OXO Shows The Right Way To Respond To Bogus 'Outrage' Over 'Copied' Product
from the we-didn't-copy-it-and-learn-how-innovation-works dept
We see stories often enough about "big" companies "copying" the ideas of individuals or small upstarts, and it's not uncommon to see a group of fans rise up in protest, often leading the big company to back down and apologize. This can show how social pressure can keep egregious behavior in check -- but sometimes, it can create virtual lynch mobs that are ill-informed. Last week's fight between Quirky and OXO is a really fascinating case study both in how such a lynch mob can come about... as well as how the so-called "big" company crafted a really good response.If you're unfamiliar with the players Quirky is actually a pretty cool startup, where people submit ideas for cool products, which are then voted on by the community, and the most popular ideas are refined by the community and then made into products and sold in stores, with whoever submitted the initial idea getting a cut of the revenue. I like the model, and think it fits well with a number of other cool services (like Kickstarter) that are leading to a revolution in the creation of new consumer products. OXO is a somewhat ubiquitous maker of useful products for your home, with a focus on comfortable rubbery grips.
Last week, Quirky suddenly announced a war against OXO, arguing that OXO's Upright Sweep Set (a broom and dustpan set) was actually a copy of Quirky's Broom Groomer. The key issue? Both dustpans have "teeth" that hopefully pull off stubborn dirt and dust from the broom into the dustpan. You can see them here:
The response is clear, written in a conversational tone -- but also quite direct in explaining why Quirky's campaign was complete hogwash. It's not defensive, calmly walking through what had already transpired, and explaining what Quirky had stated. But then it added the important missing facts, starting with the fact that such designs weren't just common, but that one had been patented about 100 years ago, and had long been in the public domain.
Unfortunately, the designer of Quirky's Broom Groomer wasn't the first person to come up with the idea of teeth on a dustpan. The idea was actually invented almost 100 years ago. On September 9, 1919, the patent for this idea was issued to Addison F. Kelley from Freeland Park, IN. Information about this patent (No. US1,315,310) is available here: http://www.google.com/patents/US1315310.They then note that the patent has been expired since 1936 and highlight a number of differences between the Quirky product and the OXO product, but then explain how innovation works:
In a nutshell, Addison F. Kelley's patent specifies a "provision for combing the brush used in connection with the pan... It will be apparent… that a broom or brush may be readily cleaned and particles of hair and the like removed therefrom by inserting the teeth into the body of the brush and then pulling thereon until the teeth are free of the outer ends of the bristles of the brush or broom, at which time the dirt removed will fall into the dust pan."
Ideas are limitless and patents expire for a reason: to encourage competition, innovation, and the evolution of new ideas that ultimately benefit the end user. If patents never expired, we would have only one car company, and the cars they develop would likely not be readily available and affordable to so many people all over the world. Imagine that.This is fantastic for a number of reasons. But, beyond that, OXO points out that other companies copy its innovations all the time, and they're cool with that, because that's competition and it's how innovation is supposed to work:
At OXO, we either invent or improve. In this instance, we improved upon Mr. Kelley's patent. Many other innovators do this as well. Apple did not invent the Walkman. They did not invent the cell phone. They did not invent the tablet computer. Their designers improved each and now millions of people enjoy the fruits of their improvements.
With over 800 OXO tools, we also come across products that look strikingly similar to our own. At this point, many consumers don't realize that prior to OXO, there were no soft, comfortable non-slip grips on kitchen tools or other consumer products. We appreciate the competition's right to incorporate this feature to the point where it is now commonplace. In the end, the consumer won.And then, they highlight a ton of Quirky products that are remarkably similar to OXO products, but which OXO had first. Here's just one example:
Now, let's put this all behind us and get back to designing great products.Of course, there's also a sidebar, in which they point out that Quirky is attempting to patent the Broom Groomer, and noting that beyond running into trouble due to that 1919 patent, it appears Quirky failed to file its patent within the 12-month window you have after disclosing an idea. The sidebar also notes that inventors who submit their ideas to Quirky may not fully understand the legal implications of doing so -- and they offer everyone, Quirky inventor or not, the opportunity to take a "patent process primer" from an OXO product engineer.
Over the weekend, Quirky responded with its own blog post, that comes across as fairly weak in comparison. The entire argument hinges on timing. Quirky insists that OXO must have copied its design (despite the differences) because of the timing when each product came out. It ignores the many products that OXO highlighted it has where similar products came from Quirky later. Instead, Quirky continues to spin it as "little guy against big company," somehow claiming a ridiculous victory in that it got OXO to respond. That's pretty weak sauce, frankly. OXO won this battle pretty handily.
In the end, the whole thing looks like a really weak attempt at churning up controversy over a bogus issue to generate publicity for Quirky. It might have seemed like a good idea, but in retrospect, it looks really weak. That's too bad, because (as stated earlier), I really like Quirky as a concept, but focusing on whose copying whom when they could spend their time designing, innovating and building, just seems like a really weak move.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brooms, copying, dustpans, innovation, products
Companies: oxo, quirky
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Bill Ward and other Quirky people knew it was public domain and STILL trashed OXO
Check out the conversations from 2 years ago between the "inventor" and Quirky members/staff:http://www.quirky.com/ideations/18545
Bill Ward: "Hey everyone, This morning Matthew pointed out that he saw a product similar to my 'Broom Groomer' idea (link) Thought it only fair to advise the community so you don't waste a vote on an idea that has an IP issue. Bummer!"
Brian Shy: "Bill: There is not really an IP issue here because the idea was originally patented in 1917 (sic), see here: (link) Since patents are only good for around 20 years ANYONE (emphasis mine) can use this idea now, including us, we just can't patent it ourselves."
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to take it out of the public domain
Patent granted!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Patent Trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Ward and other Quirky people knew it was public domain and STILL trashed OXO
http://www.quirky.com/ideations/18545
Bill Ward: "Hey everyone, This morning Matthew pointed out that he saw a product similar to my 'Broom Groomer' idea (link) Thought it only fair to advise the community so you don't waste a vote on an idea that has an IP issue. Bummer!"
Brian Shy: "Bill: There is not really an IP issue here because the idea was originally patented in 1917 (sic), see here: (link) Since patents are only good for around 20 years ANYONE (emphasis mine) can use this idea now, including us, we just can't patent it ourselves."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill Ward and other Quirky people knew it was public domain and STILL trashed OXO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill Ward and other Quirky people knew it was public domain and STILL trashed OXO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill Ward and other Quirky people knew it was public domain and STILL trashed OXO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill Ward and other Quirky people knew it was public domain and STILL trashed OXO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my opinion people are learning how to deal with such things, is a tedious and tiresome process that should have been initiated when they were kids.
So what if somebody copied you?
So what if somebody else is making more money than you?
Grow up people, do your thing and don't bother with what others are doing unless what they are doing is purposefully trying to harm you and by that I mean direct targeting you in a number of ways which copying is not one of them, just copying doesn't cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why bother trying when you can just hire a lawyer to sue your competition and get them to fold?
If IP law has any lesson, that is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But of course if it were Coulton :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech
but more^speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why, it's almost Jobs-like when you think about it: 'When we copy and innovate on designs and products made by others, it's fine, but we will go nuclear if someone does the same with our stuff, as that's just wrong!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It amazes me
Amazing how some companies will just Carreon with the bad behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(You're a true 80s music afficianado if you get that reference.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost enough to make me buy OXO
American manufacturing used to deliver products that were excellent from start to finish - from concept to packaging. We need to relearn those skills because the quarterly stock price driven attitudes at modern companies are killing our economy.
One exception that comes to mind - this is my first post anywhere written on a tablet - a Google/ASUS Nexus 7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quirky isn't so hot a startup
Pricey, but nice, gifty things. That you have to wait for a while to get. Which precludes giving them as gifts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was gonna say
I recall using one of these back in the 80's.
Fuck Patents they make the human race retarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
many are missing the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: many are missing the point
Bzzt. The OXO product has plastic teeth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OXO drawing comparisons and trying to lead everyone to believe Quirky has done the same thing is just absurd. The retracting rake is no more than a copy of an old product. I came across a very old one that someone was using to rake leaves a couple of years ago. It had a wooden handle and a lever to retract the rake prongs. I think the person said it was from the 50's. A Quirky member who used a separate tool to push down leaves after being put in a trashcan wanted to make the process easier by combining tools.
OXO can't claim rights to folded items too can they? There are many things out there that fold for storage. The example you referenced above is comparing a laundry hamper to a laundry basket. Two separate products, unlike comparing a dustpan to a dustpan. Quirky used my design suggestion for Unhampered (a member submitted name). I never saw or knew about a folding hamper like OXO references. I drew my inspiration from a folding colander which has nothing to do with laundry. I hated having to store laundry baskets because they take up a whole lot of room for nothing. I wanted to be able to tuck it out of the way when it wasn't in use. Who stores a hamper? Don't you literally start filling it back up the same day you empty (assuming you change clothes daily of course)?
Mini dustpan/broom combos are all over, but without any grooming teeth. How can OXO compare the two products when you can easily find these anywhere? Strangely familiar they say...right. It was just a natural line extension to Broom Groomer.
Inspiration can come from anywhere, but Quirky's inspiration comes from it's members and the ideas they submit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quirky/OXO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]