No. You don't get it and never will...
Fakes, counterfeits, replicas... simply aren't referred to as clones... Dolly is a clone...
Authentic makers sueing Cloners?
- Thread starter Kendogalopigus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No. You don't get it and never will...
Fakes, counterfeits, replicas... simply aren't referred to as clones... Dolly is a clone...
And lets be honest you say you only can buy a clone because your favorite mod is no longer in production. But sincerely there are so many authentic mods that perform exactly like the caravela ( it is in fact an out of date device) you are merely contriving excuses for purchasing a clone. The caravela is outdated and if you like it so much you must have it than by that reasoning you should have the real thing. If you really need something to keep you off cigs and you like the styling of the caravela than there are many other choices all authentic
No, it's a completely acceptable and legitimate use of the word. Just like the IBM PC clones. Your distaste for the term outside of biology doesn't change common usage. Sorry.
and your point is ? Sorry I just dont get what you are saying
It is not common usage at all other than in the computer world and biology...
Incorrect here is the link Preserving Your Patent Rights - MIT-TLO
"1. What are the rules if I want only a U.S. patent?
The U.S. patent law system is among the most lenient in the world with regards to prior disclosure of your invention. It allows you to publish your invention or offer it for sale prior to filing a patent application, provided that you file your patent application within one year of the publication or offer for sale. If you wait longer than one year, your patent rights are forfeited. The one-year period is a "grace period.""
Definitely fakes...
You are correct I will never process an emotional/philosophical argument and consider it valid logically. You are the one that does not get "it". You are attempting to put logical merit behind a philosophical stance. From a philosophical stance your argument has much merit. From a logical stance your argument is pretty much invalid.
Side note: Dolly is not a clone she was a clone that died. Dolly died from cancer related to premature aging due to abbreviated telomere length. I think I understand the concept of a biological clone and genetics.
The point was that someone was playing the semantics game by arguing about people using the term "clone" for knock-off vape gear. It seemed like an obvious attempt to deflect the argument away from an area he couldn't or didn't want to get involved in, but even worse it was factually incorrect. Anyway, pardon me, I'll rejoin the sideline to golf clap while you all continue expertly pummeling these fine deceased equines.
Agree with you on this. However, it is what the e-cig community uses to refer to counterfeit products. Why? Because a 1:1 copy without the trademarks is not a counterfeit product. People could not denigrate 1:1 copies without lumping them in with true counterfeits. Hence, the choice of clone.
Replica is more fitting, but I'll wager many new vapers walking into B&Ms are buying counterfeits...
Legally, they are counterfeits only if they have a VALID duplicated trademark or logo, so most of what the vaping community calls clones are either counterfeits or knock-offs, depending on the existence and validity of any trademarks. That's from the legal definition at least. It gets particularly fuzzy in vape land because of all the stolen logo art and unregistered trademarks. So, all clones are knock-offs, but only some of them meet the legal definition of counterfeit. I'll gladly call all mine counterfeits if it makes somebody feel better. Heck, I'll paint a little scarlet letter C on them. Wouldn't bother me a bit.
Agree on that as well. I absolutely hate the infringement that is going on with trademarks. I think it is unlawful, distasteful, and honestly not necessary. Advertise as a Kayfun style, or Hana style mod. Do not put the trademarks on your product unless you own them.
I however do support 1:1 cloning as long as the original owner does not patent, or at the very least indicate patent pending if they actually filed for a patent. THIS IS THE AMERICAN WAY!!! We have laws in place to protect intellectual property. If the owner fails to utilize those laws, because they are too expensive, or ineffective they should stop moaning when their OVER-PRICED product is LEGALLY copied.
Obviously the more talented mod makers have realized that exclusive releases and product tracking can help them limit the exposure to cloning. I applaud this as intelligent and an inventive way to keep high prices, and protect their products from cloning. They are attempting to become boutique makers, and wish to establish a brand. GREAT FOR THEM!!! However, if they fail to patent, it is fair game if their mod falls into unscrupulous hands.
Look this is coming from a person that has watched manufacturing crumble all around him. I had a successful career in the field (never without a job), but was screwed on pay because of this crap. These problems have been happening since the 70's in all areas. Realistically, do you think E-cigs are different than your cheap VCR, DVD, TV, car, etc, and etc product? Nope they are not. The only difference is that the anti-cloners have skin in the game about something they are passionate about.
Where were you guys when all of the American Manufacturing jobs were lost to save dollars on cars, electronics, Levi's, etc, and etc? Why are e-cigs different from all of your other "cloned/replica" products around your house? Maybe because it is an emotional philosophical issue you are passionate about? Well that is great for you. However, lousy timing guys, as 100+ million workers have lost high-paying jobs these past three decades. It is now accepted we are in global economy for all other products. Why are e-cigs so special?
Trademarks are valid, as long as the original owner pursues it at some point, and then defends it use. They do not need to be registered at time of conception. They only need to apply and have proof that they are the originator of the actual conceptualization of the intellectual property. It least that is my understanding. I will say some trademarks lose validity because of "generic" status after years of neglect from the originator.
However, yes from a semantic/practical point of view something is not a trademark until the original owner ACTIVELY defends his intellectual work/mark/design.
All that is needed for a trademark to become valid is for a company to use it, and they are the first one to use it. Under those circumstances the trademark is automatic and that company owns that trademark. No application is needed and nothing more is required.
Any artwork is automatically copyrighted as soon as it is created in tangible form.
Yes, but a trademark can become generic through lack of protection. An owner must register and litigate to protect a trademark. Again if you wish to own intellectual property it is on the owner to defend it. A failure to protect will be seen as the original owner intending/permitting it to become public domain e.g. open source/free. Not in the mood to dig up a USA reference, but this page utilized American examples and is spot on about legality. Trademarks vs. Generic Terms
This is a likable posts from my pro-authentic side. Part of me wants to list points from both sides in one post, to present pros and cons. Cause apparently some on the pro-clone side are interested in a discussion and perhaps a listing of both sides would help, I dunno. Perhaps one day, soon, I'll do this.
For me, the integrity thing would be if you are buying a clone, and engaging in the non-deceptive market, then integrity would dictate to ask the vendor or manufacturer if they give portion of their revenue to the originator of that product design. If they do not, then integrity would dictate that the consumer volunteer this sort of payment. In today's world, I'm thinking vendors/manufacturers would be okay with any amount. And personal integrity would be okay to set that amount as long as it is above 0 and is actually sent to the originator. Not doing this, and displaying a "I don't care about originator" is, IMO, lacking integrity and a fair question of morality.
I do not have a mechanical mod, so am trying to grasp what you are saying. You appear to be saying that all mechanical mods are 1:1 copies of a screwdriver design? If yes, could you post a few pictures for those of us who are less familiar with mechanical mods, as I find this incredibly hard to believe.
IMO, what stevegmu has stated repeatedly, is easiest way to understand this issue. If cloner is marketing their product as a clone of a product, I see no other way that is more blatant than this that the device is a clone. Perhaps if some clone companies fine print was expressly stating things like, "this is a 1:1 copy of product x. We reversed engineered their design with hopes of stealing that design, and calling it our own, via our own trademarks. We intentionally set out to capitalize on the success of product x, by stealing that design and making it our own," then perhaps it would be even more blatant than the idea of putting "clone" right in the name of the product being sold.
If they use same internal parts, then without getting too technical or too caught up in legalese, I would see that as plausibly relating to patent, and if they are using same design, appearance of overall product, then I see this as relating to copyright, possibly to trademark. I currently don't see why we don't live on a planet where if you are using the same internal or external, you wouldn't want to share revenue with the originator, for say up to 20 years after original release. But as I do live on a planet where there appears to be great resistance to sharing revenue, then it seems like a whole bunch of players in the market, including some consumers, are exercising own level of greed and displaying lack of integrity.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
