Peak Design Says Amazon Ripped Off its Everyday Sling Bag (fastcompany.com) 90
For years, merchants on Amazon have accused the company of ripping off their ideas and selling much cheaper versions under the Amazon Basics brand, but no one's made the case quite like Peak Design. From a report: In a YouTube video, the San Francisco-based bag designer points out the many similarities between its popular camera bag and Amazon's, both of which are called the Everyday Sling. They have similar shapes, aesthetics, and pockets, and even their logos are in the same place. A key difference, though, is that Peak Design's sling starts at $55, while Amazon's version currently sells for $21. The video then pretends to look in on the "crack team at the Amazon Basics department," wearing googly-eye glasses and marveling at Peak Design's sales before resolving to "Basic this bad boy."
Of course, the two bags are not exactly the same. In the video, Peak Design calls out the areas where Amazon's version falls short -- plastic buckles instead of aluminum, cheaper zippers, floppy dividers -- while also pointing to its own bag's recycled materials, lifetime warranty, carbon neutrality, and "fairly paid factory workers." "If you're tired of supporting companies who innovate, and just not willing to pay for responsibly made products, don't," the video says, warning that "you'll get exactly what you pay for." Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.
Of course, the two bags are not exactly the same. In the video, Peak Design calls out the areas where Amazon's version falls short -- plastic buckles instead of aluminum, cheaper zippers, floppy dividers -- while also pointing to its own bag's recycled materials, lifetime warranty, carbon neutrality, and "fairly paid factory workers." "If you're tired of supporting companies who innovate, and just not willing to pay for responsibly made products, don't," the video says, warning that "you'll get exactly what you pay for." Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm guessing that this company doesn't hold any such patents so they can't do anything about it besides a lawsuit over the similarity in name creating brand confusion, but that's a stretch. This is just a way to create some publicity (free marketing) and maybe get additional customers. You can tell this from a lot of their messaging focusing around extolling the virtues of their product.
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Design patents. The bastard child of patents and trademark. Personally I think they're an abomination that should not exist
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you object to the idea behind them rather than what they're called, where do you draw the line? I'll assume you wouldn't like someone e
Re: (Score:3)
The right amount is easy to figure out, as long as you remember that the purpose of trademarks is consumer protection, and NOT monopoly creation:
Trademarks have one - and ONLY one - legitimate purpose: to prevent deception and fraud of consumers.
They do not exist so that companies can claim ownership of words, phrases, colours, shapes, appearance, arrangements, or anything else.
For example, if some shitty watch manufacturer were falsely selling their shitty watches as well-known "Crappex" brand then that wo
Re: (Score:2)
This. Absolutely agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Although the example I'm going to offer you in support of this suggestion concerns a case an attempted "shakedown" by "Monster Cable" against "Blue Jeans Cable" might be both instructive and fun to read... See here [bluejeanscable.com] for details.
The background to my example is that "Monster Cable" tried to use the threat of litigation to intimidate "Blue Jea
Re: (Score:2)
Can you elaborate on the legal theory behind "trade dress". One has to wonder about the justification for carving out new market monopolies that are not called for by the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
You would find a more textual definition here [slashdot.org]. Also, although it doesn’t necessary cover it from a technical analysis pers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, but that's not really what I was looking for. Basically I'm looking for the justification for its existence as a concept in law. It if's not trademark, or copyright, or patent, or trade secret stolen by espiionage, what basis does it actually have? What legal theory justifies it?
Re: (Score:2)
Who is a laywer and who does a *much* better job of explaining the relationship between "Trade Dress" and legal protection than I ever could.
I think you might find the explanation you would like there... and if not I'm pretty sure that the Captain is the person to ask...
Re: (Score:2)
I took a look. It does not sound like there is a particularly good basis for it to exist. It sounds like it just boils down to "unregistered trademark on look and feel". So the only valid basis should be consumer protection against being defrauded about what they are buying.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, can Peak show secondary meaning?
To bring folks up to speed, trademark law is really a category of unfair competition law, and another extremely similar and closely-related category is trade dress. Trade dress originally tended to refer to a product's packaging (e.g. think of the distinctive orange Nike shoeboxes), in-store displays, etc. Over time it expanded to cover the overall image and impression of a product or service. But it's still subject to the usual sorts of rules for trademarks.
One of t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to say, based on this, it sounds like "trade dress" is mostly a load of bull invented from whole cloth in court as a creeping extension of unregistered trademark. Based on what you wrote about rulings 20 years ago, it sounds like some common sense prevailed and Judges realized that they were being asked to enforce a "right" that didn't exist and they basically rolled it back into what sounds like the scope of regular trademarks. Or, in other words, it sounds like trademark is the double-bastard ch
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to say, based on this, it sounds like "trade dress" is mostly a load of bull invented from whole cloth in court as a creeping extension of unregistered trademark.
Oh man, you should see the cases about the copyright utility doctrine; it's clear that conceptual separability is really just which side of the bed the judge woke up on.
That said, trade dress is not that bad.
You're probably familiar with what Apple Stores look like; the particular floor material, the plain maple tables, the displays, the general layout (outside of special cases like the Grand Central Terminal store), the look of the walls, etc. You could be brought to one blindfolded, and even if the produ
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the fake Apple stores go, the examples in the article seem to also use trademarked Apple logos, etc. and it is stated in the article that some have signs specifically saying Apple Store, etc. I'm not really sure why trade dress would be needed in that situation. As far as the products they sell, if they're mostly real Apple products, I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm just not clear on where Apple derives the right to control how its products are resold after they have already sold them. Are th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to tell Peak Design this, but I invented that very same bag in 1987 while traveling in Peru. I used sailcloth and a cheap leather belt rather than their polyester fabric, and a flap rather than a zipper (faster access and doesn't leak in the rain), but otherwise they used my design down to the rivet. Oh, one other difference, I didn't put a logo on mine.
I'd be shocked if a hundred other people hadn't built the exact same carrying bag over the years.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I take from your post that you don't believe that they should be entitled to intellectual property protection on the design of their bag. I agree with that position 100%. On the other hand, I think they handled this rather well. They don't appear to be trying to sue or anything like that. They are just appealing to the customer base to buy their bag instead of the cheaper Amazon version by advertising the merits they believe it has over the Amazon version.
Re: So? (Score:1)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Matching Amazon's price would require making the bag as shitty as the Amazon bag.
If you always buy on price, you're spending more money in the long run. Because cheap crap breaks much faster and now you're buying it multiple times.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish that where true, but too often you are just paying for a brand name, and expensive replacement parts.
I quite willing to pay more for quality, but I need a guarantee it real quality, if they offer a lifetime warrantee then I am happy to pay $100 vs $32, however for most of the expensive crappy things I have bought, I am willing to go to ali-express and pay $5.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. In many instances the cheapest items are cheaper than they are worse. You can spend a thousand dollars for shoes that will last a lifetime (with a couple sole replacements). Or just pay 5 dollars at the used store every year. You can buy a $500 mechanical keyboard that will last you a lifetime, or a $10 100% plastic piece of shit that will last 4 years.
Even if you value a current dollar at the exact same amount as a future dollar, paying more is only economically viable sometimes. More often you
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I think I had a camera bag that was a ripoff of your design, somewhere around 1989. On the other hand, my mother hand a camera bag of similar design at least as long ago as 1985, so perhaps you're the dirty copy cat.
Re: (Score:2)
For exampe:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/e... [bhphotovideo.com]
Re: (Score:3)
WTF is patentable about this bag?
-jcr
Did Peak sue Amazon for patent infringement? No... they just pointed out that Amazon are ripoff artists copying their design with lesser quality materials and workmanship.
This is just an example of Amazon using their insider knowledge of hot selling items to undercut the sellers using the Amazon Marketplace to sell their goods.
This is amoral, anti-competitive behavior on Amazon's part and Peak is calling them out for it, publicly. I don't see why you immediately jump to a patent defense strategy...
Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
In a YouTube video, the San Francisco-based bag designer points out the many similarities between its popular camera bag and Amazon's, both of which are called the Everyday Sling.
Yeah, it's a fashion accessory. The fashion industry damn well knows that the only thing they can protect are their trademarked logos. All else is fair game. This is just a bid for publicity to try to differentiate themselves without having to pay for advertising. Looks like it worked, so well played. Maybe don't take such a whiny tone next time though.
Re:Yep (Score:5, Insightful)
In a YouTube video, the San Francisco-based bag designer points out the many similarities between its popular camera bag and Amazon's, both of which are called the Everyday Sling.
Yeah, it's a fashion accessory. The fashion industry damn well knows that the only thing they can protect are their trademarked logos. All else is fair game. This is just a bid for publicity to try to differentiate themselves without having to pay for advertising. Looks like it worked, so well played. Maybe don't take such a whiny tone next time though.
I think they are also trying to shame Amazon for their practice of ripping off product designs from much smaller manufacturers. Amazon is a behemoth, not some tiny closet operation in China.
The video was quite funny (Score:4, Interesting)
I think they are also trying to shame Amazon for their practice of ripping off product designs from much smaller manufacturers. Amazon is a behemoth, not some tiny closet operation in China.
+1
Amazon is run by the world's richest man and a massive company. I have no sympathy for them. The video lampooned them quite well. If there as anything anti-trust worthy, I'd imagine things like this are...where they rip off successful designs from their customers, leveraging their sales/profit data. I am not comfortable with the AmazonBasics people having detailed access to their competitors' sales and profit data.
Re: The video was quite funny (Score:1)
Re: The video was quite funny (Score:4, Insightful)
That's obviously an advantage that allows them to select which designs to copy far earlier than anyone else in the industry. If you stack on top of that the ability to dynamically adjust their prices so they're always undercutting the very products they copied... well, that seems to be reaching the point of anti-competitive practices.
Re: The video was quite funny (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon's actions here could be anti-competitive even if they would not be for a small company. That's the cost of cornering the on-line market. IANAL, but neither are you, obviously, YMMV, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Yep (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's not. This is a camera bag. Something to be used to carry your equipment around. It has a specific use. You don't carry this around on you in normal use to show off to people.
That Amazon used the exact same name and accoutrements is endemic of its tactics. They're doing the same thing as China who looks at the design of products being manufactured, then goes about creating their own versions.
Re: (Score:2)
Noooo. I took a look at it. It's a very pretty bag. You can theoretically put a smallish camera in it, but that's about it, and there doesn't seem to be much padding so you probably wouldn't want to.
If you're actually hauling gear around you're not going to be using this. If you want to "organize drone kits, mirrorless kit, or a compact camera and accessories" or you're a "light carry [or] gear minimalist" then you might like this. Just don't drop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Noooo. I took a look at it. It's a very pretty bag.
Hey if you want to lug your camera around in a steel box then go for it. Special purpose does not need to be ugly, and special purpose is universally never "fashion accessory".
If you're actually hauling gear around
Not ever photographer hauls gear around. Hell back when I used to shoot professional weddings if it couldn't dangle from my shoulder it didn't come in the field. Ironically it usually stayed in a Lowepro bag purpose built for "hauling" which ... never left the car. Hell I still have that bag. Certainly never taken it on vacation despi
Re:Yep (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe don't take such a whiny tone next time though.
Tell you what. YOU design a product, bring it to market, and watch as copycat makers start selling an inferior lookalike of your product, with the same name you came up with, and undercutting your price. Then let's see how whiny YOUR tone is.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe don't take such a whiny tone next time though.
Tell you what. YOU design a product, bring it to market, and watch as copycat makers start selling an inferior lookalike of your product, with the same name you came up with, and undercutting your price. Then let's see how whiny YOUR tone is.
Again--have you ever paid attention to how the fashion industry works?
Re: (Score:2)
Again--have you ever paid attention to how the fashion industry works?
Oh, that's how it works. OK. I guess no one has any right to complain then.
Re: (Score:2)
Again--have you ever paid attention to how the fashion industry works?
Oh, that's how it works. OK. I guess no one has any right to complain then.
Oh it's totally scummy but I have a feeling that this was due to a lack of oversight of whatever supplier they asked for a bunch of camera accessories to rebadge as the house brand. The real offense is the same name (which Amazon has since changed, btw). The design is really generic. It's just a sling bag like I've been using for a decade but rectangular instead of a normal backpack shape and of course 'eco friendly.' Otherwise, are you sure it wasn't actually Manfrotto [amazon.com] that Amazon ripped off?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The local Macys did a cute thing a few years ago, they displayed the Ivanka Trump clothing right next to the Donna Karan fashions they had copied. Ivanka's junk was more expensive, IIRC.
Re: (Score:2)
Identity theft where one rips off everything important about you, profits from it, and then ruins one's good name.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet this happens all the time with open source software - many many copies of other projects, both commercial closed source and open source...
Re: (Score:3)
This dovetails nicely with the antitrust story earlier. It's true that copying is a part of fashion. It is also true that large retailers often have a house brand. But now we have a very large retailer with a whole lot of data about what customers want from a bag, what they are willing to pay extra for, etc., and they are using that info to compete with Peak for the business of Amazon customers who like Peak bags (in light of this I don't begrudge the embittered tone).
This is narrowly good for consumers, b
Re: (Score:3)
Of course Amazon not only copies the design, it pops up this product in the face of anyone who is looking for the original.
The weird thing is that Amazon doesn't seem to have any reputation concerns here, either from the sleazy tactics it uses with vendors who sell through their website, or with consumers who often get marginal or inferior goods. It's quality roulette, like ordering from AliExpress. Sometimes what you get is perfectly fine, other times it's almost comically bad. It may be that Amazon is ju
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a bid for publicity to try to differentiate themselves without having to pay for advertising.
By paying to create an advert... I don't think you understand what you just watched.
Unethical... (Score:5, Insightful)
While there may be nothing illegal about this, there is imho zero question that it is unethical. Amazon provides a retail sales platform. They choose products to copy, based on data they only have because the seller is their customer.
This may not be illegal, but I would bet a court would support civil liability. It just takes a customer (or a class of customers) willing to make their case in front of a judge.
Re:Unethical... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unethical... (Score:5, Informative)
How is it different than what Walmart and other stores have done for decades with house brands?
Walmart house brands are made by the original manufacturers. Only the label is different.
Clorox Bleach and Great Value Bleach are made in the same factory, by the same people, using the same ingredients and equipment. The only differences are the label and the price.
Re: Unethical... (Score:2)
Walmart isn't obligated to have their house brand bleach made by Clorox, they just happen to. If they have house brand chocolate sandwich cookies you might excuse that by saying that they're also made by Nabisco, makers of Oreos, but Walmart could switch to Leaf's Hydrox, or could just buy a cookie factory and do it themselves. Nabisco never has any cause to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Bleach is bleach. You'd have a point if Walmart carefully analysed "Clorox Bleach" copied it down to the detail and chemical formula, put a label on calling it "Chlorox Bleech" and put it at half the price in front of the bottle of Clorox Bleach on the shelf.
*Then* you would be comparing it to what Amazon does with Amazon Choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Stores do exactly that sort of analysis when it's warranted.
This is from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 US 205 (2000):
Respondent Samara Brothers, Inc., designs and manufactures children's clothing. Its primary product is a line of spring/summer one piece seersucker outfits decorated with appliques of hearts, flowers, fruits, and the like. A number of chain stores, including JCPenney, sell this line of clothing under contract with Samara.
Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is one of the nation's best known retailers, selling among other things children's clothing. In 1995, Wal-Mart contracted with one of its suppliers, Judy-Philippine, Inc., to manufacture a line of children's outfits for sale in the 1996 spring/summer season. Wal-Mart sent Judy Philippine photographs of a number of garments from Samara's line, on which Judy-Philippine's garments were to be based; Judy-Philippine duly copied, with only minor modifications, 16 of Samara's garments, many of which contained copyrighted elements. In 1996, Wal-Mart briskly sold the so-called knockoffs, generating more than $1.15 million in gross profits.
Walmart won the case, by the way. But the point was that to the extent that one needed to 'carefully analyze' an article of clothing to replicate it, they did that. Also that case is a trade dress case (something in the same neighborhood as trademark; the distinction isn't important right now) and so they did in fact do something similar to your idea of 'Chlorox Bleech'
Re: (Score:2)
Not questioning whether what is going on is legal, and that's all that judges concern themselves with. They are question whether what is done is ethical. But at least you found a more relevant example than home brand beach.
Re: Unethical... (Score:2)
Well, where's the line?
Is it ethical to jump into a new and different line of business in which there are already participants that you'll be competing against?
Is it ethical to study competitors' goods and services in designing your own?
Is it ethical to just copy someone else's stuff?
Is it ethical to make a worse product? A better one? An identical one?
Is it ethical to undercut competitors on price? What if the price is basically fair for the good in question? (Like passing the savings on to the customer)
Do
Re: (Score:2)
Home Depot does this at retail. Wanted to buy a brand name yard sprayer but HD only stocks its own HDX brand that is a cheap rip-off of the brand name one I wanted. I'm actually willing to pay more for a decent product that works properly.
At some point these rip-off versions will put themselves out of business because the product doesn't work as expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, Amazon doesn't sell that brand. Some 3rd parties on Amazon had it for 20% more than retail price with slow shipping.
Where I live, Amazon does not offer same day delivery or pickup.
Re:Unethical... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've bought precisely two things from Amazon basics, both of them weren't even worth their ludicrously low asking price.
Fool me twice... you can't be fooled again.
Friends don't let friends buy Amazon Basics.
Repeat (Score:1)
This was posted a few weeks ago...
Shaddap peasant (Score:5, Funny)
Stop complaining about it and get back to your wage job before we take it away from you, peasant.
I call their products line "Amazon Ripoffs" (Score:2)
Ever since I've learned how Amazon "designs" their line of products, I've started calling them "Amazon Ripoffs".
Peak Design: Apple Image, Theranos Quality (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, so 2 years later, they release their bag inserts. The look AWESOME. Really awesome. They look like perfection. I buy one so I can put my lenses in a normal suitcase on vacation. Each divider has stiff velcro in the bottom that scratches your gear. The whole point of a camera cube is that your camera comes out in the same condition you put it in. it scratched my gear from their bad design. Fortunately, I was only testing it and it only scratched up a charger instead of a $2000 lens, but still...does anyone there actually use their own gear? It sucks so bad. In contrast, I bought a Neweer camera cube for 1/3 the cost....less premium look, but thick, conventional padding...works great, transports my lenses perfectly in a regular suitcase.
Peak Design has that whole Apple image thing going, but Theranos quality. This not only applies to the 2 bags I bought, but every bag I've seen in the store. They look great on the rack. You pick them up and with your fingertips, you can sense a million things wrong...from the thin straps to the terrible padding. So if you ever get tempted to buy a Peak Design bag, BE SURE TO HANDLE IT IN PERSON. They look good, the design is great in photos, but then you actually try to use it and you get terrible padding, terrible stiff zippers that require 2 hands to operate and most features, like straps and handles, feel very delicate compared to the competition. It doesn't look like something designed to last...more of a fashion accessory for those with more dollars than sense. I suppose in their mind if you can afford to spend 1.5-3x the price of the competition, you can afford to replace your expensive gear when the bag fails to protect it.
So while it is wrong of Amazon to so blatantly rip them off. I would welcome them integrating the better features of their design, but not replicating their mistakes...like design a bag that actually protects gear instead of making you look like an insufferable hipster.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a purse that's meant to look a little more edgy than the usual leather thing, but not too "tactical."
It wouldn't even fit the light body and two lenses I typically take backpacking, and there's no way I'd let a decent lens get near a bag with so little protection.
Re: (Score:1)
Regular bag with insert works best for me (Score:2)
What do you use for your everyday carry for camera gear?
A normal backpack with a camera holster in it. I LOVE camera backpacks. They're so cool and geeky, but they're just impractical unless you're an indecisive professional or shooting a LOT of different lighting conditions in a single session. I keep eyeing the LowePro ProTactic. I WANT one...I just know I won't use it because I pack light and for travel, I prefer keeping my lenses in a wheely suitcase with an insert. My gear is heavy and that's much better on my back.
For me, it is much better to pack l
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately, I was only testing it and it only scratched up a charger instead of a $2000 lens
I can't help but wonder why your $2000 lens would be made from the cheap plastic as your charger...
Jokes aside I get the point. Not good design. Thanks for the review, it sounds like something to skip.
Lens hoods are plastic too! (Score:3)
Fortunately, I was only testing it and it only scratched up a charger instead of a $2000 lens
I can't help but wonder why your $2000 lens would be made from the cheap plastic as your charger...
All lenses have plastic hoods, which is the outermost part, but even if aluminum, like the main body is, it is sharp enough to scratch the paint. The velcro is very abrasive and goes up the side of the insert about 1/4 of an inch. It would abrade your skin off if you rubbed against it.
It's really a peculiar design to have velcro on 3 sides of a divider. Most companies only have it on the sides and it has a flap to protect your gear. Their side velcro has a protective flaps it's not an issue. The bo
Well pull your products (Score:3)
from Amazon and sell them on your website especially if you have an established name. When someone orders a new bag send them a 20% off coupon to order from your own site next time.
Looks like a pretty clear ripoff (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't jump to this conclusion unless you know what other types of sling bags looked like. Myself, I know zero about sling bags, maybe you know better? Do you know what pre-existing sling bag features were there that Peak design copied? What innovations did they add that other sling bags didn't have? Presumably, Peak Design may have a patent detailing their innovations? It would be an easy win for them if so.
Re: (Score:2)
And they may not have patents covering innovations, I'm not sure why a bag would, but it doesn't mean
nice post (Score:1)
Sunglasses (Score:3)
I didn't care for or need either of these bags, and it's arguable to me whether or not one's a rip-off of the other, and I had a Jandt fanny pack back in the day that was darned awesome and would beat both of these, but the video was funny and I ended up buying a pair of the googley-eye glasses.
Damn - i think that's what the whole point of this was.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon Choice glasses?
I'm with Amazon on this one. (Score:2)
From my perspective Amazon is providing a great service. They are giving millions of people an affordable option that Peak Design refuses to provide.
Next time, design something truly innovative and get a real patent. Oh, it's just a bag? It's fundamentally the same thing humans have used for millenia? Sorry, then.
OMG (Score:2)
"They have similar shapes, aesthetics, and pockets, and even their logos are in the same place"
Like a T-Shirt, a pen, glasses ...
2021 Made in China = 1938 Made in Germany (Score:1)