Morals and Ethics In Chess The Chess Equipment Business

@Rishi9 500 is large. For Dennis, it was 20. However, I remember Shelby from American Chess Equipment said he was lucky because they ordered many Ultimates in wood prior to the Queen's Gambit. I don't remember how many he said but it was a large number. I remember thinking the costs of that order must have been in the tens of thousands of dollars range wholesale. Also, I assume HoS buys in large qty since it takes about 6 months or longer to get new stock from their manufacturer. They probably don't order 500 of one set but I'm pretty sure they don't buy only 25.

I have no knowledge of ins and outs of business so I just keep quietly in this sort topics and observe. Then I saw some comments / remarks and print screens of conversations which I can relate to. 

I work for big multinational and we keep changing our preferred suppliers, understandable to cut cost but the level of services we used to get going south that's another story. It's also common for big companies and government organizations to pay their bills later than they should so this put lot pressures for the suppliers.

So when I read what Mandeep said in particular the survival part, it just hit me that he and along other small manufacturers are in the same position and no wonder they go direct to retail market just to survive. That got me thinking I have ordered several sets from Mandeep and every time I get top notch products along with excellent service when I needed. This in oppose to buying sets from big renowned retailer for premium prices but it didn't warrant for the service I expected to get when I needed to.

All of this makes me think I rather support the small local supplier, not so much to get cheaper prices but to give them what they deserve. Another way to look at it, when the small manufacturers are out of business, the big retailers don't have anything to sell either.

I think what is immoral is the profit margin those western companies operate on. Exploiting the cheap labour to sell "luxury" product for an exorbitant amount of money. 

How much is the manufacturer getting for making a set that's later sold for £500?
How many working hours would it take the worker to get paid £500?!

Of course we only know what we have been told about the TCE Alegria debacle, but I note that TCE admits what to most people probably seem the key facts: they agreed to produce the set for Dennis, the sets were not delivered to him, and they were offered for sale directly by TCE. TCE has offered some explanation as to how this came to pass but the above seems pretty cut-and-dried.

Some mitigating factors have been raised. It's clear that TCE does feel they were jerked around a bit, and what happened on that side is something we will probably never know the truth of. Some have commented that while manufacturers seem to hold the whip hand in this sort of relationship (especially in a time of elevated demand) bringing a set to production does cost, so unnecessary delays or prevarication stringing this out could (if there's any truth to it) have caused loss to TCE and be a legitimate cause for complaint.

"Left hand not talking to right hand"; effectively, "honest mistake", is essentially the explanation offered by TCE but this sits awkwardly with protestations about its being a small company. I can't see the listing on the TCE site any more but from what I recall it commanded a good price and was accompanied by both photos of the expected quality and a specific product description - and we know that it had been in development for some time in collaboration with a longstanding partner of the business. You would expect the launch and marketing of that sort of product to be something all the relevant directors would take an interest in, rather than something one director would just go ahead and do on their own initiative. If this really is what happened it raises questions about the internal workings at TCE which don't inspire confidence.

It's also been pointed out that the difference between many Staunton styles is pretty minimal and therefore is there actually any value in the design? I'm not an IP expert by any means, but my expectation would be that  whilethe basic Staunton pattern cannot be protected the specifics of a given knight might well be available for protection. It's also worth noting though that even if the design is not special in itself (debatable), the product name "Legend Alegria" does have some value and that's the name under which the TCE version was being sold (specifically referencing Legend, the brand name of the original designers). If they had marketed it as "Mythic Adagia" that might still seem a bit grubby but at least they wouldn't be so directly profiting from the Legend branding.

In any case that's by the by to an extent, because this isn't a case of third-party IP infringement where someone takes it upon themselves to copy a design on the market out of the blue: there was clearly an agreement of sorts in place between Legend and TCE and it's the apparent breach of that which has caused the agitation, so the dispute is (in addition to the degree to which it's personal) essentially a commercial/contractual one.

Ideally one would look to the contract to determine who is in the right. Of course that's not available to us, firstly because we're just onlookers, but also because given the relationship between the parties there may well not be a written contract per se. Most likely there is a chain of correspondence where heads of terms only are agreed, and the precise terms and conditions under which the products are manufactured and supplied, and where property in the design vests once the initial production run is completed, will be dependent on industry standard and/or past course of dealing. There might be a standard set of terms and conditions issued by TCE but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there isn't. That's something which either side could confirm if they think it's any of our business, which it probably isn't.

As a member of the peanut gallery, it would seem to me that justice would be best served by TCE's accounting to Dennis for the profits (if any) from any Alegria sets sold without his permission, thereby minimising or extinguishing the financial loss on either side, and for TCE then to suspend direct sales of further Alegria sets indefinitely, while Dennis can make a decision about whether to continue with the original plan of TCE manufacturing and supplying Alegria sets to him, whether to take his business elsewhere, or whether to write the whole thing off.

Mr Nut, I agree. Now it seems mr TCE is agitated which indirect put mr Petersen in awkward position (you know, cultural differences and that sort of things). Maybe it's best just to let them in peace sort this out in private.

He's agitated only because he got caught and called out in public.  

I know, I'm part of doing that too. But let's not make things worse which indirect put mr Petersen in awkward position. That's what I meant.

https://www.copyrightservice.net/copyright/in

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l195-Copyright-Law-in-India.html

(B) Moral Rights:
Section 57 of the Act defines the two basic 'moral rights of an author. These are:
Right of paternity, and
Right of integrity.

The law is very clear !

The law is anything but clear. I have dealt with IP lawyers in my time and they will tell you that the law is murky and very difficult to enforce.

The first words of the first document you refer to says "Copyright law in India covers the rights granted to the creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and the producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. These rights include the rights to reproduction of the work, communication of the work to the public, adapt or translation the work." So which category covers game pieces? The above items are all absolutely unique! A staunton chess set isn't. I'm not disagreeing with the basic premise that TCE should honour any promises they made to Dennis, they most definitely should. I'm simply saying that if any legal action were available in such circumstances it is unlikely it would fall under copyright law. Maybe a simple tort of "passing off"? Sorry, don't mean to rant, but for 99.9% of the population the answer to whether Dennis has a remedy in law is "I haven't got a clue!" and the .1% (or less) who might know will charge an arm and a leg to investigate it for you, win or lose. 😊

I am sure ,  it will not come to this with Dennis & IP

Ok just abit of topic ! Thats the point the 1% , But just sometimes the little guy wins ! may cost him everything & years , https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14287864

Lol! Nice story. Although even that raises the question as to whether chess sets are functional as opposed to artistic items and can therefore be replicated by anyone. See what a minefield this is? 😉