This is not at all what you wrote before in your posts. You change it all the time to match your opinions. And to make your gimbal head and your conscience good And how can you say it\'s ok if they got their patents 2007. Many of the Wimberley knock off heads are made after 2007.
And the Wimberley II head where made before 2007 also. They didn\'t compare their product against the industri standard Wimberley. They wrote that their head was based on the Wimberley. Comparing it with your Dove soap is just ridiculous.
If you like to use your knock off it\'s ok. I don\'t belive anyone here mind that. But don\'t change your story all the time to have a good conscience
You should read the long thread from a couple of weeks ago in the General forum. Another Chinese ballhead company that makes knock off heads (Sunwayfoto) where even stealing photos from a member here at FM. And using them on their websites when selling their products.
Sven
At the time I ordered the Gimbal head, there had been no discussion of the knock offs on this thread. I ordered the part and did not and still do not assume others are breaking the law in producing and selling the product. The research I performed was mainly in Bifurcator\'s behalf after comments were made that at times seemed a little high handed in response to his sharing a link for a product he thought others would appreciate.
My original research determined that the original Wimberley design was in 1991, and I assumed (mistakenly) that it was patented in that year, which would mean the patent would expire in 2011 or earlier. When Lars pointed out that other knock offs came out before 2011, that spurred me to additional research. That is when I discovered that Wimberley did not patent their first design. To my knowlege, the 2007 patent would only protect the more recent inovations and not the original design. No one has established that any laws have been broken or that the manufacturer infringed on any patents. Even Wimberley\'s original design and the especially the Sidekick are similar to some earlier telescope mounts, but I would never to presume to call it an infringment.
What standard or level of research are we to hold to when making a purchase of this or any product that is not from the original designer or manufacturer?
I still believe the generic soap analogy is a good clean one (still trying to maintain some level of tongue-in-cheek here) or it could be auto parts, the weed eater, or 1,000s of other products.
Thanks
Apr 22, 2012 at 06:44 AM
Previous versions of Sjjindra's message #10566991 « $99 or $500 Gimbal »
And how can you say it\'s ok if they got their patents 2007. Many of the Wimberley knock off heads are made after 2007.