Can we organize a boycott of GoreTex?

I'm still using my OR Zealot jacket made from GORE-TEX paclite material at 7.8oz for size L that I bought back in 2006. It even went on a PCT Thru-hike and still is in excellent shape and still waterproof without any need for adding some sort of special treatment. Despite not having those heavy features like pit zips, I have never found hiking in it to be a suana inside and have always stayed dry. Though in fairness, I normally hike with it upzipped with the sternum and hipbelt straps holding it closed which does help vent heat and sweat.

My point is, until someone sells a jacket that weighs less (and doesn't cost twice as much), breathes as well, and is as durable, I think I'll stick with using my GORE-TEX jacket for awhile longer.

I not saying they shouldn't be sued if they have done what is alleged (note, not proven as of now), but I'm not going to boycott something when I don't see a obviously better alternative which around here definitely includes superior weight.

"but I'm not going to boycott something when I don't see a obviously better alternative which around here definitely includes superior weight."

I agree. If you feel it is a superior product, by all means keep it and even purchase another if it needs replacement. I am not thrilled with GoreTex or any WBP fabric. I find none of them work well in constant rain and hard hiking. They all wet-out eventually and are saunas. I prefer a waterproof poncho and I can vent it. But that works for me and others hate it.

However, if I felt GoreTex was the perfect material I would buy it, irrespective of the complaints from vendors.

All of my earlier posts reflect my dislike of Goretex and its products. However, I too agree that "boycotting" is inappropriate — kind of like making a mountain out of a mole hill. No need for it at all.

Actually, I would not mind it if somebody organizes a boycott against Gore-Tex products. I would not participate in the boycott, but I would watch the retail market prices for those products. If the boycott were successful, it might make a teeny tiny dent in Gore-Tex demand. That would probably have the effect of encouraging the garment sellers to have more sales or reduce prices on the Gore-Tex products. Then I would swoop in and snag some garment that had seemed overpriced earlier.

–B.G.–

So yes, what gore is doing is not really illegal. That doesn't make it the right thing to do. Instead of getting the government to solve our problems, we should boycott them and raise awareness about their business practices. Gore tex is hurting the outdoor industry.

"So yes, what gore is doing is not really illegal. That doesn't make it the right thing to do. Instead of getting the government to solve our problems, we should boycott them and raise awareness about their business practices. Gore tex is hurting the outdoor industry."

Who is being harmed? Us? We can buy all kinds of Goretex stuff and the prices have dropped significantly over the past 35 years, isn't that good for the consumer?

Who is the outdoor industry? The gear makers? Well they do not have to deal with Gore at all. If the gear manufacturers are being harmed, they can boycott by not buying the material manufactured by Gore. If they were that unhappy, they would have done it a long time ago. But they like GoreTex products, they provide high profit margins. No one is holding a gun to their heads.

"Who is being harmed?"

Us

If Gore didn't use monopolistic practices gear would be cheaper and better

Gear makers would use more alternatives which would tend to be cheaper

Gore would be forced to lower their prices

Everyone would spend more time figuring how to make fabric that's better rather than on how to use or defend against monopolistic practices

But waterproof breathable fabric is a fairly small part of the economy and our quality of life so it's not very important

del

Jerry,

Everyone has been spending time trying to make a better material… since 1976. Some that come to mind are Bukflex, Entrant, Conduit, SympaTex, Todd-Tex, TriplePoint, eVent, H2NO, microurethane, Strata, HyVent, OmniDry, MemBrain, PreClip, etc. If GoreTex is that good, then they should charge whatever the market will bear. And the more they charge, the greater incentive for others to build a better mousetrap. Of course you probably prefer that the Government take over Gore :)

With all the alternatives, we cannot say Gore has a monopoly on WPB, theirs just works better than most… although I question whether any of them are really that good. Also Gore is very strict on how their material is used, they do the laminating and seam sealing, because they want to control quality so they are comfortable warrantying it.

There are lots of alternatives for the gear makers to use, most choose GoreTex. That is their decision, and they sign the dotted line for the licensing agreement.

And there are lots of alternatives for the consumer to choose too.

Most companies really do not like competition despite their public claims. If true, they probably went a bit overboard but really, if many own a couple different jackets – not likely most will own 2 Goretex jackets – probably a Goretex jacket, an eVent smock, a "just in case" 6 oz Hyvent triumph from TNF, a Cuben poncho/tarp, etc… for different situations.

"Most companies really do not like competition despite their public claims"

I think it is common knowledge that most want high market share.

Preferably by offering better goods and services, though marketeering is part of that game. Limiting consumer choice OTOH, by strong-arming apparel makers, does nothing to make their products better, and is bad publicity. Bad enough for a boycott? Not in my book, so whatever the Justice Dept. and EU sort out is what they will live with.

I never liked Gore tex before, now I will exercise my consumer vote and consciously avoid all their products in the future.
Dri-ducks offers a superior product (for my use) at a far superior price and event is my choice for cold weather shells. At least in this small way capitalism still survives American corporatism.

"Preferably by offering better goods and services, though marketeering is part of that game. Limiting consumer choice OTOH, by strong-arming apparel makers, does nothing to make their products better, and is bad publicity."

HK,

I agree with you for the most part. Only the consumer does have other choices… heck I listed a whole bunch of WPB options earlier.

Here is the problem to me… the gear makers want the high profit margin of GoreTex so they buckle to the pressure, instead of just saying, "No" and offering only the alternatives. There seems to be a high level of consensus that eVent works better, although some say it may not be as durable. If eVent is better, why haven't the gear makers switched? Because there is more money in their pockets selling the well known GoreTex brand. The gear makers could solve the problem easily… just quit using GoreTex if they have a problem with the way Gore operate, or better yet offer the best options to the pubic. Anywho… I don't use WPB fabrics at all anymore (with one exception), none have lived up to the hype. The exception is Rocky GoreTex socks in winter. I have bought a replace for those, but not enough snow here this winter to try them out :)

"Preferably by offering better goods and services, though marketeering is part of that game. Limiting consumer choice OTOH, by strong-arming apparel makers, does nothing to make their products better, and is bad publicity."

I think companies spend way more on marketing than research and development.

Most consumers don't have the time or inclination to figure out what works the best.

Strong-arming suppliers doesn't make their product better but it does make them more money by getting a bigger market share. For Gore, this might be their #1 method of getting market share.

The "bad publicity" hasn't hurt Gore who still has a large market share.

But, like I said, I would buy Gore if that was what was available.

I wish there was more development and information about DWR coatings. That might be more important than the membrane.

"The gear makers could solve the problem easily… just quit using GoreTex if they have a problem with the way Gore operate, or better yet offer the best options to the pubic"

+1.

Besides that, I like both my Goretex Proshell and Paclite.

"Besides that, I like both my Goretex Proshell and Paclite."

… but only with a custom knit cap.

–B.G.–

TNF is going neoshell and they use gortex, same with OR … MH has their dryQ … mec has both gore and other WPB brands, etc …

gore can try to do whatever they want … but their market share is only going downhill from here with all the alternatives out there

does it really matter though … the last BPL report on WPB tech showed no real benefit from the latest, greatest, most expensive tech … and the great skurka is quite specific on his views on WPB fabrics … if its humid enough you WILL get wet …

Ah well. RAB/Westcomb Neo shell = pure shell garments, Marmot/TNF Neo shell = 'soft' shells with a thermal liner. I wonder why ;)

Worth being clear about one of those complaints too – it was seemingly about them using their jackets to basically block an alternative way to try and waterproof shoes/gloves.

There's unarguably huge amounts of room for potential improvement there :) No idea if/how much Outdry actually manages but you can see how blocking that sort of potential innovation really doesn't help progress one bit.
(and indeed how such behaviour might just be illegal if you have strict regulation.).

And it seems some of you feel the same way. Gore-Tex never really wowed me. Either two things always happened with my boots; water leaked in or I sweat so much, god forbid the boot actually breathe, my feet end up pruned and painful.. Gore-Tex jacket kept as much water out and sweat in as a trash bag.

Think it is time to move on