Pflueger vs. Penn ????????? What Happened ?????????????

ORCA Online Forum - Feel free to talk or ask about ALL kinds of old tackle here, with an emphasis on old reels!
Post Reply
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Pflueger vs. Penn ????????? What Happened ?????????????

Post by m3040c »

I presume some of us are familar with the early history of the Penn Reel Company. The time period is the Great Depression. Penn is a brand new idea. Otto Henze left Ocean City to venture out on his own and start a new reel manufacturing company in 1930. He designed three new reels and hoped the market would buy them. His new reels would give long dependable service at low prices that all could afford, even during the lean money years of the Depression. In 1932 and possibly before he sent out proto types around the country and in 1933 he was filling orders. His proto types were the Model F and two versions of the Model K, one with a star drag and one without. By late 1933 he added a fourth reel to the mix, The Penn Seaford. The orders began to build and by 1934 there were more reel models added but in 1934 a problem appeared in the form of a letter stating Patent Infringement from Pflueger.

Image

It raises many questions in my mind. How could Penn compete with a company like Pflueger? Pflueger had many years in the reel manufacturing business, it had to be a much wealthier company, that could afford more expensive lawyers than Penn. The patent Pflueger accuses Penn of infringinging on pre-dates Penn's patents yet we now know that the reel in question (Model K w/ star drag) became the Penn Long Beach and had a very long successful production run.

Lets have a look at the patent that Pflueger claims Penn stole...

Image

Image

When I see the Pflueger Patent, the date tells me that Pflueger patented these designs in April, 1932, while the earliest Penn patent I have ever seen dates to July, 1932. Looking at page two, figure 8 of the Pflueger patent shows me a drag assembly that looks exactly like a Penn Model K or Long Beach drag assembly. It looks to me that Pflueger is right in their accusations.
Now Penn did not ignore Pflueger, they responded directly to the letter of accusation from Pflueger with another letter. Check it out:

Image

Penn asked for a meeting with a Pflueger executive. I wonder what happened at that meeting. Obviously the manufacture of the Longbeach was not ended, as Pflueger wanted. I suspect a deal was made. Even though Pflueger is claiming a infringement on the drag assembly, I believe the Penn Seaford was a larger infringement of Pflueger design than the drag assembly claim that Pflueger states in their letter. I feel that way because if you look at the Seaford that was made in 1933 it has a pivoting bridge to disengage the spool for free spool operation just like a Pflueger reel. Compare all Seaford's made after 1934 and you will see a complete design change of that model.

So what do you all feel about this?. Did Penn steal ideas and make deals with Pflueger to avoid the courts ? If you make comparisons with other manufactures of the era there are many similarities in each others products. Ocean City had take apart Salt Water Conventional reels years before Penn's Silver Beach reels, was there another patent infringement with that feature?

I wonder what kind of can of worms we can open up if we start looking for who stole what idea from who :?:
User avatar
Brian F.
Star Board Poster
Posts: 3578
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 1:23 am
Location: Hilo, Hawaii

Post by Brian F. »

Mike,
If you start digging, I think you'll find that nothing is ever really "new". If you don't already have one, Antique Fishing Reels by "Steve" Vernon, 1985 is a good one to have that explains the earliest patents to many, if not all of these important designs. I can hardly wait for his new book (hurry up Steve!)

I imagine many companys just didn't bother because when you really start looking at designs that follow, there is just ever so slight differences. Seems to me that everyone would simply be bogged down in legal issues if they really wanted to go after everyone. If I'm not mistaken, the bridge that Penn changed to and eventually used till this day is very similar to the Vom Hofe bridge. Take-aparts were around long before Ocean City used them also.

Neat letters. Are they the ones from Bruce?
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

a thought

Post by m3040c »

WOW, Brian, you are fast. I just finished this post five minutes ago. It is 3:30 in the morning in my part of the world. I figured I was the only vampire awake.

Anyways, I agree with you on all the designs. I mean, how many different ways can you design a reel? The reason I brought this up was because of the accusations from Pflueger to Penn. Pflueger obviously felt that Sir Otto from the Empire of Penn stepped on their toes. Possibly by 1934 The Enterprise Company was feeling the pinch of loosing a piece of their salt water market to the upstart company and was trying some business scare tactics.

Whatever the reason for the letters was, they seem to have affected a design change at Penn or maybe not. :shock:
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

yes

Post by m3040c »

The letters are from our most generous mutual friend Bruce. I don't know what we would do without him.
User avatar
Steve
Star Board Poster
Posts: 4013
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 6:11 am
Contact:

Post by Steve »

Here's the net result of the argument, which was appended to the Adams patent:
Image
Enterprise had to start looking for another reel company to pick on.
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Thank you

Post by m3040c »

Hello Steve,

Being that I am a mechanic, rather than a lawyer, I missed the meaning of the disclaimer at the end of the patent wording and how it related to this particular argument between Pfluger and Penn. Am I to assume that The Enterprise Company followed through with the Patent Infringement accusations in court and lost, resulting in the addition of the disclaimer to their patent five years later :?:

Thank you very much for bring out that piece of info.

Mike
Jim Wiegner
Advanced Board Poster
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Washington

Post by Jim Wiegner »

Good morning back there Mike:

The question "What ever happened" is certainly an interesting one, and fair game, however it can also lead to conclusions which may not accurately reflect the integrity of these companies and their leaders. Throughout the years, there have been any number of patent infringements in most industries, and from country to country as well.The great Shakespeare vs Pflueger flap is a classic example, but there have been many others.

It is great fun to examine the treasures left to us by the inventors and manufacturers of our beloved fishing reels, however maybe sometimes it might be well to step back a bit from mini micro scrutiny to look at the bigger picture. Penn, Pflueger, and Ocean City were ALL examples of the cream rising to the top. All were run by wise and honorable folks who produced excellent products, and treated their employees with respect, and yes...I believe they did look out for the welfare of their people.

History will treat these leaders kindly. Some years ago I saw an excellent program on our local PBS station on mini micro (?) photography, and it first showed the face of a beautiful woman. Then the camera lens zoomed umpteen zillion times into the lady's eyelid, and it looked like the lunar landscape. Not exactly beautiful! I would like to think that Otto Henze and the Pfluegers had a mutual resect for one another, and that their "differences" were worked out without bloodshed.

As Phil White noted a while back, there are any number of manufacturing outfits in China, Korea, or wherever who will gladly put the name of Pflueger, Penn, or (insert any name you want) on their product and sell it to you. But they will NEVER be the products designed and made by the people who worked in Akron or Philadelphia. They may be good products, but they will lack the soul of the reels which we as ORCANs cherish. Anyway, them's my thoughts.

Happy New Year Mike, and keep those planes flying.

Jim
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Business History

Post by m3040c »

Hello Jim,

Following the ups and down of a company is an interesting part of any research into business and the early business world of America was definitely honorable but not totally honorable. For a business to survive it must have profit, the need of profit can sometimes alter honorable tactics. If we look at 19th and early 20th century business we see a world of business that created the business world of today. Today's world of business operates with a magnitude of checks and balances that are in place because of all the happenings of the past. I think that most businessmen start out with honorable intentions and as the business flows things happen that cause problems and create history. By examining the good and the bad we learn why things are like they are.

As business history goes, I am willing to bet that the Sporting Good manufactrures were angels when compared to other companies that existed during the same era, example---Standard Oil...

I would be willing to speculate that if deep research were to be done on early sporting good manufactures like Pflueger, Ocean City, Shakespere, etc., etc., etc., we would find much more good business practises than any other but I also believe that from time to time some shady items would appear. When I say shady, I do not mean criminal. I am talking about ethics. How these problems are solved is what gives us what we have.

My best to you and yours and have a Happy New Year,
Mike C.
User avatar
SWIM JIG
Super Board Poster
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:36 pm
Location: AMHERST OHIO

now comes the lesson!!

Post by SWIM JIG »

:) 8) :lol: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :type: jump usa , folks, there was never a true pat. infringment, what happened is that there are just so many mfgs of componet parts, ie. gears, screws, bridge plates, etc. Pfluger had one of and acess to a gear hobber in the country in Canton Ohio, this factory would build any gear to your specs or you could pull from their in stock items! Example is Ocean City and Von Hoff and Penn, I was once called on the old ORCA site a N-rigger as I stated I used parts that fit and or worked! and I still do! there are a lot of Penns out there with Pfluger gears in them, and a lot of Shakesperes with South Bend or Bronson parts in them! One thing we need to remeber, untill reels were made off shore of the USA, companies in this country had to work together! the actual changes on reels was more cosmetic than mechanical! Harvy and I sat at the same table in Lansing michigan nats a few years ago and heard the Grandson of Shakespere company tell how he worked on the screw machines and at one time shakespere had the largest amount of screw machines in the country, up to the 3/8ths size, Herkemer in New york also made Screws and nuts,and some washers up to 1/2 in in sae or uss thread size, Lake Erie cap in Cleveland Ohio went from 1/4in to 3/4 in rolled threads in uss or sae and 2in cut thread cap screws, Western automatic in Elyria Ohio went from 1/8th thru 7/8 in uss or sae, this is what my mother in law told me as she worked there from 1931 thru 1943 she was on the 1/2 in line machines! If anyone belives that any company after 1917 could make it selling fishing reels? its not likly , they had to make or buy their expedables from their competitors! mass perduction called for these megers! After world War 11 , the Shakespere company went to blow injection of screws and nuts, thus the advent of flat top threads became the method, and a flat top thread will fit a sharp V female thread however a sharp V thread wont fit the new flat top threads, I sent Harvy a copy of that Shakesper put out in their manual, thats now in the ORCA library! ( to keep it simple, management of all companies had profit making meetings to see how they could stay in business. A example in todays market a Shimano handle will fit 5 different mfgs reels that I am aware of, the highest cost handle is from Shiamano, the least cost is frome Daiawa, and it will fit ZEBCO items , Daiwa, Shimano, Pfluger etc! It is my personal thoughts that these infrigment suits were a publicity game to get the names of these companies into the publics eye and ear, Thus more reels were sold! Your ohio conection On Lake Erie, Col. Milton lorens aka SWIM JIG
RAM
Ultra Board Poster
Posts: 2350
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:21 am

Post by RAM »

Mike-Don't know if I read all this thoroughlyenough, but will make a comment or two (never short of words, whether justified or not). I covered this little "disagreement" between the companies in Appendix II of my Enterprise Patents book after receiving permission to use those letters of both companies from Mr. Kevin Martin of Penn Reels. The disclaimer of claims 6 to 11 was filed five years after the initial letter from Enterprise. My guess is that there was no legal action that made it to court, otherwise evidence of it I feel would have appeared by now. You may recall Todd's excellent chapter in his Pflueger Essays book covering the Shakespeare suit in this general time frame (late 1930s). Another lawsuit would have consumed too much of Enterprise's energy (and no small amount of money) to carry on. But Enterprise was in a litigious mood in those years, although it had to involve big bucks to pursue I would venture. Five years was plenty of time for a meeting, but I think it was a lawyer to lawyer thing. E.A.'s style was not "Let's be friends" meetings. I suspect his attitude was "Weve been making reels since 1900!. Who in the heck are these Penn guys?" But what do I know? Bad Bob
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

the differences are subtle but they are there

Post by m3040c »

Well Gentlemen, all of your responses sound possible to me. The sharing of hardware between companies would be expected. The sharing of reel design is less likely in my mind but I believe that went on also. Problems will not happen if companies get together to share designs, problems happen when companies use someone elses design without permission. When I look at various different reels of the same era, the similarities are very easy to find. I am sure many of the designs go back to patents that had "expired protection". Also, companies had to pick their battles, lest they waste too much money on lawyers and court battles. Funny thing is, as much sharing that was going on, the major manufactures still managed to make their reel uniquely identifyable. A Pflueger Templar, Ocean City Long Key and Penn Senator 6/0 are all the similar in design and function but different enough that if they were all missing their logos we would still know which is which.

This has been a great post for me. Many of my questions have been answered. Please don't stop now. I love the facts, opinions and discoveries.
User avatar
Paul M
Ultra Board Poster
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

The claims

Post by Paul M »

I note that claims 6 through 11 contain references to friction aspects of the drag mechanism. The first 5 claims are more related to mechanical aspects of the reel assembly.

The claims can be found here (it is a graphic for which you may need a viewer):


https://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?docid=US ... PN/1932360

I had to try my new camera lens:
Image
Last edited by Paul M on Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
m3040c
Star Board Poster
Posts: 2516
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

response

Post by m3040c »

Your note is noted and that is a great new lens you have there. I can read the stampings on the reels.
Post Reply