E3D takes unfair advantage over competition

I am very surprised that the original poster has not consulted with an international litigation expert, such as Baker-McKenzie, in this matter.

They have a successful track record of suing unscrupulous British business enterprises on behalf of American clients who have suffered loss because of that unscrupulous and unlawful behaviour.

[www.bakermckenzie.com]

Quote
DragonFire
I am very surprised that the original poster has not consulted with an international litigation expert, such as Baker-McKenzie, in this matter.

They have a successful track record of suing unscrupulous British business enterprises on behalf of American clients who have suffered loss because of that unscrupulous and unlawful behaviour.

[www.bakermckenzie.com]

you an associate?

Weird angry internet troll much?

Yeah that's a pretty heavy duty response to the situation. I think the OP made a point, E3D responded. Everyone's moving forward. Seems to be a problem solved. Probably would have been better had they had their conversation in private but hey ho.

---

Simon Khoury

Co-founder of [www.precisionpiezo.co.uk] Accurate, repeatable, versatile Z-Probes
Published:Inventions

Quote
DragonFire

Quote
Kurzaa
If you had bothered reading all of Sanjay's thread, you would have understood that E3D didn't take down the posting, a third party firm did on their behalf. A firm that probably relied upon a generic computer algorithm to find every non-E3D approved use of the term "E3D" and auto-submitted a take down request rather than verifying that it was in violation of E3D's rights.

E3D has since discussed the issue with the firm in question, to ensure they be more diligent in the future. There is no contradiction in E3D's post because it was not their intention to stop third party add-ons, only clones claiming to be originals.

Complete and utter bull.

Both an agent and a director are equally culpable, under UK law. Else all those Nazi concentration camp guards were indeed, "Just Opeying Orders".

In contrast to US Law, which overrode the Nuremberg principle, and found those who committed the My Lai atrocity in Vietnam to be completely innocent, as they were "Just Obeying Orders".

E3D is a UK company. Sanjay can go swivel, and so can you.

EDIT: On this particular point, anyway, you can both go swivel. It's no problem, I have two middle fingers, one on each hand.

Having read both Sanjay's response, which I consider very reasonable, and your response to that, which I consider preposterous, I can only assure you that if/when the thermistor in my E3D hot end needs replacing, I won't be buying one of yours.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Quote
clearlynotstefan

Quote
DragonFire
I am very surprised that the original poster has not consulted with an international litigation expert, such as Baker-McKenzie, in this matter.

They have a successful track record of suing unscrupulous British business enterprises on behalf of American clients who have suffered loss because of that unscrupulous and unlawful behaviour.

[www.bakermckenzie.com]

you an associate?

Nope, I just recall them taking $12 million off Frank Warren, out of court, after a number of court actions. They were acting on behalf of a certain Don King of New York.

Quote
dc42

Quote
DragonFire

Quote
Kurzaa
If you had bothered reading all of Sanjay's thread, you would have understood that E3D didn't take down the posting, a third party firm did on their behalf. A firm that probably relied upon a generic computer algorithm to find every non-E3D approved use of the term "E3D" and auto-submitted a take down request rather than verifying that it was in violation of E3D's rights.

E3D has since discussed the issue with the firm in question, to ensure they be more diligent in the future. There is no contradiction in E3D's post because it was not their intention to stop third party add-ons, only clones claiming to be originals.

Complete and utter bull.

Both an agent and a director are equally culpable, under UK law. Else all those Nazi concentration camp guards were indeed, "Just Opeying Orders".

In contrast to US Law, which overrode the Nuremberg principle, and found those who committed the My Lai atrocity in Vietnam to be completely innocent, as they were "Just Obeying Orders".

E3D is a UK company. Sanjay can go swivel, and so can you.

EDIT: On this particular point, anyway, you can both go swivel. It's no problem, I have two middle fingers, one on each hand.

Having read both Sanjay's response, which I consider very reasonable, and your response to that, which I consider preposterous, I can only assure you that if/when the thermistor in my E3D hot end needs replacing, I won't be buying one of yours.

The law is the law. Your opinion on the matter is completely irrelevent to the law (unless you are "wearing a wig", ie you are legally certificated as a barrister... all judges are ex barristers, usually serving as Queens Counsel (prosecuters) before being made judges... I never said it was LOGICAL).

Anyhow, I don't support E3D products. And never will. They are the best currently available.

Whether they are the best in say, 2 years time, remains to be seen.

You wanted competition, Sanjay? Be careful what you wish for - you might just get it.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2016 06:05PM by DragonFire.

Quote
DragonFire

Just trying to suggest a positive course of action here, I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Hmmm, I wonder what you are trying to do.

Quote
etfrench

Quote
DragonFire

Just trying to suggest a positive course of action here, I'm not trying to pick a fight.

Hmmm, I wonder what you are trying to do.

I suggested a positive course of action and got hounded for it. If you can't take crap, don't hand it out. Especially to people like me. Clear?

I do not pick fights, but neither do I turn the other cheek and walk away. It's either fight, or automaticlly lose, and that is the British legal system for you - adversarial, confrontational, completely without mercy.

In the olden days, trial by combat was an actual option. You would fight to the death against a judicial champion - winner take all.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2016 11:09PM by DragonFire.

How does your positive course of action differ from Sanjay's response?

In that Sanjay and E3D have not specifically stated that they will cease unlawfully hounding suppliers of 3rd party accessories to the product, providing that such sales are specifically aimed at particular models of their products.

Rather than anybody selling any old rubbish as "E3D compatible". That would be very unfair to E3D. I accept that.

No policy = no deal.

There could well be a conflict of interests though, in that E3D have apparently licensed some of their designs, to be made in China for the Chinese market. Certainly I have seen products advertised as such, although I do not know if their claims of the claimed licensees are legitimate.

Only E3D know what deals are already in place, and it is up to them to make their own policy. I was trying to help find a compromise. Is that a bad thing?

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 12:40PM by DragonFire.

Quote
DragonFire
In that Sanjay and E3D have not specifically stated that they will cease unlawfully hounding suppliers of 3rd party accessories to the product, providing that such sales are specifically aimed at particular models of their products.

The problem isn't selling third party accessories (as Sanjay said, some of E3D's own authorized distributors do exactly that!). The problem is when those accessories are marketed as E3D products. Sticking with the car example, it would be like FRAM listing an oil filter as a "Toyota Oil Filter", when really it is a "FRAM Oil Filter, compatible with Toyota Corolla".

Does that helps clarify the issue at hand?

Quote
DragonFire
There could well be a conflict of interests though, in that E3D have apparently licensed some of their designs, to be made in China for the Chinese market. Certainly I have seen products advertised as such, although I do not know if their claims of the claimed licensees are legitimate.

Do you have an example of this? E3D's own site says AliBaba does not have any authorized distributors of E3D products.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 06:46PM by greenman100.

Quote
greenman100

Quote
DragonFire
In that Sanjay and E3D have not specifically stated that they will cease unlawfully hounding suppliers of 3rd party accessories to the product, providing that such sales are specifically aimed at particular models of their products.

The problem isn't selling third party accessories (as Sanjay said, some of E3D's own authorized distributors do exactly that!). The problem is when those accessories are marketed as E3D products. Sticking with the car example, it would be like FRAM listing an oil filter as a "Toyota Oil Filter", when really it is a "FRAM Oil Filter, compatible with Toyota Corolla".

Does that helps clarify the issue at hand?

Which is exactly why I specified that articles from 3rd Parties billed as compatible with a particular model of E3D hotend should be allowed, and that E3D should state a policy on that.

E3D have already admitted fault in this matter. They have admitted that their action was a mistake, and so, when it comes to a court case, they would lose. Hence they should settle out of court to avoid that. E3D could then stage a claim against the service provider that actually performed the unlawful activity to recoup their loss. That is the way things work.

Quote
greenman100

Quote
DragonFire
There could well be a conflict of interests though, in that E3D have apparently licensed some of their designs, to be made in China for the Chinese market. Certainly I have seen products advertised as such, although I do not know if their claims of the claimed licensees are legitimate.

Do you have an example of this? E3D's own site says AliBaba does not have any authorized distributors of E3D products.

Yes I do, thank you. However, I would never dream of publicly posting it. A distributor of E3D products is not the same as a licensee who can make authorized E3D products.

Should E3D wish to use my research services, they are of course welcome to enquire what my fees are. Else they can do their own work on the matter.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 07:15PM by DragonFire.

Quote
DragonFire
Should E3D wish to use my research services, they are of course welcome to enquire what my fees are. Else they can do their own work on the matter.

Why would E3D need your "research services"? Surely if they have licensed others to make their products (a claim that so far has no evidence), they would be aware they have done so?

.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/2016 11:50PM by greenman100.

Indeed, that is true.

However, I don't see why I have to post a link just because you want me to.

It's E3D's business, not yours, boy.

You of course don't have to post evidence, but your claim is meaningless without it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2016 01:05AM by greenman100.

@dragonfire: Racist insults shouldn't be tolerated in this forum.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/2016 03:29AM by etfrench.

Quote
DragonFire
E3D have already admitted fault in this matter. They have admitted that their action was a mistake, and so, when it comes to a court case, they would lose.

Actually, in a case like this, they probably wouldn't loose. You see, there is this concept in the law called intent. By the admission it was a mistake and action has been taken to correct it from happening in the future, it shows there was no fraudulent intent in the take down request. The complainant might be entitled to compensation for lost sales, but they would have to prove the take down caused the loss and show how much that loss was. Something that can be difficult to show.

Quote
greenman100
You of course don't have to post evidence, but your claim is meaningless without it.

I haven't made a claim. I have pointed out that some other people have made claims, in that they claim to have a license to make E3D equipment from E3D.

This is partly why I haven't posted the link, in that it is nobody's interest that I do so. I was pointing out there might be a conflict of interest for E3D, and as such, that is E3D's business.

Quote
greenman100
You of course don't have to post evidence, but your claim is meaningless without it.

I haven't made a claim. I have pointed out that some other people have made claims, in that they claim to have a license to make E3D equipment from E3D.

This is partly why I haven't posted the link, in that it is nobody's interest that I do so. I was pointing out there might be a conflict of interest for E3D.

Quote
etfrench
@dragonfire: Racist insults shouldn't be tolerated in this forum.

"Boy" is not a racist insult. It is a simple message of the recipient's inexperience in a matter.

Quote
ElmoC

Quote
DragonFire
E3D have already admitted fault in this matter. They have admitted that their action was a mistake, and so, when it comes to a court case, they would lose.

Actually, in a case like this, they probably wouldn't loose. You see, there is this concept in the law called intent. By the admission it was a mistake and action has been taken to correct it from happening in the future, it shows there was no fraudulent intent in the take down request. The complainant might be entitled to compensation for lost sales, but they would have to prove the take down caused the loss and show how much that loss was. Something that can be difficult to show.

As E3D have no stated policy, their intent is ambiguous either way, and a court can indeed decide either way, I'll agree with you that much.

Bear in mind though, this is not a US court we are talking about, but a UK County or High Court Chancery Division affair to launch such proceedings (depends on size of claim).

Most civil litigation actions are settled out of court anyway, at least in England and Wales.