Posted on 01/31/2005 7:41:53 AM PST by pabianice
January 31, 2005: For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands.
This move grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize "intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice if they put many of the model vendors out of business.
Some model companies will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or otherwise "no royalty" items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of the kit makers.
You seem to know just a tad too much about such places. Talk about trolling........
I can almost hear the adding machine over in the UN's Legal Dept.
Brings a whole new meaning to the term "intellectual"
Uh, last time I checked, these designs were owned by the United States government.
Isn't that where Protagoras works?
> these designs were owned by the United States government.
See Post 21 for a rather extensive list of designs that Boeing would argue with you about.
And that's the best you can do, huh? Sad.
Very sad.
Just Damn.
I think perhaps Congress should investigate to see what royalties are being demanded from offshore manufacturers. If significantly lower than what's being extorted from domestic suppliers, these idiots could be guilty of unlawful restraint of trade or some other anti-trust violation.
Not BS. The model kit companies can't afford the teams of lawyers the aerospace companies can. The litigation costs will crush the model kit manufacturers, even if they win. This is a major argument for loser-pays litigation.
What a mess... well, at least foreign aircraft and stuff might be available.
"Over the top. The Profit Takers will get around to screwing everybody, sooner or later."
You got that right! If it isn't the government trying to screw ya', it's some corporation!
Isn't this the tip of the iceberg? I mean, if we are going to contiue to treat information as property?
If an idea can be property, there's no end to the insanity that's possible. Suppose I make up a new name no one has ever used before. Can I then copyright it, so that anyone who wants to name a child that owes me?
Many other examples have been posted already.
"IP" has the potential to stifle a culture's creativity to a frightening degree . . .
Like individuals, some corporations do not recognize moral limits in their pursuit of the bottom line. And thats a bad thing (pun intended).
Whats surprising to me is there are those who disagree.
If they're claiming ownership, then they're also claiming responsibility for any damage inflicted due to defects in design. They've hidden behind the doctrine of "it ain't OUR product, it's the government's" for over 60 years.
Some good points. Thanks for the info.
Oops! Now you owe a royalty for posting that!
They're demanding the same money from all players.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.