Let me make my position crystal clear.
I am not supporting Illvapes
I am not supporting the practice of counterfeiting.
I am not saying the status quo is a good place where IP is concerned.
I AM saying that the suit in question was both pointless and destructive.
Pointless - the plaintiff accomplished nothing but to enrich some lawyers. Closing one store down is a drop in the lake vs the number of stores alone, to say nothing of the offshore internet retail side. It does nothing to actually protect the plaintiff's market share or IP in any meaningful way.
Destructive - one small store, operating in a vape gear only business model got shut down. Employer no longer, taxpayers no longer, bad press for the vaping community, all while garnering greater governmental attention, and giving money to lawyers.
Now, I could see paying all of the costs under heading 'destructive' if there were an actual point, but I just don't see it that way.
The market for e cig gear is wholly unlike sneakers or consumer electronics like stereos, phones, etc. in retail generally b&m shops are having more and more difficulty competing with the internet.small mom and pop stores are rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Only big box stores have the economic muscle to compete. In our little niche market, a store can open and support itself by offering a trade off between price and convenience. However, they cannot do so without being able to offer customers product that will sell. American customers expect wal mart prices. American customers also expect certain quality and performance. If the shop were to offer only authentics, it would have a MUCH harder time covering expenses and overhead.
Ok, so a shady shop gets shut down. What's the problem? The problem is twofold.
First, the shop owner in all likelihood opened this business out of an enthusiasm for vaping. Brick and mortar shops are the public face of the community. This is where potential vapers can see, feel, and try the gear. Maybe even get some good advice, and walk out happy with a vision spinner, clearo tank, and begin their journey away from tobacco on a successful first experience. Every such shop is an asset to the community. Even selling fakes, the shop represents an economic lever that exposes potential vapers to the community and practice of vaping, growing the marketplace larger. This larger marketplace I means more vapers. More vapers means more customers. Not just for the fakes, but more customers for the real deal devices as well.
Second, it's a shoot the messenger suit. The shop in question didn't produce the fakes. They didn't advertise the fakes as authentics online (and the suit relies on online sales as the major point of equivalency). Nor did they create the market conditions in which a customer can order an inexpensive clone that performs like the original.
If I, as a former smoker ended up with a diagnosis that my doc says is definitely attributable to smoking, I wouldn't have the ability to sue a big tobacco company. I lack the resources to fight their economic might in court, and they've already settled cases that guarantee their safety from that kind of suit. Does that mean I should sue the convenience stores where I bought my death sticks?
The economic forces at work in our little niche may be present in the markets for iPods, stereos, and sneakers, but they aren't as harsh of a cold, hard reality between stay open or go out of business in those markets. Tell an American customer you'll sell them a fake iPod for $15, but it'll work pretty much like the real deal, none times out of ten, they'll walk away. Tell that same customer you'll sell them a 1:1 Hana clone for a third the price of the original, and you'll sell out faster than you can order.
