rrebellYou do all relize that everything we buy is a ripoff of sorts of someone elses design.
No, it's not. Original art and invention still thrives. Yes, there are a lot of questionable business practices out there, which is why the courts stay busy. There are pretty clear legal bounds for what is permissible and what's not. That doesn't keep people from thinking they can make a fast buck on the basis of someone else's investment.
And who are those people who invest time and money to bring products to market? The same people who buy ads in MR, which BTW helps sustain this forum, too.
There are no Big Dawg ads in MR. Why? Probably several reasons. One, Big Dawg, too cheap to make his own masters, isn't buying ads. I can't speak for Kalmbach, but it's probably not wise business to take ads from someone who cribs from the work of those who regualrly buy ads for new products in MR, either.
That's short term, as I pointed out earlier. If there is any susbtance found to the Dawg's legal claims, then in the long term this hobby will take a hit like it's never seen before. Big Dawg seems to have no plans to invest in our hobby, simply make a quick buck off of it. If his business model is permitted to prevail, new products will become scarce (along with the people they attract) and the market will be filled with knock-offs of varying levels of quality, but none the equal of the originals we remember. Ad revenue at MR will collapse, because after all you can look at old issues to see the quality version of that cheap knockoff that would then be all that's available.
I doubt that will come to pass. The problems with the Dawg's copy-at-will business model are already attracting negative publicity that will undermine his sales. When things boil over and end up in court, well I'm not a lawyer, but...
While it's still not clear to me that this is a patent, copyright, or trademark issue, it is clear that whatever it is the Dawg's models are determined to violate, there are things that rather obviously will be troublesome to his position in court. Read the first 10 pages or so of the UC Berkeley paper I cited a little earlier if you don't believe me. Either the Dawg doesn't read or he's choosing to ignore the precarious legal position he's claims exists to protect his copying of the IP of others.
The ad copy in the Dawg's auction ad it rather interesting...
Suggested chassis if applies:
fits a Kato, life-Like or that other brand chassis
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Catt How do you clone (copy) a model locomotive shell that is not even on North American soil ? The loco may be here now,but it definately was not when the Big Dawg shell was first cast. Not defending anyhone here,just wondering in type.
How do you clone (copy) a model locomotive shell that is not even on North American soil ? The loco may be here now,but it definately was not when the Big Dawg shell was first cast.
Not defending anyhone here,just wondering in type.
Hi Johnathan,
Rapido's Amtrak F40PH model is just shipping to customers now. However, our VIA Rail Canada F40PH-2D was released a year ago. The model that Big Dawg is selling is a resin casting of our F40PH-2D shell with minor modifications made to the rear of the unit.
There is no grey (gray) area here. He's selling a casting of our model. This is against the law.
Making a casting of our model for your own purposes is kosher, as far as I am concerned. You want to modify our shell and then cast several for yourself? Have a great time.
But selling a casting of our shell is definitely not kosher.
We've been hesitant to mention Big Dawg anywhere, as any publicity is good publicity. No doubt my post on the CanModelTrains forum has sent some unscrupulous customers to Big Dawg.
However, after several people called us asking for parts to help them finish their Big Dawg shell, I decided enough was enough.
We are working on a ready-to-run model of the rebuilt VIA F40PH-2D. So honest model railroaders will have their patience rewarded.
Best regards,
Jason
P.S. Here's where the design is at now. Still needs some work.
Jason Shron - President - Rapido Trains Inc. - RapidoTrains.comMy HO scale Kingston Sub layout: Facebook.com/KingstonSub
I haven't commented so far, but I'm not sure the law is as clear cut as we would like. In the woodworking world for example (my other hobby) many/most shop tools available are Chinese imports of knockoffs (reverse engineered) of what were Delta products. Basically changed some parts, but mostly the same as the original design. So much so that today even the Delta tool company of today (not the same as the one from just a few years ago, but a restarted one) sells these reverse engineered knockoffs.
My point is, if an industry that large was not able to effectivly mount a legal challenge to knockoffs, it may be much harder in a small hobby.
jim
mlehman Doughless BTW, once a company starts making exact 1:87 replicas of a prototype, how can you ever prove another company copied the model and didn't just use a scanner and 3d printer themselves.... A perfect model is a perfect model. The problem with that idea is that the Dawg is not making a perfect model of the prototype. He's making molds that retain distinctly identifiable markings that can be traced back to the original parts he is cribbing from. Then there is the claim he has a legal right to do exactly that provided he changes at least 15% from the original.
Doughless BTW, once a company starts making exact 1:87 replicas of a prototype, how can you ever prove another company copied the model and didn't just use a scanner and 3d printer themselves.... A perfect model is a perfect model.
The problem with that idea is that the Dawg is not making a perfect model of the prototype. He's making molds that retain distinctly identifiable markings that can be traced back to the original parts he is cribbing from.
Then there is the claim he has a legal right to do exactly that provided he changes at least 15% from the original.
Just moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work.
Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials.
Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model.
The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model.
- Douglas
There are so many people in this hobby doing interesting work and creating interesting things that it's a shame we are wasting time talking about something like this -- it's been much less common in model railroading than in many other areas.
DoughlessJust moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work. Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials. Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model. The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model.
Wow, that will require some major changes in law and custom thatare so breathtaking that your proposal reflects more your confusion and ignorance about existing law than it does the reality of what intellectual property is.
A model of something else IS independently intellectual property from the original. It did not previously exist until someone made a 1:87 model of the original, for instance.
But you're also confusing various bits of patent, trademark, and copyright law in asserting that EMD or any other manufacturer must license models in order for them to be produced. That flies in the face of roughly a century of law and convention regading our hobby. The closest anyone ever came to what you're suggesting was the rather ill-fated attempts by CSX and UP to impose licensing fees on model makers, tied to the copyright of the paint scheme decorating the loco, not the loco (or rolling stock) itself. BNSF later adopted a similar program, but chose to do so in a way that was more about ensuring accurate depictions and charging a far more nominal fee. UP dialed back their program to a similar position. Not sure about the status of the CSX program, but I'm sure you can Google like anyone else.
In other words, you would need to overturn decades of precedence and existing law and replace it with something substantially different. That may be your thought, but it seems to have been undertaken without reference to the current legal status of model production.
Of course, even assuming you accomplished all that, getting compliance from the Dawg, who seems more interested in double-talk on this matter of current law with Rapido and others than in simply following the law like other manufacturers. Or will he simply assume the works he copies then already have the compliance part taken care of by others, so he can just do as he pleases?
Graham LineIt's pretty easy to trace the source of a recast model -- every model made has some identifying characteristics and some recasters have actually left identifying lettering and part numbers in their copies. If you look at areas of fine detail, like fans and screens, at door hardware and car ends, or at areas that have to be compromised for a plastic model, like the size of holes cored to accept handrails, or the thickness of car steps, it is a simple job to identify the heritage.
Yep, it sure is. Find the Dawg's auction for this dog on the auction site, then go to Rapido's webpage indicating the distinctly Canadian features of their model and compare.
http://www.rapidotrains.com/f40class1.html
Lots more pics here of the source model of the Dawg's casting:
http://www.rapidotrains.com/rapidonews53.html
Then compare. Sure, you'll see a lot of detail gone from the nose that's on the Rapido model, but it's clear that the casting was originally cribbed from the Canadian F40 of Rapido's. There's no centered light above the cab windows. The twin HEP sockets on each side under the anticlimber match, as do the hand grab and uncoupling lever holes. The mount for the snow plow is there and identical. The door on the left side midway down that side is in the Canadian position, not forward of there like the Amtrak one.
Yes, a new lamp was inserted inder the nose lamps or perhaps just tooled deeper or something. Then there are the various addons. Underlying it all is that one of Rapido's shells was hijacked to serve as the basis, in fact the majority of the basis of the Dawg's crude copy. Add it all up and the percentages matter a lot less than the hubris of the Dawg claiming this is the work of some anonymous Canadian. Maybe that's supposed to be the reason this "Canadian" built a master for an American F40 that is loaded with Canadian F40 features...because he just didn't know any better? I rather doubt that. It's because he warmed over Rapido's work enough so the Dawg believes he can declare it free range so that he could start ringing things up on his cash register.
I get the notion that some of the posters are saying the loco in question uses Jason's shell because it is the Canadian version of the F-40.I am not disputing the fact that it very well could be Jason's.But claiming it is his shell because it is a Canadian prototype is ridiculous.
I think Jason should aquire one of these shells,give it a real good inspection then if he has proof positive that it is his ask the Washington courts for a cease and desist order againest Dawg.
If you where actually making your own master of a US loco, why would there just happen to be all sorts of miscellaneous Canadian ONLY features on it? Either someone is a total idiot who randomly throws stuff at things you make just because --- or it's because you started with Rapido's shell? So much for any claims that it's an accurate model of what the Dawg says it is...and which theory do you think is really more ridiculous?
No need to acquire anything. Just compare the Dawg's hi rez pics and Rapido's as I linked to (no, I'm not going to give the Dawg any free ad space, his stuff can be found easily enough.)
I'm no F40 expert, but I've looked at enough models in the raw (gee, didn't mean that to sound so exciting...) to be able to pick out where things are identical and it's not because the second party bothered to go measure anything.
However, I would be pretty sure that Jason has acquired at least one of the suspect shells by now in order to take forensic measurements. It'll be easy enough to make a statistically certain analysis of various measurements to compare to Rapido's own...I have absolutely no doubt that's already been done. It's the first thing I'd do in this situation. And I suspect that's exactly why Jason stated in no uncertain terms earlier that he's been victimized by the Dawg. He's got proof beyond what's already posted on the internet, but it's easy enough to see what's going on if you bother looking.
Look at some of his under construction photos on his Facebook page - he makes no effort to hide the fact he is using Athearn, Atlas and Proto shells that are altered (slightly). Hell, most of the castings still have the manufacturer's part numbers cast into the underside !
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
And the saga continues. Maybe someone can suggest a name change for the company, maybe from Big Dawg to Naughty Dog. I guess more of the world is going to heck in a hand basket.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Catt I get the notion that some of the posters are saying the loco in question uses Jason's shell because it is the Canadian version of the F-40.I am not disputing the fact that it very well could be Jason's.But claiming it is his shell because it is a Canadian prototype is ridiculous. I think Jason should aquire one of these shells,give it a real good inspection then if he has proof positive that it is his ask the Washington courts for a cease and desist order againest Dawg.
Big Dawg himself does not deny it is Jason's shell. It is a fact that he used Jason's shell. The master for Big Dawg's casting is based on Jason's shell. Big Dawg does not deny it is Jason's shell. That fact has never been in question.
Jason is not interested in the persuing legal action. He states that in his post. You will read that if you read the original post of this thread.
Again, no one, including Big Dawg denies that this is Jason's work that he has copied.
What Jason is saying is that if you buy a Big Dawg shell, do not contact Rapido for any parts, paint or decals you need to finish the locomotive.
------
Greg WilliamsCanterbury, NBCanadahttps://www.gregstrainyard.com/
mlehman Doughless Just moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work. Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials. Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model. The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model. Wow, that will require some major changes in law and custom thatare so breathtaking that your proposal reflects more your confusion and ignorance about existing law than it does the reality of what intellectual property is. A model of something else IS independently intellectual property from the original. It did not previously exist until someone made a 1:87 model of the original, for instance. But you're also confusing various bits of patent, trademark, and copyright law in asserting that EMD or any other manufacturer must license models in order for them to be produced. That flies in the face of roughly a century of law and convention regading our hobby. The closest anyone ever came to what you're suggesting was the rather ill-fated attempts by CSX and UP to impose licensing fees on model makers, tied to the copyright of the paint scheme decorating the loco, not the loco (or rolling stock) itself. BNSF later adopted a similar program, but chose to do so in a way that was more about ensuring accurate depictions and charging a far more nominal fee. UP dialed back their program to a similar position. Not sure about the status of the CSX program, but I'm sure you can Google like anyone else. In other words, you would need to overturn decades of precedence and existing law and replace it with something substantially different. That may be your thought, but it seems to have been undertaken without reference to the current legal status of model production. Of course, even assuming you accomplished all that, getting compliance from the Dawg, who seems more interested in double-talk on this matter of current law with Rapido and others than in simply following the law like other manufacturers. Or will he simply assume the works he copies then already have the compliance part taken care of by others, so he can just do as he pleases?
Doughless Just moving forward. There won't be tooling and molds in the future. There will just be scanners and printers. No real intellectual property to steal. No profiting off of anothers work. Buy a scanner. Buy a printer. Buy the materials. Just pay a fee to EMD to scan their loco and give them a percentage of the sales of the model. The thought being, the intellectual property rests with the designer of the prototype, not the maker of the model.
I'm simply saying that in the future, there won't be any tooling for a model (which isn't an original, like an artists painting) , there will just be a scanner, a computer, and a printer. The equipment will scan the original work of EMD and reduce it to what ever scale is set on the dial, so to speak. The modeler will provide no intellectual value. The shell they produce won't be made by the intellectual property of the tooling maker, it will be made by buying a common scanner and other equipment.
It seems to me that anybody that has that equipment can just head to their local rail yard and scan the full size prototype, take it home, feed it into their computer, set the dial at 1:87, 1:45, or 1:160...push a button, and a few minutes to hours later have an exact copy of the real skin.....provided the railroad/EMD lets them scan their locomotive to begin with, and didn't sell the "scanning rights" to a model manufacturer.
It just seems that the process that Rapido and BD are arguing over, intellectual property relative to tooling (of a miniaturization of EMDs original work) is going to be short lived, IMO. But I guess its worth them arguing over it in the meantime.
What I'm also saying is, how would any buyer ever know if they are getting an authentic Rapido or a copy of a Rapido, once Rapido starts producing EXACT COPIES of the prototype. Both the original and the knockoff will look exactly the same. The closer the market gets to demanding exact protospecific copies of locomotives, the easier it will be to produce knockoffs. Nobody would knockoff a Blue Box GP38
cprfan Big Dawg himself does not deny it is Jason's shell. It is a fact that he used Jason's shell. The master for Big Dawg's casting is based on Jason's shell. Big Dawg does not deny it is Jason's shell. That fact has never been in question.
Guess I missed it when looking at his site.
Where does Big Dawg say he used Rapido's Shell?
Paul
IRONROOSTER cprfan Guess I missed it when looking at his site. Where does Big Dawg say he used Rapido's Shell? Paul
cprfan
I said BDO does not deny, I didn't say he said he used Rapido's shell.
In BDO's rebuttal on his Facebook page he does not deny the use of Rapido's shell. I will attach below. Why would Big Dawg request patent information from Rapido if they didn't use Rapido's shell?
*FROM BIG DAWG'S Facebook SITE*
I would like to respond to a post that Rapido, a Canadian company, posted today on a site that accuses Big Dawg Originals of stealing intellectual property from them. Rapido apparently does not know US law on patents, trademarks ,and copyrights. I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. In fact, the master for this shell was not made by me -- a modeler in Canada made it and allowed me to mold and sell it. Basically, patent law states that as long as you change at least 15% of a design this constitutes a change in design. Rapido has not furnished me with patent information for this model after I requested it so I must assume they do not have any type of patent, copyright or trademark for it. My attorney tells me their post is slanderous and a gross defamation of my character. I am simply trying to fill a void in the hobby that I grew up with and do something in my retirement years that I enjoy. Shame on Rapido for their petty post.
Just wondering here..after reading through the entire thread:
Is it legal to buy a currently produced locomotive shell...scan it....print it....change 16% of the details (like adding an SP light package or a Frisco nose gyralight that the current shell does not)...make a new master of that...then crank out resin or styrene models?
It would seem to me that it would be legal, since the manufacturerer of the original shell is not making an accurate model of an SP or Frisco loco.
It may not be ethical, but I'm wondering if this kind of thing is allowed under copyright laws. The "copier" is fulfilling a market that the original did not, which benefits commerce.
The difference being that if you just copied the original shell, made an exact master, then resold the exact copied model...then that would be a illegal because you didn't have the right to produce something that is a copy of the original....and...you're not really filling a different segment of the market.
using my avatar as an example, can I take a Proto GP20, take off the turbo stack, the dynamic brake hatch, add an air filter box, two exhaust stacks, and move the horn...scan it...then make a master of it and sell it?
Am I not providing additional intellectual value by making those changes?
Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money.
I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells?
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
One other note for you lay lawyers. Some of you talked about law changes and stuff but that is built into the existing law. Law in this country is considered fluid and changes all the time. Every time a dispute is desided it has the potental of changing the law, that is why case law is so important. Now think on this, if Rapido had not mentioned anything about Dawg, I would not have even known of him as I am sure many others could say. Last, scanning rights would move over to the buyer of EMD product unless such rights were limited in the contract with said buyer.
Also I find it hilarious that the word "Originals" is actually part of their brand name.
fieryturbo Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells?
Regarding your GP30B Shells:
"My favorite Big Dawg was the GP30B based off the old Moyers tooled Botchmann GP30 with the fan mistake."From post on the Atlas Rescue Forum
Rick J
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
cprfan IRONROOSTER cprfan Guess I missed it when looking at his site. Where does Big Dawg say he used Rapido's Shell? Paul I said BDO does not deny, I didn't say he said he used Rapido's shell. In BDO's rebuttal on his Facebook page he does not deny the use of Rapido's shell. I will attach below. Why would Big Dawg request patent information from Rapido if they didn't use Rapido's shell? *FROM BIG DAWG'S Facebook SITE* I would like to respond to a post that Rapido, a Canadian company, posted today on a site that accuses Big Dawg Originals of stealing intellectual property from them. Rapido apparently does not know US law on patents, trademarks ,and copyrights. I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. In fact, the master for this shell was not made by me -- a modeler in Canada made it and allowed me to mold and sell it. Basically, patent law states that as long as you change at least 15% of a design this constitutes a change in design. Rapido has not furnished me with patent information for this model after I requested it so I must assume they do not have any type of patent, copyright or trademark for it. My attorney tells me their post is slanderous and a gross defamation of my character. I am simply trying to fill a void in the hobby that I grew up with and do something in my retirement years that I enjoy. Shame on Rapido for their petty post.
Oh, so we don't know that Big Dawg used the Rapido shell.
Maybe someone ought to find out instead of speculating.
IRONROOSTER Oh, so we don't know that Big Dawg used the Rapido shell. Maybe someone ought to find out instead of speculating. Paul
IRONROOSTEROh, so we don't know that Big Dawg used the Rapido shell. Maybe someone ought to find out instead of speculating. Paul
Speculating? Ok, here I'll quote Rapido once again and let you draw the obvious conclusion:
Gentlemen, These guys - Big Dawg - have stolen our intellectual property by modifying our F40PH-2D shell and recasting it and selling it. We've made inquiries and the legal cost of going after Big Dawg is probably ten times their annual sales, so we're going to ignore them for now.However, if you buy these illegal goods, STOP CALLING US FOR HELP.We will not give you paint formulas. We will not sell you chassis. We will not send you detail parts. We will not help you complete your Big Dawg model that was ripped off from the Rapido model. You know, the Rapido model that took us years of hard work to develop and cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars.If you decide to buy the Big Dawg shell rather than wait for the Rapido rebuilt F40PH-2D currently in development, then you are ON YOUR OWN. We will NOT HELP YOU.Please feel free to pass this message on.-Jason
These guys - Big Dawg - have stolen our intellectual property by modifying our F40PH-2D shell and recasting it and selling it. We've made inquiries and the legal cost of going after Big Dawg is probably ten times their annual sales, so we're going to ignore them for now.However, if you buy these illegal goods, STOP CALLING US FOR HELP.We will not give you paint formulas. We will not sell you chassis. We will not send you detail parts. We will not help you complete your Big Dawg model that was ripped off from the Rapido model. You know, the Rapido model that took us years of hard work to develop and cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars.If you decide to buy the Big Dawg shell rather than wait for the Rapido rebuilt F40PH-2D currently in development, then you are ON YOUR OWN. We will NOT HELP YOU.Please feel free to pass this message on.-Jason
Hmmmm... by basic deduction, I'm thinking this one is a no brainer.
dti406 fieryturbo Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells? Regarding your GP30B Shells: "My favorite Big Dawg was the GP30B based off the old Moyers tooled Botchmann GP30 with the fan mistake."From post on the Atlas Rescue Forum Rick J
Rick, all I can say is Touche! Of course it's Fiery Turbo's money! Personally I don't think I'd patronize BDO with everything I've learned. For those who believe in Karma, well ... I'll just leave it at that.
cprfan If it wasn't his shell, I would think Big Dawg would be saying so.
If it wasn't his shell, I would think Big Dawg would be saying so.
BigDawgOriginals I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell.
I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell.
I'm not saying they did or did not steal the design, but what you are saying just isn't the case. Big Dawg did deny it.
fieryturbo cprfan If it wasn't his shell, I would think Big Dawg would be saying so. BigDawgOriginals I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. I'm not saying they did or did not steal the design, but what you are saying just isn't the case. Big Dawg did deny it.
Big Dawg did not steal Rapido's design for a F40PH-3D shell. He stole the basis for a -3D shell, Rapido's F40PH-2D, which was modified to produce the -3D and then he cast that and sells it.
Without getting into whether or not something is a stolen product, I'm just wondering how much call there is for these products. From reading the forum, I believe that there are a couple who might want to build a loco from the shell up, but there are none in the circle of model railroaders I know from around here.
cprfan BigDawgOriginals I have not stolen their company's design for an F40PH-3D shell. Big Dawg did not steal Rapido's design for a F40PH-3D shell. He stole the basis for a -3D shell, Rapido's F40PH-2D, which was modified to produce the -3D and then he cast that and sells it.
The way I am reading this whole thing: (there seems to be some inconsistencies in BD and Rapido's comments talking about which version of F40PH BD is in question)
BD's Canada supplier bought one of Rapido's existing F40PH-2D shells and modified it to cast a reasonably close F40PH-3D shell.....before Rapido modified their F40PH-2D into a F40PH-3D shell (which is still in development).
So, technically, BD is bringing a F40PH-3D into the market before Rapido has even built its first unit.
Which is different than if Rapido came out with their F40PH-3D shell first, then BD copied that shell as the basis for their F40PH-3D model.
riogrande5761 dti406 fieryturbo Big Dawg are the only ones making GP30B shells. I'm sorry folks, but they will get my money. I wonder if the reaction would be the same if someone was selling dupes of the Athearn Blue Box F7 shells? Regarding your GP30B Shells: "My favorite Big Dawg was the GP30B based off the old Moyers tooled Botchmann GP30 with the fan mistake."From post on the Atlas Rescue Forum Rick J Rick, all I can say is Touche! Of course it's Fiery Turbo's money! Personally I don't think I'd patronize BDO with everything I've learned. For those who believe in Karma, well ... I'll just leave it at that.
I'm not a rivet counter, so I don't really care. I'm just glad there's some form of GP30B available. I have 3 of the bachmann GP30s, and at $30-40 each (yes plus sound decoders but that was my own choice) they are nice enough for me.
I'm sorry that Jason's work got ripped off, that's a new mold and it's not cool to go and do that. However, I do see the point of Big Dawg that he's filling a need that would go otherwise unfulfilled because of whatever reason (in my case, only UP or fantasy modelers would care about a GP30B)
I'm of the opinion that "wrong" is kind of subjective here. Selling old and (as some might say) junky shell recast conversions for a fringe market is one thing, but new stuff that hasn't seen the light of day yet is is a totally different animal.
I know the laws are probably more straightforward on this sort of thing butI do agree that the latter definitely goes against the spirit of the hobby.
This has been going on with after market parts for a long time. They use one of our castings to create a mold make a tiny change and sell it for a quarter of our price.
Unless it has the Gm Ford etc logo on the box or part our legal team says nothing can be done.
Wonder how many of our forum members have aftermarket parts on their cars?
Jim