: As the saying goes, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery".

I don't see the imitation. You deserve kudos for your implementation of your own designs, Joe does for his. He's not marketing Laughing Loon II, though, by any stretch of the imagination. Well, maybe by one.

: As suggested in a previous post, kayak design is derivative. We all look to a
: design as a starting point, an inspiration.

No doubt every aspiring kayak designer thinks, "I could do that better," after paddling an existing design, and may use the design traits of that boat for inspiration. That inspiration, however, isn't always positive. Many times, it's the "I could do that better," aspect that drives new designs, and the first boats negative traits are designed out. After that radical design shift occurs, the second boat isn't really based on the first one. If his boats actually looked or performed like yours, you might have a legitimate gripe. But you don't. There are sufficient differences between the boats that his designs aren't based on yours, even if they once were--just in the back of his mind. I don't see Perception coming after Nick for using his old Dancer for inspiration. The Guillemot and the Dancer have very little in common, except that they're both easy to roll.

: My records indicate you purchased plans for the GB in 1994.

: When I look at your kayaks they resemble my GB more than any other design I
: know of. I thought this when I first saw your web site a couple years ago,
: At that time I thought No problem.

Hmmm...they don't paddle at all like your GB. Have you ever paddled any of the Redfish designs? Admittedly, they're not my "cup of tea", as they have too much tracking for my liking, but the hullform is unique. I'm not knocking Joe's design...it's just not the hull shape for me, but they perform exactly as he's designed them to. I consider myself a very neutral party--I'm not on any "Redfish bandwagon" even though a lot of folks find Joe's designs to his liking--so take my comments with that statement in mind. I do have the highest respect for Joe's craftsmanship, and for him as a person--he neither deserves or merits a shot like you took.

Resembling your boats???? Why, because they have a cockpit? I would posit that Joe's designs more highly resemble a Necky Arluk or CD Solstice series than they do your GB. Shoot, even your Panache's hull resembles the Redfish boats more than your GB. Are you going to accuse him of misappropriating that hullform next?

: That was BEFORE I even realized you had bought my plans and built one of my
: GB's.

So, in your ideal world, a person who buys one set of plans from a designer is fated to never himself be allowed to design kayaks?

: If you designed your boats before you built my GB what design did you base
: your boats on?

At some base level, all kayaks are "based on" Inuit or Aleut designs. Technically speaking, no two kayaks are alike, even those pulled perfectly from composite molds. There are similarities in many kayaks, but a new kayak design need not be strictly "based on" anything to come to fruition.

Dale Frolander designed his own kayak after building a modified Guillemot Double after Nick's design. The similarities end there. To say that Dale's design is based upon anything but his own design desires and paradigms is wrong.

: You know how hard it is to make a living at boatbuilding. Try on my shoes

I'm sure you've sold a few less plans than you would have since Joe has made his available. Some aspiring builder thinks, "I like Joe's boats' lines better than Rob's. I'll buy my plans from Joe". That's a free-market economy. No doubt Nick's, Eric's, and Jay's market shares have dropped as a result of a new designer in the market. Percentage-wise. Number-wise, additional designers have served to promote wooden kayak-building, and this pastime is increasingly popular; you probably sold more plans last year than you did in 1995--you just don't own half of the market anymore.

It's not like "Joe's boats look just like Rob's, but his plans are cheaper so I'll buy them." Idon'tthinkso. You guys all work with very low overhead, and that you offer plans at all is commendable. Please don't start something CLC-vs-Pygmy-esque, though.

: You put a lifetime of work and experience into a design. A guy buys a set of
: plans for a boat from you. Years later, you see he's gone into business
: with a line of boats that look pretty darn similar

Why, because they're wood?

Your boats have very full ends. Redfish kayaks have pronounced vee to the hull shape, and extremely fine ends. Your GB is 23" at the waterline, and his boats are narrower than that at the sheer. The GB appears highly Swedeform--the first 3 Redfish boats (which you posit look like yours) are more nearly symmetrical. Redfish boats have much less stern rocker than your GB, and hardly any rocker overall. Your GB appears to have quite a generous amount of rocker.

His hatch closure system is likely based on Ross Leidy's. Who did you base your strap closure system on? Coamings may be similar, but Joe has implemented recessed coamings, where you have not. Is his sculpted seat design based on your design?

: What would you think?

I can see being miffed at losing a percentage of my market share, but that's business. He's not remarketing your boats.

The attached image is from images from Laughing Loon's and Redfish's websites, respectively. If either of you gentlemen would like for me to remove it, email me. I think it's a good way to illustrate differences (and similarities).

Sincerely,

Shawn W. Baker