Swaylockians seem to shoot for a pretty high standard regarding craftsmanship, environment, business standards and fairness for themselves and others. That said, I have been watching what seems to be an emerging problem that maybe we should talk about. I am not picking on anyone below here, just sighting an example
Swaylockian A said:
"So, with that in mind, do you think they can really duplicate that 6,2C?"
Then Swaylockian B said:
I don't know about that. But we can
Then Swaylockian A said:
"So are you guys saying that they can actually scan and duplicate the specs on the 6,2C? SNIP I love 6,2Cs. If they can duplicate it, I can buy it."
Then Swaylockian B said:
"Yes we can duplicate it."
Then Swaylockian C said:
"So, just to be clear, when you say you can duplicate a Clark blank's specs, do you mean the deck roll and all or just the rocker, foil and outline template."
The Clark Blank Specs that these guys are talking about are really the intellectual property of the blank designers and while the digital age makes it easier to rip off this data, I think we need to find some measure of fairness in this. Just because a large part of a blanks specs has been published to aid surfboard shapers in their choices of blanks available from a particular supplier, it doesn't mean they were intended to be copied and marketed by others as though they were part of the public domain.
Of course, we all know that no one can precisely copy blanks from the Clark Foam Data Sheets, so lets not make that argument then... that because they aren't absolutely perfect, that now marketing and selling blanks that are clearly copied and promoted using the Clark Foam Catalogs impact, is somehow OK or fair to the the actual Blank Designers. Especially since the amount of data available including the blanks name and its successful reputation in the marketplce, is exactly what the new blank company is counting on to produce, popularize and sell their blanks.
Each Clark Blank is produced by a Designer who has faithfully poured his years of experience and skill into each Blank Design so he and other shapers could access its benefits. (Through the proper channels of course)
Each Blank has a name and a reputation based on the success of the Blank Designers years of experience and skill and tapping into this for commercial gain, without proper agreements with the Blank Designers is in appropriate.
At the risk of putting words in their mouths, I am sure Toby Sullaway and Jim Callaham are flattered that their Blank, the 62C is so popular. But I doubt that they would feel it fair, that every one jumping into the Commercial Production of Blanks, will now simply copy their specs, blank name and all the earned reputation that goes along with it and then use this intellectual property to promote duplicate products created by companies that these Blank Designers have no knowledge of or any, property rights agreements with.
It wouldn't seem unreasonable, that anyone looking to benefit commercially off of any exising Blank Designers; blank designs, names or reputations, should in fairness, seriously consider compensating the Designers appropriately for it.