Yes it does... but the issue is between Jon, his copycat, and the law. Ebay is not in that chain. Jon needs to sue his copycat for copyright infringement, etc., if he wants remedy.
Originally Posted by sandermarijn
That is what I had to do... sue my copycat. The magazine we both advertized in held no responsibility for the other parties actions, not any allegience was owed to us despite us having advertized with them many years more than the copycat.
You have to look a this issue legally, not just emotionally.
I understand and agree with your point, Socrates... but maybe you need to "dumb it down" a bit.
Originally Posted by CGW
Just another recommendation for Jon. I used one of his kits for one of my RB67Pro S cameras and it was great!
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
After PM with Jon I would like to amend this to read:
Originally Posted by BrianShaw
Yes it does... but the issue is between Jon, his copycat, and the law. Ebay is not THE ONLY LEGAL MECHANISM in that chain. Jon needs to sue his copycat for copyright infringement, etc., if he wants remedy.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Bookmarking this thread. I really appreciate when merchants come on here and explain things directly....plus I need some lightseals for my Pentax ME....
Perhaps you should raise your prices, too. You left enough margin on the table for another person to add a little labor to you product and sell it at a profit.
Originally Posted by Jon Goodman
Jon's business is his business but as we are discussing it here I frankly state I don't see where would the problem be.
If I sell oranges and orange juice, and somebody else buys my oranges to make his own orange juice to sell, that's fine for me.
If Ikea sells "mount it yourself" furniture kits, and somebody buys them and mounts them for the final client, so be it. The fact that the Ikea instructions are handed over to the final client is not relevant. The Goodman mark might actually have been removed for fear of infringing on some trade norm.
In any case the other agent performed an intermediate step for the client, as directed by Jon's instructions, and handed the resulting good to the final client, with Jon's instruction. Doctoring the author of the instruction is the only debatable part, but a case could be made that correctly the other person omitted Jon Goodman trade mark for fear of being accusing of stealing its name*.
I see, on the contrary, as an unfair business practice to restrict sale to a client who is going to perform a productive step from semifinished good to finished good. We should ask how would we feel if Ikea didn't sell furniture to us only because we mount it instead of the final client. And as a final client I ask if it is legal that the sale of a semifinished product is negated to a competitor because the seller of the semifinished product also sells the finished product. Can the seller select his buyers? (in many jurisdictions he cannot. Don't know about the US. But if we talk ethics, well, in my ethic jurisdiction nobody can negate business to anybody who agrees to his terms).
Jon was in two businesses of this "cottage model" industry: the business of selling a certain semifinished product, and the business of selling a certain finished product.
If really his goal in business life were to squeeze out somebody who buys his semifinished product, his business answer would have been to raise the price of the unfinished product and lower the price of the finished product. He might have discovered that his unwanted client would have gone somewhere else and that he lost business for no reason.
From a strictly business point of view I think Jon has no sound complaint here.
Selling only the finished product, and selling through his own site, are decisions that he could have made regardless of any other consideration, and which might turn out to be very valid ones, but if I am prepared to sell a semifinished product to a client (giving up on the added value of the cutting work, which I don't perform), what's the problem for me if somebody else, instead of the final client, makes the cutting work for a fee?
PS Sorry for late replies, I'm leaving tomorrow for a week.
* The objection "he could have written his own instruction himself" doesn't hold in my opinion as the intermediate performer performs, so to speak on behalf of the final client, a productive step as intended and described by the kit producer, and correctly hands over the instruction of the kit producer to the final client for the performance of the final productive step as intended and prescribed by the kit producer.
Last edited by Diapositivo; 06-14-2012 at 06:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I agree. Whilst is seems unfair, in reality it is what businesses do all the time and have done since people started trading things.
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
"People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.
While I know nothing about business, I do know that I have some foam drying on my Ricoh 500G at the moment and that Jon's a great guy.