rather see the patent office set a higher bar in terms of being truly innovative and especially the "non-obvious" clause. Because breakthough ideas should get some protection but derivative ideas and basic good engineering and design should now. IMO.
I don't agree it's stealing.
The common idea is using a cone shaped windshield to support a pot – CP gives full credit to TD for this notion and warns against using the template for selling cones – they are for self use/experimentation only.
I have made a few clones for my own use using this template.
2 years after making the first one I finally saw a TD cone in the flesh – they appear to have a different shape (proportions), be made of different material, have different air hole arrangement and have a very different fastening than anything I have made…
So it's not a direct copy – it's the concept that has been 'copied'
I guess CP's main error IMO has been to associate with the template, the name Caldera and the word 'clone' (which suggests a direct copy of the product – it's not) Naive maybe, but not a 'for profit' crime.
The clone script is designed from bottom up as far as I can see – not copying the design, but starting from the same concept (I don't think the idea of a potstand/windshield all in one per se was particularly new)
If anyone else feels worked up about this, maybe they should read the OM thread – they will see it's in the same freesharing spirit as many MYOG threads on here and not a 'stealing exercise' http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages.asp?v=2&urn=5&utn=22357&umn=
Plenty times on this forum have I read of folks MYOG projects which are modified copies of existing gear? Often that gear will have been measured, manufacturing details copied and then modified.
It'd be just as easy to say that many UL pack makers have stolen from Ray Jardine….
and that the original Chimney Kettle maker was stolen from by Kelly Kettle or the Backcountry Boiler maker…. (I agree M Kettle did appear to steal specific details/designfrom the latter!) How many folk out there are using a non-TAR self-inflating mat?
Someone has to invent a notion first – The folk at TD did so for a UL cone and then developed the idea and have a great range of products. Personally I wouldn't buy a basic cone from them, as I prefer to make/modify my own and make my own alcohol stoves. I also think they are too expensive/vulnerable/awkward to pack for me. So they are not losing my dollar by me using the template.
But, I do hope to afford to buy a Ti-Tri inferno or Sidewinder one day soon… Looks a very versatile piece of kit.
I've been giving this a lot of thought lately myself–definitely a timely thread.
First, I want to say how impressed I am with TD's Caldera Cones. I had a tough time talking myself out of a JetBoil Sol Ti, but once I saw (and understood) the Caldera Cone system, I no longer wanted another canister stove. The design is simple, elegant, and a much more responsible use of resources. It's also (relatively) fast and reliable. While I haven't bought one yet, I've got my eye on an Evernew 900mL pot and either the Ti-Tri or the traditional system with esbit stand. As far as I'm concerned, they have earned the patents on their system and deserve a lot of business because of that.
All that said above, I do want to add a couple of relevant points that haven't gotten the attention they deserve yet in this thread.
One of the reasons that I think people are responding strongly to UM and others like Captain Paranoia making Caldera-type clones is the nature of the cottage industry. Rand & Co. are active here on the forums, and–by all accounts that I've seen–they make an excellent, reliable product and are readily available to help. They even go out of their way to make things like the Fissure which takes far more labor and attention for (what I'm guessing) is only a marginal increase in profit. I have yet to see any bad press about their customer service, communication, or products. They're a small, cottage company that knows the BPL community well and that the BPL community knows well.
In other words, if someone figured out a relatively easy way to make a NeoAir-like pad from readily available materials and then posted that method on the forums for others, our reactions would be very different. (This isn't a perfect analogy. Obviously, the NeoAir is a far more complicated product to produce than the Caldera Cone system. Though, I don't see degree of technical ability as relevant to my argument.) Therm-a-Rest is a big company, and it's owned by the even larger Cascade Designs, who owns MSR, Platypus, and other major players in the outdoor industry. First off, any hit to their bottom line by MYOG NeoAirs will probably be minimal. Even if it were wildly popular on BPL, Whiteblaze, Outdoors Magic, etc. the few who make rather than buy will be much smaller as a percentage compared to Trail Designs.
To add to that, while I've also heard of several excellent reports on TAR's customer service and availability, we don't know them like we know the Trail Designs Crew. We're not as personally invested in their development as a business. Like I said, we just don't know them, and our interaction here on the forums with the real players at TD (versus some customer service rep on the phone or by email at TAR) really means something–personally and commercially. It's immensely satisfying to use something on the trail built by someone you feel you know and whose care and attention to detail you don't doubt.
This connection between between business and customer makes them both people again (a more classical model of capitalism, versus the impersonal megacapitalism that emerged from the Industrial Revolution). I think it's admirable and a big part of why I want to purchase from Trail Designs in the future.
I think the other thing that has been missed in the discussion so far is that the cone itself is not really what Trail Designs is selling. What they offer is the whole Caldera Cone system–the 12-10 stove comes bundled with each of their cones. The stove itself is designed for exactly the conditions which the cone creates–high heat, low oxygen. Not only that, but it is has become the benchmark for alcohol stove efficiency. Take away the cone, and that drops dramatically. Or as Rand has pointed out on other threads, using another stove with the Caldera Cone isn't going to work nearly as well either. (If I remember correctly, he said it more strongly than that–no other stove will work well at all.) The 12-10 stove is an essential part of the simplicity and reliability of the Caldera Cone.
So when it comes to making your own cone, I don't see the moral problem (the legality of patent laws is beyond me, so I'll leave that for others to comment on). The cone is a basic geometric shape, and while it is innovative and creative to use the cone as TD does (and clearly patent-worthy), making one for your own personal use shouldn't be considered a moral failure. Frankly, all the skills you would need to make a basic cone are taught in freshman geometry. And any student with above-average intelligence, a formula chart, and a decent calculator ought to be able to do it well before that. Of course, to make one functional, you'd need some understanding of wind and oxygen flow that are easily gained again in high school, through trial and error, or on the trail (of course, others more knowledgeable could help you out, too). Taking that into account, I just don't see how making your own cone is so wrong–especially when you also consider that you haven't replicated the Caldera Cone system, just its most basic geometrical aspect.
As for Captain Paranoia's postscript, I think the issue is a little less clear, but not much. You measure your pot, input the numbers, and it generates a template for a cone template that you can print out. Basically, it does all that 9th grade math for you. My TI-83 Plus in high school could have done that. Sure, it adds an option to do a Fissure-like cone, but again, that's cutting a cone in half (basic math) and adding some tabs. The joint pattern is different and based on common knowledge, and the venting holes are different. It does leave a space for your pots handles very much like the Caldera Cone, but an average freshman could make that modification to a cone with nothing more than a ruler and some scissors. In other words, CP's postscript does nothing that a reasonably intelligent person with a freshman-level education couldn't do given more time (and some error). That doesn't meet the minimum requirements for infringement on intellectual property, in my humble opinion.
All that being said, if CP offered a set of instructions for building your own 12-10 with the cone, I could see that being a much more salient issue. As it stands, he's only duplicated the most basic part of the CC system, all of which stands well within the realm of common knowledge.
I will say, though, that I'm not a fan of the name "Caldera Clone." For one, it clearly takes the Caldera trademark, using Trail Designs' intellectual property to garner notice. Second, it unnecessarily muddies the waters. Caldera doesn't own the geometric shape of the cone, and CP offers nothing that isn't already in the public domain.
Like I said, I love what Trail Designs has created, and I look forward to purchasing their set-up some time in the (hopefully near) future. They are an excellent company, and I'm glad to support them because of their products and their personal connection. But I see no problem with others making their own cones or using Captain Paranoia's postscript. Personally, full disclosure, I also plan on making a making a cone for my Foster's can pot with help from CP postscript. I'm looking forward to the learning process of designing and testing different stoves for it. It's one more step toward my goal of taking a trip with only (or almost only) gear I made myself.
/*/Edited for clarity and grammar/*/
Clayton,
I agree. The geometry is pretty basic. The stove is a variation of the older Brasslite, probably some others before that. Nothing really new. The IDEA of using it as a windscreen, pot support, heat reflector together certainly deserved a patent.
I do not see a moral issue if you as an individual, wanted to make one for yourself. Or play with stove design. You can tweak Trail Designs designs to somwhat higher efficiency. Suit yourself. If you want someting you can simply buy and use, Trail Designs cones are about the best. The system they offer has all the essentials for a really well performing system. You don't really need to do anything. For the majority of BPers, this makes it worth it. Well worth trading an hour or two of labour (measured in dollars) to have something that works.
For others, those on a budget, those retired, time is not much of an issue. A half a day spent tweaking a program, printing a template, cutting parts, assembling them, means you can have roughly the same performance: sometimes better, sometimes worse, depending on your exact system. Another half day on the stove, maybe more, depending on the exact style, size, and performance you expect. Hell, I spent a couple months building brasslite clones, only to later find the 12-10 stove was close to what I was looking for. Here is a picture of an early model:
Note that this is also a chimney style stove, drawing air from the bottom, and feeding into the top…very similar to TD's 12-10. It works well in clones sized to fit the taller stove with a slightly better efficiency, just over a half ounce for two cups as opposed to just under 5/8ounce for TD's 12-10. But, the 2 grams is really not worth raving about, nor worth the effort involved. The cone and stove are both heavier due to the extra height needed. More than offsetting the fuel savings. Generally this stove is a failure.
Anyway, one of the things about the 12-10 stove that is not widely advertised, is that it IS a two walled stove with cooling air being drawn up the sides. This gives it a big advantage in their cones. It does not overheat easily and is not susepible to the IR reflection happening in a cone. It works well. Kudos to Rand, et al, again, for good system engineering.
In my opinion the name "Caldera clone" name is a free advertisement for the commercial Trail Designs Caldera cone: the clues in the name: anyone reading the OM thread would learn of The Trail designs cone and in that thread CP gave thanks, credit and a web link to Trail Designs for coming up with the idea of the Caldera Cone in the first place.
I think the Trail Designs Caldera cone is a good idea and it is good it is commercially available: I bought one before trying a "home-made frustum stove".
If I had invented the caldera cone ( unlikely :) ). There was and old European stove with a conic windshield on whose rim the pot was supported, although the windshield cone was inverted with respect to the Caldera.
It seems in most other (non-USA) countries patents simply don't cover making stuff for you own non-commercial use, i.e. making your own caldera clone (homemade frustum windshield) is not an infringement because you are not selling it commercially.
Patents and their defence are expensive: with a first to file patent system, an alternative is to publish the design thus gaining prior art to preventing someone else patenting your invention, and relying on brand name/trademark, quality etc, to keep customers.
NB TD=Trail Designs
"In my opinion the name "Caldera clone" name is a free advertisement for the commercial Trail Designs Caldera cone: the clues in the name: anyone reading the OM thread would learn of The Trail designs cone and in that thread CP gave thanks, credit and a web link to Trail Designs for coming up with the idea of the Caldera Cone in the first place."
I am going to respectfully disagree. And I want to point out that many others have created similar threads, so I am not picking on Mr. Ultra.
The original post did not give credit, reference, or mention that the Caldera Cone is patented by Trail Designs or that "Caldera" is a registered Trademark of Trail Designs. As a matter of fact he gave kudos to someone named Paranoia. I believe that "Caldera" is the registered trademark, not Caldera Cone. If that is the case, then the entire picture changes, to include the original subject line.
As a matter of fact (IMO and I am not an attorney), using Caldera, Caldera Cone, or Caldera Clone is "genericizing" the product, which could eventually cause Trail Designs to lose the trademark if they allow it to continue. One case that comes to mind is the Otis Elevator Company. At one time they owned the name "Escalator," and moving stairways were often referred to as escalators, when in fact the only "escalators" were the moving stairways built by Otis. Otis compounded the problem by referring to "escalators" in a generic way in their advertising. Otis lost a VERY VALUABLE trademark because of this.
Now here is the problem as I see it, Rand is such a nice guy he usually does not make a stink about it. But he should.
If you want to build your own version of TD's product, there isn't much they can do about it, as long as you do not sell it or publicize it. However, posting it could be problematic as you are showing people how to "reverse-engineer" it, and encouraging people to build a product whose design belongs to TD.
Nick Gatel said
"The original post did not give credit, reference, or mention that the Caldera Cone is patented by Trail Designs or that "Caldera" is a registered Trademark of Trail Designs. As a matter of fact he gave kudos to someone named Paranoia. I believe that "Caldera" is the registered trademark, not Caldera Cone. If that is the case, then the entire picture changes, to include the original subject line."
But I said "anyone reading the OM thread would learn of The Trail designs cone and in that thread CP gave the thanks, credit and a web link"
i.e. was referring to the OutdoorsMagic.com Thread detailing the postscript development. However, even on this thread, I think any initial misunderstanding of what was CP was being praised for (the postscript) and that Trail Designs created the commercial Caldera cone first (for which they are applauded) was quickly cleared up.
Nick Gatel said
" "genericizing" the product, which could eventually cause Trail Designs to lose the trademark"
"Caldera cone" and "caldera clone" are different phrases escalator is one word: I don't know . If Rand (Lindsly) had a preferred alternative to the name "caldera clone" he could say: no need to be "not nice" when no malice was intended or offered from the original OM thread, and those on this thread quickly attempted to clear up the misunderstanding.
Nick Gatel said
"posting it could be problematic as you are showing people how to "reverse-engineer" it, and encouraging people to build a product whose design belongs to TD."
The patent itself does just that: anyone can read said patent on-line and see the structure of a caldera cone. Anyway, the concept of a truncated cone does not belong to TD, its a basic shape.
I'm not interested in buying any of the existing Caldera Cones, chiefly because of the bulky way they pack up. However, I would like to buy Ultras Caldera Clone, since it fits in the pot without taking up any room. Can Rand simply copy Ultras design since he has the patent?
I don't know but there is now an aluminium sidewinder.
http://www.traildesigns.com/stoves/caldera-sidewinder-system
Casey,
I think Rand said he already makes cones that are two piece, they are just not posted on his site. One of the great thinks about small companies is that they are often willing to make custom items. Give him a call.
"If Rand (Lindsly) had a preferred alternative to the name "caldera clone" he could say: no need to be "not nice" when no malice was intended or offered from the original OM thread, and those on this thread quickly attempted to clear up the misunderstanding."
I cannot speak for Rand, but in the past he often lets these things run their course… he really is too nice of a guy.
I am not saying that anyone had any ill intentions at all. What I am saying is that we must respect the property of others. Sort of like the ads at the beginning of some videos regarding pirating movies, "You wouldn't shoplift, would you?" To me it is the same principle.
"I don't agree it's stealing.
The common idea is using a cone shaped windshield to support a pot – CP gives full credit to TD for this notion and warns against using the template for selling cones – they are for self use/experimentation only. "
Yes, but prior to Trail Design's work were you using a cone shaped windshield to support a pot? No? So the idea came from TD. Dyson make bladeless fans: did the principle of the impeller exist before then? Yes. Had anyone thought to use an impeller as a fan, with all the advantages it provides? No. So, can everyone now just turn around and start using bladeless fans (or bagless vacuum cleaners) on the basis that, hey, it's just a principle of physics and their adoption of the principle is just a coincidence?
Those who want to use a Caldera Cone but not pay TD for one can rationalise it how they like, but it is stealing.
"I cannot speak for Rand, but in the past he often lets these things run their course… he really is too nice of a guy."
I think Rand is very nice, but also very smart. From a business standpoint there is no upside for him to make a stink out of people cloning his design. If he comes onto a forum and makes a stink about it, most will view it negatively and not take their business to TD. Then, copy his design anyway. If he tried to legally enforce his patent against someone posting their "clone" it's going to take a lot of time and legal fees for very little result. Then, folks will copy his design anyway.
Ryan
I think it looks great! You took a design of a product on market, tweaked it to fit your personal wants/needs and made one for yourself. Just like almost every thread in the MYOG forum.
It turned out real clean and seems to be what you were wanting. Keep it up.
Glad to see so many of you guys are ok with stealing.
It DOES NOT matter if you like the patent system or not. You are infringing on a guys patent. That is illegal. That is theft.
As for the the claims that this like everybody does..well if another post is helping and encouraging patent infringement that is wrong too. But many of the so called same things thrown around are different. Because they aren't protected by a patent.
<del></del>
With the advent of 3D printing, powerful (and relatively inexpensive software), and 3D scanners, there is little doubt in my mind this will become one of the major issues in the future. Already, people are "printing" 3D objects. Complex 3D objects.
I suspect the same will happen in the future with more common objects. The obvious endpoint being the ability to take a photo of an object, run it through software and make a nearly identical copy. Granted, the insides of such an object won't magically be produced, but one could see the day when instead of ordering and waiting for an object to show up, I can order and print it.
Ah, the future. For now I will purchase a new Caldera Cone. The thing is if we want innovation in the cottage industry, we need to make such an industry viable.
Dirk
Bought my Trail Designs Heinekin Caldera Cone setup at the ADZPCTKO in 2009.
ADZPCTKO=Annual Day Zero Pacific Crest Trail Kick Off.
I am not sure if it was Rand himself who sold me my Caldera kit but the fella was awesome! Explained all about the 12-10 stove, how to fix the cone if it got bent, tips and tricks for using a Caldera in the wind, how to rehydrate food while simultenously making a hot drink.
That guy was not just selling me gear.. He was totally enthusiastic about the Caldera stove kit and what it could do for hikers on the PCT.
He was right, it is an awesome stove and i will never sell mine!
Here is a picture of my Trail Designs Heinekin stove.
By the way, I had a hard time trying to figure out why people keep saying the Caldera cone is "bulky" or hard to pack.
My Original Trail Designs Caldera Cone fits entirely into the Heinekin Beer can pot and is capped off with the 12-10 stove itself.
I thought i would show everyone my Original Trail Designs Caldera Cone Complete Kit.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The beauty of the complete system Rand made was that you can be rehydrating your meal in the insulated plastic cup and be drinking a hot cup of coffee out of the Heinekin can pot at the same time.
This stove system is tough. Mine spent time on the PCT and CDT and I still did not manage to kill it though I have just recently replaced the Heinekin can pot.. (burp).
Anyhow, back to the petty bickering.
Just thought I would share my experiences with an Original Trail Designs product.
P.S. I occurs to me that my bloody kitchen is a mess! Sorry for that!
Become a member to post in the forums.
advertisement
Discover under-the-radar ultralight gear from small brands.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
