Geoff Schultz wrote:
" wrote in news:1193955657.085230.177120
:

: I'll point out that the Manson Supreme appears to be amlost identical to
: the Rocna, yet is much less costly. I have no idea how there aren't
: patent infringement lawsuits between the companies. Lloyds of London
: was sufficiently impressed by the Manson Supreme to certify it as a
: "high holding power"anchor. I have no personal experience with it, and
: know no one who has one, so do what you want with this tidbit.
:
:
: http://www.rocna.com/boat-anchors/ma...eme-anchor.php

:That certainly was an eye-opening article. I guess that the old addage
:applies: You get what you pay for. I was also quite surprised at the

With out commenting about the merits of either anchor, it's worth
noting some things about the article. One, it doesn't actually make
any claims that the Manson anchor is infringing on any protection the
Rocna anchor has. It merely makes vague (and incorrect) claims about
patents and their purposes and implies that Manson have stolen the
design. It makes almost zero claims, couching everything in language
like "might" or "seems".