UPDATE: Massdrop vs Input_Club, Innocent Until Proven Otherwise..

[shadowku]

I feel I:C really is just trying to be transparent by explaining what is happening and I do appreciate that. If the backers of the kickstarter will not be receiving Halo switches, it's better we are told earlier than later, and as such, the kickstarter update gives backers the option to modify or to revoke their pledge. Ergo, they had to explain the situation in some way anyhow. Maybe their initial update did sound like they were playing the victim, or maybe they were being sincere - given what we can know, we can only speculate.

I do feel like MD is being a bit more professional about this, like how they're ascertaining that they will give one and only one public rebuttal. However, I think publicly, I:C has put up a more convincing case. I don't think the public will know enough to take sides, and it's probably not something we should do.

[ChitownM2]

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  However, the license-back clause does seem to be written in relatively normal English language, and I think I may have some idea what this dispute hinges on.  I:C have a license "...to sell products incorporating such Products to end users."  Which, at first glance, appears to be precisely what they are doing with Whitefox and Nightfox now.  However. . .

"Input Club (itself or with or through other entities) agrees to not distribute or sell such Products to resellers or distributors."

I suspect that MD view Kickstarter as the "reseller or distributor" muscling in on their turf here.  But is Kickstarter actually reselling or distributing anything?  I've been informed that sometimes they can, actually, provide such services to some projects, but I don't think that's typical, and I have no reason to think they're doing that for I:C.  But Massdrop might argue that simply providing an online platform, or storefront, for I:C counts as being a "distributor", even though I:C would say they're the ones actually selling and shipping out their own keyboards.

The difference is the use of capital and lower case letters in the word "products". Capital P "Products" refers to switches and lowercase p "products" refers to any generic thing they are selling. IC is allowed to sell products (keyboards, testers, etc.) that utilize Products (switches). They are not allowed to sell Products (switches) to a reseller or distributor, but there is nothing written in what was posted that limits IC from using anyone or any method they choose to sell anything else.

[Zobeid Zuma]

The difference is the use of capital and lower case letters in the word "products". Capital P "Products" refers to switches and lowercase p "products" refers to any generic thing they are selling. IC is allowed to sell products (keyboards, testers, etc.) that utilize Products (switches). They are not allowed to sell Products (switches) to a reseller or distributor, but there is nothing written in what was posted that limits IC from using anyone or any method they choose to sell anything else.

I noticed that distinction too, and I think they mentioned it somewhere in their post.  I.E. we're not selling Halo switches, we're selling keyboards that happen to contain Halo switches.  But if they think that is the actual point of contention, then they may be misreading Massdrop.

[LevelSteam]

Granted I'm still a pretty new member of the community and primarily a lurker here, but in my opinion the best course of action would appear to be for I:C to take this to court if they believe they have a valid case against Massdrop. Having gone through small claims court myself a few years ago, I know a bit about how big of a pain in the ass the whole process can be, and I can only imagine how much worse it would be to battle a company like Massdrop that has far more resources than the person I had to file suit against. The reason I say this is because while it will certainly be difficult for I:C, currently carrying things out in the court of public opinion isn't going to accomplish anything.

Regardless of whom the community sides with it isn't going to change the current situation with what's happening with the Fox kickstarter, or future product availability on Massdrop. The way I see it is that both companies are losing out here, since many people (like myself) look forward to I:C products on Massdrop, so Massdrop is losing potential customers, but so is I:C due to lack of exposure. There are a lot of people just getting into this hobby that aren't going to bother sifting through pages of drama to make a decision on whether or not to buy a keyboard or other device. They're just going to look at what's available and choose from there.

This doesn't mean that I think I:C should just give in to what Massdrop is asking, but if those involved with this problem want to continue the fight I think that it would be best to do so legally in a court room and not on public forums online. I've seen a lot of people asking for full disclosure of the contract as well, and I honestly don't think that matters much either. I'm not a layer myself, and while I could read and interpret said contract to the best of my ability I could -and likely would- still miss many of the legal aspects of the wording, which could very well mean something that I don't personally think they do. So in the end it doesn't really matter what I or the community think of the contract, what matters what lawyers and the legal system think of it. Even if it were a very open and shut/slam dunk case against either party, the only way it will count is how the court rules on it.

[clappingcactus]

As far as I understand, it all went down something like this:

IC designed the switch. Massdrop footed the bill. IC then turned around and used their contract exception to supercede Massdrop, launch a kickstarter, and get all the advertisement back to themselves. This makes Massdrop releasing the same product (and their initial investment) moot. It's also a **** move on IC to give up on their partner. So Massdrop used the actual terms of the contract to stop IC. IC turned around and tried to use things in the contract that were also not mentioned (RE: an unregistered trademark) to try and rein control of the situation. Massdrop escalated the same threats (RE: drop your claim of the halo name). So IC decided to go public with the story so that their version of the new switch is 'seen' as a quality option and so that the community supports them/turns on Massdrop.

This makes IC ****s that are trying to use everybody (the community, massdrop etc.) for their personal benefit. It's also convenient that their first attempt at going public had things a tiny bit out of order  and that they use a line like 'We invite massdrop to point out ONE THING that isn't true' after Massdrop said they're not responding anymore.

They don't want to sue Massdrop because they know they'll lose, so they're trying to win the public perception battle.

[shadowku]

As far as I understand, it all went down something like this:

IC designed the switch. Massdrop footed the bill. IC then turned around and used their contract exception to supercede Massdrop, launch a kickstarter, and get all the advertisement back to themselves. This makes Massdrop releasing the same product (and their initial investment) moot. It's also a **** move on IC to give up on their partner. So Massdrop used the actual terms of the contract to stop IC. IC turned around and tried to use things in the contract that were also not mentioned (RE: an unregistered trademark) to try and rein control of the situation. Massdrop escalated the same threats (RE: drop your claim of the halo name). So IC decided to go public with the story so that their version of the new switch is 'seen' as a quality option and so that the community supports them/turns on Massdrop.

This makes IC ****s that are trying to use everybody (the community, massdrop etc.) for their personal benefit. It's also convenient that their first attempt at going public had things a tiny bit out of order  and that they use a line like 'We invite massdrop to point out ONE THING that isn't true' after Massdrop said they're not responding anymore.

They don't want to sue Massdrop because they know they'll lose, so they're trying to win the public perception battle.

That's not what happened. I:C has worked with MD on several products in the past, including the first and second drops of the WhiteFox (which is the keyboard in the Kickstarter). I:C went to Kickstarter when they couldn't work out a partnership with MD for further drops of the Whitefox.

Now, MD's initial investment will not be for naught, because the switch that came out of the partnership is being used in the very successful K-Type keyboard, and MD will also likely use this switch in future MD-made keyboards.

You also need to realize that MD and I:C are very different types of organizations. MD is large and corporate as they deal with many different types of enthusiast products beyond keyboards. I:C is a group of hobbyists who are mostly doing this with their spare time. I:C does not have the resources to take this to court. It's not a matter of winning or losing in courts - the process will deplete their resources and even winning it will not help their case.

I:C went public because their update to the Kickstarter explains that people who pledged may not be receiving the advertised "Halo" switch, and may instead receive a newly designed switch (if MD and I:C can't come to an agreement). The update further allows people to change or to revoke their pledge. This is just being transparent, and appropriately so, because there may be people who do not want the keyboard anymore if they cannot get the advertised switches. I don't think I:C is counting on a publicized win, and they never asked for that. It's we, the ones in the forums on MD, I:C, GH, and Reddit, who are voicing our opinions.

[tp4tissue]

That's not what happened. I:C has worked with MD on several products in the past, including the first and second drops of the WhiteFox (which is the keyboard in the Kickstarter). I:C went to Kickstarter when they couldn't work out a partnership with MD for further drops of the Whitefox.

Now, MD's initial investment will not be for naught, because the switch that came out of the partnership is being used in the very successful K-Type keyboard, and MD will also likely use this switch in future MD-made keyboards.

You also need to realize that MD and I:C are very different types of organizations. MD is large and corporate as they deal with many different types of enthusiast products beyond keyboards. I:C is a group of hobbyists who are mostly doing this with their spare time. I:C does not have the resources to take this to court. It's not a matter of winning or losing in courts - the process will deplete their resources and even winning it will not help their case.

I:C went public because their update to the Kickstarter explains that people who pledged may not be receiving the advertised "Halo" switch, and may instead receive a newly designed switch (if MD and I:C can't come to an agreement). The update further allows people to change or to revoke their pledge. This is just being transparent, and appropriately so, because there may be people who do not want the keyboard anymore if they cannot get the advertised switches. I don't think I:C is counting on a publicized win, and they never asked for that. It's we, the ones in the forums on MD, I:C, GH, and Reddit, who are voicing our opinions.

This is not completely accurate..

Given how slow massdrop moves with certain products, I highly doubt they are that-large.

So it's not exactly Apple vs Joe Shmo.

It's more like a Juice bar vs a lemonade stand..


How large either entities are is also unrelated to the actions they've chosen,  should we ever realize the full extent of _greed_ or _maliciousness, (if that even exist)..


We simply do not have enough information to determine that to the fullest.. 


Any deductions at this point is still premature.

[shadowku]

This is not completely accurate..

Given how slow massdrop moves with certain products, I highly doubt they are that-large.

So it's not exactly Apple vs Joe Shmo.

It's more like a Juice bar vs a lemonade stand..

Sure, I can agree with that analogy, but how slow they move with products is hard to relate to a size. MD isn't THAT big, but my point is that they're bigger than I:C. MD is in a better position to take this to court.

[sth]

you sound like a really dull person, Hot Roder X, and you're right. you are new to the community. if you plan on sticking around, you might want to act like you want to be part of it.

Let's not get into name callin' guys,   we're here to keep the information straight..  Ya'll can duke it out in Offtopix if ya'll up for it ..

no name calling, just describing the same situation that happens here all the time. some person/group comes up with a really neat idea, and then another group whose motive is mainly profit decides to stick their business in their fun, and then a bunch of people say "hey, that sucks that you're doing that" and then a horde of dullards rushes to the defense of the group trying to make money.

look, dullards: we get it. you have every economic and legal position on lock. contracts. patents. whatever. you have zero original opinion about the issue so you defer to regulations and econ 101 bull**** that doesn't address the reason why people are mad, just so you can hold a position and argue. fine. if you REALLY don't get it, here:

people aren't mad that massdrop exists to make money or navigate a legal economic space. people are mad because they're ****s who communicate poorly and pull hot dog moves like this but claim to be a community resource. legal justification is not a defense for being a **** in a community where creativity and passion are so important.

people are entitled to be passionate about things without economics in the forefront.

[TerryMathews]

Giving a Joint Partner the power to arbitrarily revoke a right granted in the contract is equivalent to not asking for, and not being granted the right at all. Surely there are conditions under which revocation can be exercised; we just don't know what those conditions are. If there are no conditions or restrictions, then the whole license-back part of the contract is effectively meaningless, and I don't see the point to agreeing to it in the first place.

While there may be some variation state to state based on case law, you'd typically expect to see a contract like that specified as an irrevocable contract with specifically enumerated termination or modification clauses.

[tp4tissue]

Giving a Joint Partner the power to arbitrarily revoke a right granted in the contract is equivalent to not asking for, and not being granted the right at all. Surely there are conditions under which revocation can be exercised; we just don't know what those conditions are. If there are no conditions or restrictions, then the whole license-back part of the contract is effectively meaningless, and I don't see the point to agreeing to it in the first place.

While there may be some variation state to state based on case law, you'd typically expect to see a contract like that specified as an irrevocable contract with specifically enumerated termination or modification clauses.

Exactly right.

There are many unseen circumstances right now..

Many ya'll are jumping to conclusions too early..

[chuckdee]

TO AVOID,  pitchforking,  like the -incident-,  of which our very own chuckdee had been an agent of destruction upon. hahaha

Really?  Like that pitchforking you just did now?  Stones and glass houses...

[tp4tissue]

no name calling, just describing the same situation that happens here all the time. some person/group comes up with a really neat idea, and then another group whose motive is mainly profit decides to stick their business in their fun, and then a bunch of people say "hey, that sucks that you're doing that" and then a horde of dullards rushes to the defense of the group trying to make money.

look, dullards: we get it. you have every economic and legal position on lock. contracts. patents. whatever. you have zero original opinion about the issue so you defer to regulations and econ 101 bull**** that doesn't address the reason why people are mad, just so you can hold a position and argue. fine. if you REALLY don't get it, here:

people aren't mad that massdrop exists to make money or navigate a legal economic space. people are mad because they're ****s who communicate poorly and pull hot dog moves like this but claim to be a community resource. legal justification is not a defense for being a **** in a community where creativity and passion are so important.

people are entitled to be passionate about things without economics in the forefront.

There's alot in here,   but I don't think there's enough information to fully support some of those possibilities.

Let's just wait it out.. 

[Targa-TV]

I didn't post in the other thread because of the cancerous atmosphere already in place there. This is a good thread, Tp4, informative and impartial, good job.


Plainly speaking, it sucks that IC and MD didn't communicate enough or changed ideas during this very interesting business enterprise. I don't think we are going to see the truth about this anytime soon, as it's still early in the dispute, and as I gather the parties are still consulting their lawyers about it.


My only hope is that they will talk it out and produce one product in conjunction instead of separating it and demanding exclusive rights while throwing the other party under the bus. That would be the worst case scenario and it would absolutely suck in terms, as it was said, for the reputation of a whole community.


This said, I'm going to leave my opinion here for posterity, irrelevant as it might be to some, my knee-jerk reaction is that MD tried to trick IC to keep all the profit for themselves so, FOR NOW, I'm on Input-Club's side. Now let's see whether I shall retract this statement.

[paicrai]

this is some james comey ****

[paicrai]

where my boy putin at he involved for sure

[Cotay]

Exactly right.

There are many unseen circumstances right now..

Many ya'll are jumping to conclusions too early..

Indeed, people are assuming way too much here. I draft and negotiate complex semiconductor IP license agreements for a living and without having the wording of the contract in front of me I wouldn't begin to speculate. I'd want to specifically see the definitions and wording dealing with the right to sell the switches on a standalone basis.