"We would like to thank Core77 and Rain Noe for presenting an open forum for debate on this subject.To add molo's voice to the discussion, please read the short history and insight into molo's softseating design below:2001 - Stephanie Forsythe + Todd MacAllen first began to conceptualize and prototype their ideas of flexible honeycomb seating, walls, tables, lighting and rooms and publicly shared these ideas in three separate winning competition entries in 2003. Forsythe + MacAllen’s first honeycomb tissue paper experiments are in tandem with (yet independent of) Tokujin Yoshioka’s work with tissue paper honeycomb when Forsythe + MacAllen work in Japan from 2001 designing and building a museum. The history is well documented and credited through patents, winning competition entries, and the Museum of Modern Art.2005 - MoMA acquires molo’s paper softwall to their permanent collection 2006 - molo's softseating fanning paper stool is commercially released2007 - MoMA acquires molo’s paper softseating to their permanent collection (the product currently in question in this article)2010 - MoMA acquires developed iterations of molo’s softwall to their permanent collectionIn our opinion and that of our legal advisors, Bookniture does not develop on our design. Our design closes compactly into book form, has end panels like a book cover (with integrated magnets), is hand-bound like a book, is stored on a shelf like a book, and has an optional wool felt pad.molo has written about and represented storage for softseating "like a book on a shelf" since the design's release in 2006. As shelf storage is a primary perceived/cited factor distinguishing the two designs, we hope information/images available at www.molodesign.com/_/ov will help give further comparison of how little Bookniture differs from molo’s softseating. The cosmetic 'book spine' detail on the side of Bookniture only limits its functionality - it is unable to expand into a bench (as molo's softseating design can) and may only be opened with the spine facing inwards, concentrating all wear to the single outward facing side of the seat.In terms of wear, the denser honeycomb and inset binding of molo’s paper softseating hold up to use better than Bookniture. With use over time, the top surface area of the paper honeycomb geometry crushes and softens into a visually interesting and comfortable natural patina. A functional ergonomic advantage to molo recessing the end panel (book cover binding) from the top the stool is that the hard end will not protrude as the seating ages. Recent copies of molo paper softseating all miss the importance of this detail, and the hardboard end panels will stick out (uncomfortably) as those stools crush and age. Notably, only molo shows the aging process of paper furniture in our customer facing literature.We maintain that there is no excuse for plagiarism. Creating a high quality product (one that is constructed from durable paper with recycled content, has a denser honeycomb (more layers of paper) for extended lifespan, and is treated with a non-toxic fire retardant) increases our product's cost, but benefits the end user and the environment. All molo products are priced according to materials used and a fair wage for skilled labour on high quality products.Sincerely,Stephanie Forsythe + Todd MacAllen"