Can we organize a boycott of GoreTex?

I stopped using Gortex and switched to Event a few years ago for everything except boots.

Did try Eevnt boots once (Kayland) and they didnt work out.

I think that has been in place for many years by many BPL members. They don't use the product.

The only thing I use Gore in is socks for winter hiking.

To think…all that madness and manipulation over a product I'm not convinced even works.

"I think that has been in place for many years by many BPL members. They don't use the product."

Perhaps some, but not all. I have a number of Gore and Gore-like items in my collection. Gore isn't perfect, but it is better than anything else that I've used.

–B.G.–

@Craig: And this is why Gore needs to maintain their stranglehold over the industry. :)

Patagonia recently moved to GoreTex.

I have heard Arc'Teryx has wanted to move away from Gore, or at least expand, but were explicitly told they would lose all Gore affiliation by doing so. I suspect they've kept their ties because they can't afford to give up their military contracts.

Thanks Ben! That was a really enlightening article.

Reminds me of what I thought I knew about Gore: inferior products (as compared to eVent), shady business practice (marketing hype, monopolistic behavior).

"Gore isn't perfect, but it is better than anything else that I've used."

I've read feedback like that in all different places — so not picking on Bob (or anyone else) in particular. But I have yet to read one that says "better than anything else I've used… including eVent".

"shady business practice"

If Gore's business practices become illegal, then the feds will close them down. If they are not illegal, then that might be an example of modern marketing and is likely to continue.

What is shady to one person might be breathtaking to another person.

–B.G.–

Since we are talking about wp/b, I am much more interested in gear breathability — then 'breathtaking' business practices. My focus is much more on the sheer absence of reviews praising the breathability of Goretex over eVent.

I also don't see legality as a good determinant of moral practice. Indeed, our laws are there mostly to punish the most egregious of shady practices. Just to be legal — by itself — is a pretty low hurdle.

"shady business practice"

Funny we should blame Gore. Most of the advertising for Gore-Tex is in reality done by the gear manufacturers and retailers. And the concerns folks have about the true WPB issues of GoreTex have been around since 1977. None of this is new news. Don't the gear manufacturers and retailers test their products? Of course they do… they advertise so. I blame the last two groups more than Gore… they perpetuated, enabled and allowed Gore to become what it is… of course the buying public had a hand in it too.

Hmm, Nick. But isn't the question here about Gore's practice of cutting off businesses' license and access to their products, thereby damaging, and possibly even putting out of business, their licensees? Whether or not the other companies helped to promote Gore is not the question, is it? It's the threatening that is suspect. If Gore wants to have exclusive dibs on their products shouldn't they be making their own clothing?

The Gore policies are no different in my experience than eVent makers policies. The
folks that make eVent limit who can use their products.

Also a friend at Patagonia told me long ago that eVent didn't prove durable enough their
use.

I think it should be illegal to threaten your customers with not selling them your product if they also buy your competitor's.

We have a long history of doing this – like with oil and steel – and Microsoft. Occasionally companies have had anti-trust regulations imposed on them. We've stopped doing it the last 40 years or so, which is part of why we're in such a mess now.

I have both Gore-Tex and eVent and they're about equal – eVent a little better DWR – according to that article Gore-Tex is more durable

I think WPB is much better than the alternatives, but not magic. They'll keep your dry in light rain if you don't wear too much, and if they get wet in heavy rain or if you wear too much and sweat, they'll dry out fairly quickly.

I think it should be illegal to threaten your customers with not selling them your product if they also buy your competitor's.

That's why Gore is being investigated both in the EU and in the States. It's part of what the article is all about. Possible anti-trust violations.

What is vaguely interesting is that some companies do happily make full spec 'own brand' 3 layer waterproofs while using Gore. Norrona and Haglofs for instance. Since they're typically also rather cheaper, unsure why anyone would get the Gore ones actually.
(there's certainly a very obvious, rather silly premium for proshell stuff.).

"If Gore's business practices become illegal, then the feds will close them down." "Gore is being investigated in the US & EU."

Wow, the degree of naivete exhibited in some of these comments is astounding! For the last 5-7 years, "too big to fail" has become enshrined as national policy. It's why clear-cut felony charges are either not pursued, or rolled-over to wrist-slap civil penalties. (If even that.)

The way to invest is to first determine which company/organization is TBTF in its respective industry segment. By far and away, the two most important industries in the US are banking & military. So let's go through the analysis:

Gore-Tex is the shiznick for cold/wet US military applications. Therefore, Gore-Tex will never be prosecuted, and in fact, laws will be ignored and/or amended to facilitate such a prime supplier continuing to deliver what are considered essential goods required by the MIC.

End.Of.Story.

" think it should be illegal to threaten your customers with not selling them your product if they also buy your competitor's.

That's why Gore is being investigated both in the EU and in the States. It's part of what the article is all about. Possible anti-trust violations."

The anti-trust laws still exist, but we've mostly quit enforcing them the last 40 years.

It's like a fad or hysteria that we believe "the free market" solves all problems.

Hopefully this hysteria will "break" at some point.

Like when Edward R. Murrow exposed McCarthyism and suddenly the commie witch hunt dissappeared.

My waders are made by a Manufacturer who uses Gore-Tex. My rain wear is made by one who doesn't. If you don't like what a maker makes… don't buy it. Seems to be a lot of hoopla over something that doesn't really effect many of us.

"Hmm, Nick. But isn't the question here about Gore's practice of cutting off businesses' license and access to their products, thereby damaging, and possibly even putting out of business, their licensees? Whether or not the other companies helped to promote Gore is not the question, is it? It's the threatening that is suspect. If Gore wants to have exclusive dibs on their products shouldn't they be making their own clothing?"

It is simple. The licensee entered into a contract with Gore. If the licensee breaks the terms of the contract, Gore can act per the terms. If the licensee feels Gore did not adhere to the conditions of the agreement, they can go to court. It is not smart to build your business dependent upon a technology you do not own or cannot control if you do not wish to adhere to the terms and conditions. Nobody is forced to do business with Gore, they choose too. If REI had any cojonees, they would drop all Gore products and promote eVent or some other technology… I bet that would catch the attention of the industry.

If your bank raises your checking account fees, then you switch banks. If ALL banks get together and fix the fees, then that is a problem.

The good thing about capitalism is that when someone builds a successful product like GoreTex, then other companies try to build something better to cash in on the market demand.

Unfortunately monopoly situations don't work like banks raising your checking fees.

"The licensee entered into a contract with Gore. If the licensee breaks the terms of the contract, Gore can act per the terms…"

If the contract said they couldn't sell to black people, would that be okay? (okay, maybe ridiculous example)

It shouldn't be legal to require that your customers can't also buy from your competitor.

If your product is better, then people will buy it – free market…

Jerry,

In the past Gore has never pulled a license if a company used other products, only you could not say another product was better. However, it looks like they maybe handling eVent a little differently… perhaps they are worried about eVent. Who knows.

McDonald's does not allow the their franchisees to buy ANYTHING from another company. And that makes sense, McDonald's wants to make sure the delivered product is standardized.

Car companies cannot force a dealership not to sell another brand, but they can require the dealer to build a separate showroom for their product.

If a car breaks under warranty, the manufacturer REQUIRES the dealer to replace the defective part with an OEM part. Nothing wrong with that. However a car company cannot force the consumer to purchase maintenance items from them, if a competing product meets the OEM standards, as a condition of continued warranty coverage.

I don't care for GoreTex and haven't bought a GoreTex item in nearly 30 years. So I am not defending the product. What I am saying is that if a company does not like how GoreTex conducts business, then don't but the product. Let the market place determine the outcome. If Gore's licensing terms are illegal, then let the courts decide. No has to buy Gore products, they choose too. If a licensee feels Gore engages in poor business practices, then why on earth would they want to be a partner. Jump ship. Find an alternative.