Morrisville College. Intelectually Dishonest.

[seedspreader]

From Herrick's Deliberate Agrarian blog:

On April 17, 2011 my friend, Tom Quinn, a farmer in Freeville, N.Y. sent me an e-mail that really fired me up. He told me the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper that day had a feature article about the “Mo Hoe,” a wheel hoe that Morrisville College students had “engineered” and were selling as a school project. Tom said the hoe looked just like the Planet Whizbang hoe I developed. Tom would know because he happens to own and use a Planet Whizbang hoe that he made using one of the bolt-together parts kits I sell.

So I motored on down to Murphy’s Modern Market in Moravia, NY (my hometown) and handed over two bucks for a copy of the Sunday paper, just to see the article. Sure enough, there was a picture of a Morrisville student with the so-called Mo-Hoe (or Moe Hoe) and underneath the picture it said:

"Trista Murray, a horticulture engineering student from Preble, holds the Mo Hoe garden tool designed and being made by students at the Morrisville State College campus.”

Those words, and the article that followed, were profoundly disappointing to me because they were misleading. I dare say they were a lie. Morrisville College students did not design or engineer the wheel hoe they claim to have designed and engineered. Not hardly. They took my Planet Whizbang wheel hoe design, made a couple very minor modifications, renamed it, and took full credit for the design.
.
Fact #1
On September 1, 2010 I received an internet order for a Planet Whizbang wheel hoe parts kit and ash handle set from a woman named Susan, and I mailed it to Marshall Hall on the Morrisville campus. It was a tax exempt sale because it was sold to a State University, and I received paperwork saying so much. Susan is a member of the staff at Morrisville's School of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Fact #2
On October 6, I received an e-mail from assistant professor David Soucy at the Morrisville Department of Horticulture asking if I “would be willing to share with them a source of spring steel for the blades?” I e-mailed Mr. Soucy right back with the exact specifications for the steel and told him the company where I had located the difficult-to-find material. No problem. I was glad to help.

I relate those facts to underscore the main point of this essay.... Morrisville College students did not engineer or design the Morrisville Wheel Hoe.

http://thedeliberateagrarian.blogspo...ges-wheel.html

[Alice In TX/MO]

Outrageous.

[seedspreader]

Hey Cabin Fever... fix my title to the correct spelling please... sorry.

[seedspreader]

I sent an email to the college asking them to be honest.

[copperkid3]

Originally Posted by seedspreader

I sent an email to the college asking them to be honest.

*************************
It appears that the author of the article has ample grounds for a lawsuit on patent infringement.......
wouldn't want to be in the college's shoes when that made the front page of the alumni newsletter!!!

[geo in mi]

"Anyone Can Build A Planet Whizbang Wheel Hoe"

The title from your own website and your consternation with the students is slightly confusing. Yes, I agree that the students went overboard in renaming their hybrid version of what you sell in the form of parts and plans. But it apears that you may not have any patents on the components, nor any copyrights on the Plant Whizbang name, hence, with modifications, it becomes "new" (whether ethical or not) and can be renamed. However, as in the music industry, credit should have been given to the original "composer" and then credit taken for the "arrangement". I don't think you can have it both ways: the only way around your predicament is to apply and receive patent and copyright protection--or in the least, die stamp your name on each part sold. Not defending the students or college, just giving my opinion.

Respectfully,
geo

[Callieslamb]

Did you get a patent? There just has to be a certain amount of difference in a designto make it "new". I'd be looking into a patent before the college does, if it's not too late already.

[foxtrapper]

The story is not as described, of course.

From the very first lines of the students blog about their "mo-hoe".
http://horticulturewheelhoe.blogspot.../begining.html
"The Horticulture department at Morrisville State College purchased a wheel hoe that replicates some of the first wheel hoes built with just a few minor changes in design and materials used in the assembly. The wheel hoe was purchased from a company called Planet Whizbang in which included all the necessary parts and hardware excluding the 12 inch diameter wheel.... "

[seedspreader]

Originally Posted by foxtrapper

The story is not as described, of course.

From the very first lines of the students blog about their "mo-hoe".
http://horticulturewheelhoe.blogspot.../begining.html
"The Horticulture department at Morrisville State College purchased a wheel hoe that replicates some of the first wheel hoes built with just a few minor changes in design and materials used in the assembly. The wheel hoe was purchased from a company called Planet Whizbang in which included all the necessary parts and hardware excluding the 12 inch diameter wheel.... "

You're wrong of course. Obviously you didn't go read the rest of the article. Go... read. Click on the little linky's and then come back and comment. The blog supports Herrick's claims.

Please visit www.themodernhomestead. com

Sent from my Android via Tapatalk.

[foxtrapper]

You linked to a blog about a chicken coop. I hope that isn't your basis about me being wrong.

The college does give credit to Herrick. As quoted verbatum in my post, and in my link to their web page. You don't have to like it, you can pretend it doesn't exist and call me wrong and such. But, fact is, that's what I quoted and what my link connects to.

Herrick can claim to have developed the wheel hoe if he wishes, and be upset with the college. The wheel hoe is far older than he, existing for many years before he did. He did not invent it or develop it. But he is certainly entitled to claim he did, even if it isn't true.

Herrick made some improvements on the wheel hoe. So did the college kids.

Herrick marketed his version, and the college kids are marketing their version. The college kids are getting better exposure than Herrick. And that seems to be source of his irritation.

[ryanthomas]

He doesn't claim he invented the wheel hoe; he claims to have designed this particular variation. The college may have improved upon it, but gave him no credit for his design they used as a starting point. Yes, at least one student gave him credit in a blog, but whoever wrote the press release failed to include any reference to him. Probably no problem legally, but still not right, especially for an educational institution. I emailed the professor named in the article, just a simple note asking him to correct the error and give credit where credit is due.

[Harry Chickpea]

http://horticulturewheelhoe.blogspot...&max-results=8

Before getting panties in a bunch...

1. The idea of wheel hoes and wheel cultivators is very old. I run across variations in the old Pop Mechanics and Pop Sciences that I browse online. The idea is NOT ethically patentable, due to oodles of "prior art."

2. The small wheel or low wheel design is also not unique

3. I knew I had heard "whizz bang" before in connection with a product, so I did a quick search. <DOH!> I should have remembered without prompting, given my history. "Whizz Bang" is a Gold Medal Products trademark and has been for years.
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/shop/pr...&ci_sku=125190

3. Newspaper reporters are NOTORIOUSLY bad for spinning stories and getting attributions and facts wrong. The goal of these reporters is to build the local community, create new advertisers, and cater to the desires of the local readership. I have been seriously misquoted by the news media so many times that I refuse to talk to them.

4. The Morrisville project is a line of 50 items as a teaching tool and fundraiser. They did some independent experimentation as to angles, learned how to develop and bring a product through many of the steps to market and their efforts have little or no impact on the product being sold. If they had opened a 1000 unit production line, there might be a problem. That leads to

5: As it is, the "original" product - was made by EXACTLY THE SAME TYPE OF REVERSE ENGINEERING (from his website) Nevertheless I must admit that the almost $400 price tag seemed overly excessive to me. As I used and studied my very expensive imported wheel hoe I could not help but think that I could make a wheel hoe of my own design for considerably less than almost $400. And, so, that is exactly what I did.
is getting web hits from the controversy.

So, to summarize - An old idea is resurrected by a company selling an updated version at significant profit, that tool is reverse engineered and then sold by another person who inadvertently is using someone else's trademark, and a school does a limited run reverse engineering of THAT product, and the newspaper mis-reports attributions, and people are upset with the school for intellectual dishonesty??? Gimmie a break.

This is an example of why I firmly believe that intellectual property rights should be limited to the original developer for a period of twenty years and then be placed in public domain for the advancement of mankind.

[HCK]

I just realized this discussion was taking place. Thanks seedspreader for letting people know. Foxtrapper, I'm thinking that you did not read my entire essay. The point of it was that three newspaper stories here in central New York are reporting that Morrisville College engineered and developed a wheel hoe that they, in fact, did not engineer or develop.

They re-engineered my design to a very small degree, then renamed it and, judging from the newspaper articles, took credit for it. It may all be legal and acceptable in a legal sense, but is it ethical—especially for a college to do this? I don't think so, and I doubt you would think so if you opened the paper one day to find your idea appropriated and promoted without you getting a mention. The obscure blog of a student does not count in my opinion.

That said, do you think I have a right to state my case in a public forum and set the record straight? I would encourage you to read the total essay I posted to the internet and my responses to comments there.

Here is the link: The Truth About Morrisville College's Wheel Hoe

[foxtrapper]

I read your essay in its entirety.

Many times I've been misquoted by reporters, had them get facts wrong, or use circular research (reading each others articles instead of source documents). Because of that, I don't bame the person for the reporters mistakes.

Fact is, the school does clearly give credit to you. The reporters didn't. That's quite different. You may not like the amount of credit they've given you, but then I didn't see you giving much credit to the historical people you took the design from either.

I have been ripped off before. More than once. One of them was even patented before I got around to it. Nice finding your own product patented against you. Lesson learned. Don't publish a paper or make a presentation unless I'm willing to accept other people taking my ideas and running with them.

[HCK]

Foxtrapper-

Yes, reporters get things wrong all the time. I learned this years ago and, as a rule, don't talk to reporters. But I broke the rule today and spoke to a reporter from one of the papers when he called me. He said they wrote their article based on a press release from the school. Nothing was mentioned in the press release about re-engineering an already existing hoe design.

You could not be more incorrect in saying that I did not give credit to the historical people that created the wheel hoe. I did not take their design. I re-adapted it so the tool can be made inexpensively by most anyone using readily available modern metal components, without the need of a foundry. My Whizbang Wheel Hoe Web site honors The Planet Jr hoe and the developer of the hoe. See this web page: S.L Allen & Planet Jr. And in this web page, I tell the story about the Planet Jr. Wheel hoe while discussing the other wheel hoes on the market. I provide pictures of the other wheel hoes on the market, and I provide links to each of their web sites. I've taken inspiration from all of them, and I've provided links from my site to theirs.

[seedspreader]

I don't have a whole lot of time to address this, so hopefully my brevity will not be mistaken for being short.

Harry - your post is rather disingenuous (at best) as it 1) disregards Herrick's own ideas on patents, and sharing of knowledge. You're very verbose and quick to google, spend about 15 minutes of that time next time, reading Herrick's actual writings and thoughts on WHY he does NOT attempt to patent things and how he hopes that small folks around the country try to make his creations (or even recreations). 2) If you are attempting to pass yourself off as knowledgeable about "patents and trademarks" at least make sure you understand the difference between Whizz Bang and Whizbang. 3) try addressing the actual arguments, as presented in Herrick's article vs. tilting at windmills or battling strawmen you've created.

In general, I find that many people like to whip off commentary before reading the argument presented. It's much evidenced in this thread.

You may feel the newspaper or the college where A-OK in what they did... fine, address that, but don't make up a bunch of other preponderances.

I've got to run to "Blue" training for Boy Scouts tonight, I'm sure eveyone will have more to say, I'll catch it later.

[Harry Chickpea]

ss, I read his article in full. I read the school's site on the subject.

Responding to your #2 point: I'm aware of trademark laws and that even though the use of the word(s) in question was/were undoubtedly unintentional, there was a slip. The intent of trademark laws is to avoid confusion. The two variations are functionally identical. IF it comes to the attention of the Gold Medal Company, and IF the company lawyers determine a possibility of confusion, they are required by law - IF they want to keep the trademarked words - to write a cease and desist letter and prosecute if that is not done. Such is the law. I don't like it, I didn't write it. I've come up against it on my own. There mere fact that it was niggling in my own mind that I had heard the phrase before in reference to a product is a perfect example of there being confusion in who made the Whizzbang Whizz Bang weeder. Notice that the full name actually may be suspect anyway because of the device being a modification of a similar device from Planet Junior. The use of the word "Planet" in the name of a device similar to theirs would undoubtedly be offensive to those fine folks. I can just about guarantee that if Planet Junior claimed infringement, the company would win. Use of a unique name is indefensible.

You quoted a blog post. The first few words in it were "fired up," as in angry. My response was a DIRECT response to the idea that the fellow was angry. I gave reasons why a valid reason for being angry did not hold up to close inspection.

I have no idea where your idea that I was "verbose" came from, since my post was about the same length as your quote. (Smaller if I remove the quote from his blog.) I think you might have been trying an ad hom attack on me because I disagree with the whole idea of getting upset over the deal, rather than addressing the issues.

The issue remains. Your friend is upset. He feels his toes have been stepped on.
Planet Junior, Hoss, Valley Oak, Glaser, Indiamart also make remarkably similar wheel hoes. The fact is that such copying and minimal variations are common. As far as such events are concerned, this latest one is a blip not worthy of concern. FWIW, If you ever rented a movie from Hollywood Video, they stole my movie ticket design, right down to the locations of the perfs on the paper, and turned it into a signature receipt. I have to admit I was surprised when I first saw it, but it didn't bother me. If it had been a direct competitor I'd have had to do something. As it was, I was a little flattered.

In your friend's case, let's just say I would handle it differently and work to get good publicity out of any corrections. Fighting a turf war in a swamp gets everyone muddy.

Be well, my friend. Understand that I agree your friend does some neat stuff.

[plowjockey]

Originally Posted by HCK

I just realized this discussion was taking place. Thanks seedspreader for letting people know. Foxtrapper, I'm thinking that you did not read my entire essay. The point of it was that three newspaper stories here in central New York are reporting that Morrisville College engineered and developed a wheel hoe that they, in fact, did not engineer or develop.

They re-engineered my design to a very small degree, then renamed it and, judging from the newspaper articles, took credit for it. It may all be legal and acceptable in a legal sense, but is it ethical—especially for a college to do this? I don't think so, and I doubt you would think so if you opened the paper one day to find your idea appropriated and promoted without you getting a mention. The obscure blog of a student does not count in my opinion.

That said, do you think I have a right to state my case in a public forum and set the record straight? I would encourage you to read the total essay I posted to the internet and my responses to comments there.

Here is the link: The Truth About Morrisville College's Wheel Hoe

No offense, but,

According to your very own words, (from an earlier blog) you took an existing design (the Glaser wheel hoe - with the oscillating hoe blade), modified the design slightly and then called and marketed the design, as your own.

These College kids did the same exact same thing.

Why were they wrong?

Nevertheless I must admit that the almost $400 price tag seemed overly excessive to me. As I used and studied my very expensive imported wheel hoe I could not help but think that I could make a wheel hoe of my own design for considerably less than almost $400. And, so, that is exactly what I did.

http://thedeliberateagrarian.blogspo...wheel-hoe.html

[HCK]

As an update to this story, I'd like to say that professor Soucy, at Morrisville, has contacted me to express his apologies and regrets about the way this played out in the newspaper articles.

Also, there may be an unexpected and amicable resolution/outcome to all of this. I'll provide details if/when there are any further details to provide. Thank you to those of you who have been encouraging and proactive in this matter.

[ryanthomas]

Originally Posted by plowjockey

According to your very own words, (from an earlier blog) you took an existing design (the Glaser wheel hoe - with the oscillating hoe blade), modified the design slightly and then called and marketed the design, as your own.

Exactly, he gave credit to the existing design that he modeled his design after. The college did not.