Splashing Hulls: Right or Wrong?
 

On another Hi Perf boating message board for smaller boats, the subject of "splashing" or making a "direct mold" of another company's hull has brought about some very interesting comments.

They are discussing direct copies of another company's hulls, not simply using 'ideas' or using a boat plug to create a new idea, but they are discussing actually splashing the hull, a clone-copy, line-for-line. An identical copy which can't be distinguished from the original.

There are a number of people making posts who not only support 'splashing' but encourage others to do it. Years ago, when we were in the boat building business, a person who 'splashed' another company's boat, would typically try to hide that fact, to avoid the negative backlash.

I'm curious how many people still believe this way? And how many today encourage 'splashing' simply because the copy-cat company has eliminated any tooling expenses he may have had building an original boat, and thus produces the same boat at the fraction of the cost?

Would love to hear your comments from the Offshore boating world.

BK

Just my opinion but, I would personally laugh at someone who Splashed a hull from another boat. (unless the original company did not produce it anymore) Also their is no way I would buy a boat like that. It would be just like putting a Ferrari kit over a Fiero, HA HA HA:D

I heard, and it's heresay as I dont know the law, but legally the top deck only must have at least a 10% change from the original. If this is true I think that's even a bunch of b.s.!! for someone to put al the work into an original design, and then someone else basicly just rips them off and spalshes one.:mad: There's no way this should be legal in any way, but it's common practice in the boat building business.:mad: :mad:

Maybe I am showing my age but this seems to me to be a clear cut issue of right and wrong. It is just plain wrong to steal someone else's designs (splashing), words (plagiarism), software (piracy) or whatever. It is not fair to the builder who went to the trouble of designing a boat, building a plug, making a mold etc. for someone to come along and try to profit from all that hard work. I would never knowingly buy a splashed design either.

Boats must have something like a trademark or something. I can't see how this is legal.

I'd love to see what would happen if someone spashed a Reggie boat? I would think Pat Patel would sink his teeth deep into the spasher's ass.

Reggie = Fountain boats
Pat Patel = Fountain's lawyer and Supercat racers - Don Q Rum

Actually, the "10% Change" law never worked to protect anything at all. So in 1998 a new Federal copyright law went into effect. See http://www.loc.gov/copyright/vessels/

But unfortunately, boat hulls that had been available longer than 2 years were excluded from this protection. :( These are the hulls being splashed on that other thread.

But today, any new hull design can be registered and placed under the New Vessel Hull Protection Act. Nobody can splash it without serious recourse.

But those hull designs that are older than 1997 fall under the old laws.

BK

Nice to see you here.

Splashing is the theft of intellectual property. Both ethically and legally it is wrong and should have been long before the latest law. The boat builders just didn't have deep enough pockets to pursue their cause in court or congress.

Ted

I'm fairly new to the performance/custom boat scene, so I don't speak from any specific subject knowledge here -- but it seems amazing to me that direct "splashing" is legal at all. Aren't there patents involved?

If hull-design is considered a key differentiator between boats (would seem to me it is), why wouldn't a manufacturer with a superior design legally protect this advantage? Perhaps some do? I would tend to think that a unique hull design...or overall boat profile, would be the at the top of the overall R&D investment list (both time and money). Costs the most? If you can't protect your greatest asset as an organization -- why be in business at all?

I would think the same patent question would hold true for other boat design aspects that are unique to a manufacturer. Some that come to mind; custom-designed/tooled/manufactured hardware and components (cleats, bolster frames, steering wheels design (ergonomics), molded-in lighting fixtures, etc.. I'm sure there are more examples.

If an automobile manufacturer had one of its models "splashed" by a competitor, and it was proven to be true, you can bet there would be big cash settlement -- or worse.

Why so many exceptions in the boat category?

Splashing
 

I know there are steps you can take to protect yourself because this happened with the HTM molds and HTM fought and won.

Hull design, unless something is dramatically different such as the Ocke Mannerfelt design - and in some countries even then, is not patentable. It is difficult to prove that it is novel and wouldn't be worth the time and effort anyway. There is for example no patent on the boat (not trying to be funny). There was on the automobile way back when (research the Selden patent) but it was thrown out. All small boat builders have to rely on is the new law. Large manufacturers, Bayliner say, don't care as the designs are definitely not novel and are not the basis for their sales.
Ted

i'm not sure wher eon stand on teh issue of splashing. I can see maybe for old hulls that are no longer produced. IE the 24' skater. Very cool boat. BUT if you can't get it anymore and that is the hull DESIGN you want what are you to do? If there was some kind of royalty agreement I think that woudl be alot more fair. If you design somethign but decied to stop producing it someone else shodul be able to procue it BUT the origonal design/biulder shodul get credit for the design and a fee of soem sort.

BUT let not forget the design of fiberglass hull is only half the pie. Layup technique are the other half. As far i konw stringer placement and hull and deck joinery are not somehtign that can easily be coppied froma mold. The biulder has to know where to them and how to put it together. And lets not forget teh magic of lamiation scheduling. If teh goo isn;t mixxed right and aplied at eth right times it just isn;t goign to work right.

A splashed 24' skater might have thesame runningsurface design and it might even look similar.

But it's no skater.

Boy, I am sure glad to hear you guys talk about this. After spending time on the other board, and listening to the pro-splashers comments, I really was starting to worry about moral decay in America. :(

This is really refreshing to hear!! whew.

Regarding why manufacturers don't go after the splashers since they legally have a right to do so --- I knew one company who spent $25,000 in legal fees, and in the end, the judge could not come up with a verdict. It turns out that no company ever won this kind of battle since Bonito vs. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. , because the laws were simply too vague. A few companies have patented certain portions of their designs, but only when the feature is completely unique.

According to what is written in the New Vessel Hull Protection Act, you could end up having your legal fees reimbursed. Which is what kept many manufacturers from proceding in the past.

Funny you mention Bayliner :) Because, if it weren't for Bayliner NMMA and Zodiac, we probably wouldn't have this new law. :D

Read this:
http://www.house.gov/judiciary/41115.htm

Puder -

We just visited Skater 2 weeks ago -- they are still building the 24 Cat and even had one in production.

Everyone here is talking about some one stealing a design. Does it occur where the design/molds are bought or rights paid for. So there are actually two boats being build but one is a copy of the others design. No body wants a copy of a boat. But what if its a paid for copy?

Ok the 28 Cigarette 2 feet shorter is a 26 Martini/Corsa 2 feet shorter is a 24 Pantera
Splash- Splash- Splash



It happens not all companies stay in business or build the models any longer
even though they are very good designs
Some consumers want what they want.
There is a zillion boat builders out there.
Yea Reggie never splashed (I dont Think so) But dont really know

BK

COOL!!! I though they stopped making the 24 when they started with the 28. Its coll ethya re still making the 24

BUT my the point is the same replace "24 skater" with "out of production hull" in my previous post. If its a splash of a truly succesfull hull it most likely will not be up to eth spec of the origonal. The only time I can see this not being teh case is if they started to produce the boats again BUT bought the origonal molds and were sincere about makign a top notch product. In my eyes thats not a splash.

No offesne to lightning boats but from what i have heard their boats are not up to the specs of the origonal manufacturers. You get what you pay for. They splash to produce similar cheaper copies.

Yes, puder, I see what you're saying -- if there was a hull that was left behind, discontinued, or something -- there's probably not many companies that would be bothered too much about it. Even the new law will only protect a design for 10 years, then I guess it's open market on the design, if anyone wants it.

During a period of 10 years, most manufacturers will have so many new & nicer models that they'll probably not be too concerned about those older ones.

But some of the current 'splash' manufacturers aren't building old stuff or doing any modifications. They are directly splashing other company's current, latest #1 sellers, and then bragging about it. Some even are using the good name of the original mfg to catch attention to make their sales. And they even have a small cheering section!? Really blows my mind.

My .02
It's wrong.:(

Is this "BK"... Boat Kitten? If so Hi and welcome.

1. FYI.............. Pat Patel is also Skater's lawyer

2. The original Fountain/Executioners were 32' Excaliburs with an "exclusive" pad bottom that Reggie had them glue on.
Later Reggie made his own boats by scaling the originals up and down and adding his "exclusive" beak............ and of course after that he "invented" steps. (see my Diatribe "Great Moments in Vee Bottom History" somewhere in the OSO archives)

3. All of the people who popped our Shadows really never did all that well.....except....
they created an army of blindly loyal, non-discriminating (and basically cheap)customers who believe that "popped" boats are valid and desireable products. These people, of and by themselves, are harmless enough.....except...
they encounter newer performance boaters who. lacking a frame of reference and experience, don't know what a "popped" boat is and can't tell the difference. After hearing bar speeds and blah, blah from these delusional "almost a Skater" or "good as a Shadow" owners , the uninformed go out and buy the cheapest thing they can find that looks like a cat...... or worse an overpriced and expensive knockoff......... only to have a disappointing experience.. or a boat that even the alleged "builder" doesn't understand and can't civilize.

The result...real designers and builders are painted with the same brush as the swine who knocked them off in the first place.....

I submit that this funding of "popcraft" removes cash flow from the true innovators .... and we all lose.

Caveat Emptor.....Buy a Skater

T2x

shadow
 

Well spoken! T2x what ever happened to the old shadow molds? I remember many moons ago roaming around elbys up at lake hopatcong , but dont remeber exactly what was up there and what they were?

Innovators or scammers
It is only fiberglass with power

This is not
Rocket science

Most boats
take a driver
just like a weston cup car
lets ride on a reputation
OK


Basiscaly racers are racers
and boats are well are boats
it takes $$$$$$$$$
to compete or buy championships

Say What ???? :confused:

I was going to say....."Ask T2x what HE thinks of popped boats".......no need.........knew he couldnt stay away from that one.

If there were any solid legal remedies for splashing then Paul Allison would have become a very rich man. (90 % of today's hi-performance bass boats use his running surface from the lat e60's/early 70's)Ranger paid him and Darris in 73/74 for the Ranger/Allison,nobody else did.Bob Hammond paid Linder for the 21'Challenger running surface,doubt if anyone else did and there are still copies out there. Glastron's V156 holds the distinction of the most copied tri-hull runabout( over 50 splashes) but Glastron let it go,too much trouble and expense for vague laws.Many manufactures realize how easy it is to pop a good design. Is it ethical? No. Does it make good business sense? Sometimes. Depends on your point of view.The builders we deal with don't pop,it makes me feel better,but we always haveto deal with the guys that take the easy way. Not fair, but a fact of our industry,sad but true.

This summer while driving thro a town an the outskirts of Lake George I Saw what I thought was a 24 Skater for sale. It looked identical to Shane's 24 except for a slight variation on the forward deck. I was very surprised to see that someone had made a clone. I was also surprised on the price of the boat. If memory serves me right it was something like $18K with twin 300 Evimrude's and trailer. It needed some real TLC but it was priced a lot cheaper than any Skater that I seen. It just shows that the clones do not hold the resale of the original.

We are very glad we have a patent on the design and the use of the "wing" on a watercraft. It gives us a few rights. Either way, splashing is wrong any way you look at it and they never build to the quality of the original. It's like the guy who coppied everyone's work in school, he may get the grade that quarter, but he doesn't learn anything. And he could not do it on his own the next time.
Chris Reindl

I copied
I learned You are an idiot
How else does everybody learn
they have a teacher


daaaa

If you have a scew and turn it he wrong way
does it fasten????


How many light bulbs does it take to screw in a ???????

flat out copying of an existing, current production, #1, top seller and takign credit for it is f***ing bull****.


In terms of quality seem sliek those $20 rolex's you can buy in china town some look pretty real until the paint falls off the L and you realize its a romex.....

but liek i said there should be some conpensation fand credit for splashes of old non production hulls, if not an outright purhase of the origonal molds

As much as a pain in the ass it is to figure out his damned language he's using, I agree with Puder as far as I can see that the techniques, layup, material, hardware, shoot their are a bunch of things in my opinion that can't be copied. Who's to say the company who's splashing is going to be sucessful! Just my $.02

I can't believe that this was legal. Hell, people get sued for recording songs that are similar to another one. I think that if a builder can't produce some documentation about design, they should be barred from producing the product. Splashing will choke any new designs, because the builder won't be able to recapture the cost of design if they have to compete with companies that have no R&D costs. They will have to stick with older designs or price themselves out of the market.

No one has splashed the beak. Maybe reggie is on to something?

wouldn't that be kind of like splashing an AMC gremlin???? ;)

(j/k).....

PUDER!!!!!!! You finally wrote something that made even me laugh..... Congrats

Now go buy a spell check.......;)

T2x

Case in point, didn't Saber buy the molds of the 41 Apache? I would really like to see a new version of the 41 Pleasure boat. Does anyone know if they have built one?
As far as "Splashing" a hull I think it's stealing reguardless of what the law saws and would not buy one.

Some hulls are patented and protected, or patent applied for.

T2x- I am curious of your opinions of Harry Schoell's designs? - I think the DDC is a patented design as used in the 37AVH Active Thunder (and other designs by him).

I guess the people that think a pop off is as good as the orginial boat because they both float is the same people that buy a $20.00 Rolex copy and think it is as good as "the Rolex" because they both keep time. If anyone is doing business with someone who makes their living by copying someone elses work you should be very careful because if they are happy to steal from someone else they will be happy to steal from you.

Just my .02
John:rolleyes:

It is stealing and should be illegal.

I thought that Reggie stole the beak from Hydrostream???:D :D

Caleb

dont quote me on this but i think boats that are made from molds purchased from their former manufacturer are not considered splashes, not in the legal sense. they are just boats that are reproduced with the original manufacturers consent (under some other name). splashed boats are made from molds pulled from a boat that is in still production without their consent.

i dont have a problem with a company reviving an old hull mold as long as its OK'D by the manufacturer, atleast they might have a say in the quality of the reproduction. but for a hull to be splashed blatantly while still under production . . . NO FRIK'N WAY . . .thats theft. . . flashpta10, you just dont get it.its not just fiberglass. these builders put alot of time and money into developing thier boats.

medicine man- saber marine is building the 41 apache (from the original molds i believe) just north of me . i have seen a few of them on some of our poker runs they are very fast and very nice. i believe they are a custom order only.


oh yea . . somebody told me that the old Aero's were splashes of fountains . .. can anybody verify that?

i was aproached by someone not to long ago to build a mold off a new baha hammer . . .i quickley talked him out of his evdeavor. its just not right.

what about producing a hull from a design that is no longer in production (and won't be ever again) but where the origonal mold is either unusable or missing?

Technically i think it would be a splash because a (former) production hull was used as a plug to make a new mold. But how ethical is it to produce such a boat? What are your opinions of this?

Hey Glass Dave,

Just FYI Baja doesn't make the Hammer anymore. Not saying this guy had permission or anything but it is no longer produced by Baja.