Ed_C, you have pulled a jedi mind trick on me.
(copying the logo is intent, though)
(copying the logo is intent, though)
Last edited:
Questions about Clone Quality and Ethics - Help a vet ;-)
- Thread starter lasttango
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Efest Purple 18650 most definitely OP -- I use them suckas more than the Sonys!
Saweet -- I have been looking for the Akuma! Thnx!The only "data" we have is what can be extrapolated from what we can see. We obviously don't have sales figures and such, but we can see that most of the stores that sell high end MODs are perpetually sold out of nearly all of them, which means that they seem to be moving through the market just fine.
Buying clones is what lead to me start buying originals as well. I was dead set against a bottom button MOD until I bought a clone in order to try out bottom button MODs, and discovered they aren't that bad. In fact, they're quite good. That experience lead me to buying a beautiful Akuma by GP Custom (which just arrived today and is every bit as exquisite as I had hoped it would be). Had I not given a bottom button a fair shot with a low dollar investment, I never would have even looked at a bottom button original, much less bought one that is a short run extra special MOD from some far away land (Philippines), and paid top dollar while I was at it.
Here is a marketing pic of the Akuma. I'll post more of mine in another thread.
I have many clones. I prefer buying those. I like originals. But the main difference is in the wording. Originals are even clones of themselves. Think about it. I will own an original if I see one worth the price they want for those. Believe me, I have compared enough originals vs clones. In a lot of cases, the clones quality will outshine the original ones. Subtle differences like reverse threading on a lock ring will sometimes make a very big difference on whether to by a clone or an original.
I wish the various STingray clones would have implemented reverse threading on the lock ring. It simply seems a much better system for the lock than normal threading, and it's the only MOD I have (clone or original) that doesn't have reverse treading on the lock ring. I screw it up regularly.
There's two issues here: legal and moral, and the legal issues are also split into what the spirit of the law says and what big businesses like Nike can get away with.
It seems obvious to me that if one is in the market for a clone and buys one off Tobecco, for example, there is no intent to deceive and therefore no fraud. I hate that my Aqua clone has an Aqua logo and stupid serial number, but I wouldn't call it a counterfeit, because Tobecco, I and the retailer all knew what it was. I am sure that Nike would prosecute one or all of us for trademark infringement, but that is not the spirit of the law, nor the morality of the matter.
Of course, having that logo does have value. A less scrupulous retailer can market the product as original and the end-user can end up with a clone thinking it is original. That happens, it brings disrepute on the original manufacturer, for example Kangertech, and it is not good. The clone manufacturers are complicit in that, or they would not put a meaningless serial number on a mass-produced item.
Which brings up an interesting moral question. Should we support the market for known clones in the hope that the manufacturers will recognise that they have a moral marketplace for their products, or should we refuse to buy such products and leave them no alternative than to feed them into the black market? This is how these companies have always done business since long before the e-cig was invented. If we want them to behave differently, maybe we need to educate them. These companies do not flout the law for fun, they do so for profit. Breaking the law has a cost for them and if they can make a profit while remaining within the law, they will do so.
Intellectual property is a new phenomenon and it is worth revisiting the US Constitution (because they in particular helpfully codified their reasoning) to understand why it is protected.
They may be harming the reputation of others by selling shoddy goods that purport to be original. That is a matter for trademark law. Trademarks do not arise from the same rights as patents and copyright. Falsely using a trademark is fraud and identity theft and in my view is morally reprehensible. I see no problem with prosecuting it; doing so would not reduce the legitimate market for quality clones, and if cloning companies can not survive without selling into the black market, then too bad. That market is doing damage.
Legally, enforcing trademark law probably requires prosecuting all uses of a trademark that the user is not authorised to use. Requiring intent to deceive would seriously undermine any prosecution and there is no good reason to sell a product with false trademarks. Morally, on the other hand, I think that absent intent to deceive, there is no market harm and therefore no reason not to buy such clones. There is a significant reason to prefer clones that do not infringe trademarks in order to encourage a clean marketplace.
It seems obvious to me that if one is in the market for a clone and buys one off Tobecco, for example, there is no intent to deceive and therefore no fraud. I hate that my Aqua clone has an Aqua logo and stupid serial number, but I wouldn't call it a counterfeit, because Tobecco, I and the retailer all knew what it was. I am sure that Nike would prosecute one or all of us for trademark infringement, but that is not the spirit of the law, nor the morality of the matter.
Of course, having that logo does have value. A less scrupulous retailer can market the product as original and the end-user can end up with a clone thinking it is original. That happens, it brings disrepute on the original manufacturer, for example Kangertech, and it is not good. The clone manufacturers are complicit in that, or they would not put a meaningless serial number on a mass-produced item.
Which brings up an interesting moral question. Should we support the market for known clones in the hope that the manufacturers will recognise that they have a moral marketplace for their products, or should we refuse to buy such products and leave them no alternative than to feed them into the black market? This is how these companies have always done business since long before the e-cig was invented. If we want them to behave differently, maybe we need to educate them. These companies do not flout the law for fun, they do so for profit. Breaking the law has a cost for them and if they can make a profit while remaining within the law, they will do so.
Intellectual property is a new phenomenon and it is worth revisiting the US Constitution (because they in particular helpfully codified their reasoning) to understand why it is protected.
It seems to me, and I am not by any means in the majority, that the way IP law is implemented has become destructive of the expressed ends. Clone makers are not harming the progress of science or the useful arts, in many cases they are promoting them, and their activity should not therefore be demonised.Article I said:
They may be harming the reputation of others by selling shoddy goods that purport to be original. That is a matter for trademark law. Trademarks do not arise from the same rights as patents and copyright. Falsely using a trademark is fraud and identity theft and in my view is morally reprehensible. I see no problem with prosecuting it; doing so would not reduce the legitimate market for quality clones, and if cloning companies can not survive without selling into the black market, then too bad. That market is doing damage.
Legally, enforcing trademark law probably requires prosecuting all uses of a trademark that the user is not authorised to use. Requiring intent to deceive would seriously undermine any prosecution and there is no good reason to sell a product with false trademarks. Morally, on the other hand, I think that absent intent to deceive, there is no market harm and therefore no reason not to buy such clones. There is a significant reason to prefer clones that do not infringe trademarks in order to encourage a clean marketplace.
Last edited:
rurwin
I agree with you, but for one point.
Copying a logo is intent. Copying a design isn't, unless sold fraudulently, or in violation of a patent/marketing agreement.
There is no good reason to copy a logo.
I agree with you, but for one point.
Copying a logo is intent. Copying a design isn't, unless sold fraudulently, or in violation of a patent/marketing agreement.
There is no good reason to copy a logo.
No it is not.
Not when the seller clearly lists the mod as a clone.
There is no proof of intent.
In fact there is proof of the intent to be honest, not to decieve.
The legal issue is fair use of a copyrighted logo for monetary gain.
The owner of said logo may or may not be entitled to a share of the profit.
Copying a logo would more normally be prosecuted as trademark infringement, which would consider lost sales, market confusion and loss of reputation. The profit generated by the clones would be evidence, but only part of any discussion of damages.
As far as "quality" is concerned, clones are no different than any other manufactured goods in that there will be those that are of great quality, and those that are of very low quality. Thanks to the fact that I research before I buy, all of my clones are of very good quality, some I would go as far as to describe as exceptional.
As far as "ethics/morality" are concerned ... Of all the atrocious, and despicable practices that I know exist in this world, as well as THIS country, Chinese clones are no where near my list of things to be disturbed, or outraged about. And that is all I have to say about that.
As far as "ethics/morality" are concerned ... Of all the atrocious, and despicable practices that I know exist in this world, as well as THIS country, Chinese clones are no where near my list of things to be disturbed, or outraged about. And that is all I have to say about that.
If original MOD makers aren't losing any profit because they sell out of everything they have (which seems to be the case most of the time - See Hana Modz as an example), can it be said that the original MOD makers are taking any profits at all? You can't profit on what you aren't able to provide to the public.
All I can say is that thank you for china because they provided alternative to this over priced devices,now if u have the money then buy the legit/authentic,for others buy the clone who cares, I'm friends with CARTEL mods,I bought a stillare authentic atty with brass tip for $80 bucks, those are selling on eBay for almost 200 bucks..do I think its worth buying $129 atty? My answer is NO, will I buy clone stillare?? No!!
With that being said,if your reasons are legit why you vape then who cares how much I wanna spend on this things, now if u just wanna play around and join cloud competitions then that's you!!..
I don't feel bad for manufacturers lossing money because haven't you guys noticed the authentic products are always SOLD OUT!!
Sent from my LUMIA 1520 Tapatalk
With that being said,if your reasons are legit why you vape then who cares how much I wanna spend on this things, now if u just wanna play around and join cloud competitions then that's you!!..
I don't feel bad for manufacturers lossing money because haven't you guys noticed the authentic products are always SOLD OUT!!
Sent from my LUMIA 1520 Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
