Copyright - fusion and Mach 3

[jaywood1207]

I have had a question in regards to using the fusion and Mach 3 connectors on custom handles and whether Proctr and Gambe approve. I'm assuming all the legalities are taken care if behind the scenes before they even hit market at all the suppliers but how does this work? What are the steps that the suppliers would go through in order to get approval? How do you respond to a question like this?

 

[mecompco]

Personally, I don't suppose I'd lose much (any) sleep over it. They are still getting money from the blades, so who cares what handle it is attached to. Nor would I respond to any such question. JMHO.

 

[skiprat]

I would think as long as they sell the blades that fit, they would be happy.:biggrin:

 

[thewishman]

If you had a company built on inexpensive razors and expensive blades, would you have a problem with someone driving the sales of more blades? I sell razor handles that take Fusion or Mach3 blades, I don't sell Fusion or Mach3 razors.

 

[liljohn1368]

Even though its free advertisement they still look down on copywrite infringement. But I think no more than you would do it and not advertise you probably will be ok..when I cut vinyl to put as a decal on a vehicle or a t shirt I have to really be careful.....

 

[jaywood1207]

Thanks for the answers so far. I realize that they still make money on the blades but how does the copyright work between the suppliers and P&G in this case.

 

[maxwell_smart007]

Suppliers are likely from China, and likely not concerned with US copyright or patents.

 

[Gin N' Tonic]

I think it would be more of a patent issue and you are not making a direct copy so I seriously doubt you would have any problems. I've not seen or heard of Parker suing anyone here for patent infringement for making a pen from a kit, and I have not seen or heard of them suing a kitless pen maker either.

Full Disclosure: I am not an attorney, I do not play one on T.V. and I did NOT stay at a holiday inn express last night.

 

[ed4copies]

Suppliers are likely from China, and likely not concerned with US copyright or patents.

So you are right to be concerned, if you are the one selling the product, you are the one that is easiest to sue.

 

[Skie_M]

You're making a product that is not copyrighted that uses a product that is copyrighted ....


How many of us make pens that take a "cross type" refill or a "parker type" refill? You know, those are copyrighted too, right?

But, are we selling those actual branded refills or an alternate that fits the pen in the exact same way?


It's quite easy for us to say "Hey, I'm not selling YOUR products, but I am helping you SELL YOUR products."

 

[jaywood1207]

To say this is the same as a pen with a Parker or cross refill really isn't the same. Parker and Cross sell the refills for the purpose of using in a pen. P & G do not sell the connectors for their Mach 3 and Fusion refills. They sell the refills which is comparable to Cross and Parker.

Thanks for the comments. The situation has been dealt with.

 

[Brooks803]

I would propose the question to the companies that are selling the kits as "fusion" & "mach3". After all, they're the ones marketing them as so.

 

[hanau]

Any one seen a kit for Harry's razors?
https://www.harrys.com/

Blades are pretty good and not at all the expensive.

 

[Skie_M]

Any one seen a kit for Harry's razors?
https://www.harrys.com/

Blades are pretty good and not at all the expensive.

Seeing as how they sell replacement cartridges for Mach 3 razors .....

At least, they look like mach 3 cartridges to me ... I may be wrong.


Here's another investment for us men looking for a decent shave:

Blade Buddy

 

[Smitty37]

Unless (and it is highly unlikely) Gillette has a patent on the connector, there is no problem selling a product that accepts Fusion or mac3 blades. If you say that in your ads, you must indicate that Fusion and Mac3 are registered copyrights of Gillette and you are not connected with Gillette. It is the names that are copyrighted not the products and if all you are saying is that your razor will use their blades - what can they sue for - it is not illegal to make a product that uses consumables provided by other companies. As some one noted, you can not be sued for making a pen that accepts refills made by Parker, or Schmidt, or Pilot....same applies to razor blades, they are consumable and there are most likely other companies who make blades that will work.

 

[tbroye]

I use Harry's shaving product the blade holder looks ver similar to a Mach 3 but attaches a little differently and cheaper also. I am will to bet Shave Club is the same or close. The packaging looks the same except for the label. So if Gillette hasn't gone after these 2 outfits I doubt the would bother you. I would't be surprised if the blades came from the same factory.

 

[Smitty37]

I use Harry's shaving product the blade holder looks ver similar to a Mach 3 but attaches a little differently and cheaper also. I am will to bet Shave Club is the same or close. The packaging looks the same except for the label. So if Gillette hasn't gone after these 2 outfits I doubt the would bother you. I would't be surprised if the blades came from the same factory.

Right - Gillette makes most of their money selling blades why on earth would they object to someone selling razors that use them.

 

[KenV]

P.S. I think the operative term of art is "Trademark".

 

[Smitty37]

P.S. I think the operative term of art is "Trademark".

Either Copyright or Trade Mark can be used depending on what it is. In this case, you are correct Fusion and Mac3 are registered trade marks.

 

[Holz Mechaniker]

When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it, He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs. Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist. P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys... before they come at us. NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.

 

[Skie_M]

*sigh* ... I remember back in the day when 11 bucks got me a 5-pack of razor heads and I was mad at the price gouging .... Nowadays it's 25 bucks for a 5-pack and I'm praying they each last 2 months or so ...


So ... I shelled out about 25 dollars and got me a safety razor kit .... I use that for all the heavy shaving and just use the cartridges for touch-up ... they last MUCH longer now! And the safety razor's blades only cost 2 dollars for a 10-pack.

 

[maxwell_smart007]

Does no one use electric??

 

[Smitty37]

When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it, He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs. Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist. P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys... before they come at us. NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.

Yes he did sell it...IBM paid for most of the development of PCDOS but allowed Gates to also market the program under the name MSDOS. Bad decision on IBM's part. IBM also saved intel's bacon by buying 20% of the company and pumping in a lot of money then selling out after Intel was on firm footing.

 

[Skie_M]

Does no one use electric??

electric what?

 

[oneleggimp]

The Gilette afety Razor Company was founded on the principle of give the razor itself away free or sell it at a very minimal cost and make your profit by selling razor blades. Same thing with todays multi-blade razor 'heads".. For that matter other companie are doing the same thing. You can buy an ink jet printer for next to nothing but BOY OH BOY do Ink Cartridges COST BIG TIME. I would think PSI would have had to get permission to use the Trademark razor names From my standpoint, the liability would be PSI's -not ours.

 

[maxwell_smart007]

Does no one use electric??

electric what?

Electric razors - I don't know how you all can pay those exorbitant blade fees!

 

[randyrls]

I avoid the high cost of electric razors, holders and blades.
<<<<< Checkout the photo!

 

[rd_ab_penman]

Gillette has the Copyright/Trademark on the names Mach III and Fusion. etc. and a Patent on the blade holders.

Les

 

[Smitty37]

The Gilette afety Razor Company was founded on the principle of give the razor itself away free or sell it at a very minimal cost and make your profit by selling razor blades. Same thing with todays multi-blade razor 'heads".. For that matter other companie are doing the same thing. You can buy an ink jet printer for next to nothing but BOY OH BOY do Ink Cartridges COST BIG TIME. I would think PSI would have had to get permission to use the Trademark razor names From my standpoint, the liability would be PSI's -not ours.

Permission to use a Trade Mark name is not required if you are using it identifying the owner's product and acknowledge the owner of the Trade Mark in your advertising. i.e. you can legally say that your razor accepts Fusion blades if you acknowledge that "Fusion" is a registered trade mark of Gillette.

 

[oneleggimp]

I avoid the high cost of electric razors, holders and blades.
<<<<< Checkout the photo!

Me Too, Randy S. Fortunately I have a wife who likes my beard. I had it shaved when I was on a ventilator with a Trach Tube to keep the trach area free from beard hair. As soon as the I was off the vent and the trach tube was removed and the stoma had closed, my wife encouraged me to re-grow my beard.

 

[greggas]

I had a commission last year where I made custom fusion razors for Gillette's entire design division...they loved them and it turned into quite a bit of follow up sales....I think they told me at the time that Gillette had released ( i'm using very laymans terms here ) the patents for reproduction on the Mach 3 and Fusion??

 

[Skie_M]

Copyrights and patents, unless extended, automatically expire after 10 years .... how old is the Mach 3?

If under 10 years old, a company can voluntarily make their patent public, which would permit others to make copies at will, whether profit is made or not. This is also called a "patent release" or "free public license".

Does no one use electric??

electric what?

Electric razors - I don't know how you all can pay those exorbitant blade fees!

ehhh ... they make electric razors?? When the hell did that happen?

That can't be good, putting electricity and water together on your face. I think I'll pass.

 

[Smitty37]

Copyrights and patents, unless extended, automatically expire after 10 years .... how old is the Mach 3?

If under 10 years old, a company can voluntarily make their patent public, which would permit others to make copies at will, whether profit is made or not. This is also called a "patent release" or "free public license".

Does no one use electric??

electric what?

Electric razors - I don't know how you all can pay those exorbitant blade fees!

ehhh ... they make electric razors?? When the hell did that happen?

That can't be good, putting electricity and water together on your face. I think I'll pass.

I think you need to do a little more research on this. Patents last for 17 years and copyrights last for the lifetime of the copyright owner and can be passed on in the owners estate.

 

[Skie_M]

Oh .... perhaps I was thinking of the movie business .... I read that stuff there that's over 10 years old automatically enters public domain for ownership of rights.

I do know that an invention, once patented, can have it's patent duration extended if the patent owner files a new patent with significant advancements/additions to their product.


Also, a funny side detail ... the Copyright Protection Act (signed in Stockholm, 1978) ... an excerpt of it is shown in the beginning of every commercially made VHS tape and DVD sold in America ....

What Hollywood never shows is the expiration date... December 31st, 1999.

This is why former President Bill Clinton signed into law the Digital Copyright Millennium Act, which gives the end consumer MUCH more power over things that they have purchased... but Hollywood doesn't want us to know about that.

Downloading is not a crime. The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that downloading copyrighted materials is never a crime. Uploading it is the crime ....

Hollywood makes it's living lying to the world and making us believe it ... why would this be any different?

 

[maxwell_smart007]

I think you're misinformed. Downloading per say is not illegal - but downloading copyrighted items IS illegal. The courts uphold that the act of downloading from a site is not illegal - but if you download copyrighted material, you are committing a crime.

And as for your 10 year expiry, you may want to do some more research, as I'm quite sure that's misguided as well:
"The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible
medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its
creation and gives it a term lasting for the author's life plus an additional 70
years." (US Copyright office)

If your claim was true, any movie over 10 years old could be re-released by any other company? That's just not something that sounds even sort of true.

Copyright infringement is always illegal - whether prosecuted or not, it's clearly an illegal act.

 

[Smitty37]

I think you're misinformed. Downloading per say is not illegal - but downloading copyrighted items IS illegal. The courts uphold that the act of downloading from a site is not illegal - but if you download copyrighted material, you are committing a crime.

And as for your 10 year expiry, you may want to do some more research, as I'm quite sure that's misguided as well:
"The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible
medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its
creation and gives it a term lasting for the author's life plus an additional 70
years." (US Copyright office)

If your claim was true, any movie over 10 years old could be re-released by any other company? That's just not something that sounds even sort of true.

Copyright infringement is always illegal - whether prosecuted or not, it's clearly an illegal act.

US Copyright Law as it pertains to when, by whom and how 'recorded' or digital copyrighted materials can be copied is long. complex and confusing. I seriously doubt that any single individual can completely understand it.

 

[maxwell_smart007]

US Copyright Law as it pertains to when, by whom and how 'recorded' or digital copyrighted materials can be copied is long. complex and confusing. I seriously doubt that any single individual can completely understand it.

All the more reason to avoid downloading!

 

[Smitty37]

US Copyright Law as it pertains to when, by whom and how 'recorded' or digital copyrighted materials can be copied is long. complex and confusing. I seriously doubt that any single individual can completely understand it.

All the more reason to avoid downloading!

Agreed...

 

[tjseagrove]

When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it, He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs. Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist. P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys... before they come at us. NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.

Yes he did sell it...IBM paid for most of the development of PCDOS but allowed Gates to also market the program under the name MSDOS. Bad decision on IBM's part. IBM also saved intel's bacon by buying 20% of the company and pumping in a lot of money then selling out after Intel was on firm footing.

Let's get this all straight. IBM approached Bill Gates about an operating system for their computer. He referred them to Digital Research who had CP/M available but the owners wife would not sign the NDA so IBM went back to Gates. Bill Gates actually didn't have anything do went and purchased QDOS from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products keeping his negotiations with IBM secret so walked away with it for $50,000. He then negotiated the deal with IBM to license the operating system but talked them into letting him keep the rights to offer it elsewhere. The rest is history.
5762

 

[Smitty37]

When Bill Gates sold his DOS program to IBM he really didn't sell it, He gave it away so every PC will be capable of running Microsoft programs. Now we are for the sake of clarification, Nickel and Dime hobbyist. P&C will go after those that commissioned these blade holders, ie. PSI, Craft Supplys... before they come at us. NOW as others have said, they rather have someone buy their blades than **** and moan over what we make.

Yes he did sell it...IBM paid for most of the development of PCDOS but allowed Gates to also market the program under the name MSDOS. Bad decision on IBM's part. IBM also saved intel's bacon by buying 20% of the company and pumping in a lot of money then selling out after Intel was on firm footing.

Let's get this all straight. IBM approached Bill Gates about an operating system for their computer. He referred them to Digital Research who had CP/M available but the owners wife would not sign the NDA so IBM went back to Gates. Bill Gates actually didn't have anything do went and purchased QDOS from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products keeping his negotiations with IBM secret so walked away with it for $50,000. He then negotiated the deal with IBM to license the operating system but talked them into letting him keep the rights to offer it elsewhere. The rest is history.
5762

Close but no cigar! 1) IBM did in fact offer CP/M as an alternative operating system 6 months after the initial offering of the PC. It did not sell well because it cost 6 times the $40.00 charged for PC-DOS.

2) It was an internal decision to go with an outside developer for PC-DOS because IBM had lost a series of copyright infringement lawsuits where they had looked at products, then developed their own. It was always IBM's plan for Microsoft to own PC-DOS. Bill Gates did not out-smart IBM as has often been implied. That decision was perfectly in keeping with IBM's original marketing plan for the PC where IBM made the interface specifications immediately available for other developers to use.

3) Microsoft was not contacted until July 1980 and the contract was signed in November 1980 first shipments were in February 1981. Microsoft did buy their version of DOS from Seattle Computer Products and modified it to meet IBM Specifications. Going back to Holz Machaniker's post...Since originally IBM quickly had 85% of the PC market and IBM was selling PC-DOS and MS-DOS was microsoft's bread and butter, they weren't giving it away. They did give away software to displace Netscape as the dominant browser software.