Chinese clones Rant / Discussion

[Jman8]

IFrom a production and economics viewpoint, if company A designs and produces one mod, the price will be ridiculous and company A would be fair to command a high $$ for the one mod. If the company then produces 5000 more mods off the original design, company A should be sensible enough to find the equilibrium price for market demand. Raw materials will for the production of 5000 units would be a nominal factor once the original design and product is produced. If company A has 5000 consumers willing to pay X amount of money, then that's what the market will dictate. Introducing clones into the market should not affect the 5000 consumers of the original mod. All that's added are the consumers buying the clones who would not have been part of company A's consumer base.

I feel there's a bunch of questions here that come into play.

I think one question would have to do with cost of production. If Company A's cost entails hiring / paying for the best and brightest, and building the proprietary design in a quality factory, and providing additional benefits to all persons in the factory, that is going to partially determine price point, yes? Essentially, their overhead will be greater than company B who is producing the same product as company B. Likewise, let's say company A is not extravagant in its production quality, but for its geographical location is 'normal.' And that company B for its geographical location is just a little bit below 'normal.' But when comparing A to B, there is dramatic difference such that when doing comparative analysis, one sees that workers for A get about $10 an hour, but their counterparts in B get $1 an hour. Thus the overhead for B is 10x lower and is perhaps a huge reason why B's product need not be sold anywhere near price of A's. Wouldn't all this be important considerations from economic viewpoint when looking at 'world market' as if it is level playing field for all consumers?

I also wonder with what you are bringing up what, if any, problems would there be for blatant, but so called non-deceptive counterfeiting. As in Company A is selling Coke and I own company B that also sells Coke, in cans that look exactly like company A's. Company A sells their product for say 50 cents a can, and I choose to sell it for 15 cents a can. As I'm not doing anything inherently wrong, would this just be a matter of me and market forces letting Company A know that it would be in their better interests to come down to 15 cents a can or thereabout?

Likewise, let's say I am owner of company A who sells / distributes movies that are packaged in a way to not only justify price I choose to sell at, but to let consumers know I am selling licensed copies of the film. Each packaged copy of the film is $10. Replications thru official means cost me about $1. Yet, replication (and almost exact same process of replicating) thru unofficial means costs pennies (let's say 5 cents). If consumers don't really care about the packaging, and only care about seeing the movie, then isn't it in best interest of consumer to get copies that are say being sold for 25 cents? Which in turn would tell Company A, they are overpricing things and ought to come all the way down to 25 cents, or thereabouts, to meet demand?

In earlier post I brought up 3D printers. Those continue to get better with what they are able to replicate. It would seem from consumer viewpoint, if we can obtain replicators that can build exact same 1:1 versions of any products, this would be in our ultimate best interest as once the original is designed, it need not be built by any company and can just be a choice to replicate and build by consumers, as desired.

 

[Brusky]

So my last post has been quoted several times by the anti clones, but not once was the questioned answered. so I will answer it for you...

No.

That wasn't so hard, was it? No, nobody's opinion has changed. Nobody's opinion is going to change. But instead of just leaving it at that, you had to take a couple more opportunities to belittle, and rub our noses in our "immorality" like bad puppies who messed your carpet.

You don't know me. You don't know my life, what I do or don't do, and to or for whom. But I'm glad that you guys, from your lofty perch on high, can be the deciders of morality for the rest of us. And all based on a battery tube. It must feel amazingly good, to be so pious.

I've had enough, and I won't be baited into further comment.

Counterfeiting is an immoral practice. No matter which way you look at it.

No I don't know you, no I don't know your life. But bringing up personal matters into this discussion does not justify the situation of counterfeiting..

Again, no one should be belittled for buying counterfeits, and people will buy counterfeits for their many personal reasons. But we should all know counterfeiting is wrong, and we really don't need "the law" to tell us this.

Is there a market for counterfeits? Of course. This does not justify the business practice though.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Technohydra]

At the end of the day, this is the Chinese business model and economic system; be competitive by making basically the same thing as a competing company, but make more of them for less money. They have a massive industrial infrastructure, and mass manufacturing is one of the things that the nation excels at. We engage in protecting the intellectual property of designers, and consider making a newer and better product to be competitive. They are different systems, but both are equally valid. Where the issue lies is that they aren't 100% complimentary, and ones gain is the others loss. Or is it?

What we are forgetting is that spending money in another country is not a bad thing. It's not the best thing, but it's not a bad one either. Yes, a US company didn't get my hard-earned cash for the item. On the other hand, a US company got money from me working hard to earn the money to purchase whatever I did...because I worked for them and added value to their company and bottom line. The money didn't disappear, either. It comes full circle when they buy something from Russia, Russia buys something from the EU, and the EU buys something from us (as an example). Everyone needs to get over the local economy concept, it's a global economy, no matter what anyone likes to think. You don't get a choice in that, it's already happened.

There is value in the clones, and it's simple to see. A clone produces almost the same product, best case scenario, for a fraction of the price. What does this do, boys and girls? It forces the companies (most of which aren't US based) to find ways to make better product that can be profitably sold for less money. This is the force that drives innovation. If no one ever challenged these manufacturers, they would have no need to make strides forward, and even if they did, they could do so at our expense.

Another thing to consider; the reason that clones exist is that there is a market for providing the consumers what they view as an acceptable balance of price and performance. Everyone buys the things that do what they need to do for what they feel comfortable spending. You are going to be hard pressed to convince a lot of people that your concept of that balance is the right one, because everyone is different. It is also a behavioral law that everything will do as little as it has to to achieve the result it desires. No one would drive to Florida to get to Washington from California, and the same hold true for finances. To that end, we as consumers will spend how much we want to spend for what we are willing to use, and the free global market will both support and take advantage of that concept.

To finish up, hating on clones is about as useful as intentionally and in full knowledge stepping outside and pissing into a tornado. It's going to happen, they are going to keep making them, we are going to keep buying them, and manufacturers are going to keep having to innovate and find ways to make more attainable products. Well, they don't have to, but the unemployment lines are long this time of century. It's the same argument that people use against buying used games not supporting the developers. Yeah, they made no money from me on the sale, but I will tell people if I liked it, I will be more likely to buy on release day if you made something worth owning, and I will look at other products you produce as well. And, don't forget that the previous owner and business owners have the legal right to do what they want with the goods they have purchased and to exchange them for money. It's the same kind of system here.

In my opinion, anyone that hates on Chinese clones is either clueless of the mechanics of the global economy or is simply ...... that the $xxx device they purchased is now less valuable and unique because someone can obtain it for less work than they did. As for the manufacturers, screw 'em, sink or swim as best you are able. Welcome to capitalism.

 

[Brusky]

At the end of the day, this is the Chinese business model and economic system; be competitive by making basically the same thing as a competing company, but make more of them for less money. They have a massive industrial infrastructure, and mass manufacturing is one of the things that the nation excels at. We engage in protecting the intellectual property of designers, and consider making a newer and better product to be competitive. They are different systems, but both are equally valid. Where the issue lies is that they aren't 100% complimentary, and ones gain is the others loss. Or is it?

What we are forgetting is that spending money in another country is not a bad thing. It's not the best thing, but it's not a bad one either. Yes, a US company didn't get my hard-earned cash for the item. On the other hand, a US company got money from me working hard to earn the money to purchase whatever I did...because I worked for them and added value to their company and bottom line. The money didn't disappear, either. It comes full circle when they buy something from Russia, Russia buys something from the EU, and the EU buys something from us (as an example). Everyone needs to get over the local economy concept, it's a global economy, no matter what anyone likes to think. You don't get a choice in that, it's already happened.

There is value in the clones, and it's simple to see. A clone produces almost the same product, best case scenario, for a fraction of the price. What does this do, boys and girls? It forces the companies (most of which aren't US based) to find ways to make better product that can be profitably sold for less money. This is the force that drives innovation. If no one ever challenged these manufacturers, they would have no need to make strides forward, and even if they did, they could do so at our expense.

Another thing to consider; the reason that clones exist is that there is a market for providing the consumers what they view as an acceptable balance of price and performance. Everyone buys the things that do what they need to do for what they feel comfortable spending. You are going to be hard pressed to convince a lot of people that your concept of that balance is the right one, because everyone is different. It is also a behavioral law that everything will do as little as it has to to achieve the result it desires. No one would drive to Florida to get to Washington from California, and the same hold true for finances. To that end, we as consumers will spend how much we want to spend for what we are willing to use, and the free global market will both support and take advantage of that concept.

To finish up, hating on clones is about as useful as intentionally and in full knowledge stepping outside and pissing into a tornado. It's going to happen, they are going to keep making them, we are going to keep buying them, and manufacturers are going to keep having to innovate and find ways to make more attainable products. Well, they don't have to, but the unemployment lines are long this time of century. It's the same argument that people use against buying used games not supporting the developers. Yeah, they made no money from me on the sale, but I will tell people if I liked it, I will be more likely to buy on release day if you made something worth owning, and I will look at other products you produce as well. And, don't forget that the previous owner and business owners have the legal right to do what they want with the goods they have purchased and to exchange them for money. It's the same kind of system here.

In my opinion, anyone that hates on Chinese clones is either clueless of the mechanics of the global economy or is simply ...... that the $xxx device they purchased is now less valuable and unique because someone can obtain it for less work than they did. As for the manufacturers, screw 'em, sink or swim as best you are able. Welcome to capitalism.

You must not understand global economics if you think, piracy/counterfeiting actually benefits the economy. The most that pirated and counterfeited products can do that is positive, is create incentives for innovations (which competition does better), and increased allure for authentic products. But there are countless number of damaging effects piracy and counterfeiting does, especially when it ventures into the topic of pharmaceuticals.

I don't think any authentic owners are ...... that they paid x amount more than the counterfeit consumers. If you go to vape meets all the authentic mod owners are as proud as they can be of their mods, just as authentic Rolex, Luis Vuitton, etc owners are proud of theirs.

I don't think I have seen any authentic mod owners hating on counterfeit owners either, but instead vice versa. What I have seen is authentic mod owners and supporters being upset about the act of counterfeiting, which is 100% acceptable..

 

[LEDBETTER122]

I don't believe it's Immoral to buy clones. Morality is the Distinction from Right and Wrong, and who decides what is Right or wrong?

If someone can offer the same product of a lesser quality for 1/5th of the price, and we choose as consumers to buy that product, what's so wrong about that?

If a company made a atomizer exactly like the Kayfun, but called it a "Vapor Maker" instead of calling it a "Kayfun", does not mean people are not going to buy it.

Everyone that says they are "Against Clones", buy "Clones" on a regular basis. Ever buy Great Value Food or Sam's Choice Soda or Equate products or even Generic Medicine. They are all "Copies" or "Clones" of an original product, Notice how on all of them they say "Compare to ----".

Ever eat the Generic "Blue Box" of Mac & Cheese? Well you just ate a box of "Cloned" Kraft Mac & Cheese.

 

[Brusky]

I don't believe it's Immoral to buy clones. Morality is the Distinction from Right and Wrong, and who decides what is Right or wrong?

If someone can offer the same product of a lesser quality for 1/5th of the price, and we choose as consumers to buy that product, what's so wrong about that?

If a company made a atomizer exactly like the Kayfun, but called it a "Vapor Maker" instead of calling it a "Kayfun", does not mean people are not going to buy it.

Everyone that says they are "Against Clones", buy "Clones" on a regular basis. Ever buy Great Value Food or Sam's Choice Soda or Equate products or even Generic Medicine. They are all "Copies" or "Clones" of an original product, Notice how on all of them they say "Compare to ----".

Ever eat the Generic "Blue Box" of Mac & Cheese? Well you just ate a box of "Cloned" Kraft Mac & Cheese.

No one is (or should) be debating the morality of buying clones/counterfeits as we already know there is a huge market for counterfeits everywhere.

The mac n cheese example you stated is not an example of counterfeiting either.. If the generic mac n cheese was to create a 1:1 copy of the original and sell it for half the price, then you would not be seeing the product in American store shelves, but rather online..

 

[Jman8]

No one is (or should) be debating the morality of buying clones/counterfeits as we already know there is a huge market for counterfeits everywhere.

The mac n cheese example you stated is not an example of counterfeiting either.. If the generic mac n cheese was to create a 1:1 copy of the original and sell it for half the price, then you would not be seeing the product in American store shelves, but rather online..

Very much agree with what you are saying in the second paragraph and have been saying elsewhere on this thread in other ways.

But I am one that is at least questioning the role buyers play in the counterfeit market, as non-deceptive counterfeiting is one that caters to a market of consumers. To me, it is like anything that is not legal to buy on open market (I can think of many examples including oldest profession, though not sure we can openly talk about those on ECF). In these markets, the buyers or those on the demand side get targeted as well as sellers (supply side). Thus, I question if we ought to be targeting, at least in this discussion, the demand side as well as supply side, when it comes to morality of the issue. For those who don't see it as immoral, they don't really question the supply side, and are putting up arguments in this thread that make it seem as if it is of no one's concern except those in that market.

Which would be great if all markets worked that way, especially ones with black market alive and well.

I think I employ similar reasoning when it comes to attacking those who wish to ban eCigs altogether. Hating on them isn't going to change their opinions as they are convinced their model of the world is correct, and that eCigs pose a danger, not a help, to humanity. So, they may go about what they are doing and make eCigs illegal. That is not going to stop eCigs from being bought (demand side), nor is it going to stop them from being sold (supply side). It'll just create a market where buyer and vendor are in a black market and who's to then judge who's right and who's wrong in that scenario? Banners will be able to point to some amount of danger, and those participating in black market will be able to get what they desire (clones and all). Legal entities will be concerned forever and a day, but if history is any guide, they'll never eradicate the demand, which will guarantee the supply. Hence there really is no need to fear FDA or governmental people when it comes to desire to use eCigs. And hating on those who oppose the desire to obtain eCigs would seem to do no good. Can still practice advocacy, I guess, but changing opinions would appear to be a moot point.

 

[Cptfunpants]

I am an American...I will buy what ever gets me the most for my dollar.

 

[scylla]

Yadda, yadda. Morality, shmorality.

After my Reo went kerplunk last month and I was back on the market for a new mod, the first thing that struck me was the lack of availability. Every genuine mech mod I looked at was "out of stock". All of them.
I went through that B.S. when I bought my Reo Grand with the calling on a certain day at a certain time just to order one. I swore I would never play that game again. It's not worth the aggravation to purchase what I consider to be just a vaping tool.

Mod makers want to play the artificial scarcity game then they can reap their reward of having the product cloned. No one can tell me that demand is out stripping the makers ability to manufacture what amounts to a simple metal tube.

I got my $35 Nemesis arriving Monday four days after I ordered it, and the Ebay chap selling it installs the magnet upgrade for you free of charge. I don't see the Greek fellow offering to do that for you, (though he will sell the magnets to you at a hefty markup with even heftier shipping). So much for "Lifetime Support".

Nothing personal, but I think I got a better deal.

 

[scylla]

I might even get to mess with God a little bit by receiving #001 on my Nemesis. AlmightyScylla.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/apv-discussion/405438-nemesis-atmomixani.html

 

[bluecat]

No one is (or should) be debating the morality of buying clones/counterfeits as we already know there is a huge market for counterfeits everywhere.

The mac n cheese example you stated is not an example of counterfeiting either.. If the generic mac n cheese was to create a 1:1 copy of the original and sell it for half the price, then you would not be seeing the product in American store shelves, but rather online..

A clone is not a counterfeit. A counterfeit could be a clone.

You can not counterfeit anything that does not have a patent. You have no basis of proving it is your idea without one. So without a patent there is just nothing to be arguing.


Heck all the premium mechs look the dang same except for a different logo.

I am sure if China threw a Louisville Slugger stamp on some baseball bats and started selling them, what do you think they would do? Then think why.

The funny thing is the reading about Chinese and their cloning.. Apple... NEC was particularly interesting read. Fossils and fake IDs... No longer need your best friend Nick to make you a fake ID... get one from China.

 

[Brusky]

A clone is not a counterfeit. A counterfeit could be a clone.

You can not counterfeit anything that does not have a patent. You have no basis of proving it is your idea without one. So without a patent there is just nothing to be arguing.


Heck all the premium mechs look the dang same except for a different logo.

I am sure if China threw a Louisville Slugger stamp on some baseball bats and started selling them, what do you think they would do? Then think why.

The funny thing is the reading about Chinese and their cloning.. Apple... NEC was particularly interesting read. Fossils and fake IDs... No longer need your best friend Nick to make you a fake ID... get one from China.

It’s still counterfeiting even when the people buying and selling the merchandise are aware that it is not from the real source. The term knockoff or clone is often used as a substitute for counterfeit. That’s not exactly true though as we all know. Some knockoffs may imitate an established product but may not infringe.

Patents or trademarks are meant to protect intellectual properties, not to dictate whether a product is a counterfeit. So your statement "You can not counterfeit anything that does not have a patent" is completely false.

Also China's IP protection laws do not correlate with America or other nations. Meaning if you have a patent, just because its protected in the UK or US it does not mean it is in China. You must register your trademark and patent with Chinese agencies which is obviously weakly enforced and regulated..

 

[twgbonehead]

I think it is worth pointing out, in the "Morality"discussion, that the Chinese would consider us to be acting immorally when we protect new designs with IP laws, patents, etc.

Remember that although China is starting to adopt a more capitalistic style, it has been communist for many years ("From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"). And prior to that, it was basically a collection of serfdoms, where the entire population worked for the ends of those few in charge, and basically "belonged" to their masters

Under that mindset, new ideas, products, etc. belong to everybody, and everybody should be able to benefit from them, and use them to promote the common good. The very concept of patents, trademarks, copyrights, etc. just goes against their whole cultural framework.
On the other hand, people who developed new ideas and products were either compensated by the State with a basic living (under communism) or were "owned" by their lords, so neither philosophy left any room for private ownership of such things, or private benefits from them.

This philosophy was completely unsuccessful at fostering innovation, of course, which is why China is looking toward a more capitalistic system to try and get out of their slump. However, the basic beliefs are still deeply held, and that probably won't change at all. In fact, China is actually headed more towards a corprateocracy, where businesses and business owners are tightly linked to the government, and the "common people" are still basically just workers/consumers.

The capitalistic model is, of course, very different. An individual invests his own money and effort into developing a product, and in exchange, he is protected so that if the idea succeeds, he is rewarded. Many try and fail, but many keep trying because the rewards can be great. Under this kind of a system, "stealing" someone's property, intellectual or not, is immoral.

However, the US has also transitioned very far towards becoming a corporateocracy. Government officials and agencies are tightly linked to lobbyists and industry interests, politicians and laws seem increasingly to be aimed towards protecting business interests, and less and less toward instituting policies that are beneficial to the population as a whole.

I think e-cigarette equipment could well be the poster-child for this whole paradigm:

China, under their philosophy, is trying to benefit their society as a whole by taking advantage of this new market economically (which happens to have been started by a Chinese doctor).

The US, under their philosophy, is trying to enforce the will of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma, and steal the market away from the individual developers and toward the large corporate interests and government coffers.

Funny how these 2 systems are starting to converge.......

Ich Bin Ein Chinaman!

(Note: "Chinaman" - A strawberry-Lychee pastry common in southwestern areas of the Mother Country)

 

[tj99959]

Ask Hon Lik about patent infringement. His design was patented quite a long time ago in China, and enforced in China. His US patent is only a year old.

You want to protect your IP in China, get a Chinese patent ... and a good lawyer

 

[LEDBETTER122]

No one is (or should) be debating the morality of buying clones/counterfeits as we already know there is a huge market for counterfeits everywhere.

The mac n cheese example you stated is not an example of counterfeiting either.. If the generic mac n cheese was to create a 1:1 copy of the original and sell it for half the price, then you would not be seeing the product in American store shelves, but rather online..

I know its not a 1:1 copy, but Kraft was the first to make it. The company that makes the generic took the same Idea Kraft did, but with "Less Quality" and sell it at half the price. They even use a "Blue Box" to associate that box with Kraft (Without using the Kraft brand its self).

So in reality it is a "Clone" or "Copy" just with a different Label.

For instance using your logic, If you were a company and you made a mod called the "Fire starter" and you put it in a box that was labeled fire starter with flames all over it. Then my company made an "copy" of your "Fire starter" and put it in a box that was labeled "Start Fire" and put "SIMILAR" (close to the same) designs over it, it then would not be a "Clone" because I used a different name and different designs?

Because that is the same thing that the generic "Blue Box" mac and cheese is doing.

Same exact thing as Kraft, but with different Labeling and designs (But similar Coloring).

Just because its "Legal" counterfeiting, doesn't mean its still not counterfeiting

 

[twgbonehead]

I know its not a 1:1 copy, but Kraft was the first to make it. The company that makes the generic took the same Idea Kraft did, but with "Less Quality" and sell it at half the price. They even use a "Blue Box" to associate that box with Kraft (Without using the Kraft brand its self).

So in reality it is a "Clone" or "Copy" just with a different Label.

For instance using your logic, If you were a company and you made a mod called the "Fire starter" and you put it in a box that was labeled fire starter with flames all over it. Then my company made an "copy" of your "Fire starter" and put it in a box that was labeled "Start Fire" and put "SIMILAR" (close to the same) designs over it, it then would not be a "Clone" because I used a different name and different designs?

Because that is the same thing that the generic "Blue Box" mac and cheese is doing.

Same exact thing as Kraft, but with different Labeling and designs (But similar Coloring).

Just because its "Legal" counterfeiting, doesn't mean its still not counterfeiting

Ledbetter,

I think you picked a bad example, at least in my case. I have on several occasions bought genuine KCD, only to discover that the macaroni was not the elbows (the original, which I love) but the "twists" (which are always soggy and stiff). Why do I make this mistake? Because right on the front of the box there is this big elbow-macaroni "smile" and with my eyesight I don't notice that the pasta in the spoon is twists. (And for some reason, the twists are frequently on sale at a deep discount, while the elbows never are).

I did that twice, and have since learned. But if Kraft is going to package their KCD in a way I find misleading, then I'm going for the PriceChopper or S+S Macaroni and Cheese. It's miles better than the Kraft twists.

 

[Jman8]

Ask Hon Lik about patent infringement. His design was patented quite a long time ago in China, and enforced in China. His US patent is only a year old.

As a consumer, looking to be fair to the original designer, I'd have no issue with a law (be it international) that says in order to sell an electronic cigarette product (gear) you have to buy a license whereby proceeds of that will go directly to this original designer. If you choose not to buy the license, and still manufacture and/or sell an eCig product, you can be audited at any point and will owe a percentage of your revenue to this original designer. Something like 5% would seem fair to me.

 

[twgbonehead]

As a consumer, looking to be fair to the original designer, I'd have no issue with a law (be it international) that says in order to sell an electronic cigarette product (gear) you have to buy a license whereby proceeds of that will go directly to this original designer. If you choose not to buy the license, and still manufacture and/or sell an eCig product, you can be audited at any point and will owe a percentage of your revenue to this original designer. Something like 5% would seem fair to me.

Sorry, but the situation is MUCH more complicated than that. There isn't any international patent law. Patent law varies from country to country, both in who owns what patent and what rights are granted by a patent. There isn't a universal standard.

Also, most really good products are not the result of just one idea, but of several ideas. Hon Lik's original concept has been improved on in about 6 different ways in what I'm vaping at the moment. Do each of these guys get 5%? If someone in Lichtenstein, someone in China, and someone in the US all have patents on the same idea do we have to pay each of them 5%? Or, if it's something that's bought in China and shipped to the US do I get to screw the guy in Lichtenstein? (And what happens if the mail plane stops in Lichtenstein for refueling?)

Yes this would be easier if there was a universal patent law for IP. But there isn't, and there never will be. It would be to some countries' great advantage, and to other countries' great disadvantage.

 

[Brusky]

I know its not a 1:1 copy, but Kraft was the first to make it. The company that makes the generic took the same Idea Kraft did, but with "Less Quality" and sell it at half the price. They even use a "Blue Box" to associate that box with Kraft (Without using the Kraft brand its self).

So in reality it is a "Clone" or "Copy" just with a different Label.

For instance using your logic, If you were a company and you made a mod called the "Fire starter" and you put it in a box that was labeled fire starter with flames all over it. Then my company made an "copy" of your "Fire starter" and put it in a box that was labeled "Start Fire" and put "SIMILAR" (close to the same) designs over it, it then would not be a "Clone" because I used a different name and different designs?

Because that is the same thing that the generic "Blue Box" mac and cheese is doing.

Same exact thing as Kraft, but with different Labeling and designs (But similar Coloring).

Just because its "Legal" counterfeiting, doesn't mean its still not counterfeiting

Yes.

You described a product differentiation through rebranding. Where the ODM produces a product that is branded by another firm for sale. So a product is manufactured with lower operating cost and is sold under a local brand name. It's not counterfeiting.

If they were to brand the product as Kraft brand, than that's counterfeiting.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jman8]

Sorry, but the situation is MUCH more complicated than that. There isn't any international patent law. Patent law varies from country to country, both in who owns what patent and what rights are granted by a patent. There isn't a universal standard.

Also, most really good products are not the result of just one idea, but of several ideas. Hon Lik's original concept has been improved on in about 6 different ways in what I'm vaping at the moment. Do each of these guys get 5%? If someone in Lichtenstein, someone in China, and someone in the US all have patents on the same idea do we have to pay each of them 5%? Or, if it's something that's bought in China and shipped to the US do I get to screw the guy in Lichtenstein? (And what happens if the mail plane stops in Lichtenstein for refueling?)

Yes this would be easier if there was a universal patent law for IP. But there isn't, and there never will be. It would be to some countries' great advantage, and to other countries' great disadvantage.

I would say the willingness to pay at least one vendor who's design you are copying, assuming yours is not an original, would be enough to settle basics of this conversation.

If not, I'm up for discussing it.

Like if I invented design for an eCig that isn't same (nor really all that close) to Lik's design, then I would be the originator of that design. If company in Zimbabwe decides to copy that design and sell to anyone in the world, but is based out of Zimbabwe, then each country they decide to go in, they'd have to seek patent for that country on that design. Perhaps it already exists in some countries. In fact, as I sell my original design to only Americans, I can let them know they are good to go with American consumers. I sell my copies, of which I have not only original design, but distributing license for, for $50. Zimbabwe company is going to sell copies for $45 in America. I get 5% of whatever they sell. But not just in America, wherever they sell it, I get 5%.

If company sells to country that doesn't have established patent, they done broke primary rule and are engaged in counterfeiting of my design. Perhaps nothing can be done, but even if I am able to get one country to shut down sales based on infringement of the patent, then that would be possibly good enough for me.

Again though, if company is selling copies, and shows willingness to compensate original designer, I see it as far less an issue than company that is selling copies and sees nothing wrong with collecting revenue off designed product that they either know they counterfeited or once made aware of it, they refuse to give back to original designer, even a small percentage of their revenue. Would then be easy to point out their immorality and/or greediness, I would think. I mean in the clone threads, it seems pretty clear which original designer is being copied. Though admittedly, perhaps it isn't always easy and is where things would get bogged down in details and technicalities.

Personally I think, if we are going to keep crediting Lik with original invention of eCigs, I do think all devices that are electronic vaporizers meant for consumption/inhalation, when sold, ought to give something back to him for as long as he's alive. What would be the harm in going that route for anyone involved if it is widely known he is original inventor and that is established as fact? I mean, heck, even it were just a penny from each sale, how would that possibly break any vendor or harm any consumer?