I have to say that from my perspective, this comes across as you attempting to discourage him from producing the ESCape, which given that this is based on an open source project, looks pretty bad if I"m speaking frankly.
In the past I’ve stated that while your enforcement of your VESC trademark is a bit aggressive given then size and context of this ‘market’, it’s within your right as its your trademark.
But if we’re stripping away all of the legal speak of design protections here, it sure does sound like you were trying to tell him:
“Dont make a square shaped ESC or any color or size because we have a design protection on it.”
I have a hard time not viewing this as anti-competitive and against the very spirit of open source.
You have previously stated that your primary concern with the open sourcing of the VESC design was that it would create ‘cheap knock-offs’. This was also one of your primary justifications for your strict trademark enforcement policies, if I recall correctly.
Which is why, when I essentially backed Jason Potter into a corner on a public debate on the topic of Enertion’s responsibility to contribute to open source, you stated in regards to pushing the release of the Foxbox Unity Schematic:
Benjamin thinks Enertion should not publish the Schematics. It’s a bad design and if other companies copy it, there are more bad ESCs out there + it would push Foxbox UI.
But the ESCape clearly was a thoughtful and well-designed implementation, so why try to stifle growth of the project for any reason aside from you not wanting to compete with it? Is that accurate?
Also, clearly the Focbox Unity has held up just fine. Not what I would call a ‘bad design’
I guess for me personally, the issue is that it appears you are taking actions that alienate and scare off people from wanting to get involved with the open source VESC project, in the name of profit and competition.
PS: does @torqueboards have anything to worry about? TB6 is very square-ish and also of some color containing some text ![]()




