Morals and Ethics In Chess The Chess Equipment Business

@Rishi9 I think it is a shame the original carvers of the Murshidabad set disappeared off the face of the earth. They were true artist and were certainly very gifted. However, that has nothing to do with Oleg who reproduces the sets today. We're talking about two different eras. It is not like Oleg caused the Murshidabad carvers to be displaced. It would be like us blaming TCE and others for reproducing an 1849 set which Jaques produced 160 years ago. Jaques might still be around but their copyright has long passed. TCE and others have nothing to do with what happened to the carvers of the Jaques 1849 sets just like Oleg has nothing to do with the Murshidabad carvers being displaced.

Also, I think the saying two wrongs does not make a right applies here. Obviously we can look back in history and grab a bunch of wrongs that were done and then use that to justify the wrongs that TCE and many others are doing now with the BCE and Algeria designs. Neither excuses the other. 

While we have seen and heard of many dishonorable things in the Chess market over the years on this forum, I believe this latest by Chess Empire is a first in being so blatant of a ripoff. 
Dennis posted quite awhile ago that he was having this Alegria design made in wood from his very original plastic sets.

Now, the company he was having make this set, decided to sell it on their own even before Dennis had any to sell himself.  This is wrong in so many different ways.

Plus, they continue to have the set available for purchase on their website, even after one of the owners has admitted to Dennis they were and are wrong.

Chess Empire has been one of the highest quality Chess set makers in the world.  Their quality very well was in the same category as Noj.

We do know they started offering the set designs they had made for Frank Camaratta, direct.  They began competing with the very company that initially gave them the designs and worked with them to develop their high quality products.

In this case they are not even competing with Dennis.  They are selling the sets while he does not even have any to sell himself.  This is dirty play.

I know that I will certainly stop doing any business with Chess Empire, and I will definitely tell everyone I know to not buy anything from them.

I am not a mean person.  If they can make it up to Dennis, then I will relax my boycott.  However it will take a lot for them to make this right.

@Eyechess You make some good points. I am waiting to see how TCE handles Dennis and Izmet. I really despise underhanded stuff like this. 

Please some links to the "Dennis Alegria set", "Izmet set" and the Chess Empire copies, so that I can follow what we are talking about.

Thanks

Here you go https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/plastic-legend-alegria-staunton-chess-set-has-been-made-in-pro-line-ebony-and-boxwood

Is it?  Just now I clicked through the link provided earlier:

https://www.thechessempire.com/the-alegria-series-chess-pieces-br-boxwood-ebony-br-4-25-king.html

...and it dropped me into their "Affiliated Program" page.  Interesting.

And it's aggravating that CE's Sharma hasn't responded to any further challenges since his "it's all OK just a simple misunderstanding" blah-blah-blah here:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/plastic-legend-alegria-staunton-chess-set-has-been-made-in-pro-line-ebony-and-boxwood?page=5#comment-60013192

I think if people refresh their browsers they will find the Alegria set is no longer listed for sale at TCE.

It does beg the question though as to what firm, written agreements are entered into when a vendor orders a new set from a manufacturer. I'm not talking morally but legally.

It's amazing the number of times I have looked at a set which someone claims is "their design" and I can't help thinking - No it really isn't! It's Nathanial Cooke's design with a few very minor tweaks. But it is basically a Staunton set. The HOS Hastings set is very similar to the Alegria (not identical but very similar) and has been on sale for years.

That's before you consider the cost of tooling etc. and who pays for that, especially if the set is rejected 6 times over the course of about two years. 

Not knocking anyone here. The moral case for adhering to the original agreement is overwhelming but maybe cultural factors come into play. The best answer to a question of whether a set can be copied, may be "no". Not unless the manufacturer can be guaranteed a volume of, say, 50 or 100, not 20.

I think the root of this issue is what many call, "the chess lawsuit of the Century." 

A case which Jaques filed against B.H.Wood and lost. Ever since then, any design is basically a Staunton pattern and tough to copyright. 

Edward Winter writes about this case in his Chess Notes no 360. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/courts.html

1939: Baruch Harold Wood v Jaques (C.N. 360)

In 1939 B.H. Wood found himself in the dock for having advertised for sale in CHESS in 1937 ‘genuine Staunton chessmen’ (see C.N.s 3653 and 3656). The plaintiffs were John Jaques & Son, Ltd., and Sir George Thomas, Max Euwe and Lodewijk Prins appeared as witnesses for the defence. The case is referred to by Fred Wren in his article ‘Tales of a Woodpusher: Woodpusher’s Woodpile’, which appeared in Chess Review, 1949 and was reprinted in Reinfeld’s The Treasury of Chess Lore (New York, 1951). The issues of CHESS of the time also contained a huge amount of material on the case. The decision was that ‘Staunton’ alone was a permissible description, but that the phrase ‘genuine Staunton’ implied a product made by Jaques & Son, Ltd., as opposed to any Staunton pattern. However, B.H.Wood appealed and, in 1940, won.

Sometimes each of us get a little passionate about stuff. I know I do. It happens. Anyhow back to chess stuff...

I think in general it is ok for suppliers to copy Jaques designs from the 1800s and 1900s because those designs are so old. I think someone copying another's currently produced design without the owner's permission like CE did with BCE is not ok. I think the situation where TCE gave Dennis the runaround and then went behind his back and produced a design owned by Dennis without permission is the worst thing. This was all before TCE even produced the design for Dennis. TCE did this in front of all of us and then when they got caught pretended one hand did not know what the other hand was doing.

Understood. But you're statement makes it seem that TCE deliberately did this to make a quick buck and for no other reason. We don't know obviously, but it may be that there is an element of frustration involved. Either way I agree manufacturers should stick to agreements made regardless, but may need to be more explicit up front about all aspects of the agreement, particularly if the customer isn't satisfied with the outcome. 

Did not TCE have the rights to make Jaques chess set under license by Jaques of London , Also HOS  had got Jaques of London approval and even supplied them with chess sets  ?

When a manufacturer agrees to make a set exclusively for a retailer, then reneges on the agreement and starts selling direct, that's the textbook definition of unethical. And don't kid yourself, it's been done on more than one occasion and to more than one retailer.

So the best that can be done with these chumps is to never again direct-buy from TCE.  Easy for me as I'm not nearly as addicted as some of you... 

The sorry fact is that this is not a copy but the actual production pieces made for Dennis from a wholesale point of view.

Dennis never saw this set delivered to him.  Instead they took his design and sold it as their own.

It is the action that matters.  Any intentions really don’t matter.

GPD,

Each of us has to decide for ourselves whether to invoke a full or partial boycott (or none at all). Since the number of high-quality chess set manufacturers is limited, and I'm not prepared to stop collecting chess sets, I have opted for a partial boycott, refusing to purchase any sets that are being offered under less than ethical circumstances.

You are correct. I was making assumptions about the situation I could not possible know for a fact. I based my assumptions on the following:

1. TCE gave Dennis the runaround. Dennis said in the other thread he did not give TCE permission to produce the set and has been waiting for them to make a knight that was acceptable. They tried 5 times and failed to produce the knight they produced the first time. Then TCE went ahead and produced the set with the knight they made for Dennis the first time. I believe this is what Dennis said.

2. Izmet confirmed TCE was not given permission to produce his BCE set. Again, TCE took the liberty of producing the set without his permission. It seemed like Izmet was not even aware the TCE copy of his BCE set existed before someone mentioned it here at CB&E.

In both cases, it seems TCE took some liberties that was not known to the design owners. My statement was based upon this and I do believe it was to make a quick buck. Chess stuff is hot right now, so there is no better time than now to do it. This is my opinion of course based upon what was said in the other threads.

I agree with you on this one. It must go both ways. However, if I am a retailer and I hire SC to make me 500 sets of a design I own, then once SC produces those 500 sets, I have no more obligation to SC. If I promise SC exclusive rights to produce that specific set then I have an obligation to SC for that set and should not go elsewhere. If the retailers are promising exclusive rights to produce a specific set beyond a specific QTY then for sure the retailers are in the wrong if they go elsewhere. However, this does not give the right to SC or any other manufacturer to produce a design I own without my permission.

In this specific issue with Dennis Petersen, he does not nor would not jump to different manufacturers like this.  
As time goes by in this, Empire  continues to look worse and worse.

+1

+2

I agree. 

This is why I find this disturbing. 

Dennis Petersen and AIW/TCE relationship was perfect symbiosis between a manufacturer and retailer. Both seem to be steadfast in their support to each other. Never heard of AIW selling a Legend product to some other retailer. Legend seems to have stuck to AIW for decades. This is how it should be....

Now that Dennis is actively posting on this forum, we will hear from him about the chess industry. 

@MCH818 I think the number in many cases is a lot lower than 500. It's usually 25 sets. But I don't know the exact details. In case of bigger retailers, numbers might be higher but 500 looks like a huge number for some of these premium/high end designs.