The Rocna Experience

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by olaf hart

I wouldn't say Manson had intellectual property problems. If you follow the threads it is clear that they developed the Supreme independently from Rocna.
The only people who questioned them were the Rocna, and their credibility is now in tatters.

Absolutely.

It is amazing how strong the commitment to an anchor becomes. Even when it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt to carry risks that can compromise safety.... there is still a STRONG desire to hold to the prior opinion.

I am sure that there are many 'early' rocna owners who are pleased with their anchor. They are similar to my Manson Supreme, so I have no reason to doubt they are fine...

... the company (IMHO) betrayed to crusing community by going cheap and selling LIFE SAVING gear that was below their own published standard.

There IS not a defense for that... I am sorry for those who bought into it, but really guys... you have an alliance to a company that does not make sense.

[rgscpat]

Does the Erika oil spill issue with regard to RINA have any bearing here at all? It might or might not; someone else might be able to address whether certification issues in one area might have a bearing on another. Also, I'm not sure what all the motivations might be for a company from one country to shop certification agencies outside of their corporate or manufacturing locations or largest markets.

[GypsyHawk]

I can't believe the interest that a Rocna thread generates. Back to the original thread starter: we have had a 20kg Rocna on our 38 foot (11.6m) medium displacement monohull for a few years now. NZ made. No problems. Have had Plough and Delta previously and both have on some occasions been hard to set or dragged. Not the Rocna yet.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by GypsyHawk

I can't believe the interest that a Rocna thread generates. Back to the original thread starter: we have had a 20kg Rocna on our 38 foot (11.6m) medium displacement monohull for a few years now. NZ made. No problems. Have had Plough and Delta previously and both have on some occasions been hard to set or dragged. Not the Rocna yet.

It's been said many times.... the design may be the best; certainly it is in the top 3.

Problem is not the design, it's the material. The original specs called for a specific grade of high strength steel. In fact, everyone was advised that the anchor would be compromised if this standard was not met.

Since being sold, the company now has decided that they no longer need to abide to the original design.

For many months, and actually now years, they denied. Denied and lied.

So, design is great, but do you want to deal with a company with those kind of ethics?

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by olaf hart

I wouldn't say Manson had intellectual property problems. If you follow the threads it is clear that they developed the Supreme independently from Rocna.

I'm sorry. I simply don't agree. One person, a very disenchanted contract employee of Rocna who definitely has an axe to grind has reported that with no substantiation. GMac has implied there is merit to arguments on both sides but has been careful in choosing his words.

When you look at the Manson product line absent the Supreme every single one is a copy of someone else's innovation. I am supposed to believe that out of nowhere a company that has built a successful business making copies of other people's work suddenly developed an innovation that so closely mirrors another one in the same time frame when the smaller company was soliciting bids from Manson for manufacturing? I'm not that gullible.

I am in no way suggesting the Supreme isn't a good anchor. I have a philosophical issue with IP hijacking and the evidence, direct of not, leads one in that direction.

We can certainly all look at the same information and draw different conclusions. I think a company with a history of engineering quite good copies of other anchors just did it one more time. I don't like copies.

Sure glad I don't need to buy an anchor -- the choices today aren't good: cheat, (potential) thief, dead guy, and one who doesn't deliver product.

[Factor]

So the Supreme is a copy/derivative of the Rocna? If you dont like copies then you wont like Rocna.

Rocna is a copy of the Sarca and or the Bugel. Both of which pre date the ROCNA by a serious margin.

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Factor

So the Supreme is a copy/derivative of the Rocna? If you dont like copies then you wont like Rocna.

Rocna is a copy of the Sarca and or the Bugel. Both of which pre date the ROCNA by a serious margin.

I think there is a difference between a derivative work and a copy. There is a lot of case law on the subject (IANAL). With respect to derivation the classic statement is of the shoulders of giants:

"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."
Metalogicon

The rock slot and arrow head on the Manson Supreme do not--to me--rise to the standard of a value-added derivation over the Rocna.

Read Bob Perry's description of the genesis of his ground-breaking Valiant 40. He is quite honest about the sources for his design ideas and goes so far as to say that his only innovation was in integration. I offer that similarly Peter Smith's innovation was the integration of design elements of the Sarca, Bugel, Spade, and Delta into a product that gave up none of the performance of its predecessors and arguably addressed weaknesses (although I can't discern improvement of the Rocna over the Spade in anchoring and some of the bow fitment issues are a pain).

I have difficulty getting past the timing of the Rocna and Supreme and the unargued reports that Rocna approached Supreme to outsource manufacturing. Those realities with the clear fact that Manson makes copies of the CQR, Bruce, Delta, Navy, Danforth, and other anchors makes me doubt their innovation in design. In engineering and production I agree wholeheartedly they do quite well.

[CarlF]

I'm baffled by the basic misunderstanding that copying a competitor's product is somehow "cheating".

An innovation like a new anchors falls under patent law not copyright or trademark law. If an inventor has created a significant innovation, they are granted a legal monopoly for a period of years. If there is no patent or the patent has expired, the ideas in an invention may be used freely by any competitor. That's how it works. It is entirely honorable.

If Manson had violated Rocna's patent, they would have been foolish not to bring legal action. But this never happened -- most likely because Rocna had an extremely narrow patent that they knew full well wasn't violated by the Supreme.

Now if Manson had started casting "Rocna" on their anchors such that they were creating confusion in the marketplace, that might be "cheating" -- but I would guess Manson is pretty happy right now using their own name

Carl

[Extemporaneous]

Originally Posted by CarlF

Now if Manson had started casting "Rocna" on their anchors such that they were creating confusion in the marketplace, that might be "cheating" -- but I would guess Manson is pretty happy right now using their own name

Carl

No need for Manson to do that...... "Rocna" is now making their own Knock-offs of their products.
And perhaps not as good as others might do!

Extemp.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Extemporaneous

No need for Manson to do that...... "Rocna" is now making their own Knock-offs of their products.
And perhaps not as good as others might do!

Extemp.

x2.....

[Auspicious]

Originally Posted by Extemporaneous

No need for Manson to do that...... "Rocna" is now making their own Knock-offs of their products.
And perhaps not as good as others might do!

Extemp.

x3 That really is the problem with Rocna. Misrepresentation.

Oh -- and just because something is legal doesn't make it honorable.

[mikereed100]

Originally Posted by YOGAO

So the end-result facts are:

• There is NOT a recall
• The product meets RINA standards
• The retailer and manufacturer have apologized for their actions (or lack thereof)
• They are backing it with a money-back, no questions asked policy

.

To be clear, West Marine backs the anchor with a money-back, no questions asked policy. Those of us who bought our Rocna from other suppliers are SOL. Rocna will replace a damaged anchor, but this is cold comfort when you bend a shaft in a squall in the Phillipines and the nearest distributor is in Canada.

Mike