Episode 69 - Hamilton v. Vortic, with Tony from Rescapement
Published on Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:09:00 -0800
Synopsis
This is a podcast discussion featuring the hosts Andrew and Everett, along with guest Tony from the Rescapement newsletter. They delve into the legal case between Hamilton and Vordic watches, where Hamilton has sued Vordic for allegedly infringing on their trademarks by using Hamilton pocket watch dials and movements in their wristwatches. The discussion explores the nuances of intellectual property law, trademark infringement, and the potential implications of the case's outcome on the watch industry and innovation. They also touch on Tony's background as a watch enthusiast and how he started the Rescapement newsletter. Additionally, they have some lighthearted banter about tools, espresso machines, and clothing items like chore jackets.
The conversation aims to present a balanced viewpoint by examining both Vordic's and Hamilton's legal arguments, as well as the broader cultural significance of protecting intellectual property rights. Ultimately, the case highlights the complexities and gray areas surrounding trademark infringement and the need for nuanced consideration of each specific scenario.
Links
Transcript
Speaker | |
---|---|
Andrew | Hello fellow watch lovers, nerds, enthusiasts, or however you identify. This is the 1420 podcast with your hosts, Andrew, and my good friend Everett. Here, we talk about watches, food, drinks, life, and other things we like. |
Everett | Everett, how are you? I'm good. My muscle memory was a little off just now. |
Andrew | I don't know what was happening. I saw the time cue pass, because usually 12 seconds is where I start, and then you didn't adjust the volume. I was like, yeah, whatever. We'll do this one live. |
Everett | We'll do it live. Yeah, I'm good. I'm good. I'm just, you know, end of the workday, as it were. I had kind of a crazy workday, but that was fine. It just never felt like I got caught up. I just never felt like I got to a place where I felt anchored. It just felt like fluttering on the top of my workday all day. |
Andrew | That's kind of work. If you're ever caught up, especially in your line of work, you're doing it wrong. |
Everett | Yeah, but there are times where I feel like, okay, I've got a handle on what I'm doing today. But today was one of those days where there was just brush fires. Tuesdays are You know those games where you have, like, you have got to, like, make recipes or something and serve something, and there's always something else that's happening, and all this, you know? Yeah. That's how it felt. Like, there was just, oh, well, someone dropped a dirty dish off. I got to wash it, and, you know, this and that. And it's just constant, constant one thing after another. It never felt like I had a firm grasp of what I was doing. |
Andrew | You know, I have said this for a lot of years, and I will share this theory with all of you. Tuesdays are the worst day of the week. Not Mondays. Everyone's like, oh, it's Monday. Monday suck. No, no, no. Tuesdays are where the real hell of the work week lies. Because Monday you come back in from your weekend and everyone's buried. No one really knows what the fuck is happening. They're trying to catch up from what just happened over the weekend, from all those dog shit emails they got, the things they left for Monday morning. So Monday, everyone's just got their head buried, their nose down, and they're just powering through. Monday is an act of survival. And then Tuesday's when people get the motivation up to start throwing shit at you. |
Everett | Well, and today was both, because today was both Tuesday. Oh, because it was President's Day yesterday, yeah. And also Monday. So some people worked, I didn't really work. Yeah, so it was both of those things. It was both Monday and Tuesday, so just fucking terrible. |
Andrew | What a terrible day. When I was slinging beer, we had about quarterly what we'd call a Black Friday, and it was when the end of the month the end of the quarter, or so the last selling day of the month and the last selling day of the quarter, both fell on a Friday. And those were terrible days because Friday is a typically a kind of, you know, manage your business day. You know, you get to go out in the trade and have customer meetings and do all that kind of stuff. But on Fridays, on Black Fridays, it was, here's all the beer you need to sell today. Godspeed. |
Everett | Godspeed. Go with God, as I say, as I say often. You know, It's any industry, right? Yeah. Any industry, you've got ebbs and flows. Being an attorney, some days it's really transactional. I know what I need to have. I might get a call or two. Maybe I get a new client. Other days, I do both transactional work and litigation, which means some of the things I do are business deals, but 60% of my docket, as it were, is focused on litigation, mediations, arbitration. So in that we have discovery. Hey, give me your shit. Here's my shit. And then I review that. But then there'll be, you know, crises and unexpected, unexpected, you know, fuckery. Oh, my roof started leaking. Oh, that's fucking great. You know, there goes that settlement that was about to happen. So yeah, today was just one of those days where it was a bunch of shit that was not expected and seriously changed the plan. It's like anything else, you're dynamic, you get to it. And here you are at home. So speaking of the law, yes, we're talking about watches. We are. And the law. And all in one. And the law. Watches and the law. And for that, for that, we've got a guest. We've got a guest. Our guest is Tony of the Rescapement. And the rescapement is, so I've read about this actually, when you introduce a guest, you're supposed to say all the things about the guest and then say their name. So I fucked it up already. |
Andrew | God, Everett. Even though they've already read. They've already read it. They know what they're getting into. They've fast forwarded these four and a half minutes. |
Everett | Rescapement is a regular newsletter that comes out. If you haven't signed up, sign up. It comes into your inbox. It's very unobtrusive, but rescapement sort of concentrated on vintage watches and just watch news. It's not solely vintage watches, but certainly I think that that's their focus. And Tony can talk more to that once we introduce him here. He's actually, he doesn't know it yet, but he's unmuted so he can, he could pipe in and object if he wanted to. |
Andrew | Or he could say something terrible about you thinking you would not hear it. Fucking asshole. |
Tony | Tony! You guys are lucky I haven't hung up already. I don't blame you. How are you, man? No, I'm excited to be here. Thanks for that. Uh, I'll say stellar introduction still excited to be here, excited to be talking watches. I would say I'm a enthusiast first lawyer, second or third, maybe, uh, but enthusiast is much higher on the list for sure. |
Everett | So, so Tony, you like me or a guy who's into watches and who also makes his money, uh, practicing law. |
Tony | That's right. Yeah. I think, uh, judging by the few gray hairs in your beard, I might see, maybe it's just the pixelation. I think you've got a few more years of experience than I do. I'm only a couple years deep, but yep, I'm a practicing attorney here in the city of Chicago, and then write a weekly newsletter on the side about vintage watches mainly, but focused on watch industry news as a whole, just keeping people up to date on things that have happened throughout the week so they don't have to go scrolling through Watchville every sort of minute or two to make sure they're catching up on whatever news is happening in the industry. |
Everett | And Tony, the type of law you practice is different than the type of law I practice. So I'm primarily a construction lawyer. I tell people I do construction, I do real property transactions and litigation. You are what we'd call an intellectual property lawyer. Is that accurate to say? |
Tony | I'm more of a transactional attorney, but I focus on technology and IP transactions specifically. I don't have much litigation experience, so I might be flailing around if we get too much into litigation speak and you'll, you can help me out there, but I'm on the transactional side of things for sure. |
Everett | Fair enough. Yeah. And I can course correct on the, on the litigation piece of this, but, uh, uh, we are going to talk about, we are going to talk about, um, and the reason we brought Tony on, Tony sent us an article recently, uh, about the Vordic, the Hamilton v. Vordic lawsuit. Uh, and if that's something, if those are words that, that are foreign to you, uh, bottom line, the skinny is, and we can get into more of this in detail later, but Hamilton, Hamilton, the Hamilton, you know, and love has sued a small, I would say perhaps a micro brand watch company called Vordic watches. Now Vordic, if you, if you haven't heard of them, you can go to their website, but Vordic is a company that takes vintage pocket watches primarily. Vintage pocket watches, they preserve the movements and the dial, primarily American pocket watches. So they'll oftentimes take the dial and they'll take the movement, they'll get the movement working and in tip top shape, and they'll package that movement and dial and hands and whatever else they can preserve into one of their cases. And these, uh, you know, for obvious reasons are very big watches. because primarily they house pocket watches, but they're frickin' cool. And it's not like they have regular lines. They're all different. And they're 3D printing those, am I correct? I think that they primarily 3D print. I don't know, they may machine as well, and maybe Tony knows more about that. |
Tony | Yeah, I think that's right. I'm not completely up to date with their entire manufacturing process, but I think that's right. And they're an American-based company. They're out of Fort Collins, Colorado. RT is the guy who runs the company. By all accounts, a great guy and sort of a great American-made, American-manufactured company that's doing things the right way, it sounds like. |
Everett | And so I think that the basics of this lawsuit—well, actually, why don't we do this? |
Andrew | Can we start first with—talk about rescapement. I want to talk about that and how you got into that before we dive into this very big project that we're about to undertake. Can I ask that question? It's your show, man. Okay. Tony, what got you into publishing and writing a weekly about watches? How did that come about? |
Tony | Yeah. So I started probably a year ago doing this and I've always been interested in the watch industry. And when I left law school a couple of years ago, found myself having more time to dive deeply. And I think writing is a great way to sort of organize your thoughts and organized the things that I was really into learning about watches and started organizing those, throwing them into blog format and have always believed in sort of newsletter and direct to your inbox format as a way to really be able to connect with readers on a more casual level. So I've been doing that and building up the newsletter over the past year or so. And it really is a great way to connect with readers and be able to focus on sort of one topic a week and dive really deep into it. learn about it, learn with your readers about it as well, and sort of just grow a community as well, really. I've been able to meet a lot of great people through Instagram, through doing the newsletter, and it's been a great experience for the past year plus, and it's gotten me really involved in the watch community in ways I didn't think it would. |
Andrew | And so you're writing this periodical. Let's go back a little bit further. What got you into watches? Does this say you got into it and you started writing and those turned into your newsletters? Or where does that story begin? |
Tony | Like a lot of people, I think it begins farther back. I inherited a couple of my grandfather's watches. So he was in World War II. He's got some cool watches from that era and beyond. And then he's got the classic sort of American made Elgin and Illinois, you know, little gold filled dress watches. And when he passed, when I was in college or whenever it was, inherited a bunch of watches like that and my dad and I started learning about them together a little bit and really dove off the deep end from there and pretty quickly you realize how much there is to sink your teeth into and I've been going strong ever since. |
Everett | So is your collection primarily vintage American watches or do you dip your toes into a wider pool of watches? |
Tony | No, I've got a bit of everything. I love the brands that you guys talk about too. You know, the last watch I bought was a Oaken Oscar. So it's a micro brand here out of Chicago, went up to Chase's, the guy who runs it, picked up the watch there, had a glass of whiskey with him. So it's really anything and everything interests me from the modern micro brands to, you know, historic companies that are taking old pocket watches and throwing them in new cases. Pretty much anything about the industry is fascinating to me. |
Everett | Fantastic. Are you wearing a watch now? |
Tony | I'm on the East Coast, or Central Time Zone, but not anymore. But you know, the Oaken Oscar I bought a month or so back has been my daily wear for the past month or so, and it's a great watch. They released an Olmsted, it's called the Olmsted. It's a 38 millimeter, I think they call it a field watch. couple months back, and it's a it's a great great daily wear for someone with slightly smaller wrists like me. |
Everett | Fantastic, fantastic. Yeah, you know that's a company that I don't think we've ever talked about Okanoska. We may have we may have dropped their names in in some of the American Watch episodes, but a super neat company, super neat watches, and they've got they've got good sort of watch fam street cred too, I think, which is which is something we, I don't know, you naturally run into these brands that have just sort of have met the popular, have crossed up the popularity threshold in terms of watch people. |
Tony | I think that's right. He's been doing it for five plus years now, I want to say, and you're right. I think that, you know, it's, it's one of those companies, a lot of micro brands are great on drawing on what enthusiasts are demanding in the forums or wherever else and figuring out how to translate that into something that's new and modern but still stays true to what enthusiasts know and love about the watches that already exist. And I think they're certainly one of the brands that's doing that right. |
Andrew | Well, very cool. One question about that. Did you get it on the bracelet and how is that bracelet? |
Tony | I did get it on the bracelet and the reason I fell in love with the watch is because the bracelet is awesome. |
Everett | Money. What's the bracelet? I don't know that I I don't know. |
Andrew | I'm just always curious about, about small brands, bracelets. Uh, cause it's such an easy thing to cut corners on. |
Everett | Yeah. Well, what is it? |
Andrew | It's just, it's just a oyster bracelet. I mean, I don't know. |
Tony | I don't think there's anything, there's nothing particularly special about it except that I think it's, it's very clear that it's well thought out and it's not like you're saying. I mean, a lot of these companies, it's an afterthought and I think they, They put thought into how long the end links are and everything like that, and I think it shows in the final product. |
Everett | Very good. |
Andrew | Very good. So now, Mike, my burning questions for that are up, and we are 15 minutes in, and we're about to dive into a big one. |
Everett | The law. The law. The law. Why don't we back up? I think before we had started to talk a little bit about the Vordic case, maybe we take a second before we get there. And let's just talk a little bit about the broader picture of watch IP law, because I think that there's a bit of, I mean, A, confusion. You know, Andrew and I would call this a number of barracks lawyers, barracks lawyers that are in the watch community, when a barracks lawyer is a private in the... Who probably wasn't always a private. That's right. Sorry, these are inside jokes. Tony's giving us like a confused look. A barracks lawyer is, you know, some young soldier who in the barracks tells everybody what the rules are and what the law is. You know, oftentimes they're totally wrong. More often than not, they're totally wrong. 90% they're totally wrong. Or the thing that they're saying is some sort of amalgamation of actual rules mixed with conjecture, spiced with an outright falsity. uh, that, that gets used in a way that's not only conversational, but, but profound and is misleading. And I think that we see some of that in watches. I think that people don't always understand intellectual property as it relates to watches. Uh, you, you know, it often, you know, you'll, you'll see in a forum, someone raises the question, how is that even legal? You know, and the answer is sometimes it's not, or, or sometimes it's, it's a gray area. Um, but, I was hoping, Tony, you with your background could give us just sort of a very basic primer, maybe a five-minute intro into watch IP, how that manifests most commonly. And then as we move along, we can sort of narrow that down, but sort of a crib sheet on the basics of watch IP law. |
Tony | Yeah, I'll certainly do my best to draw upon the law school things I learned back in the day. But I think on a broader level, the most important thing to understand is why IP law? Like, why do we have these laws and these rules to begin with? And I think the most important thing to understand is that We all kind of want the same thing here at the end of the day, in my opinion at least. |
Everett | Go ahead. Have we defined IP law too? Because there may be someone listening at home that doesn't. So IP being intellectual property, right? |
Tony | Right. So intellectual property in the In the world of watches, this generally means patents or trademarks. So patents being some sort of novel invention, like think of a company developing some cool new movement mechanism or a way to manufacture movement. Trademark being a logo or a company name that helps a customer understand where their watch is coming from or where any product is coming from. It's really important, though, to understand, I think, You know, all these laws might sound complex or obtuse, but at the end of the day, they're just incentive structures that are trying to achieve some underlying principle. And for IP law, that underlying principle is just to really promote the advance of the underlying science or technology or whatever it is. And I think most enthusiasts have some sort of intuitive understanding of that. Sure. And when we argue about these things, we tend to take different sides in any particular case. Some may take Hamilton's side on this case, while most might be siding with Vortec, you know, in a traditional David versus Goliath scenario like this, we tend to root for the scrappy underdog in any event. But I think that misses the point a little bit in the sense that, what A lot of people might view what Vortec is doing as kind of harmless. They're taking these old pocket watches and crafting their own cases so that they can sort of upcycle them and do something with these pocket watches that no one else was doing that would be laying in a landfill somewhere if not for what Vortec has been doing. And a lot of people arguing on the Vortec side of this case have some sort of intuitive understanding that this is innovative and this is exciting and IP law or the legal frameworks that we use should promote this type of activity and they shouldn't inhibit this type of activity. And people on the Hamilton side might argue something similar, but arrive at sort of the opposite conclusion. Instead looking at all of the investment that Hamilton has made in technology and building their brand and developing goodwill in the marketplace over the past century plus, really, and say that that's something that they should see a return on. And Vordic is, you know, for better or worse, free riding off of that goodwill. |
Everett | Yeah, no, I think I think that that is right. And I'm actually kind of excited because I'm sort of I'm excited to hear that you're, I can tell you're going to be able to take a conservative or maybe a, not a contrarian, uh, position here, but, but maybe something approaching that. And Andrew and I were talking about this before we went live. Uh, you know, it's going to be valuable in this conversation, I think, to really explore both sides and why it's important, why the conversation is as important as the winner, because the winner of it's important to have the conversation. And so we'll get back to that. But I want to sort of step back into something that you mentioned for a second and just sort of lay the groundwork. You had discussed, you know, there's patent law, and there's trademark law. And there's another sort of the three tiers of intellectual property. Copyright is also an element. And I think maybe if we take just a second more to explore those three avenues, what they are, maybe in sort of, we can talk about it in non-watch terms, because I think in the world of watches, we may have an idea of what those are, but it might be easier to understand them from, say, the perspective of cars or medicine or software, because sometimes it's easier to understand the concept if you can understand it from another world. But for instance, trademark, everyone knows that a blue oval with a cursive Ford written inside it is a trademark of Ford. |
Andrew | Unless Calvin is peeing on it. |
Everett | Unless Calvin is peeing on it, and then it's fair use. Yeah. |
Tony | Right? Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. |
Everett | So can we talk a little bit about that? What trademark is versus what copyright is versus what patent is? |
Tony | Mm-hmm. Yeah. So trademark first is something like Ford or not only the name but also the logo, intended to help consumers sort of be able to understand where the product or service is coming from. That way they can trust sort of where these things are coming from and understand that when they buy that car or when they buy that Coca-Cola or whatever it is, they know that they're getting what it purports to be. and they're not getting some knockoff for all kinds of reasons, right? That can be safety reasons. You want to ensure you're getting the right quality product and you're getting what you pay for and you're getting what you think you're getting. Next, if you move on to copyright, that's really intended to protect more creative work. This audio, for example, of this podcast is something that's copyrightable, you know, your favorite music album, your favorite novel, things like that, intended to really protect creative works like that. But it can also be things like software. Anything that has a creative element to it or an artistic element is generally in broad strokes copyrightable. And finally, |
Everett | And perhaps with regards to copyright, perhaps something that is creative, but not necessarily innovative, right? Something that wouldn't be eligible for patent protection. |
Tony | Exactly, yeah. Which leads us to? Which leads us, of course, to patents, which do need to be a novel invention. So in the watch world, of course, there might be a movement, but it could be a cool new car engine. a cool new medicine in the pharmaceutical industry, anything like that that really takes sort of a novel step of inventorship. Usually in the modern world, there's a lot of research and development involved in the process too. So those things we also deem as worthy of protection by granting patents. |
Everett | And generally, patented work, to have your work patented requires a registration, right? You don't just receive a patent by way of inventing something which is why Apple is Constantly suing everyone not only suing people but constantly registering patents for things that maybe maybe you're not even going to ever make it to market or Sometimes they're buying patents to keep something off the market A patent is a legal status that requires some sort of recognition from a government. And Tony, you can correct me if I'm wrong on that or if I'm misconstruing it. Copyright, on the other hand, oftentimes happens almost automatically. Is that fairly accurate? |
Tony | That's right. So copyright and trademarks, you can register at the federal level and you'll get additional protections there. just by virtue of putting something out into the world, you can get copyright or certain copyright or trademark protections just by putting it into the world, which is not the case with patents, for example. |
Andrew | So it seems like a big, giant caveat within two of the things we just talked about is fair use. Can you, can you fill us in a little bit on how fair use affects copyrights and trademarks? |
Tony | That's right. So generally the biggest sort of caveat or affirmative defense, if you will, is, um, in the world of copyrights and trademarks is something called fair use. And it's essentially something that says, um, you can use, you know, excerpts of a copyright, um, to refer to something else. And we decided that's okay because it furthers, you know, whatever we're trying to do as a culture, you know, it could be commentary, it could be news reporting, it could be teaching, all kinds of things that we see on a day-to-day basis that use all kinds of previously copyrighted works. And we've decided that that's okay. We need that as a society and as a culture. And that's something that we do with copyrights and trademarks. And like he said, it is the biggest caveat, I think, probably, to allowing for a limited use of those things that are otherwise protected. |
Andrew | So that's why I can sell stickers and monetize Calvin, copyrighted, peeing on a Ford symbol, trademarked. |
Tony | Exactly, yeah. You see a lot of other satirical uses, I think, of certain brands or copyrights that You know, Weird Al Yankovic obviously made a career off of this type of stuff too. And yeah, it's generally acceptable. |
Everett | And I think that's an important distinction because when you refer to fair use, I think, I'm not sure you exemplified it, but I think that there was a suggestion that there's an inherent value to fair use. Although with some of this stuff, it may be harder to suss out what the inherent value of Calvin peeing on a Ford logo is. So it's not that it necessarily has inherent value. As with all things with the law, we set the rules, there's left and right limits, and it's falling in there. But certainly parody or satire is a recognized fair use within the world of intellectual property. |
Tony | Right, exactly, yeah. |
Everett | All right. Well, I think that that is actually a great opportunity for us to move into this vortex this Vortec lawsuit, because now we've talked about trademark, because trademark is involved in this lawsuit. We've talked about patent, not really involved. Copyrights, to a limited degree, copyrights involved here, but more importantly, fair use, right? Because that's what this lawsuit is about, right? It's about trademark, fair use, and then this confusion of the consumer, right? I think that that's probably, that's probably what this case is about more than anything. Is that fair to say? |
Tony | That's right. So Hamilton brought, you know, basically they brought a handful of claims, but the two biggest ones are sort of trademark infringement and counterfeiting and sort of the operative test that the court will be looking at when they go to trial tomorrow is sort of confusion of the consumer. So Hamilton is basically going to be arguing that what Vortec is doing is confusing a consumer to the extent that consumers might think that when they're buying a Vortec modified pocket watch, that they're buying something that's a legitimate Hamilton product. So that's what Vortec is going to be arguing when they step into, or excuse me, that's what Hamilton will be arguing When they step into court tomorrow and Vortec will be trying to say that that's not in fact what's happening and they'll be pointing to disclosures they've made on the watch on their advertising materials and on their website to try to prove their point on the other side. |
Everett | So, uh, my good friend, Andrew is, is fairly skeptical about this lawsuit and I don't think he's alone. I think that it's the knee jerk, uh, the popular knee jerk reaction, uh, with regards to this lawsuit is a, there's no confusion and B what the fuck is Hamilton talking about? Right. |
Andrew | I'm going to, I'm going to start, I'm going to open up with all my questions. So question number one, is number one. Should Vortec take this as, I mean, a compliment, the fact that they are big enough and carry enough weight within the industry that they, that Hamilton, uh, believes them to be threatening enough that they're going to address it legally. Because my assumption is that the reason that all these ripoff brands don't ever have lawsuits filed against them, even though they're using logos, and complete appropriations of designs. The reasons they're never being addressed is because they're not a threat. No one, everyone knows you're not going to buy a sub for $138, but you can buy something that looks exactly like a fucking sub with a Rolex logo on it for $138. So that's number one. Number one question is, is, is this a compliment to Vortec? Number two question is how is like you, like you stated it earlier, how is upcycling something that is, otherwise refuse copyright infringement or in any kind of way an IP violation that has risen to the level of being able to be heard in a courtroom. |
Everett | So I think for just for the sake of keeping our arguments organized, we'll start with Tony presenting. What is this? |
Andrew | It's you. I drew a quick portrait of you. Okay. |
Everett | We'll start. Sorry, guys. There's going to be no value to you at home, but this is funny, and I'm sorry about that, because you're not going to get to know what it is. There is Tony presenting Vortix Motion for Summary Judgment, perhaps. I expect a full argument on this issue. I'm joking, obviously. But sort of give us the skinny on, if you're Vordic, what's the argument against? |
Tony | Right. So Vordic is arguing, they're going to be arguing a few things, really. So the main thing they're going to be arguing here in a case where potential trademark infringement or counterfeiting involves |
Everett | Tony, your cat is not pleased about what's happening here. That's good stuff. So in a case like this where the |
Tony | resale of a genuine product. So in this case, the, the Hamilton dials and the Hamilton movements are genuine products that are just being resold in these wristwatch cases that Vordic is manufacturing. The primary thing that a court is looking at really is whether the seller in Vordic in this case is making a full disclosure as to what they're doing. So are they describing the process of what they're doing accurately in their advertisements, on the product, if possible? Obviously, these watches, while big, they're still only 45 millimeters or so. So there's not a huge opportunity to disclose what's happening on the watch. But Vortec will point to the fact that if you flip the case over, you'll see Vortec's name and Vortec's branding featured as prominently, if not more prominently, than the Hamilton branding. Same thing will be happening on the website and on other advertisements and tweets even that are being brought to court. Vortec's going to be pointing out that the Vortec branding and the Vortec description of their manufacturing process is featured very prominently, whereas the Hamilton branding, the Hamilton logo on the dial, all of that stuff is much more minuscule in comparison. So that's good. That's something that Vortic is going to be relying on a lot as they go to trial here. |
Everett | And to be clear, Vortic is not, is not using, they're not recreating Hamilton's logo, but for the fact that it exists on the dial. |
Tony | That's right. That's a good point to be clear about. So it exists on the dial. You'll also see it engraved in some of the movements too. And they, they tend to have Sapphire case backs from what I understand. And so, You'll see some of the Hamilton engravings on the movements. But other than that, it's not something that they're recreating full stop at all. |
Everett | They don't have the Hamilton logo loaded into a CAD program and do laser or engraving on their watch. Rather, they're taking their own stuff, branding it with their name and reusing these Hamilton logos of yore. |
Tony | To my understanding, that's how it's working. Yes. |
Everett | Yeah. And I think that's accurate. So, There's a couple of facets to this litigation that are going to, or to the legal arguments that are going to be interesting. And I think that this is going to be the one that gets the people most excited. But, you know, because there's confusion to the consumer. What is Vortec doing? And how is it confusing people? What they're using, specifically what articles of the trademark are they using? How are they using it? How are they implementing it? But then this is the one that I think is the most fun and and I'm not sure that we've seen this argument play out perhaps in the summary judgment if you've had an opportunity to review those but The sophistication of the consumer and I think that that's the one that that's gonna be the most exciting for people How does that play out in this lawsuit? |
Tony | That's right. That's us guys. So I don't know how sophisticated you're feeling this evening, but I We're on trial a little bit. Real sophisticated. Stick the pinky out as you sip whatever you're drinking on there. |
Everett | It's a wild turkey highball, as we do. |
Tony | As we do. One of the elements courts look to when they're looking at whether there's a potential likelihood of confusion in a trademark infringement case is the sophistication of the buyers. And the court actually, in their last sort of speaking on this case, pointed to a previous case in which they said that watch buyers tend to be pretty sophisticated, pointing to the fact that we're spending untold amounts of money on these products pretty much. as sort of the dispositive factor in making that claim. So it sounds like they believe us to be pretty sophisticated for purposes of this analysis. |
Everett | Everybody knows that unsophisticated watch buyers buy movement, right, bruh? Exactly. Yeah, I think that's interesting. And I think it's interesting, you know, I think it's an opportunity for Vortec to explore who's buying their watches. And to talk about who's buying their watches, it's an opportunity for us to think about who are we as consumers? What are we looking at? What do we know? Because really, I think there's probably a handful of types of consumers that are buying Vortec watches. I think that there are, you know, within their own self-described customer classes, they have folks that have an old pocket watch that's laying around that they want to put back into use in something, in a manifestation that's more practical. |
Andrew | I think there are also people like you who have inherited a bunch of things and aren't intent on carrying a pocket watch. They want to carry that tradition. One and the same. I think we're talking about the same thing. But it's you. Like you, Tony. You don't have pocket watches. No, I don't. But Tony does. Well, maybe. My assumption is if he inherited watches, there's got to be a pocket watch in there. |
Tony | Right? Is there? I don't think there's any pocket watches. No. |
Everett | All right. God damn it. Fucking tried. |
Tony | You teed it up so good and then just faltered. Just lie. The point is, we didn't rehearse this if it's not clear, but the point is, the point stands true, right? That they have a couple lines of business, right? One is their pre-made watches where they're going out and sourcing these things on eBay or at your local antique store or wherever. But an entire other line of their business is people finding them and sending in the pocket watches that they inherited from their great-grandparents, probably at this point, and then upcycling those into wristwatches that they might be able to actually wear. So it's a good point that there is an entire subset of Vortex customer base that is well aware of what's happening here. And in fact, that's why they sought them out. And they would know that they're not buying a Hamilton, a legitimate Hamilton product, because that's not why they came to Vortex. |
Andrew | Because they sold them their, they sent them their Hamilton product in order to get it back. And so watch servicing. |
Everett | So for the record, we're more concerned about the folks that find Vortec watches somehow on Instagram or online or whatever, go to the website and say, Oh, I'm buying this old, perhaps Hamilton watch. |
Tony | Right. And Hamilton does have a specific instance. They, it looks like for now, at least they had one email correspondence that a Hamilton employee had received where someone had reached out to Hamilton and said, hey, these are really cool. Where could I find one of these? And they attached a few images of Vortex wristwatches that had the Hamilton dial and Hamilton pocket watch movements inside of them. And they used that as evidence of actual confusion of the customers in the marketplace thinking that these Vordic products were legitimate Hamilton products and people were then reaching out to Hamilton trying to find out where they could buy these legitimate Hamilton products. |
Andrew | Well, that guy sucks. Was it a Hamilton employee emailing another Hamilton employee? |
Tony | That's right. I think they're just emailing themselves. Uh, |
Everett | And so for the purposes of sort of summarizing the arguments, I think if you're Vordic, you say, A, we're very clear about what we're doing in all of our promotional materials. B, we're not recreating the logo. Rather, we're using something that exists. It's an upcycling argument that you've referred to. And then C, I'm always tempted when I do this, the A, B, C, to do the... 1, B, 3. Yeah. 1, B, D. So, and D is this idea that the people who are buying these tend to be, by and large, sophisticated consumers. Now, the standard that the court's going to apply with regards to the consumer is sort of, you know, this is a little bit of colloquial, but perhaps the average consumer or in actual legal speak, the reasonable consumer. Reasonable sounds like a wishy-washy word, and it really isn't. It's an objective term. The court oftentimes, in many different facets of law, identifies the behavior of a reasonable person. And so in this case, it's going to be a reasonable person who is in the same shoes as the average consumer of a Vortiq watch. So maybe not average, but the I don't know, what's the term I'm looking for, Tony? Average, right? The typical consumer. Yeah, that's maybe a better term. But the typical consumer, customer of Vortic watches, being reasonable, objectively reasonable, what are going to be their expectations? |
Tony | Is that fair? I think that's fair, and I think that's exactly what they'll be looking at tomorrow, and they'll be looking at a lot of the things that we discussed. how is Vordic holding out their watches on their websites, their advertisements and all of that. And it'll be interesting to see what they decide. |
Everett | And so Tony, I'm going to need you, sorry, Andrew took a deep inhalation, which means he wants to say something, but I'm going to cut him off cause he's got a bunch of things he wants to ask and I think it's going to be better after this next section. So what I want you to do, Tony, I want you to take off that Vordic hat, which I like that. Go ahead and send me that. Uh, take off your Vordic hat and now put on your, uh, your watch giant, corporate consumer, swatch group, swatch group hat. And tell me why. Tell me why. A, two things. A, why does Hamilton win? And B, not to say they're going to win, but assuming they do, why do they win? And B, why is my argument even reasonable? And three, why do they give a shit? Well, yeah, I think that those are the same things, right? Why does Hamilton need to make this argument? So A, why do I win? And B, why do I need to make this argument? |
Tony | Yeah, I think it comes down to really a brand protection argument. So looking at sort of from the get-go, you have to understand that these are legitimate trademarks, legitimate logos of Hamilton that they've had for the past 100 plus years and they've invested heavily in protecting these developing goodwill in the marketplace all of these things and You see a young upstart brand like Vortec come along and Through no branding of their own essentially free ride on all of the hard work that Hamilton has done to develop that goodwill develop that branding in the marketplace and You see an email from someone that says, hey, I see these cool watches from this random website. Where can I get one? And to you it looks like someone is holding out their products as legitimate Hamilton products when in fact they're not. And you get pretty frustrated with that, because you want people buying Hamilton products only from you. And further, you want total control of your brand in the marketplace, so you don't want someone else dictating how others might view your brand. And when someone sort of steps on your toes to that extent, of course you're going to bring a lawsuit against them, and you're going to try to stop them from doing what they're doing, no matter how big or small they are. On top of that, there is some argument to be made that when you have these trademarks, you need to go about protecting them when you become aware of a potential infringement on them. Otherwise, you might waive sort of future claims against that. So I think Hamilton is really looking at all of these all of these things when they brought the suit. So they filed the cease and desist back in 2015. And when Vordick sort of ignored that, they eventually filed suit in 2017. And the trial has been, the complaint has been going over the past couple of years and it's brought us to this moment, sort of at the end of the road now. |
Everett | So there's some corporate value, right? In terms of protecting your identity, but there's maybe also a bigger picture value to the arguments of Hamilton. Um, in terms of... There's a cultural value to the position that Hamilton's taking, broadly speaking. Maybe not to the specifics or the nuances of their argument, but I think that there's a big picture cultural value to that. And it's grounded in the bedrock of our republic, as well as sort of these ideas of general or common law, but it's a constitutional principle. Do you think that's fair to say? |
Andrew | Well, I want to interject there. I think it's, in part, they're protecting their current intellectual property here. They don't produce these pocket watches anymore. There's a reason for it. They're here in this modern era. Anything out there with the Hamilton logo across the dial represents Hamilton. and they want to control what is in the market and exists. The reason they're not producing pocket watches anymore is because those are not the Hamilton image they want projected. I think they're totally okay with those pocket watches going into the dump, and in fact would prefer it, because if a Hamilton logo is out there, they want it to look like the one that is currently on your wrist. |
Everett | This is the old Hamilton logo. |
Andrew | Well, they want it to look like that. They want to control what the market sees. |
Everett | I think that's different, though. I mean, I think that that's more that first category, that sort of corporate value. I think there's also a bigger picture value to having long term ownership over your brand and your intellectual property. What do you think, Tony? You're a big corporate, you're a big firm guy. You get paid lots of money by big, valuable companies. What do you think? |
Tony | No, expand a little bit more on what you're trying to say there. So you, you're saying that they're a little bit more concerned with their future position and ensuring that they're protecting themselves going forward and not so much that they're not really concerned with the backward looking portion of this? |
Everett | Well, I think that, I think that those things, I think both things exist. I think that there is a certain amount of value and to be clear, I'm not making any specific arguments with regards to this specific issue. But just generally speaking, I think that there's value to our culture, to our republic and our culture, in providing companies a certain amount of security that their brand, their copyrighted material, that their stuff, their intellectual property, remains their intellectual property. I think that that's valuable in a way that It's important to color this conversation with. I think that it's really easy for us to say, Vordic is a cool company made of cool dudes and they win because we want them to win. But there's value to intellectual property rights. |
Andrew | Because it's wealth they have amassed over a century of business. And that's their property today, just as it was when it was in production. That's right. That's right. And if they want it in the trash, that's where it belongs. |
Everett | I mean, perhaps, yeah. Which is not to say that in this case, Hamilton's right. |
Tony | No, I think you're right. I think in IP there's kind of this fundamental push and pull between the past and the future if you will so on the one hand protecting the heavy investments that a company like Hamilton in this case has made in developing the IP and protecting and building up the trademarks it's done. but at the same time also allowing future inventors to be able to leverage the IP and the things that those other companies have done to be able to push and promote the industry farther forward. And that's sort of the fundamental argument I think that is happening in a lot of these cases. |
Andrew | So how does this affect the watch world? In a world where say Hamilton wins, how does that affect the watch world? Because in a world where Vortec wins, were basically status quo unchanged. In a world where Hamilton wins, how does that affect the watch world, watch design, micro brands? What do you think, what do you see the lasting effects and the ripples throughout the watch industry being? |
Tony | It's interesting because as you guys pointed out at the beginning, there are tons of companies that are doing things similar to this. And the question is, why doesn't Swatch Group come along or Rolex come along and squash all of them? And perhaps the answer is they're not big enough. And Vortec is the unlucky one that got big enough to raise the eyebrow of Swatch and Hamilton such that they decided to go after them. Perhaps the answer is nothing much changes. There's going to be a plethora of brands continuing to do what they do, which is draw on the existing IP of companies and conglomerates that have existed for years and do what they want to do to build their cool company and push the industry forward and do whatever they want to do. On the other hand, Perhaps it will make these companies think twice before they decide to do something that might threaten the IP positions of these large companies, seeing how it damaged a company like Vordic if Vordic were to lose this case. So there are a number of other cases that are active right now. So Rolex is going after a small California startup that is refinishing Rolex and Cartier watches and adding colorful dials and colorful straps and colorful bezels to them and they're doing a lot of the same things that a company like Vortic is doing and leveraging the IP of companies that have existed for generations to build a cool young company and it's exciting for a lot of consumers and they've built a business around it but at the same time they're now being sued by Rolex and if they were to lose that suit it's gonna make the next company think twice before they decide that they want to do something with a Rolex watch that they think is cool and interesting that customers are going to like. |
Everett | And you know, I think actually because of the specifics of this case, there's probably a fairly limited, there's probably a fairly limited precedent either way. There's probably a fairly limited precedent that's going to be set. I think that the precedent is more powerful to the extent Vortec wins. I think if Hamilton wins, the precedent set by this case is fairly limited. And there's a couple reasons for that. One, there's a sort of famous lawsuit, same locale, same jurisdiction, as it were, as this litigation, which is Southern District in New York. Southern District in New York is known as a very sort of corporation-friendly federal district. Do you think that's fair to say, Tony? |
Tony | That's right. It's the district that's the home to Wall Street, for example. |
Everett | Yeah, that's right. So Southern District, New York, famously Adam RBK sued Swiss Legend, which is not an extremely prominent watch company in our conversations, but they're a big company. They're a big company. They make a bunch of watches. I think at one point they had 2,000 SKUs and they sell their watches between $200 and $800, maybe in that range. Uh, but they had made a Royal Oak homage, I think is the word, uh, watch people would, would use just colloquially, but it was a watch that was very similar to the Royal Oak in a number of facets. And Adam RPK sued them. Adam RPK won that lawsuit and perhaps Swiss legend isn't even a brand anymore because the judgment was giant. It was all the profits they've ever made. And I think treble damages. And I don't know if it puts this legend under, but it was a big judgment. But it had very little lasting effect on the homage watch industry. I would argue perhaps even imperceptible effect on the homage watch industry. So I think that this case probably has even less of an opportunity to negatively affect innovation or even perhaps copying or replicating famous watch brands. Would you disagree? |
Tony | No, I think that's right. And if you look at cases that are referenced in the decisions made so far in this case, you'll see a litany of cases in which companies like Rolex, Movado, AP are suing small companies like this and winning. winning damages, getting these companies to stop portions of their business. So I think it's right that there's a pretty extensive precedent for large companies having already having success and winning cases like this. |
Andrew | Yeah, yeah. |
Everett | What do you got? |
Andrew | I'm just wondering how this affects the monetizing of the watch modding world. Say, companies that sell custom SNK or SKX dials where they've they've bought that dial and maybe painted it or I'm just wondering where there's a gray area, right? And, and where do things fall out of that black or out of that gray area and into black or white, say, look at Invicta, look at, at, uh, even homage watches like Bernhardt does, does the Explorer homage that, you know, barring the price, what's the, what's the big difference in, in the way of appearance. And I'm just, I'm, I'm trying to wrap my head around where it is an IP violation versus. Yeah, that's OK. |
Tony | Right. So the first thing I'd say is sort of it does come back to that. Are they confusing the consumer question? So I think a lot of these cases, it's pretty clear that what you're buying is not an actual Rolex or an actual whatever it might be. You know you're buying a modded Seiko or you know you're buying, um, a Royal Oak. That's a 20th of the price of the actual Royal Oak. |
Everett | That says Swiss legend on it. |
Andrew | Or it says Royal Oak on it. |
Tony | Um, And you're generally OK with that for whatever reason. And the line is drawn. In this case, the line was specifically drawn because the Hamilton name appears on the dial. It appears on the website. And Hamilton took issue with that for obvious reasons. And that's really the hook that gets anything in here. When you're actually using a company's trademark or logo, that's when you're kind of potentially in the courthouse door. in potentially infringing on something. If it's an homage that looks like something else, that's fine to the extent you're not leveraging a company's actual trademark or logo. That's not going to actually be confusing the consumer to the extent that you think you're buying a legitimate product of whatever that company might be. |
Everett | Sure, sure. And I think to a certain degree that Swiss legend case sort of outlines perhaps the right limits of what you can do. For whatever reason, for a number of reasons, the court found that they were too close. So I think that that is a conversation, and I think it's gray, and I think that the conversation is still active, and I don't think that there is a clearly defined standard. Each court case at a time. |
Andrew | I hate to say it, because I think we could talk about this for hours and hours and hours, but I looked at the time a couple of times, I was like, this might be split up into two episodes. |
Everett | Right. We certainly could. We're about an hour right now. We're about an hour right now. That's the time we're normally thinking about wrapping, but we've got some other things to talk about. |
Andrew | We do have some other things to talk about. |
Everett | We've got some other things. Andrew, other things, what you got, man? |
Andrew | I need to light it up. |
Everett | Lighten it up. Lighten this shit up. |
Andrew | I recently, I undertook a project, a home updating project at the house. I know what's coming. And I needed a tool. And I'm usually a buy nice, not twice type person. But for whatever reason, for this instance, even though I know I'm going to use this tool frequently, I decided to go to Harbor Freight. Harbor Freight. Harbor Freight. It is across America, y'all. You have probably seen it in a real sketchy strip mall somewhere in an area of town that you either live in it, hate, or you try to avoid. |
Everett | It's in between the adult shop and the equipment rental place. |
Andrew | And then two doors down from the liquor store, always. But I'll tell you, so I went and bought a belt sander, and I don't know why I didn't have a belt sander already. And I also don't know why I didn't buy a good belt sander, because I am, like I said, I'm a buy nice, not twice type of person. But I went and bought a belt sander from Harbor Freight for like 30 bucks. And I, so I used the shit out of it to do some breakdown of some texture on some walls. And what I'm saying is, it is by a company called Chicago Electric, and that is the in-house. The old CE Red brand. CE Red brand. All the tools are red. Chicago Electric, by my understanding of it, is the in-house brand of Harbor Freight, and everything costs next to nothing. When I walk in, I grab my cart, I push my cart through the automatic doors, and I wanted to fucking buy everything, because it's all so cheap. I bought a bunch of pull-out in-home lanterns that are like $6.99. It's like Invicta. They're always marked down 90%. And I'm just walking through this whole store. I'm like, I gotta buy that. I need a Dremel. I need a router. I need a belt sander. Give me that. Fuck yeah, I need a 55 pound anvil. What it comes down to is, guys, visit your Harbor Freight. If you've got 20 bucks burning a hole in the bottom of your pocket and you wanna buy one of everything. |
Everett | Get off at Joma Shop. That citizen is not gonna make you happy. And here's the thing. |
Andrew | I put some pressure on that belt sander and I... Fairness, I used it for a full day. Yeah. And I'm pretty... pretty happy with the quality of that Chicago electric tool. I've never used any, any CE tools before, but I'm, I know it's going to start up the next time I use it. And I think, I think these are probably like a, for, for a tool that you're going to buy for a specific application and probably only use once. I think Chicago electric might be the way to go. |
Everett | Yeah. I think I've got the same belt sander you do. And I had the same exact thought process. Uh, yeah. Chicago electric, man. |
Andrew | Get down on it, y'all. Just go visit your Harbor Freight and just it's like food and stuff from Parks and Rec. Just roll in and be like, what the fuck? Why is that there? They have welders for like 86 cents. It's just it's insane. Don't buy that. No, definitely don't buy that. But go visit your Harbor Freight. Buy a bunch of shit that you're probably going to buy already for one tenth the price because you can afford to buy 10 of them for less than you're going to pay for a reasonable brand. I bought an espresso machine. You did. I saw it. You almost, I thought for a moment that you were making an espresso. |
Everett | Like tonight? |
Andrew | Yeah. When you were demonstrating its functionalities to me. |
Everett | I was just showing you how it works. I mean, I know. Did you want an espresso? I'll make one. |
Andrew | I didn't. I didn't. I don't. Still don't. Gotta be up early. Gotta go back to work tomorrow. My six day weekend is concluded. |
Everett | I bought an espresso machine, man. |
Andrew | You did. |
Everett | I did the full, I did the full thing. I did the full thing. And I'll tell ya, I'll tell ya, buying an espresso machine, is more complicated than buying your first automatic watch, okay? |
Andrew | The espresso machine world is a deep, deep, deep rabbit hole. Oh, fuck. |
Everett | They're worse than much people. Oh, you know, and cost of entry is higher too. Significantly. Cost of entry is higher. |
Andrew | I mean... There aren't affordable espresso machine podcasts. You know, I... |
Everett | I think that the, I mean, but it's the same, right? I mean, there's all these things that I don't know if I need to care about. And espresso people are the same fucking people as watch people. You know, it's really hard. It's really hard to come from no knowledge. Like, right? I started at no knowledge. It's hard to come from no knowledge to a place where I feel comfortable dropping 600 plus bucks. 600. |
Andrew | You should have just brought it, bought at Dutch Brothers. I know. |
Everett | It'd have been cheaper. Yeah. It'd have been cheaper. Do you guys have Dutch Brothers in Chicago? You don't, right? I don't think so. They're like drive-through Starbucks. Yeah. It's a chain. They have six in every city and it's a kiosk. Anyway, it's a chain. BlackRock. I mean, there's a whole bunch of them, right? Yeah. We're in the Northwest. Wherever you are in the world, you've got some chain espresso place that's probably got attractive young ladies working the window and whatever, right? This is the place you go and drop your six bucks for your foamy latte and or energy drink, whatever. They have them everywhere. Yeah. It would have been cheaper to buy. Long term, probably. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's crazy. And I don't know what I don't know either. Everybody talks about every single thing as if it were the end of the world. You can't have a medium grade a Possibly use is is this $1400. That's right. |
Andrew | Made of pure gold and plated and encrusted with diamonds. |
Everett | And it's like, oh, well, hey, I found this. I found this machine that I think is going to be OK. And I think it's going to work for me. What do you think of this? I'm not posting on forums. I'm still just lurking on forums, right? Because I'm not deep enough to be posting. Not yet. But, you know, you know, someone will say, hey, what do you guys think about this machine? Oh, well, the portafilter is not a standard size. And so long term, you're going to not like that and yada, yada, yada. And it's like, fuck, man, there's so much thing. You know, if I had bought the bare minimum equipment based on the forums, I'd be like, $2,800 in right now. |
Andrew | And you still wouldn't have an espresso machine. |
Everett | And so I went more conservative. I bought a Breville Barista Express. These machines, I think, retail for about $700. I got mine used for less than that. It was rebuilt by a guy who is a technician. He works on these things. |
Andrew | And that's a whole market in and of itself. That dude, that's what he does. Yeah, that's what he does. He rebuilds espresso machines. Yeah, that's right. So I bought a used |
Everett | Barista Express, Breville is a company, and they've got fantastic warranties. But I'm stoked. I'm learning how to pull shots. You don't make shots or brew shots. You pull them. You pull them. |
Andrew | Have you bought your brew retrograph to time your pulls? |
Everett | I haven't, but that's next. I'm going to call John and get a brew retrograph. So yeah, so that's it. Now, Tony, you're here, and we've discussed this. Are you comfortable? Do you have another thing you'd like to talk about? No is not an acceptable answer, by the way. |
Tony | I recently bought a chore jacket and I've not been introduced to the versatility of the chore jacket before, so I realize this is a very sort of 2015 discovery of mine. No, no. Bring it. Let me tell you, I've worn this pretty much every day and everywhere from the office to the playground to going out at night. It's the most versatile thing I have in my closet. Just a humble olive green shore jacket that I bought off of Grailed or eBay. And it's probably one of the best clothing purchases I made in the past year or so. |
Everett | And what'd you get? What'd you get? I need to know. |
Tony | Just a standard olive colored shore jacket from Corridor, I believe. Corridor, okay. Bought it used as any good consumer might. Yeah. But just the versatility of it is quite amazing. |
Andrew | Because the break-in period for something like that is obnoxious. You buy a duck, Carhartt jacket, and you are embarrassed to wear it in public for like five years. |
Everett | Yeah, that's right. You've got to take it outside and roll in the gravel pit in the backyard. |
Tony | That's right. That's why I got a simple one. It's a couple of seasons old. It looked nice and worn in the photos. And all the hard work is done for me to just kind of enjoy it everywhere I go now. So it's been a real discovery for me. |
Everett | To put it on and look good. I went through this process. Exactly. I went through this process a couple years ago. I was looking for a field, quote unquote, field jacket, which a chore jacket, a field jacket is sort of an extension. I looked at Filson. I looked at L.L. Bean's got one of the classic field jackets. I looked at a couple of these sort of new startup modern brands I wound up settling on a used L.L. Bean barn jacket, which is more of a traditional classic. It doesn't fit anymore, which is really... Oh, it got too skinny. Which is really very sad. But it was just a simple, thinsulate-lined barn jacket. I really love that thing, and I have to find one in a more appropriate size now. |
Andrew | I have a 1970s O.D. |
Everett | field jacket that I wear from time to time. Like an M-50. |
Andrew | Yeah. Like the like was issued to my dad. And I just got all the name tapes and everything off it. I do wear that from time to time. |
Everett | Love it. Yeah. It's got the V-tail on the back. |
Andrew | Oh, you know, it does. And the pull tabs and everything. |
Everett | Yeah. I've got one of those. It's a modern. It's a waterproof Levi's jacket. Yeah. Yeah. Well, very cool. Other things. We're all settled. Tony, thank you very much for joining us, man. So I'm just going to tell everybody, go to rescapeman.com and subscribe to the Rescapeman newsletter. It's a weekly newsletter. Like I said, unobtrusive. I think Tony's only selling your stuff to a limited number of Chinese listservs at this point. |
Andrew | It's only six, man. You've got to keep the electricity on. Chicago is expensive. |
Everett | I assume, Tony, you actually don't sell anybody's information or give it out. And if you do, we'll just edit this out. I can only aspire to such heights. Rescapement.com, you can register there. You can create a dummy email, right? This is 2020, folks. Just create a dummy email for your Rescapement subscription. But anything else? Where do folks find you besides Rescapement.com? |
Tony | Just find me there. I've got my bio up there too. That's pretty easy to find. Click around and you'll find everything you need to know about me and about us. |
Everett | All right. Fantastic. And then you're at Rescapement on Instagram. Is that right? |
Tony | That's right. Also at Rescapement on Instagram. Set on those socials early. |
Andrew | Boom. |
Everett | Smash that like button, y'all. Andrew, anything else you want to say before we get moving for the day? I do not. All right, folks. Check out Tony, check out Rescapement, sign up for the newsletter. Thanks for joining us for this episode of 40 in 20. Check us out on Instagram at 40 in 20. Thanks for having me guys. Thanks, Tony. Check us out on patreon.com slash 40 in 20. Check us out on YouTube 40 in 20. Don't forget to tune back in next Thursday for another hour of watches, food, drinks, life and other things we like. |
Andrew | Bye bye. |
Everett | Oh. |