|
RE: Royalties for models
What control does the company have on the licensee?
Let's say that JetCat went along with P&W, what power does P&W have over JetCat? Can they mandate the front cowl be changed from purple to some other color? Can they demand certain performance criteria? Can they set the price? JetCat is pretty well known, as are other turbine manufacturers, and it's a pretty small group flying turbines, and we all know that P&W has nothing to do with turbines or model aviation, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to jump on board with P&W. BRG, Jon |
RE: Royalties for models
Pratt & Whitney, Nah, doesn't work for me. I'm kind of proud of my JetCat hat (and turbines)!
Regards, Bill |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: F106A What control does the company have on the licensee? Let's say that JetCat went along with P&W, what power does P&W have over JetCat? Can they mandate the front cowl be changed from purple to some other color? Can they demand certain performance criteria? Can they set the price? JetCat is pretty well known, as are other turbine manufacturers, and it's a pretty small group flying turbines, and we all know that P&W has nothing to do with turbines or model aviation, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to jump on board with P&W. BRG, Jon Anyway...P&W and Jetcat could work out any deal they wanted. Price, color, quality, performance...it's whatever they agree to. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: ngallow Here are a couple of things, "Straight from the Horse’s Mouth" Lockheed is represented by EMI. EMI is a licensing firm...not a law firm. Pratt & Whitney is represented by TRI, again a licensing firm not a law firm. I've worked for both firms and for both clients. There are two different topics here. The first is the use of a company's name, trademarks, and designs by a separate company in an effort to make money. Sorry...you can't do it without the permission of the intellectual property rights holder. That permission is called a license. It can be an effort to make money, but it also tries to protect the consumer by making sure the licensed products are of the same quality as the trademark would suggest and that the product truly is what it says it is. If it says it’s a Wasp Jr. then it is our job to make sure that is exactly what it is and to make sure the licensee has what they need to make the best product possible. Yes, because of all the hoops a licensee has to jump through as well as the royalty the licensee has to pay to the IP rights holder these products cost more than unlicensed products. The second topic that Bob Wilcox brought up is more of a marketing concept. Manufacturers pick up licenses to use well know trademarks for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it cost millions of dollars and decades to create a trademark of your own that becomes well known and trusted. So why not share a trademark that is already there. Both of these things I have the responsibility of doing in the hobby industry for Pratt & Whitney. Stop all the infringement… if I can’t then Pratt & Whitney’s legal department will take care of it. And create a presence for Pratt & Whitney in the hobby industry. Why? Because it works, it’s international, well known, admired, and trusted trademark. The concept is simple, create a line of products for the model aviation industry that are the best of best. Consolidate all these manufacturers under one trade name, Pratt & Whitney, that way they can share marketing dollars, advertising, retail space, and share of mind in the consumer. These products will not be for the bargain hunter, but they will be for the person looking for the top of line products in the industry. This also makes it easier for the retailers as well. An entire line of multiple products under one name can be more appealing than a store full of thousands of different names for thousands of different products. This is not “What I think” (I’m not that smart) these are things that much smarter people figured out a long time ago and have proven them successful time and time again. (Maytag, GE, Westinghouse, Honda, Craftsman, Stanley, John Deer, and if anyone honestly thinks that NIKE is capable of making all the product that carry the NIKE trademark then they are truly naïve.) EASYTIGER is correct in saying that Pratt & Whitney may not even go for a licensed turbine, because of obvious liability issues. But we ARE already the exclusive licensing agent for P&W. I approached Bob Wilcox with a legitimate concept that he had a difficult time understanding or taking seriously. Licensing is fairly new in regards to military vehicles, but not new to the hobby industry. Nobody is questioning the need of a license for the use of Chevy, Ford, Ferrari, or Porsche…but they did 20 years ago with many of the same arguments and concerns that are posted here and on other forums. Nathan Gallow TRI Licensing I would like to correct you on ONE thing...Bob Wilcox is no dummy. I'm SURE he had no problem at all understanding you, or taking it seriously. Keep in mind that he almost singlehandedly CREATED the stellar reputation that Jetcat maintains in the USA. He knows his marketing, he really does, and I'd be pretty sure the value of adding the P&W name to jetcat went through some quick math in his head, and he came to a conclusion that it was not for him. There is probably also the factor of the parent company in Germany, what THIER opinion is. Also...Jetcat may not have been the best company to ask. For lack of a better analogy, it was like asking Mercedes if they wanted to pay to put the Jaguar name on their cars. Jetcat is already a powerful identity. But I think you may have some luck with some other companies, and I, for one, understand the power of the P&W brand name. Rock star friend of mine has been sporting a big P&W eagle sticker on his guitar case for twenty years, he got it at the Connecticut plant. People who are not particularly aviation oriented are familiar with the name, and it stands for power and quality. I |
RE: Royalties for models
EASYTIGER you are correct in both of your last post. Its nice to see that people exsist that post things they know about. Instead of suggestions that they don't know anyting about that could get a lot of people in trouble. There are P&W product infringers right now that have listened to poor advice from posters that may land them in a lot of problems.
I didn't mean to suggest that Bob was not an intelligent person. He is obviously successful in his business. I found Bob very useful in helping me to better understand turbine market. You're most likely correct about JetCat having no use for a license and that the model turbine market is a place where P&W should not consider. Sometimes, however it catches me off guard when I speak to manufacturers about the opportunity to utlize trademarks that by themselves are worth more than their entire companies and they act like they are doing me a favour. But I also understand that licensing is concept that affects everyone every day but most have little understanding of it beyond screen printed T-shirts. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: ngallow The concept is simple, create a line of products for the model aviation industry that are the best of best. Consolidate all these manufacturers under one trade name, Pratt & Whitney, that way they can share marketing dollars, advertising, retail space, and share of mind in the consumer. These products will not be for the bargain hunter, but they will be for the person looking for the top of line products in the industry. This also makes it easier for the retailers as well. An entire line of multiple products under one name can be more appealing than a store full of thousands of different names for thousands of different products. Nathan Gallow TRI Licensing |
RE: Royalties for models
Et,
Thought the forums were people can state their opinions. Sorry I misunderstood the purpose of the forums. BRG, Jon |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: F106A Et, Thought the forums were people can state their opinions. Sorry I misunderstood the purpose of the forums. BRG, Jon It's REALLY hard to have a discussion when someone keeps chiming in with unreality. Just my OPINION. "Instead of suggestions that they don't know anyting about that could get a lot of people in trouble. There are P&W product infringers right now that have listened to poor advice from posters that may land them in a lot of problems." Woe betide the guy who gets his legal advice on the internet! God forbid they actually BELEIVE half the nonsense that gets posted. It's amazing how many times you have these guys who totally rationalize their position with whatever stuff they feel like saying, then sit back and say "here, it's resolved!"....on the internet! Not in the REAL WORLD! Only on the internet do "the designs belong to the people". |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: ngallow [snip] Sometimes, however it catches me off guard when I speak to manufacturers about the opportunity to utlize trademarks that by themselves are worth more than their entire companies and they act like they are doing me a favour. But I also understand that licensing is concept that affects everyone every day but most have little understanding of it beyond screen printed T-shirts. You know, sometime I really worry about this country. While we're off sueing each other and creating "marketing" companies that do nothing more than sell something as priceless as a "name" the Chineese are busy buying up the world's oil supply and building the worlds largest hydroelectric plant in their quest to become the world's largest economic power (which is working BTW). China produces over ten times as many engineers a year as we do. Our largest degree programs are JD and MBA... Bob |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: ngallow EASYTIGER you are correct in both of your last post. Its nice to see that people exsist that post things they know about. Instead of suggestions that they don't know anyting about that could get a lot of people in trouble. There are P&W product infringers right now that have listened to poor advice from posters that may land them in a lot of problems. I didn't mean to suggest that Bob was not an intelligent person. He is obviously successful in his business. I found Bob very useful in helping me to better understand turbine market. You're most likely correct about JetCat having no use for a license and that the model turbine market is a place where P&W should not consider. Sometimes, however it catches me off guard when I speak to manufacturers about the opportunity to utlize trademarks that by themselves are worth more than their entire companies and they act like they are doing me a favour. But I also understand that licensing is concept that affects everyone every day but most have little understanding of it beyond screen printed T-shirts. Anyway...I tend to GUESS that the liability issue for the Licensor for turbine engines is probably not worth it. And the profits in turbines are probably less that one suspects. But it's still worth pursuing, there could be a turbine company out there that can use the brand identity, but suspect that they won't have a lot of money to put up for it, but there could be a good synergy there to get your band out there in the hobby world, perhaps. Where you really COULD break in, in a big way, is with high-powered Electric Ducted Fan systems. If you could find the right guys to put togehter a plug and play system under the P&W brand, you could have a major hit. This is going to be a real growth field over the next couple of years, a revolution. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: rhklenke ORIGINAL: ngallow [snip] Sometimes, however it catches me off guard when I speak to manufacturers about the opportunity to utlize trademarks that by themselves are worth more than their entire companies and they act like they are doing me a favour. But I also understand that licensing is concept that affects everyone every day but most have little understanding of it beyond screen printed T-shirts. You know, sometime I really worry about this country. While we're off sueing each other and creating "marketing" companies that do nothing more than sell something as priceless as a "name" the Chineese are busy buying up the world's oil supply and building the worlds largest hydroelectric plant in their quest to become the world's largest economic power (which is working BTW). China produces over ten times as many engineers a year as we do. Our largest degree programs are JD and MBA... Bob The second part...I want you to REALLY listen to this, to really think it though, and give up any knee-jerk reaction because lawyers and such are involved: America's biggest export is intellectual property. The Chinese, for example, don't want our television sets. What they DO want is the content to put on those sets. They want The Sopranos. They want Britney Spears. They want King Kong and Coca Cola. At the moment, for the most part, they steal it. They just copy what they want, and they suck it down at INCREDIBLE rates. If the Chinese actually respected IP laws, and enforced them, most of the trade defecit would probably dissapear overnight. They send us microwave ovens, we send them DVDs. As it is right now, we have some real issues with getting these international laws enforced, but we are making great progress lately. So if we cannot even respect the concept of IP in our own country, how can we expect to do it overseas? And THEN what do we export to them? What do we have that they want? Everything we have that they want is generally desireable because of brand identity(levis, cocacola) or because it is original IP(king kong, star wars)...either way, the onus is on us to protect intellectual property as the major, major part of our economy, particualrly our EXPORT economy, that it is. The Zenith TV factory is NOT coming back to Ohio ever again, but notice that Pixar has sold many BILLIONS of dollars of animated video films overseas? Billions. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER But it's still worth pursuing, there could be a turbine company out there that can use the brand identity, but suspect that they won't have a lot of money to put up for it, but there could be a good synergy there to get your band out there in the hobby world, perhaps. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: Edgar Perez ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER But it's still worth pursuing, there could be a turbine company out there that can use the brand identity, but suspect that they won't have a lot of money to put up for it, but there could be a good synergy there to get your band out there in the hobby world, perhaps. |
RE: Royalties for models
And before you laugh at such a possibility, keep in mind that you are almost invariably, at this very moment, looking at a Chinese-made computer monitor.
|
RE: Royalties for models
You're most likely correct about JetCat having no use for a license and that the model turbine market is a place where P&W should not consider. If the Airforce or another countries airforce needs a mini turbine for mass production of a fleet of planes, doesn't PW sound better? Also when a company like PW approaches another much smaller company like JetCat for licsense use, they are also perhaps thiking of a buyout in the back of their mind. Also don't forget if PW thinks that RC is a good market to get into, even though it's small, they could come in and wipe them all out in price and performance if they wanted too. Heck this might even be their way of saying "here we come JetCat and we are giving you the opportunity to make the smart move before we come in an dominate." Also the PW name would be an instant hit over JetCat and everyone would know they teamed up, I mean the RC jet market is pretty tightly wound industry. How cool would it be to have a PW engine on your RC plane .... I mean come on. Is it worth 6-8% in royalites, heck yes. If I owned JetCat I'd be all over PW to get more info and push the envelope for a good deal. It's not everyday a big player comes knocking at your door, even if they are just snooping for info, there is a reason. |
RE: Royalties for models
Except, in this case, I do not THINK it was P&W who contacted Jetcat. It was a licensing company who works with P&W. Doubt P&W themselves are even aware of it, if the licensing company can make a deal, they will bring it to P&W for approval. Correct me if I am wrong, ngallow?
|
RE: Royalties for models
Ah ... good point. But still JetCat needs to think about it seriously before they approach the number 2 company then put them on top. With licensing also comes support and teamwork from your licensnor in most cases.
Still pretty cool to have a PW logo on the engine. How do I get one? |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: STLPilot Ah ... good point. But still JetCat needs to think about it seriously before they approach the number 2 company then put them on top. With licensing also comes support and teamwork from your licensnor in most cases. Still pretty cool to have a PW logo on the engine. How do I get one? As far as support goes, that depends, of course, on the deal between the parties. Doubt P&W is going to start providing a lot of expensive engineering drawings and such if someone gives them a grand. That was the issue between a certain small maker of profile RC models and a certain large maker of military aircraft. I got the skinny, no names attached, from the licensing agent...the amount of money paid for the license was token...hundreds of dollars. And the kit company started demanding all sorts of support, drawings and plans and such, the cost of which easily exceeded the nominal cost of the license, most of which went to the licensing agent anyway. You cannot expect support and teamwork provided by the licensor to exceed the money paid to him. What can you expect for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars? The right to use the name and logos, not much else. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: EASYTIGER That was the issue between a certain small maker of profile RC models and a certain large maker of military aircraft. I got the skinny, no names attached, from the licensing agent...the amount of money paid for the license was token...hundreds of dollars. And the kit company started demanding all sorts of support, drawings and plans and such, the cost of which easily exceeded the nominal cost of the license, most of which went to the licensing agent anyway. You cannot expect support and teamwork provided by the licensor to exceed the money paid to him. What can you expect for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars? The right to use the name and logos, not much else. This isn't the same as IP in the movie industry where the Chinese are stealing your actual product - the words, the scenes, the bits and bytes etc. You want to know why some aspects of this area of the law aren't taken too seriously? Because the law is the law until it runs out and might hurt a big corporations franchise - then they get the law changed. The example being the Disney Company and the maximum duration of copyrights on the characters and music - just changed from 50 to 100 years a few years ago if I'm not mistaken. |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: Chris True [snip] This isn't the same as IP in the movie industry where the Chinese are stealing your actual product - the words, the scenes, the bits and bytes etc. You want to know why some aspects of this area of the law aren't taken too seriously? Because the law is the law until it runs out and might hurt a big corporations franchise - then they get the law changed. The example being the Disney Company and the maximum duration of copyrights on the characters and music - just changed from 50 to 100 years a few years ago if I'm not mistaken. Bob |
RE: Royalties for models
Then stop the **** about protecting the consumer and ensuring the product meets quality standards - it is a money grab and a one way relationship. If Lockheed wants to squeeze model makers for licensing fees they ought to be offering SOMETHING in return. The example being the Disney Company and the maximum duration of copyrights on the characters and music - just changed from 50 to 100 years a few years ago if I'm not mistaken. |
RE: Royalties for models
Bingo Chris? I mean come on. Where do you guys come up with your theories?
Ask the guys who actually did some real work in DESIGNING those aircraft if they think this is how it should work. |
RE: Royalties for models
Didn't Lambo try the same thing with replica makers years ago? I could understand Lambo, those products are a direct (almost) replacement to their money maker. But a scale model poses no threat to the sales of an actual craft. Aint skeard, don't care. It will all blow over.
|
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: Bob_Wilcox Speaking of trademarks, JetCat was approached recently by a company that wanted to sell us the right to call our engines Pratt & Whitney's. Do you think this is a new industry? Sell or get license fees by independent companies that cater to the biggies? Does Pratt and Whitney (United Tech) really care about JetCat or is it the independent company trying to make a buck? Would JetCats sell better as Pratt & Whitney's or would everyone be on the floor laughing because they know we have nothing to do with PW? (no offence , just a joke i dont want to be banned again for months and left in the dark) |
RE: Royalties for models
ORIGINAL: STLPilot Bingo Chris? I mean come on. Where do you guys come up with your theories? Ask the guys who actually did some real work in DESIGNING those aircraft if they think this is how it should work. Tell me, if a company has already produced a model of an F-16 - an aircraft which the development of (along with all its competitors which weren't selected for production) was TOTALLY funded by the American public, what additional VALUE comes from it being "licensed" by LM? OH, and extra pocket change for the licensing "company" hired by LM to track down all of these "unauthorized" models doesn't count... Bob |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:50 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.