I find it a bit funny that people don't acknowledge the similarity in the aesthetic and function between the monoliths and this grinder.

Was the Mahlgut mg1 derived from the Pharos? It certainly took much of its design from it, but it had enough bells and whistles above and beyond the Pharos that, for me, it was a marked improvement on the Pharos. I would never say that I couldn't see that the Mahlgut borrowed from the Pharos design.

When you have two independent designs you get the eg1 and monolith. You get the Pharos and the m68 or hg1. You get the niche zero and any other grinder. Would you say that the original conical and flat came from different companies because one was tilted and the other wasn't? Or that one has a variable speed controller while the other didn't?

I am not condemning this grinder as there are always derivatives of designs. The lower end car industry often follows the innovative luxury car industry and their bells and whistles. Research is always performed with knowledge of and building on prior art. There are the groups who define a new area of study and those who follow suit, but nobody condemns the secondary researchers for getting into a hot area of research. But at least in that case, the seminal works are always cited so acknowledgement is given where it is due. If you can't acknowledge that this grinder is borrowing/based on the design/aesthetic of the monolith, then I think you are kidding yourself.

Again, not condemning the grinder, just addressing the argument against this being somewhat derived, in part, from the monolith.

ira wrote:Mazzer has had sliding burr carriers for years. Is it the same, no, but there are only a few ways to adjust burrs. Most commonly you either mount them on the threaded piece and have a locking ring, like early Monoliths and others or you mount them on a sliding piece that's held from turning by ribs or posts or any other method you can think of.

I agree that there a not very many feasible concepts (but don't forget the ek43 style or the Eureka style), but the actual execution was unique to the Monolith, and now the Levercraft happens to have a very similar execution. Again, if it was only a similar arrangement of the upper burr carrier, that's nothing I would consider serious. However, it's a part of the reason why I consider the Levercraft not an original device.

ira wrote: Putting a motor below the burrs in line has been done for years. When you're designing for limited production things tend to be shaped like the biggest component, in this case, the motor. While I can understand why someone might think this has a resemblance to the Monolith, I'd suggest asking the guy who made the Monolith if he feels ripped off. Also, if one could actually buy the Monolith, the opening for other similar class grinders would be much smaller, but because he's left a void the size of the Grand Canyon, the market is seeing to it that the need is taken care of. FWIW, the Option-O is as much of a Monolith copy as this is!

Ira

I do not agree with the Option-O being a Monolith copy, because they have little in common besides a motor under the burrs, a small grind chamber, and a short grind path. In much the same way, I don't consider the Niche a copy of the Elektra Nino.

There are many more possibilities to differentiate than is given credit for, as evidenced by the Niche, the Pharos, the Versalab, the HG1, the option-o, the EG-1 and probably others I forget.

I do agree that the Kafatek demand outstrips the supply, and apparently, people want to take advantage of this.

ira wrote: FWIW, the Option-O is as much of a Monolith copy as this is!

I can't see where the lagom is a big copy of the monolith. Technically? Sure. But all grinders are quite the same, especially the expensive ones. But the design is quite different imo

Lagom P64 Flat (Option-O)

Side by side there's just as much resemblance. Neither is a direct copy in my book and we'd be worse off without the extra options in the end.

There is a similarity in the aesthetic, particularly with the red top. But similar and immoral/illegal are two different things. I doubt Kafatek bothered filing a design patent (which covers looks, not tech). If they did there might be something here. Or there might not. The only people who would win would be the lawyers. This gets you into the same realm of bs as apple claiming to own rectangles with rounded corners (which is in fact a claim they make if you didn't know).

Getting to what actually matters, the tech: I don't see anything that looks like patentable IP on a monolith, and I doubt Denis has filed any patents. And I say this as someone who owns and loves the monolith, but I don't see anything that counts as unique tech. Maybe the magnetic chute? But again if you didn't patent you aren't protected. At the end of the day all grinders are pretty damn similar.

The thing that was remarkable about the monolith isn't the tech, but the quality of construction and the fact that it exists at all. I don't think anyone believed a market existed for such a thing: a really expensive large burr single dosing grinder for home use. And arguably the market still doesn't exist to a large enough scale that the big boys care. Denis is plenty busy, but he's a small scale operation.

Not a copy.

If it was, all current grinders would be copies and that includes the Monolith.

As has been said; what makes the Monolith special is Denis and his being a perfectionist. If we now have a new perfectionist entering the grinder market, I for one am all for it.

Yeah it very well may be inspired by the Monolith and the crazy rise in demand for hyper aligned grinders, unfortunately there really isn't very much that is unique or patentable in the Monolith it is more about the overall quality and attention to detail. Luckily I would be willing to bargain that a large portion of the community who can afford to buy these high end grinders are likely to stick with the name brand that has been around for longer and is a known quantity.

Unfortunately this is likely to keep on happening as the coffee scene expands there will be those looking to make similar grinders to the monolith, hell I am sure it could be reverse engineered and produced in China for a fair chunk cheaper and there isn't much that will stop that from happening. Those established in the scene may be willing to pay the difference in price for a Monolith but newer members may care a little more about saving a buck.

There is a fine line between "copying" something and being "inspired" by it. Apple sued Samsung for "copying" the iPhone. Yet... Apple was not the first company with a touchscreen, internet enabled phone. Palm and Handspring had them years not months, before the iPhone. They were kind of big and clunky. But perfectly capable. I used them. And loved them. So, did Apple "copy" Palm/Handspring by making the iphone a touchscreen smartphone? Or were they "inspired" by it to make something even better? Is "copying", limited to technical innovation? Or is similar color, look, and feel also "copying"? There is a pretty good case out there that Walt Disney did not "invent" Mickey Mouse out of whole cloth. They say he either copied or was inspired by a cartoon mouse that existed before. But for sure, like Apple, he took it to new levels. Should the rest of the world be denied access to inspiration from Mickey Mouse, just because Disney has grown powerful and influential enough to lock it down in every way shape manner and form?

My questions are not intended to seek actual answers, but to provoke thought.

-Peter

The kettle and the Tiamo product line are good examples of copies with the obvious intentions of taking market shares and making a profit on other people's hard work/investments. This is however less clear, but there is enough similarities that you can make a good point of it to be a copy, just like there is enough similarities that you can claim the Option-O to be one as well.

Even the Bentwood and Mazzer ZM share enough similarities to the EK that one could claim them to be copies.

But I think we need too have a line for when copying is a problem and when it's not. I think the kettle is a clear example of when a manufacturer has crossed that thin line and what should not be acceptable. I don't think any of these grinders or the Ultra has crossed that line, some are perhaps closer to that line or in the Ultra case balancing on the edge, but there is just enough difference that it in my book haven't crossed it.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of patent of anything else than aesthetics, for me copy is only a problem if the aesthetics is copied because it's then obvious that the new manufacturer is trying too earn on another brand/manufacturer investment and hard work. But I have no problems with companies copying, functions, innovations none aesthetics related designs for example how you have designed the burr carrier, burr orientation, grind adjustment etc.

Innovation should be for the common interests of the masses not only for the few who happens to be fortunate enough to afford a steep price. We won't solve problems on this earth if we do not soon begin too see innovation as something that should be available for all and that should improve it for everyone. The exclusiveness is a problem not a solution.

I think the profit margins are so large on Monolith and Ultra grinders that it will in no way stifle future grinder innovation. It wouldn't surprise me one iota if the profit margin was double or triple the underlying cost to manufacture these grinders. Imitators in my view are welcome. That is how capitalism should function for luxury goods. It's goods that are thoroughly commoditized and the margins are razor thin where innovation gets stifled.