View Single Post
Old 05-10-2006, 07:49 PM   #27
bfoster2000's Avatar
bfoster2000
Registered Users
seller
seller
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,098
My Mood:
Re: The Truth about the Pocket Diaper -great article

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimb96
I have never understood why people are so worked up about the license fee. The fees to use a pattern such as very baby or cuddlebuns are at least $350 if not more and no one is boycotting either of these. I don't think Tereson is making money on the fees. I do agree that if she did not hold the patent, pocket diapers would have been snatched up by some retail giant, made overseas and sold for $7-8. No wahm could compete with that.
I think one reason people got more worked up about this is that the license fee jumped from $25/year to $350/year. I can see how that would be a shock but it didn't happen overnight, there was warning, and from what I can tell, they did work with the people who already had licenses (more than they had to). Another thing to consider is that the license fee jumped right about the time that HH took the case to court and the cost of defending the patent increased...food for thought...

The other difference (at least IMO...I've tried very hard to understand both sides of this issue) is that if you purchase the Very Baby pattern (or Cuddlebuns or Honey Boy or whatever) you get a pattern and a well-recognized name. That's why Very Baby (and others I'm sure!) requires you to submit samples of your diapers so that they can make sure the workmanship is up to their standards and they are ok with putting their name on your work. When you purchase a pocket license, you get...well, in some people's eyes, nothing. You still have to either come up with your own pattern or buy someone else's and deal with their licensing. You still have to get your name out there and get people to recognize how wonderful your diapers are. You don't get a license to make and sell Fuzzibunz...you get a license to start from scratch. Tereson and Linda and others are working together to increase support and marketing for licensed pocket diaper makers so that people do see that they are getting something for their money, but honestly, they don't have to do that.

As I was reading back through some of the earlier posts, I came across the question about "WAHM pockets" on eBay. There are loopholes in intellectual property law and some of these may apply to the diapers you are referring to. Many of them are probably violating the patent (whether they know it or not). Either way, it is the maker of the diaper who is responsible for ensuring that they are in compliance...you're not going to be sued for buying one of these diapers. One of the loopholes is that if you make something for personal use, you don't need a license. Later, you can sell that used item and you still don't need a license. I have heard people say "Fine, I'll just make a diaper, let my kid wear it for an hour, and then sell it." but that's not really within the spirit of the law. That's something you'll have to deal with your own conscience about. I believe (though I may be wrong on this one) that if you make something as a gift, it's also considered personal use and you don't need a license. Again, I have seen people offering diapers "FFS - only $12 S&H" which would probably be considered a violation by the courts. I believe there was a WAHM on the old DS who tried to pull that one with "Taggie" blankets. There's also a provision (at least in the pocket diaper instance) that you can sell up to 5 diapers per year without needing a license. So if you're making diapers for personal use and decide at Christmas that you need a little extra $$$, you could legally make a couple of extras (less than 5) and sell them on eBay and still be ok.

Now, here's a question for you...from what I've heard, there is a patent on the "Taggie" blanket as well...how come nobody raises a fuss about that? In fact, I'm saying that I *heard* there is a patent but I haven't really found much info on it when I've looked because nobody cares. What's the difference on that one?
bfoster2000 is offline   Reply With Quote