rumor control--has SAAC lost its use of Shelby name?

[computerworks]

YOU DO HAVE A DOG IN THIS HUNT

What does all of this matter to SAAC members? If you think the answer to that is, “Not much,” you’re sleeping through your own trial. When you distill everything else away, whoever controls the registry determines how terms are defined. Words like “genuine,” “original,” and “authentic” all have meanings. While they can be open to interpretation, if most people agree on their definitions—or lacking complete agreement, just accept them—everyone knows where they stand. Over the past 33 years SAAC has created a system for collecting and disseminating information on these cars and using these terms with consistence. When we say a car is “original” there is little doubt what that means. But if someone else were to take the registry over and broaden these definitions, if “original” meant whatever they wanted it to mean—and as controller of the registry they had the standing to enforce it— what do you think would happen to the desirability, interest and ultimately, the value of these cars? If a Cobra built today was accorded equal status to one built in 1965, how would that affect the one built in 1965? Would they both now be worth $500,000 or would they both be worth $125,000? Imagine if a couple of thousand new Shelby Mustang serial numbers were added to the database, each accorded the same status as those already there? We’re not describing a Rod Serling script for the “Twilight Zone” here.

That’s why SAAC has chosen to fight this, and why we need to support of every single member in the club. We intend to aggressively pursue this matter in court and go as far as we need to in order to protect the history of these cars for the long term and to maintain the club’s viability so we are able to continue do that. We are under no illusions that this will be easy or cheap. But we feel, deep down, that the club and the provenance of these cars are worth whatever it takes. The outpouring of support so far has been overwhelming. Virtually every member who has contributed to SAAC’s Legal Defense Fund has also enclosed a letter or note of encouragement. This is extremely gratifying. We are presently working with our lawyers to develop a strategy to meet this challenge and we are looking forward to keeping club members updated on what that is. However, at this precise point in time we feel that to do so would be prejudicial to our case.

When SAAC was started, back in 1975, there was no Shelby American, Inc. That company was no longer producing cars. And quite frankly, back then there wasn’t the awareness of things like copyrights or trademarks. All that came much later. When owners needed a stripe kit, hood ornament or unique bracket that was not available anywhere, someone simply had some made, sold them to everyone who needed one, and crossed their fingers hoping to recover their costs. Too many lawyers with too little to do are responsible for today’s labyrinth of legalities in the trademark and copyright area. Shelby was quick to realize this and had more than a hundred names trademarked. At a cost of about $2000 for each filing, this was not an inconsequential undertaking. But it wasn’t anything at the top of the to-do list of the enthusiast making GT350 drive shaft loops and selling them out of his basement or garage. As the value of the cars rose, so did the interest of those who would have otherwise not looked twice at them—Shelby included. Ford began sending nasty letters to anyone who chose to use “Mustang” in the name of their business. Likewise, Shelby kept his lawyers busy writing licensing agreements and enforcing them. Things have come a long way in 30 years, from when someone showed up at a meet, opened the trunk of their car, and spread an array of new or used parts on a blanket and tried to sell them. But you can’t go back to the “good old days” much as you might like to. Like it or not, we’re in this for the long haul and we hope you stick with us.

- Rick

[Dan Stryffeler]

Thanks for the posting Ron,

Hope it doesn't violate Copyright law

Dan

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Dan Stryffeler

Hope it doesn't violate Copyright law

I have no fear....the good guys operate on a handshake.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by Dan Stryffeler

Thanks for the posting Ron,

Hope it doesn't violate Copyright law

Dan

I don't think he needs to worry about that, after all Ron is an official SAAC registrar and apparently is the glue behind saacforums.com.

[Excaliber]

I see the Kirkhams have been extremly quiet on this whole issue on every web site I've looked at. What a tough call for them to voice an opinion either way, sure would like to be a fly on the wall and get a glimpse of whats going on behind the scenes in Utah...

[RodKnock]

Why would the Kirkhams care more than the other manufacturers? Would it because they're now a sponsor of SAAC and/or because their cars will be included in the new registry?

[Excaliber]

Now that you mention it, I wonder what the other manufacturers think about it as well? But Kikrham is in a unique position in that they supply frames/bodies/parts to Shelby. There is little doubt that Shelby would 'turn on them' like a rabid dog in a heartbeat if he had a different reasonable source for his own continuation cars.

[Don]

Somewhat off topic, but I know on this Thread the post will be read and just maybe someone has , or has not, had the same experience.

Yes, I joined Team Shelby, give it a try, even though I thought it was expensive @ $49.99 compared to the AACA ( Antique Automobile Club of America ) @ $35.00 which includes an excellent magazine published 6X/year.

http://www.aaca.org/

Subscription was sent in on 11-20-07 and I had not received the packet. Followed up early the 1st week of Jan 08, received a reply that the subscription would be looked into, another follow-up via the Team Shelby web site Contact Us early last week ( I did not record the dates, did not think it would be necessary ) and still as of today no reply on the Membership status or the packet

Had the e-mails, but lost ( ? ) them when Apple Mail burped due to a power failure during the snow storm, had to re-establish all the settings.

Anyone else that joined Team Shelby have the same experience or ?

[DAVID GAGNARD]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I see the Kirkhams have been extremly quiet on this whole issue on every web site I've looked at. What a tough call for them to voice an opinion either way, sure would like to be a fly on the wall and get a glimpse of whats going on behind the scenes in Utah...

Ernie;
Since they do business with both groups, it would not be very smart for them to issue any kind of statement or stance on the matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure they have an opinion on the subject, but, wisely have not made it public.............

David

[Excaliber]

Wisely indeed! Now about that fly on the wall...

I recently joined SAAC, got my membership stuff so quick the package was still smokin' when I opened it.

[Power Surge]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I see the Kirkhams have been extremly quiet on this whole issue on every web site I've looked at.

That's cause they're the SMART ones .

[What'saCobra?]

i would imagine the boys in Provo know that the last standing supplier of aly cars (of any volume) will be the best one with the lowest cost to accurately produce.

To keep the volumes, they must also sell direct, which makes sense. Selling direct allows variations from historical limitations and additional margins, up or down.

No one can easily reproduce their lowest overall costs.

1. Imagine the money and trouble they save because they ship as promised and on time.
2. Imagine making things correct the first time on an NCM, each piece perfect (within the limits of tooling choices).
3. Imagine skipping the paint hassles.
4. Imagine the polishing margins (awful job, polishing).
5. Imagine the lower marginal costs to automate the tooling for shape copying and fabrication.
6. Imagine how smart they must be to able to keep their promises.

[RodKnock]

...and they're nice people to boot.

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

...and they're nice people to boot.

Now that is an understatement.


Bill S.

[Don]

Reference:

http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/show...621#post804621

The AACA ( Antique Automobile Club of America ) has approved the Shelby Cobra for their new 2008 judging class referred to as SGVC: Second Generation Collector Vehicle. Other manufacturers that assemble their versions " might " also qualify upon submitting to the AACA the required documentation. As noted, for the Shelby Cobra the article in the Shelby magazine was used as documentation, page 46 to 50.

[A-Snake]

Originally Posted by Don

Reference:

http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/show...621#post804621

The AACA ( Antique Automobile Club of America ) has approved the Shelby Cobra for their new 2008 judging class referred to as SGVC: Second Generation Collector Vehicle. Other manufacturers that assemble their versions " might " also qualify upon submitting to the AACA the required documentation. As noted, for the Shelby Cobra the article in the Shelby magazine was used as documentation, page 46 to 50.

Yes, once 25 years have passed since its construction. That would mean cars built in 1983 or earlier.
You mentioned other cars that may be included such as Glenn-Pray manufactured Auburns, Avanti II, Clenet, Shay built Model A's and Zimmer. These were sold as finish vehicles including engines and met all emission and safety standards of the times. I wonder if AACA understands that the 'new' Shelby Cobra is a component car?

The first of the 4000 series began in 1995 so the first car able for SGVC would be in 2020.

[Don]

A-Snake

Yes, the AACA is only for vehicles 25 years and older. I had the same thoughts regarding the Shelby Cobra as far as the use of components, but the AACA SGVC evaluation committee and the Vice President of Class Judging did not have any questions regarding the documentation which was no more than the article in the Shelby magazine

I believe the Shay Built Model A used recent OHV Ford 4 cylinder engines , Ford suspension parts, Ford auto transmissions i.e. the use of components. The vehicle examples cited were in the AACA Magazine article which introduced the SGVC.

Technically, the AACA is referring to the vehicles in the SGVC as a display class.

Would be interesting if another replica manufacturer that assembles the entire vehicle , not sold in parts to a builder or private party, submits their documentation.

Don

[A-Snake]

Originally Posted by Don

A-Snake

Yes, the AACA is only for vehicles 25 years and older. I had the same thoughts regarding the Shelby Cobra as far as the use of components, but the AACA SGVC evaluation committee and the Vice President of Class Judging did not have any questions regarding the documentation which was no more than the article in the Shelby magazine

I believe the Shay Built Model A used recent OHV Ford 4 cylinder engines , Ford suspension parts, Ford auto transmissions i.e. the use of components. The vehicle examples cited were in the AACA Magazine article which introduced the SGVC.

Technically, the AACA is referring to the vehicles in the SGVC as a display class.

Would be interesting if another replica manufacturer that assembles the entire vehicle , not sold in parts to a builder or private party, submits their documentation.

Don

The Shay Model A was sold through Ford dealers in fact. Yes, they used 'components' as the others did but they were sold as complete cars. The 4000 Cobras are sold as 'rollers', any engine can be installed by anyone.
I wonder if AACA is confused on the issue?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by computerworks

When you distill everything else away, whoever controls the registry determines how terms are defined. Words like “genuine,” “original,” and “authentic” all have meanings. While they can be open to interpretation, if most people agree on their definitions—or lacking complete agreement, just accept them—everyone knows where they stand. Over the past 33 years SAAC has created a system for collecting and disseminating information on these cars and using these terms with consistence. When we say a car is “original” there is little doubt what that means. But if someone else were to take the registry over and broaden these definitions, if “original” meant whatever they wanted it to mean—and as controller of the registry they had the standing to enforce it— what do you think would happen to the desirability, interest and ultimately, the value of these cars?

Whatever he is smoking, I want some.

really, so when was it ever that when SAAC defined something, that everybody agreed upon it? Definitely not on this site. The definitions already existed. The value is determined by supply and demand. Just because a seller states his car is original doesn't mean it is. As a buyer, you need to verify it.

Originally Posted by computerworks

If a Cobra built today was accorded equal status to one built in 1965, how would that affect the one built in 1965? Would they both now be worth $500,000 or would they both be worth $125,000? Imagine if a couple of thousand new Shelby Mustang serial numbers were added to the database, each accorded the same status as those already there?

I don't think it would really matter if it was done, as the serial numbers tell the story, and supply and demand will dictate the price. If the "Unique" GT350's have "continuation" serial numbers from the ones made in '65/'66, I would think it would be likely that anybody really interested into buying one
would do the research on the car, to determine it's heritage. It just makes it alittle harder if the serial numbers are a little confusing. Although I own a vintage mustang, they're basically a rebodied cheap falcon. Heck, the original 427 cobra's are already like that, I'm talking the comp - S/C's vs the street 427's which have different serial number ranges. People know the difference based on the serial numbers, and their value.

Basically, so what.

Rick has a good pep talk though.

Originally Posted by computerworks

Too many lawyers with too little to do are responsible for today’s labyrinth of legalities in the trademark and copyright area.

I would say this is the one true statement. Except I'd add that they are responsible for the majority of problems with our economic system, not running efficiently, and people not being hald accountable for their actions, hiding behind legal grounds.

I say if you want to solve the majority of the US and the world's problems, buy all the lawyers in the US a one way ticket to Iraq, and then Nuke it.

[Paul F]

Lawyer jokes are a lot of fun. But I don't know why everyone blames lawyers. The people that are at fault are:

1. the people that hire lawyers. No hire, no lawsuits
2. the judges that make the judgements
3. and worst of all, the jurys that make the judgements.

It's not the lawyers that gave the lady $20Million from McDonalds for spilling coffee on herself, it was the jury.