link to MOE statement.... - Mothering Forums
Activism Archives > link to MOE statement....
PatchyMama's Avatar PatchyMama 05:00 PM 06-19-2003

posting it because im sure there are some intersted in seeing BOTH sides... and im also sure tereson's thread will get pulled much quicker than the original "big guy" post...

MissSugarKane's Avatar MissSugarKane 08:10 PM 06-19-2003
I just read Tereson's essays defending her side and I find them to be all over the place. There are so many contradictions. The main one being this:

"My goal above all else was that

> no one else could make a pocket diaper legally and sell it."

But then she says she has no intentions of putting WHAMs out of business. Well which is it?

I do not like Fuzzi Bunz , the diaper or the company , and when I purchase other WHAM pocket diapers I do not want MOE profiting through the licensing.

crazy_eights's Avatar crazy_eights 08:32 PM 06-19-2003
I think this has to be moved to activism or it will get pulled.

But ITA!!!!!
jackson's mama's Avatar jackson's mama 09:16 PM 06-19-2003
Where can the essays be found?
sweetfeet's Avatar sweetfeet 09:18 PM 06-19-2003
I do agree. She seems to have backtracked a bit..Let's start a thread in activism.
jackson's mama's Avatar jackson's mama 09:22 PM 06-19-2003
Never mind, I found it .
MissSugarKane's Avatar MissSugarKane 09:29 PM 06-19-2003
Sorry , I'm new here and didn't quite know how to post and where. Just wanted to add my two cents
shelbean91's Avatar shelbean91 09:54 PM 06-19-2003
This statement says no cease and desist letters have been sent, but in the link to the email correspondence, there is mention of c&d letter, though it looks like the first line of the 2nd paragraph was deleted.
JesseMomme's Avatar JesseMomme 11:56 PM 06-19-2003
Ummm can we say contradictory?? I haven't even finished reading all of the links yet either!
dipmama's Avatar dipmama 12:05 AM 06-20-2003
What I don't get is the bit about the Kanga dipe being obscure and hard to find info about...please correct me if I am wrong but isn't the Kanga pocket dipe sold at Born to Love? BTL is a pretty big online retailer, not exactly obscure.
teresond's Avatar teresond 12:32 AM 06-20-2003
Nothing was deleted from that email. It said I would be sending her a C&D for formalities sake b/c she was wholesaling. Everything was copied and pasted in it's original format. We have not sent any CD letters as of today.

teresond's Avatar teresond 12:38 AM 06-20-2003
Perhaps that was worded wrong. It should have been worded "produced withouth a lisence"

You can ask Catherine if she was selling those diapers in 1999. I do not believe she was. I do see some now and I do not even know if they are the same thing.

Regardless, it was not readily available to me at the time nor did I know about it.

Deirdre's Avatar Deirdre 01:08 AM 06-20-2003
It looks like some diapering activism is going on here...this is a new one for me

Can someone fill us activism regulars in on what this is about?
JesseMomme's Avatar JesseMomme 01:12 AM 06-20-2003
Amazlilith's Avatar Amazlilith 01:21 AM 06-20-2003
By issuing a license MOE maintains a degree of control over quality of products “manufactured under pat. No xxxx” therefore protecting the consumer and viability of the cloth diapering industry.
From my understanding the fuzzi bunz quality has left a lot to be desired lately. :


This has been on going on the Diapering Board, but I believe that the tread has recently been pulled. I really don't understand the legalities of what the issue is but it is basically a Big Business WAHM verses some of the other WAHMs. But don't quote me as I could be mistaken.

I just HATE to see anyone's livelihood threatened. :

But then, I do believe that whatever you place out in the universe comes back three fold. So if MOE or HH are putting bad energy out there then it will come back on them and if not, then all is right with the world.
JesseMomme's Avatar JesseMomme 01:25 AM 06-20-2003
Originally posted by Deirdre
It looks like some diapering activism is going on here...this is a new one for me

Can someone fill us activism regulars in on what this is about?
Hi Deirdre,

Uh oh the Diapering Hyenas have come stampeding into Activism :LOL

Anyways the original thread (that was in Diapering) has been deleted, so I can't refer you to that. But you can refer to the above link for Tereson's statements/side to the story, here to Parentplace where the heated subject is discussed - and the other thread that was moved to here as well. I think that's all I can find.

And then, tell us what you think.
PatchyMama's Avatar PatchyMama 01:36 AM 06-20-2003
hmmm lets see what i think, LOL. to be honest... i have no interest in either companies.. i have ONE fuzzibuns that doesnt fit kyla right (too small even tho she is 25-30 lbs).. and i dont own a single Happy Heiny.... tho i do own lots of apron strings pockets. That being said i *DO* understand both sides.... I understand why Linda is upset, honestly i do. But for me, if the patent is legal... then why should MOE feel guilty about enforcing it when it comes down to threatening her business? Isnt that WHY people spend the money to get patented? Isnt that the inventors right? Yes she is a WAHM, but she is also a business owner and you have to do whats right for YOUR business.... Yes it would hurt Happy Heinys business to go back to retail only... but it isnt MOE's fault that she ventured in that direction... maybe it would have been a wise decision to talk to Tereson BEFORE taking that step ? That would have saved all this hassle.... FuzziBunz have said patent pending for a long time.. and the application has been in the database for a long time.. so there was no question that it probably WOULD happen down the road.. kwim? It seems that IF *I* were running a pocket diaper business I would cover my bases and contact anyone with patents pending to see exactly what i would be infringing or not infringing on. So I guess i just cant see fault in MOE using their legal right to protect their design... because Tereson is right.. IF she were allow Happy Heinys to continue wholesaling/distributing.... then she would have no basis to protect her design from someone else down the line doing the same thing (WAHM or NON WAHM).
rwikene's Avatar rwikene 01:55 AM 06-20-2003
ok, well here's my question:

if people making pocket diapers put the term "based on the patented Fuzzi Bunz pocket design by Mother of Eden" at the bottom of their webpage, then people who think that fuzzi bunz suck (or have very poor quality control) wouldn't want to buy those diapers right?

I own 2 HH diapers and 2 apronstrings, but I've heard so much negativity about fb that I wouldn't have bought them if that statement was at the bottom of the ordering page. I would really question how good pocket diapers actually were. I love my apronstrings (I have leaking issues with the hh, but they are great daytime diapers) I'm glad I tried them, I will order more

Anyway, that's just an observation. I'm sure there are just as many people who stand by fb and would use them no matter what!
JessicaS's Avatar JessicaS 03:19 AM 06-20-2003
I squished the threads together so there would be less confusion.

What is the patent ## by the way??
JessicaS's Avatar JessicaS 03:50 AM 06-20-2003
Britishmum's Avatar Britishmum 04:53 AM 06-20-2003
I can see both sides here, and lots of grey in between.

However, a couple of things occur to me. Firstly, it would have seemed better business practice for MOE to notice that HH are popular, and expanding, and wonder why. Perhaps its the difference in style, with aplix closures, or the prints, or the fact that the quality is currently better. (I say this as a FB user. I like the product, but am frustrated by the poor quality of the diapers - losing snaps after just a few weeks, terrible pilling in some diapers but not in others, proving that it is not my laundry or care that is the problem, but MOE's quality control )

MOE could have taken a very different line over this patent. Eg, setting their own house in order, by sorting out their quality control, and maybe employing someone to trim off all those loose threads that come with their brand new diapers LOL. Then maybe looking at why HH are getting increasingly popular. Maybe offering some prints and a style with aplix closures.

I'm not a fan of aplix, but having experienced FBs current poor quality, and watched the recent discussions here, I"m tempted to try out HH while they are still available.

I have a lot of work that is copyrighted and trademarked. I watch carefully what other people do with my material, and make regular web searches for that purpose. Invariably, I let things go, even though my work has been used without permission many, many times. I use what people do with my work to inform me, and see imitation as a form of flattery. I am pleased that what I have done has had an impact on others. There is enough work for us all, and I need to be one of the best, in order to deserve my market share. Sometimes I need to see what others are doing in order to get a kick in the pants.

Ideally, for the consumer, MOE will take this as a kick in the pants and get their quality sorted out. Ideally, they will bring out some alternatives, to compete with companies like HH. The competition will continue to flourish. There will be more choice, and more diversity. More people will be converted to use cloth diapers, when they see the wonderful pocket diapers that are available (without loose threads and snaps that don't snap, maybe )

If just a tiny % of the disposable diaper users were converted, there would be enough business for MOE, HH, and a whole host of others.

Diapering Utopia, I suppose......................
rubelin's Avatar rubelin 06:58 AM 06-20-2003
I have no interest in either company (haven't used either dipe and have no plans to) but I am all about being informed first so I wanted to underline 2 points.

First, I think "prior art" does not mean that the item was accessable or even patented. I thought that it just has to be shown that somewhere on planet there existed such an item prior to the development of the patented product. So if someone can prove that a pocket dipe existed prior to, say, 1999, then the new patent is voided. Can any patent-experts can confirm or deny my understanding of this??

Second, from what Linda stated here the patent really only covers the exact style that Tereson patented. If it's true that any claims that refer to another claim make those 2 claims connected, then a dipe would have to violate all connected claims to violate the patent. Almost all of the claims refer back to one another, so, it would stand to reason that one would have to violate everything to violate the patent. Again, any patent experts (or lawyers) am I understanding that correctly??

I mostly want to know all this because I am a WAHM and I want to be sure I don't come close to stepping on protected toes in the future
vein's Avatar vein 11:21 AM 06-20-2003
Originally posted by rubelin

Second, from what Linda stated here the patent really only covers the exact style that Tereson patented. If it's true that any claims that refer to another claim make those 2 claims connected, then a dipe would have to violate all connected claims to violate the patent. Almost all of the claims refer back to one another, so, it would stand to reason that one would have to violate everything to violate the patent. Again, any patent experts (or lawyers) am I
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on tv but, that was my understanding as well. Despite Tereson apparently trying to claim that other pocket diapers (which are quite thankfully very different from FB) are automatically in violation, from what I understand, this is far from the case. That being said, they don't have to be *exactly* similar, but IIRC, 10% of the second item must be different from the patent holding object. I'm too tired to go looking for it right now, but I do recall a website that explained about what has to be similar/not similar when dealing with patents.

After reading the FB links, I have even more resolve never to purchase another FB. Just adds to the first reason of the fact that I have 3 medium new style FB and each one fits differently and is wearing out differently.
Jennifer Z's Avatar Jennifer Z 07:10 PM 06-20-2003
Originally posted by shelbean91
This statement says no cease and desist letters have been sent, but in the link to the email correspondence, there is mention of c&d letter, though it looks like the first line of the 2nd paragraph was deleted.
If I remember right, Linda didn't say she RECEIVED a c&d letter, just that she was told she WOULD receive one if she didn't stop producing pocket dipes or wholesaling them or something along those lines.

Something that is really bugging me about this is the doubletalk by MOE. She says that she isn't going after WAHMs, then follows with she will go after them if they don't get a license from her. She says that she isn't trying to put WAHMs out of business, then follows with a threat to shut them down if their business is making diapers and then distributing them through retailers. To me, she is telling them that they won't be shut down, but only as long as they do things her way.

I understand protecting your patent...completely understand wanting to protect it. However, a lot of statements made seem downright deceptive and that is what really bothers me. If you are going to go after other WAHMs, just do forthright and honest about it. The deception is just leaving a bad taste in my mouth.

Right now, even though MOE claims it isn't "big business", their actions certainly resemble the worst in big business. I don't mean that protecting a legitemate patent is the worst, but rather that the PR being sent out by the company appears to be deceptive as to their actual intentions.

BTW...I have nothing to gain personally from anybody...just have been watching and wanted to express my opinion. I am just a "mere SAHM" who cloth diapers her baby.
Quirky's Avatar Quirky 09:02 PM 06-20-2003
Jennifer, ITA. There's something about the whole thing that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth: MOE's statements about "I know how hard it is to be a WAHM, I want to support them, blah blah blah" makes it all sound warm and fuzzy until you get to the point of other WAHMs following in her footsteps to become something more than a one-mom operation. To me it sounds like "you all can have your little businesses, but don't try to make it bigger like I did - you can't go there."

And I say this as someone who likes FBs and hasn't had the huge problems with them that other people have, and I also appreciate the fact that MOE is providing a product for lots of retail WAHMs to sell. I just think MOE's energies would be better spent a) getting the QC thing under control, and b) going after a larger share of the sposie using market, not attacking other WAHMs. Let's face it, as these boards demonstrate, there's a huge untapped market out there, with room IMO for lots more WAHMs/cloth diaper companies!
JesseMomme's Avatar JesseMomme 01:30 AM 06-21-2003
Britishmum's Avatar Britishmum 03:27 AM 06-21-2003
"a) getting the QC thing under control, and b) going after a larger share of the sposie using market, not attacking other WAHMs."


a) MOE aren't getting the best press recently about quality, and this can't help them much.

b) there is such a huge, untapped market out there! How many businesses are there where the vast majority of the market is just sitting there, waiting to be converted - the simple, easy to use, pocket diaper is so well placed to do that.

An aggressive marketing policy to the sposie using public could open doors that would make the HH market share look like peanuts. There is surely enough business potentially out there for a range of competitive products.

Why not go for gold and try to put Pampers and Huggies out of business, instead of other WAHMs?

I can see MOE's point in wanting to protect their patent, but it seems that they are looking the wrong way in terms of maintaning their market share. Would you prefer to have 100% of 5%, or 50% of 80 or 90%?
Jennifer Z's Avatar Jennifer Z 05:38 AM 06-21-2003
JesseMomme - oh no, not offended by the "mere sahm" statement at all. I interpreted it how you meant it and was also feeling overwhelmed by the information.
veganmamma's Avatar veganmamma 02:29 AM 08-11-2003
My feelings are so mixed on this subject. I agree that this leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I feel almost betrayed by FB since they are supposed to be a small company and I feel like this is bad business.

I have so much to say, I'm sure I'll end up having to come back to post about it.

All the WAHMs I have dealt with (with the exception of one who doesn't do diapers so she is irrelevant to this discussion) have been a pleasure to talk to and the ones I do business with are awesome as well. That includes Linda and Tereson. I feel put in the middle as a consumer and as a retailer. Whose diaper do I choose? Who's side am I on?

I personally think that the patent of FB was a bad idea b/c it created a FB vs. the rest of the pocket diapering community scenario. I mean, it really should be the cloth diapering community trying to convert the sposie community. Also, and i really don't mean this to judge, I think it was really done poorly. I agree that the whole part about changing the insert while the dipe is still on the baby is ridiculous, in fact, one of the reasons I started using FBs was to see if there was a way that I could possibly do that. There isn't, unless the opening goes on the bottom as well. Also, I think it's gross not to change them each time or at least give each one a break in between so the pee can dry out and any bacteria will die. Anyway, back to the patent, the diagrams shown are in the rounded tab style, which she doesn't use anymore, and there is a big contrversy surrounding the prior art section. I think that Tereson got some not so hot legal advice about the patent in general, how it would work for her, kwim?

Then I think she got really bad advice in deciding to tell Linda that if she didn't get a license she would issue a C&D, b/c it has only meant bad publicity for FB since then. That isn't good for Tereson or the WAHMs who retail FBs and puts us in a really precarious situation. I mean, when the diapering community gets cranky at a diaper, watch out!! So here she is, with thousands of dollars invested in a patent that probaby wasn't worth it, and so she is out a ton of money and if she tries to enforce the patent, everyone will hate her. I think she ended up in a lose/lose situation. I feel a lot of sympathy for her b/c I think she is a lot like me and any other WAHM, we're not these business savvy, cutthroat corporate kind of people, and so I think she really kind of got dragged into this by the lawyers and advisors she pays to help her with her biz. What they don't know is how the cloth diapering community works, kwim? Anyway, I don't think it's fair to just judge her as being the worst example of a greedy company gone bad.

That said, I think Linda and HHs are really big victims here. She is a WAHM who makes an awesome product. Did she come up with it after hearing/trying FBs? Yeah, sure, but that deosn't mean it the same product. It has a different style and cut, different tabs and aplix instead of snaps, as well as tons of different prints. No matter how much she starts wholesaling her product, it is still sewn at home, whether by her or her henchwomen and hand sorted by her dd who is rewarded with chocloate syrup. I just don't think she is a huge threat to FB. Her diapers are different. I think it is SO important to have options like that. Hell, I've been accused of being a commie, but darn it, I want competition so we can all get the product that is right for us.

I don't know what the outcome of this will be. i have heard that Tereson decided not to pursue HHs and i have heard she will continue to pursue a licensing deal. I think that maybe FBs should stop pursuing a licensing deal wtih HHs and then develop a pattern for WAHMs like HoneyBoy and have WAHMs make them. They will prove that they are dedicated to the WAHM, support WAHMs and then they will be able to offer some awesome prints. They can still mass produce their dipes and have a licensing deal with the WAHMs who make the WAHM version of FB. There are so many ways MOE can market, I really think that it would be more profitable to pursue other options.

I'm sure I'll think of more things to say, I guess I'm just babbling on and on. It just sucks b/c I have never had a bad dealing with Linda or Tereson, and I think they are both dedicated to their businesses. I would rather they worked this out without lawyers and letters and stuff. I think the HHs and FBs compliment each other. I also think that FBs should start offering the all fleece diaper again. Like, have the PUL and the fleece version. But htat is a thread for diapering. I want there to be in the pocket diapering world. :::sigh:::