SparkFun: We Hear You • Hacker News Board

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#31

Post by EpicEng » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:38 PM UTC

johansch wrote: post #19

toomuchtodo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baby steps. You can't expect massive changes overnight in such a complex system. Fluke did a solid AND the trademark system is broken; both are news.

A nicer solution could have been: Fluke: "We'll swap your 2000 chinese multimeters with 2000 Fluke multimeters. We will send the non-fluke multimeters to under-funded universities in africa/asia/wherever."

Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here.

You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a really good product. These things are pieces of garbage in comparison.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#32

Post by EpicEng » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:40 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #24

vailripper wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't they dilute their brand? They've built up a reputation of building a high end product. If someone begins selling a product that looks nearly identical to their own, that's of inferior quality, how does that not affect their own reputation?

Because professional engineers choose test equipment based on functionality , and color schemes fall pretty low on the list. (yeah, this may be hard to believe if you have a primarily software background)

Sparkfun isn't a site for professional engineers, it's a site for hobbiests. Professional engineers typically don't buy shoddy gear which can end up blowing their arm off.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#33

Post by jmathai » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:41 PM UTC

mixologic wrote: post #27

haptiK wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain to me why it's a shame to have used Facebook?

Facebook isn't the web. Its a siloed private service. A company the size and reputation of Fluke should have their very own website that they can put messages like that on. Otherwise, they're merely giving facebook revenue by having that many more pageview opportunities to show everybody ads.

You don't need to be logged in to view the post.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#34

Post by larrys » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:43 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

sisk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Summary of events leading to this response: SparkFun has been selling a type of inexpensive digital multimeter since 2008. About two weeks ago, they were informed that a recent shipment of 2,000 units (a $30,000 value) was seized by customs due to a trademark owned by Fluke (granted 2003). Specifically, their units violate Fluke's branding (gray face, yellow border). The Chinese manufacturer won't take them back (pro…

Its important to note that Fluke is required to enforce their trademark or they risk losing it.

There are ways around that though. They can offer to license the trademark. Apple for example licensed the "ios" trademark from Cisco.

http://blogs.cisco.com/news/cisco_and_apple_agreement_on_ios...

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#35

Post by cjensen » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:45 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #14

So then, nothing to be done about the needless destruction of the shipment of meters by customs? As Sparkfun said, Fluke could easily issue a temporary license to prevent that draconian waste. If they think those meters are actually going to dilute their brand (hint: they really aren't), then make the importation license require Sparkfun to rework the meters domestically before distributing them.

As Fluke said, they want customers to know that if a product appears to be a Fluke, then they can safely use it in a high-voltage environment. The implication is that no, they are not going to permit them to enter the US.

It's very classy of them to make Sparkfun whole.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#36

Post by larrys » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:49 PM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #12

Wow, what an amazing and generous response from Fluke. I can't remember a better response from a company, ever, in a trademark / patent / copyright / licensing dispute. And it's all written in straightforward language without a lot of marketingese.

"what an amazing and generous response from Fluke"

Agree. And curious what the PR value will be vs. the cost of goods for Fluke (which is their cost, not the wholesale and/or selling price).

Personally I think it's unfortunate that they needed, in this day and age of social media, to have to bogu on this situation and get out in front of this issue by doing this. Of course by what I say in the first paragaph it may very well not be a bogu at all but end up being a rather smart move to gain business in the maker community.

I've been observing business for a longer time than most people on HN have been around. I have to say I've never ever seen anything like this happen.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#37

Post by sitkack » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:52 PM UTC

Let this be a lesson on damage control. If you can do something like this, you should. They have nipped a kerfuffle in the bud.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#38

Post by josephlord » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:53 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #20

toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its important to note that Fluke is required to enforce their trademark or they risk losing it.

Actually no, in fact it's counterproductive. That's a mindless aphorism thrown about to deflect blame from the actual people responsible for decisions, similar to "companies are legally required to maximize profit".

You can lose trademarks that are not defended or become generic terms but on the other hand I think that they can be licensed to particular companies/usages.

Allowing a company to use your trademark without entering an agreement is a bad idea.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#39

Post by schoen » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:58 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #31

johansch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nicer solution could have been: Fluke: "We'll swap your 2000 chinese multimeters with 2000 Fluke multimeters. We will send the non-fluke multimeters to under-funded universities in africa/asia/wherever."

Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here. You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a…

I think you mean trademark.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#40

Post by mindslight » Thu, Mar 20, 2014, 10:59 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #26

mindslight wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually no, in fact it's counterproductive. That's a mindless aphorism thrown about to deflect blame from the actual people responsible for decisions, similar to "companies are legally required to maximize profit".

I get your perspective (after checking your profile). Is Louis CK counterproductive because he doesn't grab a pitchfork and head to Congress to reform copyright law? No. He sells his videos for $5 and asks you nicely not to copy them. Some people try to fix the system. Some people try to do good within the system. Some people do both. Don't shit on someone's parade because you don't feel they didn't do enough, otherw…

It seems like you're mixing another comment of mine with what I wrote above. For what it's worth, I like Louis CK's approach - it looks like a great post-copyright business model.

But your original comment is orthogonal to working within the system. Saying that companies have to "protect their trademarks or lose them" is indeed true in the strict legal sense. But a company could legally "protect" their trademark by issuing yearly licenses for token compensation for products that they consider different enough, but the law might not.

By taking the strict legal definition out of its narrow context, you imply that a company has no choice but to act a certain way, when in fact there are specific people responsible for its behavior. We should not allow these people abdicate their reasoning by promoting the idea that the expected corporate action is the only possible course.