Tower royalty charge

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

On supra's website when you configure your boat there is now a box for tower royalty charge. Kinda funny.
________
BUY VAPORIZERS

MrBlean · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 9:53 am Post subject: Re: Tower royalty charge

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

Yes, I'm know about CCs patent. It's just kinda funny that supra chooses to throw it out there when you price out a boat, such as to say "hey because of CC your boat is going to be more expensive", like the tower would really be less if CC didn't own the patent, not a chance.

I;m not implying that supra does it to fan flames with CC, but thats the first time I have ever been led on to, My boat is more expensive because of the CC patent. Why doesn't all the tower companies say you tower costs 1500 + 100 for royalty charge. Companys everywhere pay to used patented ideas and never try to say we have to pass the royalty charge onto you, it's just built into the margins.

Jon · Wakeboarder.Commie Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 1176

I think the reason Supra and Moomba does that is because they don't want there to be any hidden charges. They want the customer to know exactly what they are paying for.

MrBlean · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 10:44 am Post subject: Up front and honest?

So they'll tell you exactly what percentage of the price is their profit too, so that's not hidden, huh?

Give me a break.

It's a marketing knocking tactic, as simple as that. And not very subtle, either.

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

Hidden charges?

Its not a hidden charge, its built into the cost of the tower that the boat manufacturer pays the company who make the towers. It is a knocking tactic as MrBlean called it.

If I bought a monster tower I doubt I'd get hit with a hidden tower royalty charge.

NAW · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 10:55 am Post subject:

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

NAW, exactly. Every single tower in wakeboarding as a royalty charge built into the cost of the tower not the cost of a boat. When supra, moomba, tige, MC buy the towers from their suppliers they pay the royalty charge.

The royalty charge has nothing to do with the boat, why should supra act like "because of CC we have to charge you another $100". If you go and buy a plasma TV do they say that you have to pay an extra $100 because it is patented by another company. Its the manufactures cost not ours, we pay for it in the end but not as a Plasma royalty cost.

its a opening for the salesperson to take a shot at CC with the customer on his side.
________
SMOKE WEED EVERY DAY

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

NAW · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 11:21 am Post subject:

chavez-y-chavez, Fishing is NOT a watersport. You should be punched for thinking so! Laughing

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

NAW, 100% agreeded.

But we all know for every great honest dealer there is one crappy dealer that will try to bad mouth every other company out there. So when 16 year old timmy and his dad go to the boat show and talk to the crappy dealer, the crappy dealer can tell timmy's dad who doesn't care about what boat his son rides behind, that he should think CC is a bunch of crooks because of their (insert word here) tower patent, timmy's old man has to put out an extra $100.

So IMO, any dealer of any brand boat (except CC) that mentions that you have to pay extra money for you boat because another company has a patent on a part, are poor dealers.

Us educated wakeboarders know the Royalties are in there, and My opinion is if they weren;t towers would stilll cost the same price.
________
Ecotec

NAW · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 11:33 am Post subject:

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

If they are never told of a royalty charge on the spec sheet, why would they ask? Again, it is the boat manufactures cost not ours. It comes out in the margins.

Do I get a surcharge on a 24ft tige because it uses more epoxy then a 22ft, same Idea. I pay for it in the end.
________
Babi Mac

NAW · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 11:57 am Post subject:

A valid point, no doubt. I suppose every dealer/salesperson would handle the situation differently.

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

By the way, great story in WBM. Only article worth reading so far this year.
________
Colorado dispensaries

NAW · Posted: Mar 09, 2004 12:06 pm Post subject:

Thanks man, I appreciate it.

Wakeside1 · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 3:09 am Post subject:

Every tower manufacturer now pays Correct Craft 8% royalty - or will be very soon. At the retail level, that can work out to $100 - $150 or so for high end towers. Everyone buying a tower is paying more today because of the CC patent (except for Nautique buyers). The cost increase at the retail can end up more than 8% because many tower manufacturers are paying back payments for royalties which also needs to be worked into the price of new towers. Several companies disagree with the patent's legitimacy, especially Atlantic Towers since they were building fishing towers long before CC dreamed about wakeboard towers.

However, in this country, how the courts interpret the law (or patent) is what really matters. Atlantic Towers lost a lawsuit with CC and they now pay the royalties too. None of the other tower manufacturers thought that they could win against CC alone and they weren't organized enough to take them on together so one by one the made a deal with CC.

The first year, many tower manufacturers showed the CC "fee" as a separate line item. Some did this to show their disagreement with the fairness of the required royalty. Others did it to explain a big price mid-year or season to season price increase.

This year, all of the tower manufactures that Wakeside buys from has the royalty fee "baked into" our wholesale cost and sales prices.

The bottom line is that CC has a fairly broad patent that is holding up in court. A good patent is worth a lot of money. Everyone now pays the royalty including Malibu, Mastercraft, Supra, Moomba, etc. plus all of the aftermarket tower manufacturers. If someone is slipping by the royalty fees today, eventually the CC attorney will knock on their door and ask for back payments.

Mike

zekemule · Outlaw Joined: 28 Aug 2003 Posts: 130 City: Tennessee

Will any other ever use a wedge like the BU and will they have to pay a royalty ? just curious .. thanks ..

NAW · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 5:45 am Post subject:

zekemule, That's an interesting question. On the same note, being that Tige has a patent on TAPS, should Skier's Choice and Centurion pay a royalty?

Jon · Wakeboarder.Commie Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 1176

Not if it makes a difference but Tige uses an electric pump for TAPS while skiers choice and Centurion use hydraulic. Also, Skiers Choice uses a Bennet tab, wouldn't bennet have to pay something?

NAW · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 6:06 am Post subject:

Or would Skier's Choice have to pay Bennet? And, I think the plate used by Centurion is a Bennet tab...Skier's Choice plate is exactly double the size of the Centurion tab.

I guess it doesn't matter either way, We'll all still ride and enjoy our time on the water until we're broke! Laughing

jciscott · Newbie Joined: 28 Feb 2004 Posts: 8 City: middletown

I bought an Atlantic Tower this week, and the invoice did have $89 for Correct Craft, but they told me it was in the price of the tower and not and additional fee.

Jon · Wakeboarder.Commie Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 1176

Naw, yeah, I guess your right. Skiers Choice would probably have to pay bennet then bennet pay tige or whoever.

Some people add the fee in different ways. I guess some companies add it to the cost of the tower and others keep it seperate.

03Belmont · Wakeboarder.com Freak Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Posts: 4656

krbaugh · Addict Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Posts: 758 City: Edwardsville

Tige took an existing product the bennett trim tab installed it on the boat and gave it a different description. CC on the other hand was the first to get to the patent office with a new product the wakeboard tower. There has been much discussion on the subject of who actually had the first tower but CC got the patent.

jzwake · Addict Joined: 12 Dec 2003 Posts: 801

CC was the first to showcase the tower to the wakeboarding world the tower without a doubt, I still remember seeing that cove of WBM, thinking what the hell is that??
________
Girlfriend Pictures

oshensurfer · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 9:16 am Post subject:

So all those Royalties and they're still the most expensive boat on the market? I don't get it. Seems pretty greedy to me. But hey, business is business, I guess.

krbaugh · Addict Joined: 24 Jan 2003 Posts: 758 City: Edwardsville

I would agree that they where the first to "showcase" the tower

Wakeside1 · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 2:09 pm Post subject:

I agree that CC made towers popular for wakeboarding. I don't think they invented the concept, just the application. Someone told me that Atlantic towers has pictures of their fishing towers with a tow rope attached on top that pre-dates the CC patent although this is not verified. The jury didn't buy it. At the end of the day we should all be thankful that CC made the application of towers for wakeboarding popular. That was a helpful contribution to the industry.

I wonder if MB Sports has patented their new two-speed transmission. That product may be very similar to the CC case.

The patent thing is active in every industry and rewards innovators and investors. The royalies are usually baked in to the total price. Good thing nobody has a general patent on the automobile, boat, or airplane! I could just imagine what that would do to prices.

chavez · RIP MHL 04/25/1958 - 01/11/2006

GhostRider1 · Newbie Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 33 City: Canyon Lake

I get it now. I always wondered who they paid it too. Seems they put a patent on a concept if all towers have to pay the charge. I thought that if the plan was changed by a certain percent then they could get around the patent. What ever.

Nor*Cal · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 9479 City: Sac

how much do you have to change a product to circumvent patent laws? 10% or 30%

Wakeside1 · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 8:29 pm Post subject:

I've heard that Metcraft does not pay the royalty on the Malibu Illusion X tower since concept is so different. There is no vertical tubing on the Illusion X tower.

Broccoli B · Posted: Mar 10, 2004 8:29 pm Post subject: