We should’ve just called them BESC instead (Benjamin ESC). I mean Frank is probably thinking about stabbing Vedder in the back and renaming it FESC because of his god damn ego
12 Likes
But the reason it’s a success is because of the community. After all , something’s not a success if not for people actilvly using it no? Nor should you disregard the software made my folks like @Ackmaniac that contributes to people choosing the VESC.
It’s obvious that the honest reason you guys are so persistent about this is because you want the mere mention/recommendation of VESC to lead to the buy of your overpriced VESC , and I wouldn’t be surprised if you guys were to then push the narrative to group all other ESC that aren’t named VESC together , even if derived from the VESC, as Chinese copies/lesser.
4 Likes
No one denies what he has done or doing. And so far no one has quoted some large monitory loss because someone advertised a product based off his work using a acronym that basically says he did it. Doesn’t the V stand for Vedder? I’m sure he doesn’t throw open the books on his donations for all to see. I know people donate. I have a filling he is doing ok in cash department as well as trampa. So to cry money. Really is like crying wolf. And simply because I didn’t word or arrang the description correctly and using VESC®. At least that’s what I’m getting from terms of use on Vedder site. Look out the knife is in the left hand. FESC, sound like a flea dip
2 Likes
No, the funniest part is that frank and trampa don’t even own the trademark. They only do this to try to drive up trampa profits on their overpriced stuff. If this was the actual designer and copyright owner it might be a little different.
3 Likes
Lol, I so enjoy these threads about the shape of a box and the use of a letter…
1 Like
Partly true, but people are using it because the software is better than anything else out there. The success is based on dam hard work, done in thousands of hours after work by a guy in Sweden. Without that effort most e-boards would not perform half as good as they do today, due to lack of alternatives in OS- software code which is OS till today.
OS means you can use and remix the code, not necessarily the project identity. It is about sharing the code and technology, allowing individuals and companies to use and modify the code. The VESC-Project is not a mass movement from coders who share the project development among them, using a shared project identity. If VESC would be non protected, everyone could clone Benjamins code and publish it, using the same naming. That would get well confusing for anyone wanting to download the software in future. Which is the original then? Which is the one Benjamin Vedder is behind? Which VESC domain would be the original source, linking into Benjamins server? How the hell on earth would you want to control misuse of project identity in future without having the rights to the name? Why do the majority of OS-Projects have Trademarked their brand? Because it is necessary to avoid confusion. That is the purpose of a TM, nothing else. In consequence you will find trademark policies on any major OS-Project website. And they all have a mail address allowing to report TM-violations. So does the VESC-Project. It is common practice in the OS-World and the entire industry. If all of the projects do that, why should the privately run VESC-Project not be allowed to do the same?
For the ones wanting some statistics, fresh from the system:
Donations in April: 165€ 100% of that from individuals, derived from 10 individual software orders in total. Total new downloads in April: 345 (This excludes software updates from previous orders)
Donations from ESC manufacturers, vendors etc: 0€
If you think hardware prices should purely consider manufacturing cost + a little profit, you forget development costs, which Benjamin shouldered all alone in the past. We are talking thousands of hours of unpaid work that allowed manufacturers to make and sell hardware and allowed users to ride their boards with a nice controller. If you ask Benjamin what he thinks a VESC should cost, you will be glad about our pricing.
Frank
3 Likes
Makes sense. In your opinion, what would be the best way for manufacturers of ESCs based off VESC to indicate that to customers? As a consumer, I know I don’t just want any old ESC, but something based on the VESC.
Something along the lines of “Based off of the VESC” or “Hardware and software deprived from the VESC”?
Thanks for your thoughts.
I can’t really comment on the technicalities of developing the VESC, the software, etc… as that’s not my area of expertise, but I really don’t see how this is constantly an issue being argued over. Nobody is denying that BV dedicated a significant amount of time and probably money in the creation of this product. HOWEVER, he gave up his right to monetary compensation for this the moment he made it Open Sourced. Bill Gates didn’t create a bunch of software, make it open source, and then make a ton of money off of it did he? That’s the whole point of open sourced IP. Regardless of how little people decide to contribute to him, raising all these side issues after the fact, and pretending like your main purpose in these matters is altruism… It doesn’t matter. That’s a cold hard fact. If BV needed to make some money from this he simply could have just NOT made it open sourced. End of discussion.
3 Likes
Too be clear, I’m NOT saying that TM copyrights shouldn’t be followed or enforced, but making these arguments and sending out letters too other manufacturers as if this is the real issue is so transparently not the real reason. Saying it’s about protecting consumers from ‘being confused’ is so off the mark it’s laughable.
But it’s not your trademark @trampa it’s Benjamin’s … maybe …
Nobody has EVER actually shown a trademark.
So really this is all hot air.
Until Benjamin comes in and says this is trademarked by me, here is a link to the trademark, this is all trampa marketing jive. It’s not complicated.
6 Likes
People need to start reading the TM policies with some care. They aim to strike a fair balance. Of course interests vary. Manufacturers have certain interests, the software developer has certain interests, consumer have certain interest.
It is nor always easy to match those interests since they can partly collide.
This is a quote from the policies:
Mr. Vedder Trademark Usage Guidelines Trademarks are used to provide assurance to the community of consistency with respect to the quality of products or services with which the mark is associated. This policy attempts to strike the proper balance between two competing interests: the need of Mr. Vedder to ensure that his trademarks remain reliable indicators of the qualities that they have been created to preserve and the need of Mr. Vedder to ensure that community members are able to discuss the projects with which Mr. Vedder is associated and to accurately describe the relationship between Mr. Vedder and the products and services offered by others.
It is not the aim to cut everyone of from using the project name. The aim is to strike a balance that works for everyone. Users want to be able to identify the original source while the source wants to be clearly identifiable in any future. Projects grow organically and want to stay clearly identifiable in any future. So the only way forward is to get the TM and balance things out, setting up policies. This is what happened.
Making and selling hardware I would advise to give the product a unique identifier, offsetting it from the competition while describing it a based on, or compatible with. Like a computer, tablet or smartphone, showing it runs or can run Android, Linux, windows etc. Customers then know what to expect. You would need to put some effort into marketing, showing USPs and build up your reputation from there. That is common practice, selling hardware and in your very own interest anyway. Without brand / product awareness you can’t offset your products in the market.
In future we will hopefully see more different designs. They can’t all be called the same. Customers want to be able to differentiate product a from product b, especially if quality varies a lot.
That’s not trampa’s stuff and you still neglected to show an actual trademark.
2 Likes
I think the point here is that people DON’T want a difference from product A to product B when it comes to the VESC precisely because it is a VESC and many only know that’s considered the best ESC. When we can’t even be sure of whether one is based off the VESC project or not because of these silly naming issues, that is what becomes a problem FOR THE CONSUMER.
Edit:
Yes, I realize the TM issue is not ‘silly’… That’s not the point here though…
You can search TMs online.
TMview for example: type VESC into search.
Registered in EU, USA, AU, Russia. Filed in HK, China, Israel, Switzerland, Korea.
Benjamin put a statement up his Forum in 2017. In addition to that he uploaded TM policies on the VESC-Project.com Website (bottom of page).
Do you honestly think someone puts that much effort into Trademarking, if he doesn’t find it necessary?
With regards to HW-designs:
Frank. Everyone knows it’s vedders work. If in the future I decided to use him in direct reference to a product based on or strapped by Vedder.de I will display the proper TM in the proper format. It won’t change anything. Trampa in central Texas is like eskimos in Mexico. I’m not sweating you bro. Have a good evening everyone, Benjamin
1 Like
And yet you still can’t link an actual trademark. Enough said.
3 Likes
Trade mark 1853614
IR number 1351012
Words VESC Status Registered/Protected Priority date 14 Jul 2016 (Convention) Class 9 Kind Word
Dates Renewal due 10 Jan 2027 Registration advertised 19 Oct 2017 Entered on Register 11 Oct 2017 Acceptance advertised 03 Aug 2017 Acceptance 27 Jul 2017 IR notification 22 Jun 2017 Registered from 10 Jan 2017 Lodgement 10 Jan 2017 Convention details Date 14 Jul 2016 Number 015661473 Country EUROPEAN UNION INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (EUIPO)
Owner Address for service Vedder, Benjamin Refer to WIPO address for Correspondence
WIPO address for correspondence SCHULZ JUNGHANS PATENTANWALTE PARTGMBB
Goods & Services Class 9: Controllers, in particular electric motor and generator controllers, flight controllers, controllers for robotic motion self balancing controllers and electronic speed controllers; controller for electronic door openers; electric motor controllers for elevators, escalators and conveyors; receivers, transmitters, transceiver and navigation or positioning devices, in particular GPS receivers, transmitters, transceiver and navigation or positioning devices, Glonass receivers, transmitters, transceiver and navigation or positioning devices, Galileo receivers, transmitters, transceiver and navigation or positioning devices; gimbals, particularly for camera stabilization and stabilization of scientific- and measurement equipment, projection equipment and weapon equipment; devices for navigation and control devices for stabilization, in particular autonomous navigation and flight stabilization; battery management systems in the nature of monitoring and regulating the charging and discharging process of a battery assembly; power converter; power inverter; software, in particular for the above mentioned goods
Indexing constituents Word VESC
https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/1853614?q=vesc
1 Like
I did a look up in the USTPO for the VESC trademark.
Direct link to the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval
For the lazy:
| Word Mark | VESC |
|---|---|
| Goods and Services | IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Power and motion Controllers, in particular electric motor and generator controllers, flight controllers for manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, controllers for robotic motion, self-balancing controllers and electronic speed controllers; Power and motion controller for electronic door openers; electric motor controllers for elevators, escalators and conveyors; radio and optical signal receivers, transmitters and transceiver for device communication, control and data transfer; navigation and positioning devices, in particular global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers, transmitters, transceiver and navigation and positioning devices; Gimbals, namely, stabilizers particularly for camera stabilization and stabilization of scientific- and measurement equipment, and stabilization of projection equipment and weapon equipment; GPS devices for navigation and control devices, namely, for stabilization, in particular autonomous navigation and flight stabilization; battery management systems, comprising field-effect transistors, electronic circuits, micro controllers, micro processors and heat radiators for monitoring and regulating the charging and discharging process of a battery assembly; electric power converter; power inverter; software, in particular for the above mentioned goods, namely, software for the operation of power and motion controllers for electric motors, generators and actuators; software for the operation of global navigation satellite system (GNSS) based navigation devices and software for the operation of autonomous navigation and stabilization devices; software for the operation of battery management systems, regulating the charging and discharging process of battery assemblies; software for the operation of power converters and inverters; software for the operation of door openers, elevators, escalators and conveyors; Software for the operation of robotic devices, capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically; software for the operation of stabilizers for equipment, such as cameras, measurement systems, projection systems and weapon systems |
| Standard Characters Claimed | |
| Mark Drawing Code | (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK |
| Serial Number | 79210381 |
| Filing Date | January 10, 2017 |
| Current Basis | 66A |
| Original Filing Basis | 66A |
| Published for Opposition | January 16, 2018 |
| Registration Number | 5435550 |
| International Registration Number | 1351012 |
| Registration Date | April 3, 2018 |
| Owner | (REGISTRANT) Vedder, Benjamin INDIVIDUAL SWEDEN Älgvägen 8 SE-512 77 Sexdrega SWEDEN |
| Attorney of Record | Nicholas D Wells |
| Priority Date | July 14, 2016 |
| Type of Mark | TRADEMARK |
| Register | PRINCIPAL |
| Live/Dead Indicator | LIVE |
I can obviously understand if Frank doesn’t bother to put links to the filed trademarks for each of the countries listed given no one is mandated to do so here.
1 Like
Sweet. Thanks. I don’t think the existence of it was in question or the stipulations. We understand what it is what it’s supposed to do. In this case is his quality being treaded on by a copy cat less than standard. No, I sell the FOCBOX and Maytech super esc. Nothing else. Not misleading and simply because (vesc) was in descriptions on 4 products and a category this lovely discussion. All I’m sure where infringements. To what degree, in court that intent was to mislead. No. Just a mistake. FOCBOX , and Maytech will bring all the people I need to help build a community in central Texas that’s well informed, given the best possible price and service that is based lmore on giving than selling. To me the bottom line is doing the best for the customer and that means not always turning a buck on every move. We are small but have ideals that will bring people around. Not because they are forced to ( witch is what has been the norm in the past ) because they want to! In the end once we are done convenience, quality, affordability and choices with out all the overhead, markup and additional cost of overcharged shipping and long delivery times will make what we are doing more appealing then 12 orders and 1-3 months wait time for parts to do a build.
In the end the question is, is frank protecting trade mark from someone selling inferior products or misleading customers in to thinking it the VESC6. No
In the end he is just give the little guys shit, just like the big guys do. And it quit all right. Only fuel
4 Likes
The problem with this I whether think Frank or the lawyer acting in lieu of applicant and searching for trademark violations.