Has Charles Gauci Been Ripped Off? Your Input Please!

Discuss the latest news and rumors in the magic world.

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/23/02 05:29 PM

I have received an e-mail from Charles Gauci stating that his effect "Eye to Eye" has been ripped off by Jerry Somderdin and marketed as "Devilish Deception." From what I gather, Somderdin has acknowledged his mistake on Magiccafe.com, apologized, and withdrawn his item from the market.
I have also been told that Murphy's Magic Supplies is selling something called "Perfect Guess" that Gauci also claims is a rip off of his "Eye to Eye." I would like to hear from anyone out there who has purchased "Eye to Eye" and/or "Perfect Guess" to see if the methods are identical. Also, who is credited as the creator of "Perfect Guess"?
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21940
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 08/24/02 01:25 AM

Richard,
I haven't seen them myself, but have been involved in the exchanges between Charles and one of the folks at Murphy's, due to my friendship with said Murphy's employee. In corresponding with another mutual acquaintance of mine and Charles's, who is also a Murphy's customer, it was confirmed that "Perfect Guess" is definitely a poorer manufactured version of the same effect and method as "Eye to Eye" (it was this person who informed Charles of it, in fact), and that there is no credited creator or manufacturer of the former.

What blame if any Murphy's shares in this is still really up in the air to an extent (they were definitely an innocent party who bought a product from a manufacturer in good faith that it was an original item; any blame that remains would come from continued sales of it once documentation is provided that it is in fact a ripoff).

What I was told from my contact there was that he told Charles he was more than willing to do the right thing and see to it that the effect is no longer sold if Charles provides documentation that it's his (the manufacturer of "Perfect Guess" told Murphy's that he had been ripped off when he sold it to them), and that Charles had yet to do so.

Charles, however, also provided me with a copy of a note to the owner of Murphy's that he had yet to receive a reply to, which asked, among other things, for a ceasing of the sales and the contact info and name for the manufacturer (he didn't provide hard evidence that it was his in that note, however, just circumstantial).

Note that I'm not claiming it's not Charles's, as I do in fact believe it is, just that as of the last time I was in contact with somebody at Murphy's he'd yet to provide hard proof that it was his, so there were two contesting claims of originality. My contact there is on vacation, but I'm going to follow up when he returns and see what the latest is. Of course, he's also a member here, so I wouldn't be surprised if he posts the info himself.

--Andy
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/25/02 07:13 PM

I have just received another e-mail from Charles Gauci with the information that someone named Gurlitz has ALSO ripped off his effect "Eye to Eye" under the name "Whispering Dragons."
I REALLY want to hear from some of you who have purchased these three items and whether or not they are, indeed, the same as "Eye to Eye."
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21940
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Tim Trono » 08/25/02 11:43 PM

This letter is intended to hopefully shed some light and thoughts in response to your question, Richard, about the Eye to Eye vs. Perfect Guess controversy that has been going on over the last week or so. Many people have really tried to view this issue looking at all of the facts while others have simply jumped on the bandwagon and just assume the worst. Instead of speculating, making assumptions, making accusations, beating around the bush, etc. I think it is important in this case, and in all others, to stick to the facts and to call a spade a spade. So lets take a look at some issues on this because I think it reaches FAR beyond this one item.

Just prior to my recent weeks vacation I received a VERY nasty e-mail from Mr. Charles Gauci expressing his concern about Murphys Magic Supplies carrying a rip off of his Eye to Eye. I immediately responded to Mr. Gauci, as a representative of Murphys, and advised that I understood his concern, frustration, and anger but requested that he provide me some facts supporting his accusations so that we could sort out the issues as soon as possible.

We felt it prudent to ensure that we have all of the FACTS so that we could make an informed and ethical decision based strictly on facts as opposed to who could create the most waves or shout the loudest. Some of Mr. Gaucis friends, on various boards, have felt insulted that we asked Mr. Gauci for some facts to back his accusation yet none of them seem to have any problem with us pulling off Perfect Guess, demanding facts from that individual, etc. I think its important to look at all sides. For us just to act on an accusation with no facts, no background, no specifics, and no true knowledge of either party involved would be, I feel, unprofessional, shortsighted, and negligent. We wanted to ensure we handled this in the most ethical and professional manner possible but we cannot make such a determination by a simple accusation. I know Mr. Gauci and many of his friends are angery and I understand and appreciate that but we have to do what is RIGHT and not just bow to pressure, pressure from friends rallied together, etc.

As a similar example, a very popular product (which will go unnamed at this time) recently was released and got a lot of advertising, attention, etc. We started carrying this and someone claimed it was a rip off and put a TREMENDOUS, TREMENDOUS amount of pressure on us. We had threats from all over the world to stop carrying the rip off. Instead of bowing down to pressure, we decided to stand fast and wait for the FACTS in determining our path. The parties involved decided to arbitrate the issue (which was very admirable and I applaud them for that) under the watch of a mutually agreed upon, neutral, and very respected individual in magic (who again will go unnamed at this point but I am sure you will be hearing of this with all details soon). In the end, it turned out the item we were carrying, and hailed upon by many people as a rip off, was, in fact, the legitimate product. As mentioned, you will most certainly hear more about this in the near future. But it crystallizes the importance of providing FACTS in supporting an accusation. We have requested FACTS from both sides and have not yet received anything from Mr. Gauci (with the exception of a post Mr. Gauci made on The Magic Caf in which he states a letter went out to various IBM Rings Jan 22, 2002 and mentions his effect I cannot however get an actual creation date or release date despite repeated request) or the other party. Once we do obtain the facts, we will then make a determination based on reviewing the facts from both sides and act accordingly from there. How Mr. Gauci and the other party resolve it is between them. We do not condone or promote rip offs. However, it is easy to just jump to conclusions and start making negative assumptions but this is NOT the right way of doing things. As a distributor, we obtain products with the assumption that they are legitimate and sold to us in good faith. If a question arises as to the legitimacy of the product we absolutely will look at that and act accordingly based on facts.

Mr. Gauci has taken my letter on other boards and offered to arbitrate in a similar manner to the example I provided above. However, WE cannot arbitrate this as we are NOT one of the parties involved. I am awaiting on facts from BOTH parties (Mr. Gauci and the other individual who will go nameless at this time due to many threats, etc. it is typically not our policy to provide contact info but especially in this case with the tone that was reached and the threats strewn about we felt it particularly not prudent to give out home phone numbers, names, etc.). If the other party who created Perfect Guess should come forward and present facts, then it will be up to HIM to agree or not to agree to arbitrate with Mr. Gauci. I applaud Mr. Gauci for standing up behind his product and we will hopefully see soon to what extent, if any, the other party will stand up in a similar fashion. He may have precise and accurate facts that his creation was prior to Mr. Gauci or he may have no substantiated facts (at which point we will look at both sides and act accordingly).

There have been several requests that we stop selling Perfect Guess until this is resolved. If Mr. Gauci will agree to stop selling Eye to Eye we can certainly discuss that possibility though I rather doubt Mr. Gauci will want to stop selling his popular item. And besides that, the individual who sold us the units of Perfect Guess did, to my understanding, sell it to other dealers. Thus what is being asked is that we cease sales while others continue to sell.

And to all of the people that jump on the bandwagon without facts and make all kinds of negative assumptions and accusations with no regard, I would encourage you to strongly consider the brief example I provided above. This is not at ALL uncommon and we see it frequently you just dont end up hearing about a lot of very similar situations.

Now lets look a little further at the ethics issue. Mr. Gauci, as an example, has professed, according to a post I just read and responded to on EG, as no longer wanting to share his creations due to the ethics issues involved yet he has recently engaged in an exclusive wholesale arrangement with a competitor to ours that, to my understanding, has apparently sold blatant rip offs and simply not been called to the carpet. This is where things start to extend well beyond the items in question. As another example, there has been a recent rip off of a watch effect put out by Bazar de Magia. This item has been EXTREMELY popular though it is hurting sales for Bazar de Magia and for shops and distributors such as Murphys who bought thousands of dollars worth of the original item released by Bazar de Magia and now simply have it sitting there as the rip off flies off the shelves. We have chosen NOT to carry the rip off as we knew the facts. Thus the self policing in magic seems to be selective and partly based on who can yell the loudest. We see our competitors, apparently and in my opinion, sell blatant rips offs but, because they are not being quite as active, no one is calling them to the carpet. Yet when we purchase units of an effect such as Perfect Guess in good faith that it is original and one person assumes they have been ripped off we get chastised up and down. If this is a rip off, neither I nor Murphys is condoning it in any way, shape, or form. What I am trying to stress is that if there is going to be self policing in the magic field it really needs to be all around and not selective. It needs to be based not on who can shout the loudest but across the board. It needs to be on who created and released it first and not on what people like. Being such an aggressive company, Murphys Magic Supplies, in my opinion (though it is obviously biased but I DO believe it or I wouldnt work there) is THE most ethical distributor in magic. However, it gets very tough when our various competitors are not apparently called on carrying rips offs and we pay higher prices, etc. on the original items to support the ethics.

Back to the issue at hand. I am basically looking for 2 pieces of information from both parties: 1) verifiable time when they created the item in question and 2) verifiable time when they released the item in question. I presented this to Mr. Gauci and he did not want to provide this information in fear that I might apparently backdate the dates on Perfect Guess. Although I understand and appreciate Mr. Gaucis concern, I really have NO interest either way and simply would not do that. All I wish to do is get this straightened out. I do not wish to speak FOR the other individual. He will have to do that himself and provide facts as well if an informed decision is to be made on his item. You may say well you DO have an interest in that your company is carrying Perfect Guess. Well, the truth is that if it is a rip off wed rather not continue to progress along with it. There has been more than one instance in the past where weve chosen to simply eat the loss. However, I do have to say that it is awfully hard to make an informed decision without all of the facts. If they are verifiable facts its hard to change them.

I also want to raise another point that deals with this yet extends well beyond it. When the concern was first brought to my attention I made it VERY clear to Mr. Gauci that I would be departing for vacation and asked that he send me the facts while I was gone so this could be rectified -- yet when I came back I found all kinds of mud slinging on various internet boards. Weve had people second guessing us, putting us down, threatening us, etc. and all without any FACTS, without all of the background, etc. Its like people have become ANXIOUS to sling mud. While I can certainly understand and appreciate Mr. Gaucis concern, anger, and frustration, I do not think it appropriate or beneficial to exacerbate a situation and get a mud slinging frenzy going (I am NOT saying Mr. Gauci has done that in fact, over the last few days he and I have exchanged some very good, productive correspondence dealing with this- however, many OTHER people HAVE jumped on the bandwagon blinded by emotion with no facts to substantiate their position). While I certainly do NOT dispute the factual claim that Mr. Gauci created the popular Eye to Eye I feel it is crucial to find out when he released it and find out exactly when the other individual released their version (substantiated in both cases) and then the answer becomes quite clear one way or another. Obviously, if Mr. Gauci is the creator of this effect, had his item out first, has the facts to support his accusations, and he is being ripped off, Murphy's would like to know ASAP as well. Wed like to put an end to this whole issue. Wed like to NOT see rips off. We support the people that are legitimately creating and moving magic forth in a positive direction. It's interesting though how people can ASSUME something is true by someone creating a stir about it. Assumption is a very dangerous thing (on top of it being the lazy and negligent route).

I wish we could all simply stick to the facts, get the facts needed to resolve this one way or another, and stop the mudslinging in general. I feel, with all due respect to the many individuals that have posted on this topic that a great deal of the responses fall into this category of mudslinging. They do NOT have all of the facts, some have tried to get us to empathize through sympathy (i.e. that we will not have access to future creations of Mr. Gauci which though I do feel is unfortunate as I am impressed by Mr. Gaucis work), and they have NOT received and evaluated both sides of the issue. As I cited in the example I gave earlier, sometimes the results can come back and surprise us. Although the internet is a wonderful tool, I have seen it really hurt magic and the camaraderie simply because it is so easy to sling mud with simply no responsibility for what is said or no apparent need to provide facts behind it. Once an accusation is made it is hard to shake. Look, as an example, at the gentleman, who was accused of the bombing at the Olympics. In fact, in the end, it turned out that this security guard was a hero but do you ever think he will not receive the negative stares, do you think it will be easy for him to get a job, do you think people will actually know he WAS cleared from it and DID try to act in good faith to HELP people? Unsubstantiated accusations such as those that many of Mr. Gaucis friends have made are dangerous and set an unproductive precedent.

Tim Trono
Project Manager
Murphys Magic Supplies, Inc.
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Guest » 08/26/02 06:33 AM

Sorry Tim,

You are not shedding any light. All you try to do all the time is to divert attention from the real issue. These are the main points that need to be answered.

1 I have on public record been selling Eye to Eye as early in US as the 22nd of April at my first lecture in Houston Texas. Please contact Scott Wells or Banachek who I am sure will verify this statement.

2 Since the 22 of April, there has been numerous reports,reviews on my lectures and in particular on Eye to Eye.

This fact is well documented on just about every bulletin board and is not a figment of my imagination.

3 I performed Eye to Eye for a week at the Magic Castle from 24-30th June.

Amongst the hundreds of people who saw it, where none other than Mr. Larry Becker and Mr. Max Maven

Now, with all this publicity and furore that I had caused with the introduction of this item on the American scene, why has not the "mystery" person who you claim to have sold your company Perfect Guess come out of the closet and claim originality.

It simply is ludicrous to think, that this person would stay quiet and let me rip him off tens of thousands of dollars if indeed he is claiming originality of the methodology? It just does not make sense.

In fact, why has he not come out and stake his claim?

Your company is deliberately delaying giving out information so that you can steal as many sales as possible before you are forced to give in.

I want to know what compensation you intend to pay me at the end of this.

Once again Mr. Murphy, I challenge you to accept that this matter be brought to the attention of the IBM Ethics Committee and let them examine all the facts presented by both sides.

I will go on public record and say that I will accept the umpires decision as final.

Mr. Murphy, please show us your true colour and come out and publicly accept my challenge.

I will bet you London to a brick, that you will find some excuse to worm your way out not wanting an independant arbitrator to settle this once and for all.

Finally, can you in turn give us some proof of the dates that your "mystery" man has performed, or demonstrated Perfect Guess in public? I have.

Or Mr. Murphy is this too much to ask of you?

Mr. Murphy, do you think you are the only person to make such demands of me?

Remember, your credibility is at stake Mr. Murphy

When you can satisfactory anwser all these questions we may be able to resolve this matter once and for all.

I am willing to submit all my documentation to back up my claim of originality of the Eye to Eye methodology.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I rest my case and ask you to judge for yourselves on the facts presented so far.

Thank you

Charles Gauci 26th August 2002
Guest
 

Postby opie » 08/26/02 06:49 AM

Charles toured the USA and exposed Eye to Eye to dozens of magic groups in which there were collectively hundreds and hundreds of years of magic experience and knowledge. While he was in Austin, we had several brainstorm sessions with Charles over a few week period. We includes very knowledgable magicians and magic historians such as Ramon Galindo, Brad Henderson,Ron Cartlidge, and Cody Fisher. We were all impressed with his invention.

It seems funny to me that with all these knowledgable observers across the USA, none have come forward and said that someone other than Charles came up with Eye to Eye.

I also find it offensive when a person is asked a simple question of, "Who sold you 'Perfect Guess'?" and that person evades the question by filling up pages of total bs and even brings up bombing the Olympics. What has that to do with answering a simple question?

I have been asking dealers for 50 years where they got certain tricks, and I have never been refused an answer until now....I guess I just don't understand the problem....

just my nickel's worth......opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Pete Biro » 08/26/02 08:13 AM

In as few words as possible. What is the effect of each of these?
Stay tooned.
User avatar
Pete Biro
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hollyweird

Postby Tim Trono » 08/26/02 08:58 AM

I think I made it VERY VERY clear in my post that there is absolutely no contention that 1) Charles Gauci created "Eye to Eye" independently and 2) the first verifiable time that I can come up with independently based on information off of another board is that the concept was introduced by at least Jan. 22, 2002. Since no prior date to that will be given we can certainly use THAT in our decision. Quite frankly, I just scanned Charles letter and did not even read Opies (who on other boards simply wants to create a one sided argument without fact, without addressing counter arguments, etc. and I refuse to debate in that manner) as I have, I feel, invested more than enough time in this, and will now wait for facts from parties or proceed on information provided. I also think I made it VERY clear that to request Mark Murphy to arbitrate this is simply stupid. Mark did NOT create, manufacture, etc. "Perfect Guess", he cannot speak as to the date WHEN it was conceived, he cannot speak to the date the first unit was sold to someone, he cannot speak to HOW it was conceived, he cannot speak to WHERE it was distributed, he cannot speak to any FACTS behind the item, etc. Murphys Magic Supplies does not OWN, MANUFACTURE, PACKAGE, etc. this product. We simply SELL this item which we purchased in good faith with an understanding that it was as an original independent creation. I'm starting to personally feel like you asking the same pointless questions over and over is merely an attempt to keep this in the limelight to raise publicity for Eye to Eye. I hope I am wrong and that there is simply a communication breakdown. Its getting frustrating NOT getting facts and simply having the same barrage of pointless, fact less points raised time and time again. Once we received substantiated facts from both parties WE will make a determination and proceed on that for our company. How Charles and the other party proceed or deal with this is entirely up to them. This will be an internal company decision just like how we determine to pick up a project. We dont go out and ask you if we should carry a product. The two parties involved are Charles Gauci and the creator of Perfect Guess period. We, more than anything, are the victim either way. If Perfect Guess IS a rip off we will end up losing money as typically if someone is selling a rip off they would obviously not have the integrity to buy back remaining units, etc. If Perfect Guess is a legitimate independent creation and was sold and developed prior to Eye to Eye we have STILL received a storm of fact less threats, insinuations, etc. Im not trying to evoke sympathy this IS part of business and Mr. Gauci should understand that. We DO understand and appreciate Mr. Gaucis frustrations as we understand that if you feel you are being ripped off emotions can really arise after spending time and effort in an item. However, I think it is simply WRONG to assume that no one could possibly independently develop this and have possibly released it before Eye to Eye. Maybe this is not the case but we simply do not know as we do not yet have the facts from both parties other than what I stated I pulled from another board and is verifiable. As I stated in my previous post we have chosen at this time and under the circumstances NOT to provide the contact information of the other party. Our company does not want to be responsible for any threats or other possible actions to this party in light of how much unsubstantiated threats we've received. Also, typically we refrain under most circumstances from giving out personal information. As an example, if you wanted to call Mark Murphy at home I would NOT provide his home contact information as a matter of privacy. The individual selling Perfect Guess has apparently, to my understanding, sold it to other shops throughout the world. Stop being lazy and do some detective work to see if someone else will provide you with his information. The person who is releasing Perfect Guess was very open in providing us his information in full and not hiding under some fake name or corporate identity as others have done recently.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Tim Trono » 08/26/02 09:00 AM

Hi Pete. Basically, a small ball is given to the spectator to hide in one of their hands (done in secret of course behind their back, etc.). You are then able to divine which fist the ball is in time after time.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Tim Trono » 08/26/02 09:08 AM

For the record on this board and in response to Opie's post for those who have NOT seen his tactics on other boards... Opie is apparently a friend of Charles and is understandably trying to exacerbate the issue. I CLEARLY indicated why we have chosen, at this time, based on the threats, etc. not to release the other person's PERSONAL contact information. Opie essentially will not honor our decision and feels that if he keeps asking and badgering it will be provided. It will NOT be provided because of such badgering. THA would not be right period. We will not be moved by pressure, by threats, etc. We will do what is right based on facts. Also, he has chosen to ignore any points discussed in posts that at all oppose his one track mind referring to them as BS. I do cite the Olympics as he noted as what I consider a very possible analogy. This will be my only direct retort on this board to Opie unless he decides he can keep an open discussion.

Tim Trono
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby opie » 08/26/02 01:38 PM

My question is simply Who is credited with "Pefect Guess"....That is all I have asked for....BTW, Richard asked the same question at the beginning of this thread....Are you going to begin saying that he is "exacerbating" the situation? Why don't you just answer the question, like Richard and I ask for?......opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Scott » 08/26/02 04:26 PM

I'm with Tim on this one. Show the facts. Show them in a venue other than posts on a message board. Posting "I did it" on 3 message boards is hardly evidence that I would base a decision on. I don't see what the big deal is. Produce the DOCUMENTS, let the facts speak for themselves. I applaud Murphy's for operating in this method. As Tim said, I don't see anyone slagging off the other dealers who are carrying it. MagicSmith carries it. Where's the outrage there? I know they aren't a distributor, but still, they are carrying it.

It someone accused you of a crime,without providing documents to the police, would you be happy to be locked up with information posted on the internet? I doubt it.

As Joe Friday would say "Just the facts Maam".

And unless this is some new, clever gimmick, it's hardly even a new trick. I assume it is a gimmick, because if it's not, then someone else has been ripped off because this trick, done with a coin, has been around for many years.
User avatar
Scott
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 07/30/08 04:54 PM
Location: TX

Postby opie » 08/26/02 05:09 PM

Scotty, I am so sorry some dealer gave you a bum deal on a coin trick....but by choosing the side you chose, somebody else will probably do it to you again....

That is the kind of things I am trying to stop--innocents like you being reamed by bad deals....

Don't you see that we all need to fight to keep our hobby/profession free of any kind of questionable behavior....I am not saying that anybody has done anything wrong; I am simply saying that one party in this argument needs to help put the QUESTION to rest....

Even the web master here has asked "who", and we have received no answer....

"Caviat emptor"....opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Geno Munari » 08/26/02 06:00 PM

I had a booth at the IBM convention in San Diego, that was across from Gauci's both. I was alerted to the effect by Carl Williams and I bought one. I told several people about the effect and one person, which is very close to me, told me that they were in the booth while Tim Trono, another fellow that worked with Trono and Mark Murphy were trying to buy the effect....of course this is hearsay, but it is a fact. I also tried to buy the effect for resale from Charles but he did not want to sell it.
Geno Munari
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA

Postby opie » 08/26/02 06:24 PM

Geno, Charles is having a problem getting in and out of some of these webs....Would you mind sending him your post and a well wish regarding this injustice he is involved in?

charlesg@ozemail.com.au

He would appreciate just the well wish. He is crushed by this whole matter....

opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Bill Duncan » 08/26/02 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Geno Munari:
I told several people about the effect and one person, which is very close to me, told me that they were in the booth while Tim Trono, another fellow that worked with Trono and Mark Murphy were trying to buy the effect....of course this is hearsay, but it is a fact.
Bill Duncan
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: 03/13/08 11:33 PM

Postby Scott » 08/26/02 07:02 PM

Opie, I don't know what your reading in my post, as I didn't buy any coin trick from a dealer and get ripped off. I was simply saying that if it's not a gimmick, then the trick has been around for a long time and been written about in many places. I've used it for years. And I didn't have to pay $20 for it.

So, I assume you're one of those people would would be happy to go to jail on messages posted on a web site instead of facts, backed up by documents. Real documents, not html that could be written by anyone posing to be anyone else.

Please, don't defend my rights if that's the method you choose.
User avatar
Scott
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 07/30/08 04:54 PM
Location: TX

Postby Tim Trono » 08/26/02 07:07 PM

Ahhh, once again... ASSUMPTIONS and automatic assumptions of wrong doing... What a brotherhood of magic we have! Let me give you the facts on this and then Im off this subject until I hear some facts from the parties. You are absolutely correct that we spoke to Charles and I for one hung out at his booth at the IBM national convention in San Diego. I liked Charles magic a lot. Ive been doing magic for 27 years and still LOVE it. I was at your booth as well Geno but again to see what cool new magic you had. Nothing sinister, no hidden cameras, just watching some magic and talking... I believe we even talked a few times Geno. Ive always enjoyed talking to you as well. We did discuss some business with Charles but quite frankly it has nothing to do with this whole subject and is absolutely no ones business besides Charles and our company. I think it would be inappropriate of me to breech any of the conversations we had with Charles. I also just enjoyed talking to him as hes a clever fellow. I think your insinuations are pretty negligent and petty and quite frankly inappropriate. We were all around the convention and had a great time. So until I get some facts Im staying off this subject as its just getting out of hand.
Tim Trono
 
Posts: 101
Joined: 07/16/08 03:50 AM

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/26/02 07:12 PM

Scott, this is not the old effect you're thinking of. This is a new idea that uses more than one gimmicked item.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21940
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby opie » 08/26/02 07:15 PM

Sorry Scott....I thought you were upset about a coin trick....Yes, there is a gimmick in Charles' trick, so it is not the old coin trick you may be thinking of....

As a matter of fact, Charles and I had some fun in San Diego when I would approach his booth, which was surrounded by many people, and tell him that I could do his trick with a coin. He told me to prove it, so I handed him a coin and asked him to put it in either hand behind his back he desired and to hold his hands up to the sides of my head....I went through the business of asking him to stare at one hand and then the other and announced which hand held the coin....We repeated it many times, until an old timer got upset when he figured out that Charles had a coin in each hand....NOT HIS TRICK; it was my idea to entertain the folks around his table....and Charles does believe in entertaining people and having a good time....

I sense your concern; we all want this matter resolved....

opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Geno Munari » 08/26/02 07:22 PM

Simple solution....ask Charles if he was approached by Murphy......
Geno Munari
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA

Postby Guest » 08/26/02 07:25 PM

What in the world does that have to do with the issue at hand, Geno?

The issue discussed here is whether a product which Murphy bought in good faith as an original item, which the manufacturer of claimed (rightfully or not) had been ripped off by Charles, is in fact a rip-off of Charles's effect. What does this possibly have to do with any discussion Charles and Murphy's had (which, as Tim noted, is frankly none of your business)?
Guest
 

Postby Geno Munari » 08/26/02 07:32 PM

Simple..

If Murphy was looking at Charles' product prior to Murphy selling the ripoff, there is a breech of ethics.
Geno Munari
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA

Postby Guest » 08/26/02 07:34 PM

How come we can know the creator of Eye to Eye, but not Perfect Guess? What makes this mystery man so special that garners him this protection of anonymity. I don't understand why Murphy's won't fork this guy over and let him go toe to toe with Charles. All I see is stalling by one party who are trying to get out of the hole they dig.
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/26/02 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Geno Munari:
Simple..

If Murphy was looking at Charles' product prior to Murphy selling the ripoff, there is a breech of ethics.
How so? Especially if Murphy's got the product for possible purchase before they ever met Charles or saw his product, which I believe is the case, what possible breach of ethics is there.
Guest
 

Postby Geno Munari » 08/26/02 07:42 PM

Then why would he be interested in wholeselling Charles' product, or why didn't the conversation come up that he carried the same product?

Murphy et al, wanted to carry Charles' effect..

Quite frankly......Charles did not want to wholesale his product.

That is what is one reason that this is so simple.

If there is independent inventing of the same effect, what say you inventor or wholeseller?

There now can be no secrets.....who sold the effect to Murphy?
Geno Munari
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 01/30/08 01:00 PM
Location: Las Vegas/Del Mar, CA

Postby opie » 08/26/02 08:11 PM

You guys play nice; I am going to bed....
Geno: Be careful; our friend there has a doctors degree from a psychic college in Canada...He may even have the answer to the simple question that nobody will give us....

g'nite....opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Andy Hurst » 08/26/02 08:11 PM

It seems stupid to keep the name secret, why wouldnt the creator want his name on his trick if its his? Or maybe he realizes that it's just a trick (actually its a puzzle at best), and not a very good one at that?
Andy Hurst
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 03/18/08 12:55 PM

Postby Mark Jensen » 08/26/02 08:58 PM

Just some thoughts...

1. Why wouldn't someone want their name attached to something? :confused: Why did Erdnase publish under a false name. Why are many older magic books published under anonymous? This list goes on...

2. If this item is worth tens of thousands of dollars (so that's at least $20,000) why didn't the originator take legal steps to protect their creation? Patents, etc? It's not like having magic tricks stolen have never happened before?

3. Expecting the magic community to self police is like expecting Congress to agree on tax relief, it ain't going to happen. So protect yourself or be prepared to face the consequences, which are quite legal (maybe not ethical, but quite legal and accepted mainstream business practice. Yes Virgina, there is a Santa Claus and he buys his competitors toys to see if he can make the same thing cheaper, better, faster...), while unsupported accusations could be slander and libel - and this could cost you those tens of thousands of dollars.

4. Why do people who post under false names expect to be taken seriously? :mad:

5. Why are you reading this when you could be reading a good magic book? ;)

As I said, just thoughts... :rolleyes:

Mark Jensen
Mark Jensen
 
Posts: 363
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Murphy, Texas

Postby opie » 08/26/02 09:05 PM

Who is posting under a false name?

Opie Houston, Austin, Texas
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Guest » 08/26/02 09:36 PM

Magic Johnson, Los Angeles, California.
Haha, just kidding! Why does screen-name matter? Read the contents of the post and decide whether or not you should take it seriously.

sincerely,
kenny tsai
Guest
 

Postby Richard Kaufman » 08/26/02 09:50 PM

Yes, the idea of posting under an alias IS problematic--always has been. Most of the people I know and respect simply use their own names. Everyone sees their posts and know who they're coming from. Anonymous posts (that is, those using a pseudonym) are not, in my opinion, taken as seriously. Some people seem to like creating a separate internet identity, as if it empowers them. Well, while speaking anonymously on a public forum may make them "feel" empowered, however for many of us who see their posts, their anonymity renders their posts LESS powerful because we don't know who they're from.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
 
Posts: 21940
Joined: 07/18/01 12:00 PM
Location: Washington DC

Postby Guest » 08/26/02 09:59 PM

1. Why wouldn't someone want their name attached to something? :confused: Why did Erdnase publish under a false name. Why are many older magic books published under anonymous? This list goes on...

I think that's more gibberish to protect the Perfect Guess dude. In our magic community today....what does it usually mean when a trick has no credit for any creator on the packaging? IT'S A RIP-OFF!!!

2. If this item is worth tens of thousands of dollars (so that's at least $20,000) why didn't the originator take legal steps to protect their creation? Patents, etc? It's not like having magic tricks stolen have never happened before?

Even if it's only worth tens and thousands of pesos. Does it make a difference? So many magicians preach about the importance of ethics and principles.....In magic, getting a patent on a trick is almost not worth it, but that doesn't make it right for others to rip you off. In that case, everybody should be ripping each other off. But not everybody does because of something called ETHICS. I don't know if CHarles has a patent. Maybe he will lose legally. But I think its the principle that matters to him, and he will win in the public court of opinion. Shame on all you magicians who justify rip-off artists base on legal technicalities.

3. Expecting the magic community to self police is like expecting Congress to agree on tax relief, it ain't going to happen. So protect yourself or be prepared to face the consequences, which are quite legal (maybe not ethical, but quite legal and accepted mainstream business practice. Yes Virgina, there is a Santa Claus and he buys his competitors toys to see if he can make the same thing cheaper, better, faster...), while unsupported accusations could be slander and libel - and this could cost you those tens of thousands of dollars.

Your eyes are open. What you say is true. But this attitude of THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT only encourages the next thief. Your whole post seems to say, "Charles live with it." He does not have to take this crap.
Guest
 

Postby opie » 08/26/02 10:13 PM

Charles will be back in the USA next week, so I hope there can be a solution to this problem by then....It would be a shame to have his visit spoiled with this situation still unresolved....

I really do have to get some sleep; you west coast guys carry on....opie
opie
 
Posts: 501
Joined: 03/14/08 10:43 AM
Location: austin tx

Postby Mark Jensen » 08/26/02 10:52 PM

1. Why wouldn't someone want their name attached to something? Why did Erdnase publish under a false name. Why are many older magic books published under anonymous? This list goes on...

I think that's more gibberish to protect the Perfect Guess dude. In our magic community today....what does it usually mean when a trick has no credit for any creator on the packaging? IT'S A RIP-OFF!!!
Please provide a detailed listing of tricks that you know have no credit for any creator on the packaging that are documented rip-offs. Clearly by your statement, this list must be quite long to automatically imply a rip-off. Of course, failure to provide this list makes your statement gibberish.

2. If this item is worth tens of thousands of dollars (so that's at least $20,000) why didn't the originator take legal steps to protect their creation? Patents, etc? It's not like having magic tricks stolen have never happened before?

Even if it's only worth tens and thousands of pesos. Does it make a difference? So many magicians preach about the importance of ethics and principles.....In magic, getting a patent on a trick is almost not worth it, but that doesn't make it right for others to rip you off. In that case, everybody should be ripping each other off. But not everybody does because of something called ETHICS. I don't know if CHarles has a patent. Maybe he will lose legally. But I think its the principle that matters to him, and he will win in the public court of opinion. Shame on all you magicians who justify rip-off artists base on legal technicalities.
Getting legal protection is not worth it? Why?

I have a friend who has over 300 patents. He works a $20/hour job and doesn't "have money". And no, it didn't cost him a fortune to get his patents.

And since you seem to want to use ethics as a watchword, please provide your definition of ethics and a outline of the standards of conduct.

3. Expecting the magic community to self police is like expecting Congress to agree on tax relief, it ain't going to happen. So protect yourself or be prepared to face the consequences, which are quite legal (maybe not ethical, but quite legal and accepted mainstream business practice. Yes Virgina, there is a Santa Claus and he buys his competitors toys to see if he can make the same thing cheaper, better, faster...), while unsupported accusations could be slander and libel - and this could cost you those tens of thousands of dollars.

Your eyes are open. What you say is true. But this attitude of THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT only encourages the next thief. Your whole post seems to say, "Charles live with it." He does not have to take this crap.
I didn't say to do nothing. I asked why he didn't pursue his legal rights and secure protection of his creation. If he had done this the entire issue would be irrelevent. Instead we have lots of useless finger pointing.

Personally, I think that ANYONE who enters into the market place without taking into account the rules of competition that exist (and nobody says that they have to be fair) is a FOOL!!! There are many different types of steps that can be taken to protect yourself and a patent is just one of them.

By the way, I've never seen Eye to Eye or Perfect Guess. My only interest is that the facts be separated from the BS. Surely, that would be good for the magic community :cool:

Mark Jensen
Mark Jensen
 
Posts: 363
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Murphy, Texas

Postby Guest » 08/27/02 03:12 AM

Well Mark, if it's as simple as you say GETTING A PATTEN, are you telling me that Charles will lose this battle if he has no patten? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I really want to know because I have no knowledge of copyright or patten laws. I have heard from magicians that getting a patten is tough, expensive and not worth it unless you can make a lot of money. You mean to tell me someone can look up any trick to see if it has a patten, and if it doesn't, he can slap his own version on the market the very next day? If that's the way the game is played, then that is very sad and discouraging. However, I still believe that there's the element of ethics that governs Magic. Legally, Charles may lose monetary compensation, but ethically if Perfect Guess is indeed a copy, I think Murphy's Magic will not carry it. Legally, the Murphy's may have the right to carry it, but ethically, I believe they won't. Charles should get a patten because more theives are likely to come. Well, I for one believe the guy not showing his face is guilty ethically, maybe not legally, but ethically.

Is this the very same reason why you have Sascos, Sterling, Johnsons, and many others all manufacturing scotch and sodas and hopping halves? Because no individual or company ever got a patten on those coin tricks? I think I'm seeing the light. Now I understand why there are so many versions of the same tricks on the market. Wow, you mean to tell me that all the magic bickering that has ever occured concerning who created what boils down to pattens. If that's the case then magicians are either lazy, or getting a patten is not so easy to do. Why are there so many makers of scotch and soda, that's a darn good trick. Someone should of gotten a patten on that!
Guest
 

Postby Guest » 08/27/02 05:03 AM

Why is this discussion going on here? This is a matter between the inventor of the trick and the dealer. I recon Mr. Gauci should send all this information he has posted on these message board plus additional documentations to the Murphy's Magic supply.

It is stupid and against any economical common sense to think that a dealer would take losses just because someone says on the message board "hey I invented that!" even if backed by couple of friends. The Company will loose money if they are selling a rip-off.

Please send them the evidence, at least I think Mr. Gauci is right on this issue, so they can do the right thing. Angry letter or hate mail isn't enough.

And as a final point, I think it is only reasonable for Murhy's not to post the name of the other inventor. With all this hate thing going on he would be crusified. He will have his conviction if he's guilty.

Cheers,
Pekka Ketonen
(My nickname is Ketku and in either way you can't pronounce it :-) )
Guest
 

Postby Matthew Field » 08/27/02 07:44 AM

Pekka -- Hyvaa paivaa! I lived in Finland (Haukilahti) 1971-72 and I bet I can pronounce your name!

Kiitos. Nakimiin. (Hope I spelled that right.)

Matti Field
User avatar
Matthew Field
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: 01/18/08 01:00 PM
Location: Hastings, England, UK

Postby Doug Dyment » 08/27/02 09:34 AM

Ketku posted: "This is a matter between the inventor of the trick and the dealer. I recon Mr. Gauci should send all this information he has posted on these message board plus additional documentations to the Murphy's Magic supply."

This doesn't make a great deal of sense. Murphy's is a party to the disagreement (they are, after all, selling the product that -- aside from being made of cheaper materials, and appearing on the market six months later -- is exactly the same as the Gauci effect). It would make as much sense to suggest that Murphy's send all their information to Gauci, and let him decide.

Gauci has publicly posted that he is more than willing to send whatever documentation is requested to a disinterested, neutral adjudicator. A couple have even volunteered: the IBM Ethics Committee, and Bruce Barnett, respected publisher of the Electronic Grymoire. Thus far, however, Murphy's (specifically, Tim Tron) has taken the position that the information must be sent to them first for their adjudication.

So I guess we're waiting for Murphy's to adopt a more acceptable position.

re: patents
The typical time for issuance of a patent in the United States is 24-36 months. It's possible to do it yourself... the initial filing fee is $355 and the issuing fee (if the patent survives prosecution and is subsequently "allowed") is $685. Unless you have considerable experience with patent law, however, a patent acquired in this fashion is much less likely to be defensible if challenged. A typical (total) cost to have a patent attorney prepare everything for you is $10,000. And this is only for a U.S. patent... you'll need them for other countries as well, where the costs are often much higher. But costs aside, the time factors alone make this an impractical solution for the vast majority of magic effects.

... Doug
... Doug :: Proprietor of The Deceptionary
Doug Dyment
 
Posts: 107
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: San Francisco, California

Postby Q. Kumber » 08/27/02 10:40 AM

Tim has gone into great detail on another thread in this forum highlighting and backing the guy who came up with the idea of using dental floss for the gypsy thread effect. (I can't remember under which heading this thread ran). So I have no doubt he will do the ethical thing.

What I find extraordinay, is that no one seems to know the "originator" of Perfect Guess. If this were to go to a court both parties would have to identify themselves.

On another thread Flip was berated for not standing up for his idea when other parties involved were alive. Here we have someone well able to stand up for themselves, hiding behind a smokescreen and apparently asking the distributor to shield them. This alone severely damages any defence they might have.
User avatar
Q. Kumber
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 01/17/08 01:00 PM
Location: Manchester, England

Next

Return to Buzz