Hey everyone, you might have seen the posts on Engadget and the Make blog this afternoon about a new book from Klutz called Invasion of the Bristlebots that was showing at Toy Fair.
This is a statement we're relaying from Klutz:
UPDATE (2.20.09): Thanks for your comments. We’ve passed them along to the Klutz team. As we said last night, Klutz is contacting the folks at EMS. Stay tuned.Klutz is genuinely surprised by this reaction to our book. The development of "Invasion of the Bristlebots” by the Klutz creative team dates back to at least early 2007 and was developed internally like other Klutz products. In light of this misunderstanding, we’re contacting the folks at Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories in the interest of addressing the concerns that have been raised.
UPDATE (2.21.09): We've posted a message from Pat Murphy, Editor at Klutz above.
18 comments:
I find it very hard to believe that no one at Klutz thought to do even marginal due dilligence over the use of the term "bristlebot" before releasing this book. I mean, uh, just google the term. So, an after the fact "Klutz is genuinely surprised" kind of response rings more than a little hollow...
Phil from MAKE here...
So, from what I am reading Klutz and Scholastic is saying they developed "BristleBots" 100% on their own in early 2007 and then (also in 2007) Evil Mad Scientists developed the *exactly* same thing, with the same exact name. Klutz and Scholastic never thought to contact Evil Mad Scientists at all after seeing the internet sensation "BristleBot" and are now "genuinely surprised". Oddly enough Klutz does trademark many of the terms and words they come up with, but in this example - "BristleBots" they did not.
can someone from scholastic / klutz return our emails or calls with our specific questions?
At the very same time. That IS a coincidence.
Sorry, but this stinks. At least scholastic/klutz should have the class to admit they screwed up.
Uh, Klutz might want to produce some evidence to support that "early 2007" part.
And might want to start acting a LOT more apologetic, and quickly.
Both the Scholastic and Klutz names are being damaged all over the 'net the longer this goes on. You need to fix this in hours, not days or weeks. Quite disappointed in the Klutz/Scholastic team. This sort of blatant ripoff should be unacceptable to both companies, and I'm sure you'll both do the right thing on Friday 2/20/2009. This post wasn't anywhere near the "right thing".
Check out your book's page on Amazon...and try googling "bristlebot". You need to fix this tomorrow at the latest.
Wow... as a child that grew up on Klutz books, being inspired to get messy and create, I am disheartened to see not only a blatant copy, but also a non-apologetic lie on top of it!
I guess now that they've decided stealing is ok, I'll just go download a pirated copy of their books off the internet.
Given that Evil Mad Scientists have online proof-of-date for their concept, and all you are giving us is a unbacked claim, I think you are doing yourself more damage by claiming surprise. In the absence of any proof, your claim seems like a post-facto attempt to retroactively cover your legal ass.
It's not pretty. Nor is it even mildly believable.
I would certainly like to see a collaboration between Klutz and Evil Mad Scientist Labs. It would be great to be able to buy everything in a kit with kid-friendly instructions illustrated with Klutz's signature style. I hope you don't irretreivably damage that possiblity by being asinine boneheads who don't know when to apologize.
Short of an ass-kissing, toe-licking, apology with a back-off of this stance, you better have dated and verified proof. Evil Mad Scientist Labs certainly does. If you can show legitimate claim to the idea prior to EMS, then good.
At the company I used to work for, if there was any possibility that an invention could be protected, we got document numbers from a document database, published any and all memos in a controlled system with additional dated signatures. All lab notebooks that might be used to protect a claim had to be dated and signed by the primary inventor and counter signed by another individual to assure the date and content. I believe this is a fairly standard practice for claiming rights to intellectual property.
As an educator, I can say that Scholastic is in hot water with teachers at the moment as well. They allowed large coupon codes through when teachers ordered books, and are now accusing the teachers of fraud and is charging the teachers for their (Scholastic's) mistake.
This is a company that does not apologize, admit fault or try to maintain customer service. As sad and disillusioning as this is for Scholastic fans, I'm not surprised in the least.
Someone is lying. And I have a clear suspicion who does. "developed internally" oh yes, sure. Note the avoidance of the word "invented".
May I guess how this went? "Early 2007" "the Klutz creative team" started a project to produce a new book. At that time they didn't have a title or an idea. They still needed to "develop" this. At some point during this "internal development" they had a brainstorming session "What to do?", and "How to name it?". And magically, incidentally, they came up with bristlebots. All in a completely "internal" meeting. Yeah, sure.
Pull the other one.
the evil scientists did the only thing that was right: releasing their ideas to the public, so nobody can trademark or patent those ideas anymore.
thats it. easy as that. live with it. and try to keep your dignity. This should be possible, even if it was [not] invented by Klutz.
At the bottom of each EMSL page:
© 2009 Evil Mad Scientist Laboratories
And from their Terms of Use:
"12. Reservation of Rights
We reserve all of our rights, including but not limited to any and all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and any other proprietary right that we may have in our web site, its content, and the goods and services that may be provided. The use of our rights and property requires our prior written consent. We are not providing you with any implied or express licenses or rights by making services available to you and you will have no rights to make any commercial uses of our web site or service without our prior written consent."
This stinks, 'genuinely surprised' yeh ... maybe at the fact people noticed.
In other news I am the creator of all things and any deity and or/scientist claiming otherwise will leave me 'genuinely surprised' as I developed it in early before time ...
Hey guys, thanks for your comments. I've just updated the post.
wow. just wow. we're (the kultz reading maker public) really going to want to see proof that not only was this developed independently, but that at no point prior to this discovery did *anyone* related to that team look at EMS website or youtube.
w/o that, one *has* to assume intentional ip rip off.
fire the writers for plagiarism, and give the profits, as well as the writers fees to EMS. simple solution.
Total BS and no one is buying it.
Why would you post "we developed the idea internally" and not provide any kind of fact proving so? I have been scammed out of a patent by fraudulent "internal develoment" claims by other partys... I hope Evil Mad Scientist Labs sue the a** end off of you guys
Wow, emsl bristlebot is what got me into robotics. The bristlebot inspired me to make my own bristle bot and go into much more complex robots. It is what got me to like making things. Those people at klutz totally ripped off the emsl bristlebot. Now klutz's book is going to be copyrighted. Klutz is only intrested in money not about keeping open and free and DIY.
Post a Comment