[TowerTalk] New? Cable

[WD0M]

Good golly - quite the cynic.  Again, I suggest you contact Times Microwave 
and lodge your complaints, rather than broadcast them here.  Pontificating 
does little to change things.  Take action!

Cheers,

Joe
WD0M

At 10:58 AM 12/21/2003, Jim Lux wrote:


> > May I suggest you take action, rather than just "one might wonder" and
>toss
> > out implications of property right infringements, that you call Times
> > Microwave at 800-TMS-COAX (867-2629), and let them know of your concerns?
> >
> > Many different companies make RG-8 coax equivalents.....and I haven't
>heard
> > anyone complaining about that.
>
>RG-8 is a published specification in the public domain. Anyone can make
>something, call it RG-8, and as long as it meets the published
>specification, they're perfectly ok to do so. If they make something, call
>it RG-8, and it doesn't meet the specs, then they're committing a fraud.
>
>If they make something called "RG-8 similar" or "designed to RG-8
>specifications" or any other weasel words, they're also ok.  If you buy it,
>and it falls apart, or doesn't meet RG-8 specs, that's your problem, because
>they never claimed it actually was RG-8.
>
>LMR400 IS a proprietary part number and a trademark for Times-Microwave,
>just as Belden 9913 is a proprietary partnumber for Belden, both for high
>performance "RG-8 like" coaxial cable (i.e. 50 ohms, 0.4 inch in diameter,
>etc.).
>
>No matter if you went out and made coax that was identical in performance to
>LMR-400, you still can't call it LMR-400. No matter if you reverse engineer
>LMR-400 and make it yourself with the same materials, you can't call it
>LMR-400.
>
>You might be able to call it "LMR-400 similar" or "meets LMR-400 specs" or
>anything along those lines.  Times Microwave might have a problem with you
>using their tradename to promote your product, but then, they might not.
>Times Microwave might have patented their design for coaxial cable with low
>loss, in which case, you could certainly NOT reverse engineer it and
>duplicate the stuff, assuming the patent is still in force.
>
>There's also the sticky issue of what specifications is Jefatech actually
>claiming they meet with this stuff.  Clearly they can't claim to meet ALL of
>LMR-400's specifications (since that would probably embody some trade
>secrets  of Times Microwave, as far as materials used in construction,
>etc.).  They could claim that they meet some specifications on performance,
>loss, aging, stability etc, which they are perfectly free to copy from Times
>Microwave's datasheet or Belden's or whoever's.
>
>   The spool is marked "Jefatech", and the
> > coax is labeled the same way - nothing about "LMR400".
> >
> > Does that assuage your "wonderment"?
>
>It does answer my question... the stuff is "low loss coax claimed to be
>similar in properties to LMR-400 with no guarantee of future or present
>performance"  which is just fine.  If it works, it meets your budget, etc,
>then it's great stuff.  It fits in the great middle ground of products
>between "traceability to sand" cable with a pallet load of certs and what
>you find in the waterlogged dumpster at the end of the hamfest.
>
>I do find, though, that vendors that attempt to trade off the reputation of
>another product are a bit objectionable (depending on how blatant they
>are..), and, I also find that there is a distressing tendency in today's
>price sensitive market to turn a blind eye to fairly blatant ripoffs
>produced by offshore suppliers.
>
>I find JefaTech's website a bit objectionable, because they've tried to
>create the impression (in my mind at least) that they're selling LMR400 or
>an exact copy, but have included a few weasel words to try to keep them out
>of legal hot water.  Why not just say in the copy: "low loss 0.4 inch 50 ohm
>coax with 0.01 dB/100 ft loss at 30 MHz". They could even put in a
>comparative table showing their performance against LMR400 and 9913.  I
>recognize that they identify the stuff as LMR-400 because that's a handy
>shorthand for describing the coax.  Lots of people know what LMR-400 is,
>mechanically, electrically, etc.
>
>I think that we, as educated consumers, do have a responsibility to not
>support vendors and manufacturers who are unethical.  Most companies don't
>have the resources to track down every infringer, and rely on their trade
>reputation (why the label and the brandname is important) and that buyers
>will know the difference. You'll have to decide for yourself where the
>boundary lies.
>
>Jefatech may be selling a great product, and if they are, I commend them,
>and if you're happy with their product, you should tell them so.  If you
>think they've got a great product, but that they're getting towards a
>disreputable salesmanship (perhaps out of ignorance or lack of concern) then
>you should tell them so.  If, on the other hand, you think that Jefatech is
>wonderful because they're selling a cheap knockoff or de-facto counterfeit
>of the real thing, and you think you are "getting a great deal", shame on
>you.
>
>And, for those who think that this is irrelevant to a hobby, think again.
>Counterfeit goods are a real problem, not just an inconvenience.  The
>eternal downward pressure on pricing from large retailers has created a real
>incentive for manufacturers (on and off shore) to make products that look
>"good enough". In the last year there have been counterfeit aircraft
>replacement parts; counterfeit structural bolts; counterfeit wire rope; and
>so forth, all driven by a "lowest cost" objective, and things like testing,
>inspections, and just general good manufacturing care often fall by the
>wayside.  Next time you're cranking that tower up, think about it.  What if
>the steel cable happened to be an "oops, the galvanizing didn't work quite
>like we hoped, but ship it anyway because we can sell it at a reduced price
>to the buyer at Home Depot" batch?
>
>Jim, W6RMK