There was no intellectual property protection on either of the bikes - neither design nor utility. The shape of the bikes could have had a design patent, and the seat binder could have had a utility patent.
I agree with dawolfman’s assertion - it’s not worth wasting energy over. But it is worth posting here - not as a warning to others but to set the record straight on who made what. I would hope that those Orca designers used Core77 too so we could get into a real nice big flamewar.
There are no plans I know of to sue anyone. No IP dollars were spent so there’s not much of a case. Margins in the bike industry are thin too, so it would be a waste of money probably, and a “cease and desist” wouldn’t really benefit anyone.
I think Kestrel are still good clients - their factories just didn’t respect their privacy in the first example, and in the second, the Orca designers couldn’t think up something original.
It would be flattering to think that some of these features become commonplace on TT bikes going forward. Theres more than one way to skin a cat though, and I don’t imagine the other bike companies adopting these design elements.
CG I’m sure your Orca rides really well, and I don’t think it’s a bad-looking bike (as long as I don’t consider the RT700). The factory that makes the bikes does good work, manufacturing-wise.
I guess in the end, what means the most to me is that the other designers I converse with know how this situation went down. I didn’t put any of my own $ into the bikes - I got my salary for the work I did, and got an IDEA award out of it. Compensation enough. But my pride in the work doesn’t allow me to forgive another designer’s claim of innovation and ownership of something they didn’t create.