Talk:Emeco

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Restoration hardware lawsuit[edit]

@Sapiens scriptor: I saw that you added a section called "Restoration Hardware Lawsuit", but I wasn't sure if you noticed the lawsuit was already covered on the Emeco 1006 page on the chair the lawsuit was about (second to last paragraph in the History section). Also, WP:CRITS discourages us from creating a dedicated section about a controversy. I would suggest keeping it on just one page to avoid redundancy, or choosing one page to cover it in-depth and mention it on the other. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this topic could be covered as part of a History section on this page. I think it makes slightly more sense for it to be covered in depth on this page since it involves the action of the company. According to WP:CRITS "If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism ", so its seems OK to leave it as its own section temporarily.Sapiens scriptor (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sapiens scriptor: I just did a quick run-through of the current text and provided some notes below. I think it's important to say "allegedly" in cases where a judge/jury hasn't verified the accusations. There's a sentence in there I couldn't find verified in the sources and some copyedits, etc. Is there anything in there we are likely to disagree on or any clarifications, something I got wrong, etc.?
On October 1, 2012, Emeco filed a lawsuit against Restoration Hardware for allegedly copying the Emeco Navy chair[10] Restoration Hardware had been selling copies of the Navy chair branded as the "1940s Aluminum Naval Chair Collection".[11][12][13] Restoration Hardware briefly renamed these chairs as the "Aluminum Standard Chair Collection",[13][14] (I don't see this in the sources?? Did I miss it?) before removing them from their website by October 5 2012.[10] On January 25 2013, Emeco announced that they had settled their dispute with Restoration Hardware.[15] (this is a lot of text cited to a primary sources. I would just use it for the date if there are no secondary sources on it) Restoration Hardware agreed to stop selling the disputed chairs and recycled their existing stock.[16]
David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From the source: "Recently the big furniture retailer began selling a look-alike Navy chair, which it refers to as the “standard aluminum side chair.” (It previously referred to it as the “naval chair.”[1]Sapiens scriptor (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, that's why I missed it. I did a CNTRL F search for "1940s Aluminum Naval Chair Collection", whereas it appears the correct phrase is "standard aluminum side chair." Looking at the source you provided, it looks like it was just a single chair, and not a "collection." Do you mind correcting? Or am I still missing something. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 13:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the archive.org links. The Sept 4 2012 dining chairs page has the text "SPECIAL SAVINGS INTRODUCING 1940S ALUMINUM NAVAL CHAIR COLLECTION" next to a picture of the chairs [2], the Sept 10 2012 barstools page lists both the "1940S NAVAL BARSTOOL special $159" and the "1940S NAVAL COUNTER STOOL special $159" [3]. The Sept 22 2012 dining chairs page has the text "SPECIAL SAVINGS INTRODUCING ALUMINUM STANDARD CHAIR COLLECTION" next to the same picture. I also added a secondary source that mentions "aluminum standard chair"[4]. These are the only archive.org links I could find, so I was not able to verify the names of the individual chairs that are not barstools.Sapiens scriptor (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok to summarize we have a lawsuit over a copycat of the Emeco 1006 chair, where different sources have different names for the copycat:

We also disagree on whether the lawsuit should have a dedicated section. Does that sound like a fair summary? I was going to suggest we fetch a quick opinion on it, especially given how much the sources seem to conflict on what to call the copycat. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found an archive.org link for the renamed chair. It was renamed as the "Aluminum Standard Side Chair"[5], so the Slate article is likely wrong. As far as what this particular chair was originally named, in the Fall 2012 Restoration Hardware print catolog it is called the "1940S Naval Chair". There is a picture of the catalog on page 13 of this PDF, (since this is part of the lawsuit, this PDF probably should not be used as a source).[6] This blog also mentions "1940S Naval Chair" appearing in the print catalog.[7]. Since all other sources just say "Naval Chair", I assume that this chair was listed on the website as just "Naval Chair", before being renamed to "Aluminum Standard Side Chair".Sapiens scriptor (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sapiens. I think it would be best if we can get at least one other editor to participate. (maybe @Altamel: will?) As sometimes discussions get contentious when it's just between two editors that disagree. Since primary sources, original research and a secondary source all name the copycat chair(s) differently, and to make matters more complicated, it/they were renamed at least once, I would suggest referring to them broadly, ie "Restoration Hardware had been selling similar chairs under a different brand name". I disagree that we can evaluate for ourselves which name was correct. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to other editors participating. This discussion has been very productive at identifying the various names, and at this point the names used are quite clear. I suggest we focus on the chair similar to the Emeco 1006 with language similar to "Restoration Hardware had been selling copies of the Emeco 1006 Navy Chair branded as the "Naval Chair". Restoration Hardware briefly renamed the chair the "Aluminum Standard Side Chair",[...]. Most of the discussion about this lawsuit focused on the Emeco 1006, so I do not see a need to mention the names of the other chairs/barstools that Restoration Hardware copied, nor is it necessary to mention the name of the "collection" these chairs were members of. Also, I would advise against using the phrase "under a different brand name", since a reader might interpret this as that the "Navy Chair" trademark was not being infringed by "Naval Chair". Sapiens scriptor (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it - the name is important, because the term "naval" suggests they knew they were copying the navy chair and/or may be a trademark problem. I also notice there is a secondary source here to support it. I'm fine with that. I may have over-reacted after seeing so many primary sources and original research. I would suggest just focusing on the secondary source that is not affiliated with Emeco/Restoration Hardware though, as secondary sources not affiliated with the events are suppose to be the primary basis of the article.
Thoughts on something more concise like the following and moving it into the History section?:
"On October 1, 2012, Emeco filed a lawsuit against Restoration Hardware for allegedly selling look-alikes of the Emeco Navy chair[10] called “naval chairs”(source) Restoration Hardware renamed the chair, then removed them from their website. In January 2013, Restoration Hardware agreed to stop selling the disputed chairs and recycled their existing stock.[16]
According to WP:CRIT: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided" I wasn't really sure if this was something we disagreed on or not... Though technically this isn't really a criticism or controversy, at least not of Emeco, it's usually not good practice to create a dedicated section for just one lawsuit. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 07:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be single paragraph about the lawsuit and its settlement, rather than a separate section. I note that some of the references below (not currently in the article) are blogs, which fail WP:RS, and (more importantly) that five of the nine references in the article are primary sources, which are strongly discouraged by WP:V; they also can lead to WP:UNDUE problems. I think that only four sources should be cited: NY Times, Slate, SFGate (SF Chronicle), and Adweek. And I'd be happy to write that paragraph is there is rough consensus that the amount of space currently given to the lawsuit is indeed too much. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @John Broughton:. Thanks for commenting. FYI - I provided the following shorter version using only good-quality secondary sources in the string above:

"In October 2012, Emeco filed a lawsuit against Restoration Hardware for allegedly selling look-alikes of the Emeco Navy chair, which Restoration Hardware called “naval chairs”. Restoration Hardware renamed the chair, then removed them from their website. In January 2013, Restoration Hardware agreed to stop selling the disputed chairs and to recycle their existing stock.

Of course you are more than welcome to write your own version - just wanted to let you know. David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CorporateM: That version looks good, with three suggestions: change "October 1, 2012" to "October 2012"; change "chair called" to "chair, which Restoration Hardware called"; and change "recycled" to "to recycle".
Seeing no objection here, I think you should go ahead and replace the existing section with what you've proposed (with any suggested changes of mine that you think have merit). And, of course, remove the section heading. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit[edit]

Per the discussion above, I'd like to request the "Restoration Hardware Lawsuit" section be merged into the body of the article without relying so heavily on blogs and primary sources. I have prepared a draft below that has been reviewed and "approved" by @John Broughton:, but he has asked me to make the changes myself, which I think would be a recipe for drama later on and the subject-matter is too controversial for direct COI editing. The proposed replacement content is below.

Draft

In October 2012, Emeco filed a lawsuit against Restoration Hardware for allegedly selling look-alikes of the Emeco Navy chair, which Restoration Hardware called “naval chairs”. Restoration Hardware renamed the chair, then removed them from their website. In January 2013, Restoration Hardware agreed to stop selling the disputed chairs and to recycle their existing stock.[8][9][10][11]

David King, Ethical Wiki (CorporateM) (Talk) 03:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, but I'd like you write a lead. Going straight to the body doesn't look very good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Raustiala, Kal; Sprigman, Jon (26 November 2012). "Can Restoration Hardware Legally Knock Off the Navy Chair?". Slate. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Dining Chairs". Restoration Hardware. Retrieved 4 September 2012.
  3. ^ "Bar and Counter Stools". Restoration Hardware. Retrieved 10 September 2012.
  4. ^ Geiser, Linda. "The Assault on Emeco". Modestics. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
  5. ^ "Aluminum Standard Side Chair". Restoration Hardware. Retrieved October 8, 2012.
  6. ^ "Emeco Complaint" (PDF).
  7. ^ "Restoration Hardware's New, Four-Legged Job Killer". FearLess. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  8. ^ Raustiala, Kal; Sprigman, Christopher Jon (November 26, 2012). "Why Restoration Hardware's Knockoffs Are Good for Design". Slate Magazine. Retrieved January 20, 2016.
  9. ^ Lasky, Julie (October 10, 2012). "Copying Classic Designs Is the Focus of a Lawsuit Against Restoration Hardware". The New York Times. Retrieved January 20, 2016.
  10. ^ Egelko, Bob (January 28, 2013). "Restoration Hardware to stop look-alike chair sales". SFGate. Retrieved January 20, 2016.
  11. ^ "Naval Battle Ends as Emeco, Restoration Hardware Settle Chair Dispute". Adweek – Breaking News in Advertising, Media and Technology. January 29, 2013. Retrieved January 20, 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emeco&oldid=1201743922"