Ford Licensing Article in Model "A" News

[ericr]

What did you guys think about the article in the latest Model "A" News about the Ford Company or its adjuncts charging licensing fees for reproduction of items involving the familar script, the oval, etc. including the original Model "A" Parts numbering scheme?

I can see where licensing might have value for the more recent collectors of Mustangs, T-Birds, etc.

For us here struggling to keep our relics running properly, the allegation that
licensing ensures quality and functionality is laughable. It seems like more
a means to squeeze dough out of a small number of parts retailers who are as equally motivated by hobby loyalty as they are by any profits earned out of this narrow market.

It's all a good reason not to buy any new Ford product.

[Joe K]

I would agree to licensing if it were to support preservation.

While Ford is in the business to make money for investors, part of the attraction to investors is the "marketplace image" of Ford product. A good, perhaps most of this image is formed from "Ford History" A good and strong part of this history is the Model A.

Thus Fomoco has a lot to gain by preservation of the Model A persona and reputation.

Also, licensing of design aspect, including the Script and other trade-mark attributes allows Ford to control quality of reproduced items. Ford certainly does not want things being sold with their name on it which result in death, or even suspicion of poor quality. Ford, I'm sure, looks that product marked in their name uphold the highest standard of production and use. As Henry did when it was originally made.

So the two can work together. Ford can award licensing fees to documentation sites who in turn do research, upgrade the documentation where necessary, and at a minimum preserve design media for future generations.

There are those of us who remember "Rick-Pacs" and the rubber door straps that might survive a week in a hot car.

Joe K

[henry's 31]

What I like the most is understanding how lucky we are that we have so many available parts to keep our beloved Model A's on the road.

[denis4x4]

About 35 years, I met the attorney who set up the Ford licensing program. This became the basis for similar programs at GM and Chrysler. When I was in the ad business, I crossed swords with Mack Trucks over the use of the term Bulldog and the bulldog image. I won! That said, Ford has every right to protect their intellectual properties. Harley-Davidson almost lost their right to the logo due to the fact that they did not go after unauthorized usage. It’s my understanding that the income from the licensing doesn’t come close to covering the administration costs.

Those that try to tie product quality to logo usage do not understand the situation.

[redmodelt]

I read most of the story and maybe I missed it, but sellers like Snyder's license the products so they can use the Ford parts numbering system. Probably most all the items sold at many of the A and T suppliers are not made on ex Ford tooling as suggested in that story. While the standards should be equal or higher, not everything sold carries the Ford name or markings on them. An example of having Ford trade markings would be the head light lens.

[Tom Endy]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

A number of years ago the Ford Motor Company had their lawyers go after all the suppliers that were selling reproduction parts under the original Ford part number. Their argument was the part numbering system was their intellectual property. They insisted that if they continued using the part number system they would take legal action against them unless they paid the Ford Motor Company a 7% royalty on each part sold with the Ford part number. Bratton's did not want to pay the royalty, so they established their own part numbering system. Those that complied with Ford apparently are allowed to advertise that the part is somehow approved by Ford and their is a hint at quality control

I don't believe for a minute that the Ford Motor Company is requiring any kind of quality requirement, it is only a financial situation to prevent legal action. For Bratton to change their part numbering system, it was an up front costly process the others wanted to avoid.

I thought the article was misleading.

Tom Endy

[TerryO]

I'm still waiting on the latest issue.

[rotorwrench]

If I had a vested interest in a company that had a strong product name, I certainly wouldn't stand for other folks using that name without permission or skin in the game. It's like folks squatting on property you own without paying rent. I know you all wouldn't stand for that. This is why trademark and copyright laws exist. Folks should pay for using property that does not belong to them. It's as simple as that.

I agree that some trademark/copyright stuff is ridiculous so this kind of stuff can be negated if challenged in court under certain circumstances but it can lead to drawn out feuds that only better serve the pockets of lawyers in such cases. An example is when Harley Davidson trademarked the sound of their V-Twin engines. MGM also has a trademark on the lions roar.

[Jerry in Shasta]

If they did this as a mean's of "Quality Control" they are doing a poor job of it.
JB

[denis4x4]

Originally Posted by Jerry in Shasta

If they did this as a mean's of "Quality Control" they are doing a poor job of it.
JB

As mentioned by me and others, this has to do with intellectual properties like the parts numbering system and logos. This has nothing to do with quality control.

[Joe K]

I agree that some trademark/copyright stuff is ridiculous so this kind of stuff can be negated if challenged in court under certain circumstances but it can lead to drawn out feuds that only better serve the pockets of lawyers in such cases. An example is when Harley Davidson trademarked the sound of their V-Twin engines. MGM also has a trademark on the lions roar.

And "Fool" {or "Bool"} hubcaps are still out there, and now command a premium price based on the novelty.


Joe K

[rotorwrench]

I wonder if they trademarked that stuff. They made them for all sorts of different Ford applications. It's like a JC Whitney thing or something similar.

[Jeff/Illinois]

I agree with Tom, that the article was a bit mis-leading. A big international company like Ford has more than enough on it's hands than to 'worry' if we are getting quality parts for 90 year old cars, that Henry never dreamed would last this long anyway. He wanted people to crush their Model A's and buy new Ford products. Every company operates like that. And no, I would not banish Ford Motor Co. or their products today because we aren't getting the quality of Model A parts that we think we should be getting. That idea is ignorant.

As stated, Ford doesn't profit from this Licensing Agreement after administrative expenses are deducted. The percentage of their total gross revenue affected by us Model A people has to be what, 1/100,000ths of one percent?

If you read Mr. Tahtaras's (sp?) article on when he restored his '30 Dlx. Roadster, he spoke of NOS parts that he acquired that had to have been factory rejects, because he said that often times even THEY fit poorly and had to be re-worked.

No, I feel that Ford has a perfect right to monitor just who is trying to sell parts under their trademark logo. Every company does from Boeing to John Deere to Toyota. They own the thing. Look how Alan Mullally borrowed AGAINST the Blue Oval trademark to rebuild Ford when GM and Chrysler were taking Government money for free, that we all paid for thru our taxes. He couldn't have done that if the Blue Oval Ford script didn't have value in and of itself.