Intellectual property and how it affects Zilvia

[g6civcx]

The purpose of this thread is not to speculate on what you think is right or wrong with no basis in history or law. I ask that you hold your comments until the end where at least you'll see the progression of the industry.

My goal is not to tell you what to do with your opinion. I simply want everyone to understand history and why the law is the way it is. You can disagree, but please make sure you know what you're disagreeing with: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)


This is a very simple overview. Intelligent questions are strongly encouraged. Comments are welcome as well provided they are constructive and respectful.


Properties fall into 2 classes: real and intellectual. Real properties are physical things like cars, houses, stuff, etc. Anything you can touch and feel and lock up.

Intellectual properties are ideas that, once disseminated, cannot be retracted. They can be anything from drawings, designs, engineering specifications, ideas, etc.

Although intellectual properties can be embodied in real property, the difference is that if someone steals your car, the police can bring the car back to you, but if someone steals your idea, how do they return the idea?


Typical scenario:

Alice invents widget X. She invested time and money in making X, and she wants to sell X, as she is rightly allowed to do.

Alice is afraid that when Bob sees her widget X, Bob will take it to China and make widget Y for pennies on the dollar. Bob will then put Alice out of business because Bob does not have the R&D cost of Alice.

What can Alice do to protect her invention?


This problem was solved by the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution and other laws: History of United States patent law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_patent_law)


The Founding Fathers recognized this problem, and posed several solutions:

1) offer no protection. each person is at the mercy of cheap "knock-offs";

2) offer indefinite protection. each person owns their invention forever;

3) offer some protection, after which period the invention is released to the public domain.


Several threads have discussed the problems of solution (1) so I will not go into details.

Solution (2) was found not to be feasible because many Founding Fathers, and especially Thomas Jefferson, recognized that in order for technology to progress, the public must be given the disclosure of the invention so that scientists can stand on the shoulders of giants.

If each person hid their invention, or were given indefinite ownership of their invention, we would not be able to build on the knowledge of our predecessors. Each person would only be able to invent so much within each lifetime, and technology as a whole would not progress. We each would reinvent the wheel.


They offered solution (3). Each person is given exclusive rights to make and use, and profit, off of their creation for a limited time. After that period, the work becomes public domain and anyone can use.


The modern system has several classes of intellectual properties:

1) copyrights - music, art, pictures, books, poetry, etc. Basically anything that can be reproduced and you can get at the library: Copyright - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright)

2) patents - protects processes, machines, articles of manufacture, food, and ornamental designs: Patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent)

3) trademarks - logos or insignia indicating an organization or person: Trademark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark)

4) trade secrets - anything goes. you don't tell anyone anything, but if people find out you're on your own.


Here's the difference between trade secret and the rest.

In order to get copyright, patent, and trademark protection, you sign an agreement with the government for the following:

* you get the right to own something that is new and did not exist before
* you disclose your work so that the public can start working on improving your work
* you relinquish the right after a time period so that the public is free to use your work

This is a very important process because the government determines what is new and worthy of protecting, and what is NOT worthy of protecting. For example, if you copied someone else and claimed the work as your own, the government will deny you protection.

This is important because each person is motivated by greed to claim everything as their own. The government is an unbiased and impartial party to determine what is known before, and what you actually invented. You get protection for what you invented, not what was known before.

If you want to keep your invention a trade secret, society doesn't benefit because we don't know what you invented and what you borrowed from others.

So back to Alice. She can do one of the following:

a) say screw it and sell her products on the market. Once she starts selling with no protection, her product becomes public domain and everyone is free to copy with Chinese "knock-offs".

b) follow the proper process outlined by the Founding Fathers to properly bring her product to the market by first obtaining intellectual property protection, then selling to the market.


Under option (b), anyone who copies her widget X would be shut down and out of business.

This is the real reason why this process is important.

Carol sees Alice's widget X, buys one, goes home, and makes widget X1 version 2. Carol patents X1 version 2, which is legal, and sells that.

Dave buys widget X and X1 version 2, goes home, makes widget X2 version 3 beta 4, patents his creation, and sells that.

The process repeats.

Now you can see the market has widget X, X1 version 2, X2 version 3 beta 4, etc.

The consumer benefits from innovation by being rewarded with selection and price.


Now let's look at the alternative. Under option (a), Alice does nothing and goes straight to selling her widget X.

Bob comes back from China and sells an identical widget X. There is absolutely nothing that Alice can do because she has no protection.

The consumer still benefits because they get widget X from Bob at a cheaper price. Eventually Alice will go out of business; however, the market still has widget X from Bob at a lower price.


The Founding Fathers wanted to punish option (a) because this option does not benefit society (we do not get the disclosure of how to make widget X so scientists cannot start working on the next generation of widgets). You sell something without protection, and you will be subject to market forces.

If you protect your work, you will be rewarded. By disclosing to the public how to make widget X, Alice in return gets exclusive protection for some time so she can profit from her work, and beat up Bob when he shows up with his cheap knock-offs.


Let's bring it back to reality and see how it affects Zilvia.

I know a lot of you are upset over vendors selling "knock-offs"; however, the products they are selling are not infringing any intellectual property as far as I know.

This is because most JDM companies do not respect the system, and choose option (a) above.

So based on the Founding Fathers' rationale, we need to punish these companies by subjecting them to market forces, e.g. cheaper stuff.

The consumer ultimately gets to decide what they want to buy and how much they want to spend. The Founding Fathers have decided to leave this to the free market and government and anyone else should have no say in how people spend their money in the free market.

The solution is very simple. Anyone who designs their own products and services need to get some kind of protection. If you disrespect the system, the system will disrespect you. It's simple.


Someone said that cost to protect = higher prices for consumer.

Actually patent costs are extremely low, and any small company would be able to afford filing fees and attorney fees.

When I first tried to apply for patent, I got a grant. All fees were covered, including attorney fees. If a broke startup company can do it, multi-million $ companies should easily afford it.

You're looking at somewhere in the 4-5 figures at most. Any small company should be able to afford that amount in view of the alternative.


In conclusion, I personally do not think that we should be beating up vendors who are sponsoring this forum. They're not breaking any law, and are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing by putting companies that disrespect the intellectual property system out of business.

For example, GReddy oil pan. How do we know if GReddy actually designed the oil pan or if they stole the design from someone else? We need the government to intervene and tell us what was known before, and what GReddy actually designed. Then GReddy will get protection, but only for what GReddy designed, and not just any oil pan.

Without going through the process, GReddy gets what it deserves in the open market.

When you say FReddy sells knockoffs, how do you know that FReddy didn't independently come up with the same design? How do we know GReddy didn't actually steal from FReddy? We need to put them in front of a judge and audit their records. If they lie, they go to jail.

Just because something is on the market before doesn't mean they were first to invent. We need to go through the formal process to determine who actually invented what, and who gets to own what.

Everything else is just pure speculation unfounded on facts. The solution is already there. We just have to research and pay our dues.


Now, if you disagree with any of this, please feel free to take action. You can change the system if you work hard, but anything else is just very disruptive and damaging because nothing constructive can come from this.

The effect is that the few are driving vendors away with their unfounded hostility. If you think the products are being ripped off, we need to go through the process to determine what is actually being ripped off.

What makes people feel empowered to be the arbiter of what is and isn't a knock off? The government puts their people through rigorous historical, technical, and legal training to determine what is and isn't new. What training do you have?

Otherwise, this is a witch hunt that has no basis in historical, legal, or ethical context.

[MikeisNissan]

What he said ^

[ALTRNTV]

That's a lot of reading, but very informative and to the point.
I don't know how people on here will take it, but I do agree
with you on the point that how do we really know if a particular
manufacturer made a particular design before another manufacturer.

[Phlip]

Great post, and this will NOT become more of that BS that led to the closing of the thread that influenced this one

[DOOK]

I have absolutely no problem with the process you describe, with the exception of all too often when a design is "borrowed" or whatever the proper term would be, it sometimes is copied on "looks" alone and not functionality or safety. All things being equal however, paying more for an identical product, both in function and form, for twice the price simply because of a label or name is something that happens a lot.

[g6civcx]

I have absolutely no problem with the process you describe, with the exception of all too often when a design is "borrowed" or whatever the proper term would be, it sometimes is copied on "looks" alone and not functionality or safety. All things being equal however, paying more for an identical product, both in function and form, for twice the price simply because of a label or name is something that happens a lot.


I will abstain from commenting on "borrowing" because if I called it "stealing", that would be serious allegations without proof. We really don't know who invented what first. That's up to the courts to decide.


I will respond to the rest directly.

You can protect the ornamental design, i.e. appearance, of a product with a design patent: Design patent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent)

Design patents purely protect the appearance of something, and not the function.

For example, Honda has a design patent on the Accord: Automobile - Google Patents (http://www.google.com/patents?id=SQw9AAAAEBAJ)

If anybody tries to sell something remotely close to the shape, Honda will shut them down.


You can also protect library materials with copyrights.

You can also protect your logos and insignia with trademarks.


The system has you covered. No matter what they're copying, you can get protection for the looks of your creation.


Any other concerns?

[g6civcx]

As an example, let's say I want to start a company that makes body kits for 240s. I would get the following:

* register all my brands and logos as trademarks
* register all my publications as copyrights
* apply for utility patents to cover the structure, function, process of manufacturing, and process of using the body kits
* apply for design patents to cover the ornamental design of the kits

That pretty much covers all of my bases.

If anyone comes close to using my name, my pictures, my literature, or even the shape of my kits, I will own their company.


GReddy is already a trademark. I wonder why they don't patent their products.


If you sell something without protection, that's not even the same as leaving your front door open. It's more like leaving the front door open and posting a big sign says "FREE STUFF!!!"

Then you can't get upset at people who take your stuff because you put the sign there.

[g6civcx]

how do we really know if a particular
manufacturer made a particular design before another manufacturer.

The system has a process for that.

When someone seeks protection for a particular design, the government publishes that design for challenge by the public. This is particularly popular with trademarks.

Before you get your trademark, others can come forward and dispute your claim to the mark: Nissan Motor vs. Nissan Computer - Digest.com (http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php)


For patents, the process is called protest when a member of the public thinks that someone is making a bogus claim, and interference when two parties are fighting for ownership of the same thing. Basically in each process, someone is trying to show that what is being claimed was known prior to the date of the invention.


Like I said above, the problems have been thought through already and the solutions are there. We just have to understand the system and use the tools at our disposal.

Any other questions?

[DOOK]

as a community, I will say "we" as a whole, meaning the community, have a big problem with knockoff wheels, I.E. Rota. As you stated before, it is possible to get a Design Pattent to protect your designs that protects you against anything, as you stated, remotely close. Does this then mean that Rays Engineering (Volk) does not have such for the TE37 and RE30 (Rota Grid and SVN), Advan (Yokohama Wheels) for the RC and RS (Rota Boost and G force), Work Wheels for the CR kai (Rota Torque) and BBS(STi) for the OEM STi design (Rota Tarmac)? I know one or two of the Prodrive wheels are also styled into a different Rota design, I am unable to find the exact names however.

I have held the opinion that "Rota are junk" for quite some time and lets face it, we've all seen, read, heard, etc the horror stories of wheel failures. I am starting to have a change in heart as of late however being part of the Subaru community. I would say a higher amount, per capita, of subaru owners actually track their vehicles than any S chassis owners, and a TON of them actually run and beat on Rota wheels without failure. Rota has taken notice of this fact and is now making wheels in custom and popular sizes on a regular basis for the WRX/STi crowd. So, I find myself in a strange situation respecting a company because of their devotion to their customers, but disliking the fact that their designs are "ripoffs" of other companies.

[TheWolf]

As an example, let's say I want to start a company that makes body kits for 240s. I would get the following:

* register all my brands and logos as trademarks
* register all my publications as copyrights
* apply for utility patents to cover the structure, function, process of manufacturing, and process of using the body kits
* apply for design patents to cover the ornamental design of the kits

That pretty much covers all of my bases.

If anyone comes close to using my name, my pictures, my literature, or even the shape of my kits, I will own their company.


GReddy is already a trademark. I wonder why they don't patent their products.


If you sell something without protection, that's not even the same as leaving your front door open. It's more like leaving the front door open and posting a big sign says "FREE STUFF!!!"

Then you can't get upset at people who take your stuff because you put the sign there.


In your situation above. You are correct. Given infinite dollars in legal fees you could enforce that.

You make awesometown body kit A that everyone must have. Someone in china copies it and then reimports it via distributors. You must go after the distributors state side and not the production company. That will be handled on a state by state basis meaning you would need lawsuits and lawfirms versed in patent law acredidted in those states. Then once you get an injunction and some kind of judgement. You've still got to collect on it. Even just getting them to stop selling the copy is a battle. I also believe injunctions are based on a product name basis. So if it's offered under a different "company" under a different name you would have to repeat the process when based on a design patent. You will always win in court but do you really win?? I'm a small business owner and my father and my father in law are as well. Everytime we've gone to court. No one has ever come out richer. It costs everyone money and lawyers just walk away with fees. Any ground gain is lost in the fees. So while you've done an amazing job on applying it in a legal world where everything is free. In the real world launching 20 patent lawsuits in 20 states would leave you broke. Sure greddy could swing that but how about someone smaller like SPL. That's the majority of those patent "idea firms" are about. It's we're large enough to market and protect your item but you've got to sell it to us cheap. An idea is worth nothing until it turns a buck.

[g6civcx]

Does this then mean that Rays Engineering (Volk) does not have such for the TE37 and RE30 (Rota Grid and SVN), Advan (Yokohama Wheels) for the RC and RS (Rota Boost and G force), Work Wheels for the CR kai (Rota Torque) and BBS(STi) for the OEM STi design (Rota Tarmac)?

That's a question you should direct to the the manufacturer. I do not know what is in their intellectual property portfolio.

Another question we should be asking them is if knock off wheels are such a big problems, why do they not have some kind of protection to stop other people from copying?


I have held the opinion that "Rota are junk" for quite some time and lets face it, we've all seen, read, heard, etc the horror stories of wheel failures. I am starting to have a change in heart as of late however being part of the Subaru community. I would say a higher amount, per capita, of subaru owners actually track their vehicles than any S chassis owners, and a TON of them actually run and beat on Rota wheels without failure. Rota has taken notice of this fact and is now making wheels in custom and popular sizes on a regular basis for the WRX/STi crowd. So, I find myself in a strange situation respecting a company because of their devotion to their customers, but disliking the fact that their designs are "ripoffs" of other companies.

From a different perspective, wheel A and wheel B look the same, yet wheel A is marginally better in quality, but costs much more than wheel B.

You as the consumer gets to choose which want you want to buy. I don't see a problem with this.

If you value the quality and are willing to pay more, then you buy A. If you don't care and just want to save money, then you buy B.

If there are more B buyers than A buyers, who are we to say that everyone should buy wheel A?

I do not see the problem.

From this perspective, Rota is actually an improvement over brand name. Why? Rotas look the same, the quality is almost as good, but the cost is much lower.

In my book that's an improvement in technology.

People who want the maximum quality can buy brand names, but if there are not enough people who want to spend the money, how can we force people to spend more money if they don't care about the quality?


For example, if Work makes wheel 1, Rota makes wheel 2 that looks exactly the same, should Work then copy Rota and make wheel 3 that is cheaper, slightly less quality, but still bear the Work name?

Why can't you copy the knock offs and sell them for yourself? Carry both a high quality line and a low price line. Why not get a piece of the market share?

[DOOK]

I am tending to agree with you... I've said it before and I'll say it again. Every company starts somewhere... with the growing popularity of Rota, for instance, who is to say the quality in their products isn't or hasn't grown leaps and bounds?

[g6civcx]

In your situation above. You are correct. Given infinite dollars in legal fees you could enforce that.

I respectfully disagree. For a multi-million dollar company, the cost of infringement is much greater than the cost of enforcement.

Please quantify what you think legal costs would be. The fees the goverment collect are nominal. See below for a discussion of attorney fees.

You must go after the distributors state side and not the production company.

Why not? China is a ratified state of the PCT: Patent Cooperation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty)

That will be handled on a state by state basis meaning you would need lawsuits and lawfirms versed in patent law acredidted in those states.

Patents fall under federal jurisdiction so your premise is incorrect. There is no state accreditation for practising patent law. You are filing suit under federal court.

Then once you get an injunction and some kind of judgement. You've still got to collect on it. Even just getting them to stop selling the copy is a battle. I also believe injunctions are based on a product name basis. So if it's offered under a different "company" under a different name you would have to repeat the process when based on a design patent. You will always win in court but do you really win??

They're based on the legal entity making and using the infringed property. Even if they resold under a different name, you would have very good grounds for summary judgement.



I'm a small business owner and my father and my father in law are as well. Everytime we've gone to court. No one has ever come out richer. It costs everyone money and lawyers just walk away with fees. Any ground gain is lost in the fees.

Legal fees are between you, your attorney, and the market. Whose fault is it if you can't negotiate a lower rate? Do you want the government to regulate attorney fees as well?

It takes money to play. I've never denied that. Whose fault is it that you don't have mone to spend on legal fees? I don't mean to turn this back on you, but whose fault is it that your business doesn't have money, when you are the one running the business?

You're suing to put people out of business to make money. Do you want the government to subsidize your legal fees so you can profit off of tax payer's money?

So while you've done an amazing job on applying it in a legal world where everything is free.

I respectfully disagree. The court fees are nominal. It is up to each person to negotiate with their own attorneys.

As said above, you are suing for profit. What should society do for you?

In the real world launching 20 patent lawsuits in 20 states would leave you broke.

Your premise is false so your conclusion is false.

Sure greddy could swing that but how about someone smaller like SPL.

Again, how much do you think it costs to prosecute and enforce patents? How do you know if one company can afford it and another can't?

You said that GReddy could swing that. So assuming this is correct, why did GReddy not swing that? Then whose fault is it that GReddy's goes out of business due to knock offs?


That's the majority of those patent "idea firms" are about. It's we're large enough to market and protect your item but you've got to sell it to us cheap.

I do not understand the relevance of this comment.

An idea is worth nothing until it turns a buck.

The market determines what is rewarded and what is punished. What do you suggest we do about the free market?


I share your frustration with the legal fees; however, it is extremely hard work and IMHO, I will not hire 95% of the licensed attorneys to represent me. Not all attorneys are created equal. Just like not all people are not created equal. You have to be selective and vigilant, and not just invest 100% faith in your legal representation.

If you were going to try to represent yourself, I would imagine that you would have a very difficult time navigating the system without an advocate. People tend to think everything is overpriced until they are on the other side.

[g6civcx]

Every company starts somewhere... with the growing popularity of Rota, for instance, who is to say the quality in their products isn't or hasn't grown leaps and bounds?

Advocating one company over another is advocating monopoly. As a consumer, I want as many companies making as many products as possible as cheaply as possible. This will give me selection and price. I can then exercise my power of the purse to buy what pleases me, and not be subject to anyone else's idea of what is good and bad.

Also, from a business perspective, if a company is no longer able to sustain profits for whatever reason, the company should go out of business and return its assets to its investors.

This will free up money for other investments and free up the marketplace for other companies to come in with new products.

This is the natural life cycle of business. How do you suppose we manipulate the open market that has deemed one company less than desirable?

Honestly, when browsing through the GReddy catalogue, there is nothing in there that either fits my car or I would need.

I put my money where my mouth is. I support companies that invest in intellectual property, that are based in America, and provide items that I want to buy.

If GReddy doesn't do any of that, why should I care if the company does well or not?

For example, I was shopping for a quick release. There are NRG, Works Bell, JDM stuff, etc., but I support: TEKNIQ AutoSport - steering wheel quick release system (http://www.tekniqauto.com/)

They hold a US patent: http://www.google.com/patents?id=p1MfAAAAEBAJ&dq=5180029, are based overseas but have vendors in the US and Canada that proide extensive support for my local car club, and offer a key lock, a feature I like. I've road and track tested their design for many years and it's been very reliable for me.

Tell me why I shouldn't support tekniq and be a JDM fan like everyone else?

[SexPanda]

So you seem to have a pretty good grasp on law, or the use of google to find the law (which I wish I could do...)

Lets say a friend takes a picture of my car. My friend puts it up on myspace with the title "Kiles Car, Taken By Ryan"

Then a company takes that picture, puts a water mark on it, photoshops it a different color and says "our car"

Whats that leave me to do?

[g6civcx]

So you seem to have a pretty good grasp on law, or the use of google to find the law (which I wish I could do...)

I have 5+ years in patent law. I currently work as an expert witness in business methods for one of the largest patent organizations in the world.

Business methods are hugely complex. The car parts we're discussing are very simple mechanical devices and are really open and shut cases in terms of technology.

Lets say a friend takes a picture of my car. My friend puts it up on myspace with the title "Kiles Car, Taken By Ryan"

Then a company takes that picture, puts a water mark on it, photoshops it a different color and says "our car"

Whats that leave me to do?

Copyright is not my forte, so this is pure speculation.

If you post something on the Internet, it's the same as publishing the work. If you don't have a registered copyright, you have just relinguished all rights to your work.

Even though the car is yours, the copyright belongs to your friend. Since the friend published the work, anyone can make fair use of the pix.

What screws you even more is that they photoshops the pix. If they used the pix in its entirety, then maybe you have something. If the pix is butchered beyond recognition compared with the original pix, the rework is no longer a copy, and is not subject to copyright protection.

If you had registered the pix with the Copyright Office http://www.copyright.gov/ , then maybe you would have a case, but in this situation, I don't know if there is anything you can do.


You need a competent copyright attorney to help you if you really want to know.

[iwishiwas-all*]

see what alot of you fail to realize, is that china does not respect international copyright laws
at all. so when freddy makes a cast copy of the greddy mani or exhaust or whatever, greddy has no means of declaring rights infringement.

Case in point, there is a tripod company bogen/manfrotto. they make a carbon fiber tripod which costs i donno hypothetical price "x". there is a chinese company which the name eludes me (100% true story) and they sell the copy from the original manfrotto plans for a price to the order of $x/3 or even $x/4. My pops (a professional photographer told me about how they even go to the photography conventions and advertise their copy'd product, alongside manfrotto because they are chinese and based in china and because of such not required to respect any copyright. They sell it for the lower price point and undercut the market when idiots (such as my pops, who normally buys expensive gear) try out the chinese products and see they are still good and then go buy them.

when everyone is not playing by the same rules you get this shit over and over again....

[ryguy]

see what alot of you fail to realize, is that china does not respect international copyright laws
at all. so when freddy makes a cast copy of the greddy mani or exhaust or whatever, greddy has no means of declaring rights infringement.



Regardless, the stuff being shipped has to make it through Customs. If the stuff can't make it to market, what's the point in copying it?

http://www.adduci.com/publications_article_detail.asp?ArticleType=1&ArticleID=6

[s13dan]

Part of a really good patent is making it truly unique. If in fact your product is so easy to remake then it should be expected to be copied. If you are trying to make a true company that is sucessful in todays market, you must have something incredibly hard to remake or come out with new products freqently. It takes a lot of money to make a lot. Because what you said is true, but with the internet and how global the aftermarket is, its impossible to follow what our founding fathers pledged.:2c:

[OptionZero]

Much thanks for posting this and educating the community. This is a positive contribution.

Reppin for Zilvian lawyers

[TheWolf]

Thanks for the step by step break down.. I thought these things were handled at the state level and would be a PITA. Then yeah if the above is true then I can't see how these companies can't defend their products. Greddy easily could have stopped the freddy and many of the knock off body kits.

[g6civcx]

china does not respect international copyright laws

First, there is no international copyright law: U.S. Copyright Office - International Copyright (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html)

Thefore, China, or anybody for that matter, cannot respect something that does not exist.

Intellectual properties are enforced on the national level, and countries have some sort of bilateral agreement to honour each other's property.

Second, what do you mean by "China"? The people? The entire government?

If you mean certain portions of the Chinese population, then I agree. But to be fair, there will always be people in every country who violate laws.

If you mean the entire Chinese government, this is a very serious allegation and I would not take that lightly. After all, China is a signatory of the PCT: Patent Cooperation Treaty (http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/atoc.htm) as well as other treaties and agreements.

Although to be fair, the recent Olympics was done in part to pressure China into enforcing its own copyright laws. There is international pressure to make China do this; however, we all need to realize that communism by nature does NOT recognize private property. Why then do they need to respect copyrights?

when freddy makes a cast copy of the greddy mani or exhaust or whatever, greddy has no means of declaring rights infringement

GReddy has no means to assert its intellectual property because GReddy has NO intellectual property to assert. Had GReddy gone through the proper process, they would have something to work with, but since they did not do that, see rationale (a) in my first post, they relinquish all rights to the public.

FReddy is exercising fair use of knowledge available in the public domain, and possibly improving on that design. This is what should happen.

they are chinese and based in china and because of such not required to respect any copyright

First, copyright pertain to things you can check out from the library.

Are they using a brand name? If so, that falls under trademark.

Are they using a design? If so, that falls under patent.

Second, it doesn't matter where the company is based. Jurisdiction is determined by the location of the infringement, not where the parent company is based.

They sell it for the lower price point and undercut the market when idiots (such as my pops, who normally buys expensive gear) try out the chinese products and see they are still good and then go buy them

You concede that these people are "idiots", such as your "pops"; however, you say that "they are still good and then go buy them".

I personally do not see a problem with this. From the consumer's perspective, you get the same thing for less money. Why is this not good for consumers?


Your perspective is very biased towards businesses; however, the system protects the consumer. Do you want to screw over the consumer and protect businesses instead?

when everyone is not playing by the same rules you get this shit over and over again....

Like any game, business has rules. In order to play the game well, you have to understand the rules. If you disagree with the rules, you can challenge the rules. There is a process for that.

The biggest problem right now is that we have self-appointed vigilantes who do NOT understand the context of history, law, or ethics.

In the other thread I repeatedly ask "how do you know if something is a 'knock-off'?"

The many responses I got was "I know it when I see it", or "we all know what 'knock-offs' are".

Respectfully, we really don't know until the process has been gone through. Like I said earlier, just because somebody brought something to market earlier than someone else, that doesn't mean the first person owns the product.

Also, we don't know how much of a product GReddy designed, and how much was re-used from the existing technology in the art. Did GReddy refine mineral ores to make the metal, or did they buy the metal? Did GReddy design the computers they used to model the oil pan, or did they buy IBM/HP/Fujita/Dell computers? I guarantee you GREddy did not invent the idea of an oilpan because how did cars get around before GReddy?

Everybody reuses existing technology. We need to know what was known before, and what is known after GReddy's contribution to the industry. Then and ONLY then can we know what GReddy has truly invented.


You're speaking to the broader problem of law enforcement in general. People have been and will always break the law. How do we stop them?

This problem is not unique to intellectual property. So I think it's unfair to use lawbreakers as an exception to break the law yourself.

But even so, what stops you from practising predatory pricing to undercut the knockoffs? If GReddy quality is so good, and if GREddy and FReddy cost the same, everyone would naturally buy GReddy and FReddy would go out of business.

But GReddy has to recoup R&D cost. Whose fault is it that they invested so much money in R&D? On top of that, whose fault is it that any company wants to generate a profit? If you want profits, prices must go up. If prices are too high and the products are not desirable at that price, the market responds by not buying GReddy, and instead buys substitute products from FReddy.

Why is this a problem for the consumer?

[g6civcx]

Part of a really good patent is making it truly unique.

Not quite correct. Patents are directed at an invention. The invention must be a positive contribution to what was presently known in the art. If there is no difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, then there is no improvement of technology, and no patent is awarded.

If after the patent has issued and others copy you, that's fine. The validity of the patent depends on what was known before the invention was made.

If in fact your product is so easy to remake then it should be expected to be copied. If you are trying to make a true company that is sucessful in todays market, you must have something incredibly hard to remake or come out with new products freqently

Again, it goes back to progressing technology and providing consumer with choices.

If your product is easy to make, then the same product at a lower price is an improvement over your product. Technology is progressed, and consumers benefit.

The real question is if your products are so easy to make, why can't you price your products lower to put the cheap knockoffs out of business?

It takes a lot of money to make a lot

Not quite correct, but not relevant to our discussion so I will stay out: Economy of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale)

Because what you said is true, but with the internet and how global the aftermarket is, its impossible to follow what our founding fathers pledged.:2c:

I respectfully disagree. True that globalization changed what we're doing; however, please realise that the Founding Fathers were very well traveled. They knew that they were competing with products from English and European investors. It's not like America wasn't trading with international companies back then.

The current trend is moving towards globalization of intellectual property; however, the challenge remains that some countries need to get its act together before it can participate in the global stage.

[g6civcx]

I thought these things were handled at the state level and would be a PITA. Then yeah if the above is true then I can't see how these companies can't defend their products. Greddy easily could have stopped the freddy and many of the knock off body kits.

I do not mean to make anything personal against you, or to turn this thread into my own personal soapbox.

I just want to present the facts and let you make your own decisions.


The problems with state enforcement of intellectual property are exactly as you describe. That's why the Founding Fathers made regulating intellectual property an explicit power of the federal government.

All you have to do is win one time in federal court, and the defendant will be barred from infringing in all US jurisdictions, including states and US territories.

[[email protected]]

As an example, let's say I want to start a company that makes body kits for 240s. I would get the following:

* register all my brands and logos as trademarks
* register all my publications as copyrights
* apply for utility patents to cover the structure, function, process of manufacturing, and process of using the body kits
* apply for design patents to cover the ornamental design of the kits

That pretty much covers all of my bases.

If anyone comes close to using my name, my pictures, my literature, or even the shape of my kits, I will own their company.


I am sorry, but I don't see how you can get a utility patent on a body kit, or the structure/function of a body kit. Perhaps if you had a novel new manufacturing process, you could patent that, but that would not cover the design of the kit itself. Someone copying the kit would be using some crappy fiberglass process, not the exact process you have.

One criteria is that the invention has to be novel and non-obvious to be patentable. A bumper is not patentable because its function is not new/novel. Similarly, the function of the Greddy oil pan is also not new/novel, baffling an oil pan is nothing new. Also our SPL suspension arms and bushings are nothing new/novel in function, there is no hope of getting a utility patent for that.

As for design patents, I am not an expert but my understanding is that with some minor changes, so it is not an exact copy, and the fight becomes much harder and the distinctions become gray. I don't think it would be a reliable way to protect a product, unless the product is largely cosmetic in function.

[g6civcx]

I don't see how you can get a utility patent on a body kit, or the structure/function of a body kit

When you say you cannot get a utility on a body kit, do you mean the body is kit ineligible because: a) body kits are not eligible subject matter, or b) body kits do not distinguish over the prior art?

Either way, I respectfully disagree. It depends on how you draft your claims. Realise that a lot of people are greedy and claim more than their invention, and are rightfully refused. If you have a good attorney and draft clean, narrow claims that distinguish from the prior art, I don't see any reason why you could not get an issued claim.

Perhaps if you had a novel new manufacturing process, you could patent that, but that would not cover the design of the kit itself

See below for a discussion of design patents.

Someone copying the kit would be using some crappy fiberglass process, not the exact process you have

The doctrine of equivalents: Doctrine of equivalents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents) allows you to pursue obvious variations of your patented invention. If you have a product-by-process claim: Claim (patent) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)#Product-by-process_claim)

it doesn't matter which process is used. As long as the end product is the same, any process used to make the same product infringes on your patent.

One criteria is that the invention has to be novel and non-obvious to be patentable. A bumper is not patentable because its function is not new/novel

I respectfully disagree. While generically all body kits perform the same function, you can distinguish one kit from another with language that distinguishes the structure of one over the other.

If nothing else, you can claim the dimensions of the kit. No two kits are exactly alike so if your kit is indeed new, no other kit would anticipate or otherwise render your dimensions obvious.

Similarly, the function of the Greddy oil pan is also not new/novel, baffling an oil pan is nothing new

In your mind, the function may be the same, but the structures and dimensions are different, and by definition, different strutures inherently have different characteristics, and therefore distinguish over the prior art if argued correctly.

Also our SPL suspension arms and bushings are nothing new/novel in function, there is no hope of getting a utility patent for that

I respectfully disagree.

If you truly invented something that did not exist before, you are entitled to some coverage. You may not get the broad coverage you want, but you are entitled to the improvement you made.

If there is no difference between your product and what was known in the prior art, then you are not entitled to any patent protection because you simply used what was known in the prior art.

Which of these 2 scenarios apply to you?

As for design patents, I am not an expert but my understanding is that with some minor changes, so it is not an exact copy, and the fight becomes much harder and the distinctions become gray

You still have the doctrine of equivalents.

If someone else makes an exact replica or an "obvious" variation of your design, then you got them.

If someone uses your design and makes something that is not "obvious", then this is an improvement on your design and therefore the person is entitled to their improvement.

I do not see any problem with this. The system is designed to operate exactly as it should in both of these scenarios.

I don't think it would be a reliable way to protect a product, unless the product is largely cosmetic in function

I respectfully disagree. Honda and Toyota have extensive design patents on their vehicles.

All products are inherently cosmetic on top of being structural/functional.

What do you consider to be "reliable"?

Are you saying that the process is too complicated? I agree; however, it is complicated for a reason. There is a lot at stake so the process must account for a lot of things.

Are you saying that the process is too costly? See above for a discussion of attorney fees re: fair market value.


I appreciate feedback from a vendor.

I would like to understand more why you think body kits are not patentable. Keep in mind that claim drafting is learned in apprenticeship, and is not taught in school. Most attorneys fresh from law school that I train have no concept of claim drafting, even though they have passed the bar and are licensed to practise.

[yudalicious]

Great post g6civcx. Personally, if the "knockoff" product does not infringe on patent laws and works just as well as the original, or even at 90% of the original, for a lower price, then why shouldn't I buy the cheapest option that satisfies my needs? Sure there's alot of trash out there, but its the consumer's responsibility to be informed and vigilant. Whether its rotas, or freddy oil pans, or tripods, or walgreen's brand meds, the consumer should be happy that there's more viable choices out there. I don't know why the car enthusiasts, 240sx owners specifically, it seems, are so preoccupied with buying the original or brand name especially when it comes to car parts.

[g6civcx]

if the "knockoff" product does not infringe on patent laws and works just as well as the original, or even at 90% of the original, for a lower price, then why shouldn't I buy the cheapest option that satisfies my needs? Sure there's alot of trash out there, but its the consumer's responsibility to be informed and vigilant. Whether its rotas, or freddy oil pans, or tripods, or walgreen's brand meds, the consumer should be happy that there's more viable choices out there. I don't know why the car enthusiasts, 240sx owners specifically, it seems, are so preoccupied with buying the original or brand name especially when it comes to car parts.

</END THREAD>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!//////////////////////////////////////////:love::snoop::tardrim::2f2f::bigok::naughty: :hsdance:

[stiizy]

Gg whats the cliffs to this thread i'm really to shot to read your long posts...

[[email protected]]

If you truly invented something that did not exist before, you are entitled to some coverage. You may not get the broad coverage you want, but you are entitled to the improvement you made.

If there is no difference between your product and what was known in the prior art, then you are not entitled to any patent protection because you simply used what was known in the prior art.

Which of these 2 scenarios apply to you?


What is that supposed to mean?

My doctorate is in theoretical physics, not law. As I indicated, I am not an expert on patent law, however I am not stupid. If you explain to me what I can patent, what I am not correctly interpreting, then I can re-evaluate my thoughts. My understanding is that if it is not a new/novel function, if it is simply taking an existing idea and applying it, then it is not patentable.

Since you are the expert, then let me pose this to you, based on a somewhat real and simple example:

I developed a solid aluminum differential mounting bushing for the 240SX. This was the first such product on the market. Dimensions are similar to the stock bushing, since obviously it has to fit the same holes. What exactly can I claim in my patent?

Now I had invested in R&D in the sense that I had to measure, draw up, prototype, test that it does not create an unforseen problem/interaction, and ensure that the product has a performance benefit. I would also have some investment in marketing the product. So I would hate to see any copies turning up, after I have invested in testing, proving and marketing the benefits, not least in coming up with the product in the first place.

[g6civcx]

Gg whats the cliffs to this thread i'm really to shot to read your long posts...

Read the post right above yours with all the smileys.

[stiizy]

Got ya.....

I guess people just like brand names of the original........

Idk oh wells ......

Thanks G6....

[g6civcx]

What is that supposed to mean?

It means exactly what I tried to put there.

At a point in time, you invented something. Compare everything that was known before this point with your invention. What is different between your invention and what was known before?

If there is no difference, your invention contributed nothing to the art.

If there is a difference, we then have to determine if the difference is a variation of what was known.

If the difference is just a rehash of what was known, then your invention contributed nothing to the art.

If the difference is not "obvious" over what was known, then you indeed contributed something to the art, and are entitled to patent coverage for your improvement.

I am not stupid

I respectfully maintain that I did not call anyone stupid in this thread.

If you explain to me what I can patent, what I am not correctly interpreting, then I can re-evaluate my thoughts

I can try.

My understanding is that if it is not a new/novel function, if it is simply taking an existing idea and applying it, then it is not patentable

Generally speaking, there are 3 hurdles you have to clear:

1) statutory subject matter
2) novelty over prior art
3) nonobviousness over prior art

Your invention must have all 3. There are a lot more requirements of your disclosure, but on the merits you invention has to have those 3 criteria.

I developed a solid aluminum differential mounting bushing for the 240SX. This was the first such product on the market

Being first to market is only one criterion for nonobviousness, and a very very small criterion at that: 716.04 Long-Felt Need and Failure of Others [R-2] - 700 Examination of Applications (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_716_04.htm)

Current US practises require all publications anywhere, and all public sales and use in the US prior to your invention to be considered.

So while you may be the first to market with something, someone else may have published something earlier and relinquished the same invention to the public domain. This can be discovered in a prior art search.

Dimensions are similar to the stock bushing, since obviously it has to fit the same holes. What exactly can I claim in my patent?

Let's look at the 3 criteria in more details:

1) statutory subject matter - must be a machine, process, article of manufacture, or food

I think the bushing is either a machine or an article of manufacture, or both. So I think we're ok there.

2) novelty over prior art -

What was known before your invention? The most apparent thing would be the stock bushing. What's the difference between the stock bushing and your bushing? Aluminium.

So you can claim a solid aluminium bushing for 240s. If there is no such publication, public sale or use of a solid alumininium bushing for 240s, then you've passed the second hurdle.

3) nonobviousness over prior art -

Would it be obvious to substitute aluminium for the stock bushing materials? This question depends on what is known in the art, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and market forces.

This last hurdle is very difficult to clear and depends on the particular industry.

For example, nuclear physics grants patents for very minor improvements in the art based on the general knowledge and ordinary skill in the art; however, computer software generally do not grant patents for small incremental software design changes because software programmers are known to tinker.

If this still doesn't clear the hurdle, you can claim the dimensions of the bushing, and if nothing comes close, you can get something allowed.

No one other than the official government employee examining your case has jurisdiction to say if something is allowable or not. Therefore, I cannot say what you can get issued. I can only say what you can claim based on the invention you made.

Now I had invested in R&D in the sense that I had to measure, draw up, prototype, test that it does not create an unforseen problem/interaction, and ensure that the product has a performance benefit. I would also have some investment in marketing the product. So I would hate to see any copies turning up, after I have invested in testing, proving and marketing the benefits, not least in coming up with the product in the first place.

I agree; however, this has little relevance. We have to look at what you created vs. what was known before.

It doesn't matter if you spent $1 million reinventing the wheel. Investing R&D dollars is not a requirement for patent.

No offense to you personally, but perhaps someone smarter (Einstein) could have invented the same thing you did with less effort/money. How then can we say that he doesn't deserve a patent because he spent less in R&D than you did?

The system looks at the merits of the invention and disregards the manner in which the invention was conceived.


What if after all you did, you came up with the exact same thing as an OEM bushing as the best design you can come up with? There's no difference between what you invented and what was known before.

The system rewards advances in technology, and not necessarily R&D that reinvents the wheel.

The entire purpose is to get public disclosure of everything that was ever created so that we don't have to recreate the wheel each time, and so that smart people like you can use everything that was previously known to make strange and new things for us consumers.

[[email protected]]

Generally speaking, there are 3 hurdles you have to clear:

1) statutory subject matter
2) novelty over prior art
3) nonobviousness over prior art

Your invention must have all 3. There are a lot more requirements of your disclosure, but on the merits you invention has to have those 3 criteria.


Perhaps this should have been in your first post, because I see these as pretty big hurdles. You claim that a body kit, a baffled SR oil pan satisfies all 3 hurdles. From my side, it is very difficult for me to see how it would meet points 2 and 3, which is my contention in the first place.

You said you can make claims in very specific narrow ways. I don't disagree with that, but it also makes the patent very easy to get around. A patent lawyer just told me last week, that there is a difference between getting a patent awarded and being able to enforce/defend it. Just because you get a patent does not mean that you are protected, and when the argument in court comes as to whether your product is novel and non-obvious over prior art, that's where I see the problem.


So you can claim a solid aluminium bushing for 240s. If there is no such publication, public sale or use of a solid alumininium bushing for 240s, then you've passed the second hurdle.


So all I would need to do to get around this is to make a copy in steel?


3) nonobviousness over prior art -

Would it be obvious to substitute aluminium for the stock bushing materials? This question depends on what is known in the art, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and market forces.

This last hurdle is very difficult to clear and depends on the particular industry.


Guess that is why I did not try to patent our solid diff bushings.

Here is the point -- some would say that if I designed an original product, and I invested and performed the research and development, and invested in the market education/penetration, that it would be unethical for another company to just come and rip off my product.

You started this post refuting that, saying that the company should have invested in trademarks, patents, and they would have protected themselves and their investment.

But in the end, with many products in this market, its utility is largely based on prior art. So you can't say that something getting copied is the company's fault for not patenting their products in the first place, in many cases it is just not feasible to get a patent. But just because its not patentable, does not mean that a product did not require some investment in R&D and marketing. That investment, as you pointed out, is irrelevant as far as the patent system goes. It may however, not be irrelevant to the consumers, if they want to see these new products on the market. They can support these companies, that invest in R&D, by buying from these companies instead of those companies that simply copy existing designs.

[g6civcx]

Perhaps this should have been in your first post, because I see these as pretty big hurdles.

The information was linked to Wikipedia. Interested parties can follow up.

You claim that a body kit, a baffled SR oil pan satisfies all 3 hurdles. From my side, it is very difficult for me to see how it would meet points 2 and 3, which is my contention in the first place.

You said you can make claims in very specific narrow ways. I don't disagree with that, but it also makes the patent very easy to get around. A patent lawyer just told me last week, that there is a difference between getting a patent awarded and being able to enforce/defend it. Just because you get a patent does not mean that you are protected, and when the argument in court comes as to whether your product is novel and non-obvious over prior art, that's where I see the problem.

Respectfully, you cannot explain brain surgery to someone who has not gone through medical school and at least finished a residency. Likewise, you cannot explain the tenets of patent law to someone who has not gone through law school and has at least 5 years of apprenticeship.

Nonetheless, if you would like to get into the technicality of claim coverage, I would be glad to do so with you.

Keep in mind though that patentability is looked at very differently from the government's perspective than from your perspective. You may know the industry very well, but patent coverage is looked at from the perspective of an ordinary person in the art, whoever that is. So you may be overly critical and think that everything is obvious, while a simpleton would think that everything is nonobvious.

The requisite degree for determining obviousness is somewhere in between the expert and the simpleton, and depends on the art.

Obviousness is a legal determination. So while you may be very good at fact finding, formulating the ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness requires legal training.


So all I would need to do to get around this is to make a copy in steel?

It depends on what's required and what's optional in the allowed claim.

If the claim requires aluminium, then steel does not infringe the claim.

If the claim requires metal or metallic alloy, then stee infringes the claim.

Guess that is why I did not try to patent our solid diff bushings.

Why not? You can very successfully prosecute your own patent application for simple mechanical devices like that. The art is very clear and it is easy to get a decision on patentability.

I work in business methods, which is 10000000x more complicated. If you thought a bushing is complicated, how do you patent a business process?

Here is the point -- some would say that if I designed an original product, and I invested and performed the research and development, and invested in the market education/penetration, that it would be unethical for another company to just come and rip off my product.

You started this post refuting that, saying that the company should have invested in trademarks, patents, and they would have protected themselves and their investment.

This is correct. Without going through the formal process, we do not know if what you invented is truly a contribution to the art, or just mere rehashing of what was known before.

Like I said above, it doesn't matter if you spent $1 million reinventing the wheel. Your invention is worthless, and does not deserve any protection.

The system rewards innovation, not spending tons of R&D dollars to rehash the same thing.

Do you think this is fair? By your argument, if I blew $1 billion reinventing the wheel, should I then be rewarded with patent coverage for something that was already known before I wasted the money?

But in the end, with many products in this market, its utility is largely based on prior art. So you can't say that something getting copied is the company's fault for not patenting their products in the first place

I respectfully disagree. Back to my original point. Without going through the formal process, we do not truly know what you invented, and what you copied from others before you.

This is weeded out by the process.

in many cases it is just not feasible to get a patent

I respectfully disagree. The average person well versed in the art should be able to draft a specification, and perhaps some sort of claim.

The cost is not as high as everyone makes it out to be.

You need to go through the process so you know exactly what is known, what is patented before, what is not known, and what you can patent.

Without this roadmap, you risk entering the marketplace without a roadmap. You enter at your risk. You may be infringing someone else's patent without even knowing.

But just because its not patentable, does not mean that a product did not require some investment in R&D and marketing

Correct. As far as science and technology is concerned, you made no contribution to the current body of knowledge if you do not add to the current body of knowledge.

The question should be why are you spending so much R&D money on something that was already known or obvious in the prior art? Why can't you just use what was known through routine experimentation? What does the inability to do so say about your engineering skills?

The presumption is that if something is known, and you only made a minor improvement, it should not be a big deal to R&D a small improvement. Why is it a problem? Maybe you shouldn't have spent so much on R&D and need to revamp your business?

That investment, as you pointed out, is irrelevant as far as the patent system goes. It may however, not be irrelevant to the consumers, if they want to see these new products on the market. They can support these companies, that invest in R&D, by buying from these companies instead of those companies that simply copy existing designs.

Your premise is that R&D = better products. I respectuflly disagree. Not all R&D is good.

R&D must result in some improvement. Otherwise why would you do R&D?


Commercial success is also a factor in determining obviousness: 716.03(b) Commercial Success Derived From Claimed Invention [R-2] - 700 Examination of Applications (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_716_03_b.htm)

But it's a very small consideration in view of everything else.



I still disagree with your assumptions for the following reasons:

1) If someone claims to have invented something new, the person needs to go through the process so that the government can truly determine what is new and what is not new. Otherwise we do not know what is new and what is old.

2) How do you know if GReddy did not steal its design from someone else? We have to go through the process. If someone comes forward with proof that GReddy stole its design, guess what? GReddy's CEO goes to jail, and all their attorneys will likely be disbarred if they knew and covered up. Without going through the process, there is no accountability, and anyone can claim to have invented anything.

3) Each person is motivated by greed to claim everything as their own invention. We need an unbiased third party to step in and say what the person truly invented and what was known. This is to protect the public from people who didn't actually invent anything.

4) I have a company. You have a company. I am stupid. You are smart. It takes me 3 years and $10 million to R&D the solid bushing, while it took you 3 days and 6 beers to design the same thing. We each designed independently of each other.

Now I sell mine for $10,000 each and you sell yours for $89.95. Who should be rewarded?


From above, first point is that if there is no difference between the products, the one with the lowest R&D dollars wins.

My second point is that if you sell your products in the open market with no intellectual property protection, you have relinquished your rights to the public domain. Therefore you cannot expect anyone to respect rights that you do not have.

Back to my example above. If you open your front door and put up a sign "FREE STUFF", you then can't turn around and shoot people who come in and take your stuff.

Selling your unpatented products on the open market is the same thing as putting up a sign saying "COPY MY PRODUCT".


If you want to challenge the patent system then that's a completely different story. I'm 100% with you there that the system needs a lot of reform. But the problem is that we can't even get there.

We now have self-appointed vigilantes who decide for themselves with no clear guidelines what is and isn't a "knock-off". They then turn around and bash vendors with no clear basis. Ultimately this hurts the reputation of the forum.

If there is clear evidence that a vendor is infringing another vendor's intellectual property, please let it be known by all means. I'll be the first to protest.

But until then, it's just a witch hunt with no clear guideline on what's a knock off and what's not.

[g6civcx]

KUAH - He does NOT understand the ethical side of any of this. He simply will NOT accept it. He only will argue based on the law. Ethics plays no part in his mind. Trust me, I already tried.....

Please answer the following questions as calmly as possible.

I know you do not like hypotheticals so I will give you a real example.

Facts:

Some years ago GReddy started selling an SR high capacity oil pan.

Some time after that, FReddy oil pan started showing up on ebay. They look the same as the GReddy unit, they don't feel quite the same, but they are a lot cheaper.

Questions:

1) What is the difference between the FReddy oil pan and the GReddy oil pan?

2) Did GReddy or FReddy conceive the idea first, i.e. who stole from whom? Do you know if GReddy stole from someone else?

3) What is the difference between GReddy's oil pan and other oil pans that were known before GReddy started selling?

4) How much R&D did GReddy spend on the oil pan? Please guess if you do not know.

5) Does the R&D amount GReddy spent justify the difference from question (3) above?

6) Do you think the price difference between FReddy and GReddy is justified by the quality difference?

7) If I took GReddy's oil pan, spent $1 million R&D, and came up with the same thing but in pink, should I then be able to sell my pink oil pan without disrespecting GReddy?

8) If you left your front door open and put up a sign "FREE STUFF INSIDE. ALL MUST GO. PLEASE TAKE", should you then be allowed to shoot people who go into your house to take stuff?


These are all technical and ethical questions with no context in law. Please answer.

[stiizy]

Fucking Brian.....

back with that Attitude i love....

Don't Stop my Brotha!!!

[ESmorz]

There's only one place we can settle this...

[g6civcx]

I really don't care about a GReddy and FReddy oil pan.

I have made every effort to try to understand where you're coming from.

All of my premises come from federal law and even the US Constitution. Yet, you insult me as being "unethical". Does protecting people's constituional rights = unethical?

You claim to be ethical. What are the basis of your "ethics"? Please describe in clear details so we know where you are coming from. How can you expect people to agree with you if you do not clearly set forth your rationale for arriving at a particular conclusion? How do you know if we do not value the same set of "ethics"? Maybe we arrived at different conclusions because our same ethics are framed in different context of history and law?

Right now your attitude is almost conversion at the sword. I believe that if you set forth your reasoning clearly, the merits of your arguments will shine on its own without threats and putdowns.


What I DO care about is when a company... an advertiser here takes a picture of my friend's hood which he custom made, and advertises it as a product THEY sell.

That is 100% bullshit.

I want to run with this. Your friend custom made a hood. Good for him. I encourage innovation.

He then posted a picture on the Internet, I assume?

The Internet is a form of publication.

What do you think people should be allowed to do with published images made available to the public?


If they stole the image from his hard drive then I am 100% with you. People's private work products should be respected.

I also think you're a real prick.

Please stick to the merits of your arguments. I did not call you a single name. I only attacked your arguments.

I also think that you are the nicest person in the world. Character opinions have no validity because we do not know each other.

[ESmorz]

in heaven?

RACEWARZ!


:coolugh:

[stiizy]

Dude Close this thread cause it aint gonna stop and i put my name on it someone will be banned or pinked cause of this shit........

[ESmorz]

I give up. You are probably the ONLY one here who does not understand my points.

I think he does understand your points. He is obviously intelligent.

I think the is just choosing to side with the law book sand play a little bit of devils advocate. At least that's how it looks from an outsiders perspective.

[stiizy]

Thanks Bro......

G6 honestly bro close this man...

This only gonna be a stretched out war on words for nothing.......

Just looking out man...........

[g6civcx]

you CLEARLY do not get it.
You don't.
it is 100% pointless for me to try and argue against you.

You have done no more than say "This is my opinion. Accept it." You have not set forth any reason why anyone should believe you. Please copy all of your posts and put them together. There is not an ounce of reasoning in any of them.

I have done everything I can to make my position clear.

Call me crazy, but I refuse to accept anything on face value without an explanation of why.

I THOUGHT maybe you would understand that a company trying to sell something that they didn't or do not make would make sense.
it doesn't.

I agree with you 50%, but you do not understand where I am coming from.

When you say a company makes something and another company steals something, what guidelines are you using to determine if one company makes and another company steals? First to market?

Without telling us what guideline you're using, we cannot agree or disagree with you.

I give up. You are probably the ONLY one here who does not understand my points.

I respectfully disagree. There are quite a few people who do not understand your point because you have not elaborated why you are able to determine if one shop makes something while another shop steals something, when both shops sell the same thing.

Perhaps if you explained yourself more clearly people will understand where you're coming from.

[[email protected]]

The question should be why are you spending so much R&D money on something that was already known or obvious in the prior art? Why can't you just use what was known through routine experimentation? What does the inability to do so say about your engineering skills?



It is FACT that it is cheaper to measure and duplicate a product than design it from scratch, to prototype, test, repeat, then manufacture. Do you dispute this?

Then do you agree there is a disparity in development cost between the original manufacturer and a company copying the product?

If the development cost is to be amortized into the cost of the product, is the original manufacturer not going to have to charge more for his product, even if the manufacturing cost is the same?

How else can the original manufacturer compete against the company that is copying its products, unless consumers choose on factors other than price?

Please answer these questions simply and directly.

[g6civcx]

I think he does understand your points. He is obviously intelligent.

I think the is just choosing to side with the law book sand play a little bit of devils advocate. At least that's how it looks from an outsiders perspective.

As long as we all stick to the facts and don't resort to random name calling, we will all be fine. I guarantee you 100%.

Just put the facts out and let people make their own opinions. Don't spoon-feed people your position and expect them to agree with you, and get upset when they disagree.

Look at all my posts. I ask questions. I lay out the fact, but I want you to think about it. Whatever answer you come up with is good provided you thought about it in view of the facts.

I do not want anyone to agree with me 100% at face value. I hate MikeIsNissan right now! :)

[ESmorz]

Dude Close this thread cause it aint gonna stop and i put my name on it someone will be banned or pinked cause of this shit........

If people don't name call... people won't be banned.

It's not G6's fault if people can't exercise a bit of self control. The topic at hand is not in anyway offensive or out of line. Only the people who choose to post here control it's fate. At least that's the way I see it.

:bow:

[g6civcx]

It is FACT that it is cheaper to measure and duplicate a product than design it from scratch, to prototype, test, repeat, then manufacture. Do you dispute this?

This fact is highly dependent on the art. For example, software. It is extremely difficult to reverse engineer and duplicate.

But for most mechanical devices, yes, I agree with your assertion.

Then do you agree there is a disparity in development cost between the original manufacturer and a company copying the product?

Yes, I agree, provided we are still talking about mechanical devices.

If the development cost is to be amortized into the cost of the product, is the original manufacturer not going to have to charge more for his product, even if the manufacturing cost is the same?

Your premise is that the original manufacturer has to at least break even or, preferably, turn a profit. If this is your premise, then yes, the cost must be higher.

How else can the original manufacturer compete against the company that is copying its products, unless consumers choose on factors other than price?

There are a plurality of business strategies the original manufacturer can employ:

a) predatory pricing to put the smaller competitors out of business;
b) improve the quality on the product so much and maintain price so that the marginal benefit is much higher over the alternative;
c) buy out the competitors;
d) offer a comparable low-quality low-price product line to compete with off-brand products;
e) cut cost;
f) continually offer new products so that competitors do not have time to respond;

as well as many other strategies, one of which is enforcing intellectual property.

Please answer these questions simply and directly.

I have tried my best to accomodate your request. Now please acquiesce.


Business, like football, is tough. Do you dispute?

In business, like football, there are rules to protect the players, but the rules can't protect you from everything. True?

The goal of business, like football, is to be successful.

There will always be people who will bend the rules to their advantage. This is human nature.

So if you want to be successful at a tough game, you have to accept the consequences, yes?

So if you don't want to get hurt, don't play football.

If you don't protect your quarterback, don't be surprised when he's out for the season (no one is implied here).

The bottom line is you're in business to make money. Business is tough. I feel your pain but you have to suck it up and play the game.

The system is biased against businesses. The government wants to protect consumers (at least the original one did). The system will always be biased against businesses.


If you know of any vendor on Zilvia infringing other people's intellectual property, including your own, please let me know and I will do my best to do whatever I can.

But until then, we have people who are playing judge, jury, and executioner without at least letting us in on what their thought process is.

Maybe if they explained themselves better I would agree and support their position?

[g6civcx]

If people don't name call... people won't be banned.

It's not G6's fault if people can't exercise a bit of self control. The topic at hand is not in anyway offensive or out of line. Only the people who choose to post here control it's fate. At least that's the way I see it.

:bow:

It's like that Chris Rock's routine. Anybody who makes up their mind before seeing the facts is an idiot. Listen to the facts. Let it swirl around in your head. Think about. THEN form an opinion.

In all honesty, my opinion isn't so different from Brian's. We both are basically saying the same thing if you actually thought bout it. Copying without giving due credit = bad.

It's just that in my mind, there's a process we go through. We go from A to B to C, then we decide based on the facts. We don't just jump on someone from the get-go.

[ThatGuy]

I do not wish to call out any specific manufacturer of suspected "knock-off" parts, so let me speak in generalizations and see what you have to say.

Facts:
A. The Veilside company was established in 1990.
B. Company X was established in 2000.
C. The BOMEX Company was established in 1988.

Veilside has a bumper for the S15 Silvia that is rather distinct in nature.
Company X carries a bumper that looks EXTREMELY similar.

Veilside has a specific number designator for this bumper, known as EC1.
Company X merely calls it a "Vader" bumper.

Upon further investigation to Company X's product line-up, you will find any bumper bearing a resemblance to a product from Veilside labled as "Vader".
Just as any bumper resembling something from the "Bomex" company, established in 1988, will be labled as "Bomber" from Company X.

Does it not seem strange that Both Veilside and Bomex have specific names for each of their pieces, yet Company X merely uses a moniker that resembles the names of those companies?

Now I understand that the dates the business were established does not hold any real weight as to when they developed the parts in question, but when the younger company is creating products with a striking resemblance to those from the older companies and even occaisionally using pictures taken by the larger companies, is there not something wrong?

I know this conversation dives into the dispute between what is technically legal, and what should be morally acceptable, but that after all is what us human.

Thank you for your time.

[OptionZero]

I think the debate between law and individual ethical values is a different topic.

G6 is trying to discuss the law. Nothing more, nothing less. I realize that initially it causes anyone not in the legal profession (and hell, those in it) to want to shoot themselves, but that's really no reason to attack the thread starter.

Some people may want to actually go thru the mental gymnastics; if you don't, cool, check out of the thread or take it to PM's.

ThatGuy:
I am no expert in patent law, but one very basic tenant of property law is that if you don't use or protect what you own, your ability to claim that someone's infinging on it is diluted.

If you don't want people to steal pictures, then water mark them. If someone steals it, then proving they're yours becomes much easier.

As for whether it's "wrong"...well, right and wrong is seldom black and white. Who's interests do we care about? The customer who has little money but wants the design of a kit, or the person who first sculpted the kit? Regardless of which side you value, the other side is going to have something to bitch about.

The creator will want to see profit from his creation; the customer will want lower prices. In the end it's all about money, which is why I find cries of "it's not ethical" inappropriate.

[g6civcx]

I do not wish to call out any specific manufacturer of suspected "knock-off" parts, so let me speak in generalizations and see what you have to say.

Facts:
A. The Veilside company was established in 1990.
B. Company X was established in 2000.
C. The BOMEX Company was established in 1988.

Veilside has a bumper for the S15 Silvia that is rather distinct in nature.
Company X carries a bumper that looks EXTREMELY similar.

Veilside has a specific number designator for this bumper, known as EC1.
Company X merely calls it a "Vader" bumper.

Upon further investigation to Company X's product line-up, you will find any bumper bearing a resemblance to a product from Veilside labled as "Vader".
Just as any bumper resembling something from the "Bomex" company, established in 1988, will be labled as "Bomber" from Company X.

Does it not seem strange that Both Veilside and Bomex have specific names for each of their pieces, yet Company X merely uses a moniker that resembles the names of those companies?

Now I understand that the dates the business were established does not hold any real weight as to when they developed the parts in question, but when the younger company is creating products with a striking resemblance to those from the older companies and even occaisionally using pictures taken by the larger companies, is there not something wrong?

I know this conversation dives into the dispute between what is technically legal, and what should be morally acceptable, but that after all is what us human.

Thank you for your time.

I know exactly who you are talking about, and I am actually working to straighten out this stuff.

I'm trying. Give me some time :wiggle:


So let me think about your question and I will phrase my wording carefullly...

[Phlip]

considering PHLIP already stated in maybe... the 3rd post that THIS thread would not become what the other one(s) did, I agree with you STIZZZZ
And I will NOT have you doing what you attempted to do in the last thread. I mean that to say you will NOT fuck this one up by refusing to be objective. Look, I know where you work and that provides you with a bit of an emotional attachment, but the fact of the matter remains that you are doing JUST as little listening and attempting to see the view of the other side of this as anyone else.

This goes for anyone and everyone:
If you cannot be mature and objective in your approach to this thread, and/or have nothing to add, than I kindly ask that you SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!

[[email protected]]

Business, like football, is tough. Do you dispute?

In business, like football, there are rules to protect the players, but the rules can't protect you from everything. True?

The goal of business, like football, is to be successful.


I completely agree. I know the rules, I know what is fair is often irrelevant to the real world. To stay in business, I try to appeal to consumers on several points: quality, service, innovation, etc. But also I will try to appeal to consumers to support our business, to buy our original products instead of copies, so that they can look forward to having us continue in this business and develop new products for them. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that.

So can we agree that it is just business to bash the copycat companies? :)

[yudalicious]

I think the patent system, as explained by g6civcx, makes perfect sense as it gives the consumer the most freedom of choice and it puts the strain to constantly evolve and improve on the business. Competition and choices are good things for us, the consumers. I think a certain member is not seeing the bigger picture here and is being unfair in his pretty personal criticisms of g6. For those who think there is a moral responsibility for us to always support the original product beyond what the law provides for, do you apply this principle to buying medicine or clothes? Do you always buy the name brand cold medicine? Do you always buy a certain style of jeans from the originator of that style?

[g6civcx]

I do not wish to call out any specific manufacturer of suspected "knock-off" parts, so let me speak in generalizations and see what you have to say.

I respect your discreetness. Thank you.

Facts:
A. The Veilside company was established in 1990.
B. Company X was established in 2000.
C. The BOMEX Company was established in 1988.

Veilside has a bumper for the S15 Silvia that is rather distinct in nature.
Company X carries a bumper that looks EXTREMELY similar.

Veilside has a specific number designator for this bumper, known as EC1.
Company X merely calls it a "Vader" bumper.

Upon further investigation to Company X's product line-up, you will find any bumper bearing a resemblance to a product from Veilside labled as "Vader".
Just as any bumper resembling something from the "Bomex" company, established in 1988, will be labled as "Bomber" from Company X.

Does it not seem strange that Both Veilside and Bomex have specific names for each of their pieces, yet Company X merely uses a moniker that resembles the names of those companies?

Now I understand that the dates the business were established does not hold any real weight as to when they developed the parts in question, but when the younger company is creating products with a striking resemblance to those from the older companies and even occaisionally using pictures taken by the larger companies, is there not something wrong?

I know this conversation dives into the dispute between what is technically legal, and what should be morally acceptable, but that after all is what us human.

I highlighted what I thought to be important.

The morality side I will not touch because each of us has a different set of moral values. So I will just speak in general terms.

This is a game with rules. There are different players with different motives. People tend to confuse morality with self-interest, and tend to justify what they do by shaping their morals to support their decisions.

In this game there are 4 players: Veilside, Bomex, X, and the consumer.

Each company's motive is to maximize profits.

The consumer's motive is to maximize utility with their money.

I'm not going to say what each player's morality is, but don't be surprised if their moral values don't quite line up, and maybe even skewed towards each player's self-interest.

The rules are stacked against Veilside, Bomex, and X. The system protects the consumer. I know this is unfair for the companies, but the presumption is that companies are smarter than consumers, and consumers need to be protected against companies that have more money than the average consumer.

On the legalside, there are two (2) issues.

First, there is the question of trademarks.

Veilside was first used in 1990.

Bomex body kit was first used in 1989; however, there was also a Bomex glassware first used in 1989, and Bomex furniture first used in 1968. All these trademarks use the word "BOMEX"; however, the Bomex body kit trademark also has a logo.

So even if someone used the word Bomex itself, that's not so bad because Bomex was known as early as 1968. If someone used the Bomex logo then we have a problem.

For discussion purposes I assume only the word Bomber is used, and no logo is imitated.

Whether "Vader" vs. "Veilside", and "Bomber" vs. "Bomex" are distinct is a legal question. The courts have to decide if an ordinary prudent person looking for Veilside products would confuse Vader products for Veilside products. Same with Bomber and Bomex.

So the proper question would be: if I were looking for Veilside and Bomex products, would I be confused by Vader and Bomber, and accidentally buy Vader and Bomber thinking I'm buying Vader and Bomber?

If I get confused by X, then yes, we have a problem. If I can tell X, Veilside, and Bomex apart, then no, we don't have a problem.

Just looking at the words themselves, Bomex, Bomber, Veilside, and Vader are all different words so it's very easy say that they're not the same. The question then becomes are the words obvious variations of each other. That judgement is reserved for a judge and/or jury.


Now we have the question of utility and design patents. I have not searched. For discussion purposes I assume Veilside and Bomex hold no patents. If they held valid patents then by all means, X should be closed. But we assume there is no patent.

Legally there is no infringement because there is no intellectual property to be infringed.

So now the question becomes if is ethical for X to be doing what it is doing.

To be honest, I can't make a determination based on the facts given. Here's why.

As you recognized above, 88 and 90 to 2000 is a long time. For discussion purposes let's just use the Veilside S15 bumper.

In order to make a decision on the ethics of X, I need the following information:

1. When was the EC1 conceived?

2. How is the EC1 "rather distinctive", and how is the EC1 different from everything that was known before EC1 was made?

3. When was the Vader conceived?

4. How is the Vader different from everything that was known before the Vader was made, including the EC1, assuming the EC1 was made before?

I would draw a timeline and outline what was known at each keypoint.


The problem is that both Veilside and X claimed that each independently came up with its own design. How do I know who is telling the truth? Yes, Veilside came to market first; however, I still do not know when Vader was conceived.

In the US, we are the only country in the world that allows people to claim the time the invention was conceived, and not require people to prove conception by documentation.

This is to give small businesses a chance to come up with funding to apply for patent. In other countries, whoever has money standing by and apply for patent first wins.


Based on the facts given, I cannot determine if X is culpable because I cannot determine what Veilside's improvement was, i.e. what contribution did Veilside make to the art?

Design patents are not my forte. Sorry. That's the best I can do.

From a functional and structural perspective, all bumpers perform the same function: safety and aero. Styling/appearance is ignored when considering function and structure.

Again, I still don't know what innovations Veilside made over what was known before 88. What is Veilside contribution to the art?

If Veilside came up with a revolutionary way to make the bumper, the structure, superior aero, etc. anything like that would be good. Otherwise, functionally and structurally all bumpers do the same thing.


Assuming that Veilside did make an improvement to the art, legally Veilside relinquished all of its rights to the improvement to the public. Public sale and use automatically forfeits all rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that wearing underwear in public = public use even though no one can see the underwear. It's still public use: Egbert v. Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_v._Lippmann)

It's analogous to people who do research and publish their work. Once they publish their work, the author relinquish all rights to their original work (other than the copyright) so that other researchers are free to use their work. You see this with college professors on tenure. They publish for prestige, not money.

Ethically, Veilside should have known to protect its property. The system has been in place for hundreds of years. Each person in business should be well aware of protecting their investment.

Personally, Veilside is in the business of making money. In order to make money, you have to exploit the maximum extent of the law to turn a profit for your investors. If you don't do the best you can within the boundary of the law to make money for your investors, you don't fulfill your fiduciary duties to your investors.

I would fault Veilside for not trying to get intellectual property for its designs, and therefore hurting their investors. Patents are well known. Why didn't Veilside get some protection?

In this situation, I do not fault X at all. They are doing everything they legally can to turn profits for their investors. This is what all companies should be doing. Had Veilside get its act together earlier, it would be more difficult for X to copy.

Now assume that Veilside has a portfolio of intellectual properties. If companies X, Y, Z, etc. keep popping up, and once you squash one, another pops up. Then I would tend to sympathise with Veilside more. At that point all the "knock-off" companies should go to jail.


As for X using Veilside's pix, if Veilside has registered a copyright of its pix, then yes, X is culpable. If not, why not? Copyrighting a pix is a few bucks at most and takes a few minutes to fill out the form. Why not? I would fault Veilside for negligence if there is no copyright.

If there is no copyright, then I would only give X a slap on the wrist for plagiarism, which is a much lesser charge than copyright infringement.


I apologize for the long post. It's a very difficult process, and it's not easy to determine who invented what, and who stole from whom.

I am not personally biased towards any particular side. If anything, I am biased towards protecting the consumer and promoting competition amongst businesses.

Thank you for your time.

You are welcome. I hope I can at least give you an idea of what's going on.

Please do not hesitate with additional questions.

[g6civcx]

I completely agree. I know the rules, I know what is fair is often irrelevant to the real world. To stay in business, I try to appeal to consumers on several points: quality, service, innovation, etc. But also I will try to appeal to consumers to support our business, to buy our original products instead of copies, so that they can look forward to having us continue in this business and develop new products for them. There is absolutely nothing wrong in that.

So can we agree that it is just business to bash the copycat companies? :)

I agree with your perspective 100%. You can out-support the no-name company. You can provide better service. You can sponsor forums like this one.

You're just promoting your business and I do not fault you at all. You're just doing what you're supposed to be doing. As long as you don't misrepresent your products, which I don't think you're doing, then it's all good.

May I recommend that you look into patents again? This time ignore the lawyers and prosecute your own application? Mechanical is very easy to prosecute once you've done a couple of them.

[g6civcx]

nevermind...

forget it

No, it's ok. I would like very much to understand your thought process. Only then can I compare your ethics and the way you apply your ethics against my own.

So far I have only provided facts backed up by evidence of how the system currently works. I have provided very little of my own moral values.

Please respond.

[g6civcx]

No thanks.

I have given you every opportunity to make your position be known.

The only thing you've done is argued that people do not respect intellectual property, but then turn around and disrespect the system. This is ironic.

Like I said above, disrespect the system and the system disrespect you.

If you've tried to apply for something and failed, then I would sympathise with you.

I'm in the best position to help you. You have no idea.


You have forfeited the rights to defend your position. From now on you are no longer allowed to make accusations without facts, especially towards sponsors of this forum.

[ThatGuy]

It just seems like if a company is going to make a copy of someone's work, then they should have to have their permission, and give the originator credit for it.

I understand that the system, like any system, is flawed.

It just comes down to my morals and ethics, though. I know what they are doing is wrong. Unfortunately the law is too vague to agree with me.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

[flytwa78]

Greddy's trouble is a sad story in our world in my opinion. We all know who the knock-offs are, no names really need to be given. I really hope Greddy bounces back from their troubles. We all need to do our part and get the right stuff. That is just me though.

[Brian]

You have forfeited the rights to defend your position. From now on you are no longer allowed to make accusations without facts, especially towards sponsors of this forum.


lol.
You have got to be kidding me.

[DOOK]

I think the debate between law and individual ethical values is a different topic.

G6 is trying to discuss the law. Nothing more, nothing less. I realize that initially it causes anyone not in the legal profession (and hell, those in it) to want to shoot themselves, but that's really no reason to attack the thread starter.

I agree 110%... the original poster of this thread is discussing what is and is not legal, he is not trying to discuss what is or is not "shady".... Illegal and "shady" are two seperate issues. Making money off another parties innovation may not be the most honest thing, but if the original innovator didn't take steps to protect themself and their product, who is really at fault?

No thanks.

Brian, I understand your side of the coin, I really do. Obviously Veilside is one of the most respected names in the game, have been for years. The question I pose to you is this. You and I imagine your company are upset about other's copying your designs, or making something very similar. Did Veilside take steps to protect their designs? If so, why are they not taking legal action against those making the copies? If not, how can they be upset about others copying their work when they took no steps to protect themselves? In essence, we all know this industry is a cut throat place and if you don't protect yourself and your intellectual or physical property, you might as well call it quits.

[yudalicious]

Greddy's trouble is a sad story in our world in my opinion. We all know who the knock-offs are, no names really need to be given. I really hope Greddy bounces back from their troubles. We all need to do our part and get the right stuff. That is just me though.

What exactly is the right part? For me, the right part is the part that gets the job done at the cheapest price. With gas cost, entry fees, a 12 year old car, frankly I'm not too worried about supporting companies like Greddy, a company whose expansive array of parts boasts only one part that our community cares about, an oil pan.

I know it's seemingly unfair from the business's, especially the small business's, point of view, but it's the business's responsibility to know the market and develop a strategy to beat out competitors before they jump in the water. The performance parts market is not the only sector that deals with issues like this. As consumers we've all benefited from the rules of the game in other aspects of our consumer lives. I don't know anyone that ONLY buys brand name meds or brand name clothes because somehow they believe it's their moral responsibility to support those companies. Frankly I think it's silly to have such an elitist attitude, let competition and the free market do it's thing.

[S14DB]

I have been looking at counterfeit fashion as it seems to be the closest to counterfeit parts. With the eBay and the Chinese knockoffs.

Counterfeit Chic (http://www.counterfeitchic.com/) Seems to have some good cases that draw parallels.

Seems like you can live and die by: U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

[g6civcx]

It just seems like if a company is going to make a copy of someone's work, then they should have to have their permission, and give the originator credit for it.

That's plagiarism. AFAIK, plagrism is not illegal. Infringement is illegal.

I understand that the system, like any system, is flawed.

The US patent system is the most robust legal system anywhere in the world. There are so many pending cases on the Supreme Court that could shake the system.

Within the past year, what I do has changed at least 3 times based on recent precedential court decisions, and they're major changes, like extremely different from what we have been doing for years. You do not find that in any other legal system.



It just comes down to my morals and ethics, though. I know what they are doing is wrong.

I'll pose the same question to you. When you draw a conclusion, you have facts, and you your moral values as the premise. You then apply your moral values to the facts and draw a conclusion.

For example, fact, speed limit = 65, you drive = 150, speed kills.

Moral value = kiling people is bad. Conclusion: 150 >> 65 = risk killing people = you are a bad person.

These questions are stilled unanswered?

1) What did Veilside actually invent, and what did Veilside "borrow" from others before them? We know that technology progresses incrementally. What did Veilside actually made and what did they reuse from OEM and other designs?

2) Was there a company Y that actually stole Veilside's design and then sold/publish the design? If X copied from Y, and Y copied from Veilside, that's not so bad.

3) Assuming Veilside did invent something, was what they designed worthy of protection, i.e. was the improvement enough of a leap in technology, or did they just rehashed a known design?

4) Who stole from whom, Veilside and X?


Unfortunately the law is too vague to agree with me.

No, the law is very clear. The facts are vague. Plus we don't have X's side.

I personally think it's unethical to convict someone in the court of public opinion without allowing the convicted person to have their say. This is America, after all. We're allowed to confront our accusers and make our case.

Each party needs to come in with their lawyers and sign an oath. Anybody lies and they all go to jail. We have to go through the discovery process to find all the facts. Then we make an informed opinion.

You may know more of the facts than I do, but I am not provileged to your knowledge. Perhaps my opinion will be different if I knew more of the facts?

I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

It's really a dry topic. Nobody really cares except for the people who are personally affected.

Nice to see some people actually get worked up over something that's really dry and boring :kiss:

[g6civcx]

I did not mention who I work for in this thread at all.
That is not the approach I am coming from.

I'm not going to try and explain anymore the point I was trying to make.
It had NOTHING to do with VeilSide.

I never knew who you were working for nor do I care.

Everyone read what I say carefully:

Zilvia is NOt a grievance forum.

Zilvia is public to view, but private to post (you have to register and the mods have to patrol your posts).

You are allowed free speech; however, there is a difference between free speech and libel/slander: Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel)

If a private member posts libelous/slanderous speech on a public forum for all to view, Zilvia itself becomes responsible for its contents.

The person being defamed then can bring in a federal injunction and shut down this whole server, and sue the site owner in federal court for a lot of money, and will probably win.

The other attorneys well versed in criminal and civil prosecution can chime in.


There are a couple of solutions:

1) You can bash anyone you want, but make sure you don't use their name.

2) Mods can ban you for fear of bringing legal liability to Zilvia.

3) Mods have to be vigilant and watch out for name bashing, and prune where appropriate.

4) Make posting public without requiring registration.

5) Close down the server.


I hope everyone can exercise self-control and follow ThatGuy's example and do (1) above. 2-5 are just really stupid.

[g6civcx]

You and I imagine your company are upset about other's copying your designs, or making something very similar. Did Veilside take steps to protect their designs? If so, why are they not taking legal action against those making the copies? If not, how can they be upset about others copying their work when they took no steps to protect themselves? In essence, we all know this industry is a cut throat place and if you don't protect yourself and your intellectual or physical property, you might as well call it quits.

We should not bring his company into this because it's not clear if he's speaking in a personal capacity, or representing a corporate interest.

I would really like to have company X come in and give their side.

I really hate bashing people who are not here to defend themselves.

[g6civcx]

Seems like you can live and die by: U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Fair use doesn't cover using the exact copyright for profits. It does, however, protect research. If you take an existing copyright, R&D and come up with something different, that's perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged.

If the copyright holder complains, you then turn it around and ask why they didn't design the improvement on their own, especially when they had the copyright way way before anyone else? Wouldn't that be an advantage?

Basically if you don't improve your own product and someone does, you dropped the ball. You should always be improving on your own work for the consumer's benefit.


Why the hell are fashion people copyrighting stuff anyway? There's no legal protection other than the picture itself. That stuff needs to be patented.

[ThatGuy]

We can use a "Company X" stand-in that has no affiliation with Zilvia.

[redacted]

Pictures from other sites, photoshopped pictures, and slight changes in company names (DRFT sold as DFTR), etc. etc. etc.

[OptionZero]

Again, all this talk of morals and ethics strikes me as inappropriate at best, obnoxious at worst.

Why does "this company" have a problem with copies? Because it diminishes the market for their own goods thereby diminishing their own profit margin

Let's make it very clear we aren't talking about some dreary eyed situation where poor helpless old lady got her purse stolen; the real issue is whether one company's intellectual property has been infringed upon and the real topic is what are the rules regarding infringement

The law is cold but it is objective; we all know what the rules are and they are supposed to apply equally across the board. This is what our society is built on.

Ethics, however, sound great, but are highly subjective. It would be impossible to run any large society, much less a large, pluralistic society based on individual ethics for the very reason that everyone has different ethics. We might disagree a little or we might disagree alot, but the point is that we rarely agree perfectly.

Thats why we have law and thats why I find anyone who wants to argue that point solely based on their "ethical" view either shortsighted or just plain stubborn.

[g6civcx]

We can use a "Company X" stand-in that has no affiliation with Zilvia.

[redacted]

Pictures from other sites, photoshopped pictures, and slight changes in company names (DRFT sold as DFTR), etc. etc. etc.

Please don't bring up any specific name or URL in this discussion for legal reasons.

If you have pictures you personally took of Company X's products, then that's ok because it's your own personal work product.

Otherwise please edit your post.

[stiizy]

Yo what's going on in here??????

Shit is crazy.......

[iwishiwas-all*]

Look, I know this post is going to rub you along with just about every inch of Phlip the wrong way, but unfortunately I do not thing that your law argument really flies in the real world.
On paper everything you say is true, and since you went to lawschool you prob know it all to be true also.

With that being said here is the other side, in its crude, vulgar, and uncut truth.

Now, unrelated to your law books and your work experience, I am going to tell you the failure in your "spend less money on r&d and/or steal a blatant design while changing one minute detail" argument, from an engineering and ethical standpoint, which is something "mr. lawyer" needs to hear.

I am a mechanical engineering student in my 3rd year of undergrad. I, along with hundreds of thousands of engineering students spend 4 years+ of hell to learn tons of math, science and other mechanical specialties in order to create (properly) just about everything you take for granted sir. Now some of our work is 100% innovation, others are just an improvement upon a previous design. I will get to that later.

Now what we learn in school is how to engineer things, PROPERLY. Some people may not do that even with a degree but thats what we are being taught to do.

With that being said let me propose this to you.
Since you think R&D is just a hypothetical number, what happens when that number approaches zero?
(think limits people, lol engineering joke)
ACCIDENTS. thats what.

Think about the amount of R&D that goes into a properly designed product, lets start at the top.

That engineer had to go to school for atleast 4 and possibly upwards of 8 years for school, He or she paid outrageous amounts of money to learn physics, chemistry, cad design, material properties, thermo dynamics, proper mechanical design and other things that will make your fucking head spin, in order to design the product.
Everything learned is put to use in unison in order to create something. That something is a final product of months, even years of constant testing and checking. So lets say I have widget I am creating. This widget is used by humans in some workplace and is placed under certain stresses (thermal, conventional or by other means). In order to create the widget properly I take careful time to pick my materials down to the grades of precious metals or the thickness of the insulations in order to provide a safe and properly working mechanism.
I (or my hypothetical company) may buy a specific hydraulic press in order to test the strength of the widget, or high temperature furnaces to test its resistance to heat. These machines cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars.
We do this so when the product hits your hands it A) works properly for its specified lifetime and B) does not harm the consumer or other mechanisms it is made to work with, among other personal reasons.
So lets cut corners here, shall we?
Ok, forget hiring that materials engineer to pick out the proper grade of Aluminum for your cars doors. What happens when you get in an accident?
Will your dead ass still be happy that you bought the cheaper car made by the company who did their r&d half off to support your craving for a cheaper price ceiling?
I sure fucking hope so cause you deserve it.

Now what does Freddy or Bodykits unlimited do that is so wrong?
They copy designs but they don’t copy craftsmanship or R&D. This is for sure. Have you not heard the stories about excessive failures in these “knockoff” parts which you yourself cannot dub to be a knockoff because of your chicken and egg argument. Unfortunately for you, this is not Darwin vs Christ.

There were people who came before, they created innovative products, they put time into those products and engineered every aspect of them in order to create a safe product that could be utilized by a consumer.

Now buy that knock off part, that Cherry brand automobile, that freddy intercooler. What happens when your tierod snaps because the copy cat company didn’t put any r&d in and didn’t fail to realize that his aluminum grade was no where near strong enough to take the loads produced by a cars steering system? It breaks, you crash, and you injure or possibly kill yourself.
I will tell you the original manufacturer looked into those loads, with their 100k $ tensile stress machine, and their million dollar r&d.
They did that so you the consumer could operate your car correctly and safely.
Look every business is into optimizing costs. This only goes so far. The difference, which you fail to see, is that that threshold can only be crossed by taking dangerous steps in development which can only lead to problems.

Now you bring up this greddy cast oilpan and you ask, “oh how do we not know that freddy was first and they made the oilpan and greddy copied it. (this has to do somely with the optimized pan which greddy sells, not the fucking first oilpan ever made or whatever) Well you can tell easily. If they made a true copy, they would have the exact same materials, same build process, same strengths and finishings. But OH WAIT. THEN THEY MUST COST THE SAME!?!?!?! Well good for you, they don’t have the same materials, strengths and finishings. The freddy one has the cheaper aluminum, which costs half the price, but oh wait wasn’t tested for these heat loads like the greddy one. The freddy one was used in a cheaper cast method which cut a 3rd off the price of manufacturing… too bad that method fails in high heat enviroments.
So the consumer gets their cheaper product. Then they potentially get hurt or injured, start screaming bloody murder when they are amputee pacients and shit after a accident which they did not cause, but one of your “jo blows with 6 beers” “engineering services” did.
Looks like Eisenstein wins, buddy.
So promote the offshoots of knockoffs, and what have you its fine with me. Real consumers who know what a proper product, company, even mindsets will still try to purchase the proper piece.
When you say its cool for these companies to continue to operate, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW, all you do is leave the door open for bad things to happen.
Hold that on your concise.
I don’t care if I have grammatical or spelling errors so don’t bother.

[Agent_S13]

Interesting post.

Its presented very objectively, with the law presented and reviewed.

I guess my question is how pharmaceutical companies have a "patent" that actually pays for their R&D costs? I believe its 20 yrs and then its open up to anyone to recreate the product and sell a generic version (aspirin).

Is that a separate patent/copyright law that specifically allows those drug companies to benefit from their development costs (or R&D costs) due to lobbying for the US Patent System? Can this be applied to any type of manufacturing infrastructure?

Unfortunately, morals and a "sense of righteousness" will play a part in this discussion but fairness is subjective. While it should have no place in the interpretation/application of laws --- they do seem to find their way in --- or at least provoke those emotions by those who read about it and react.

To be fair, I understand the arguments made but I don't necessarily agree with it being "fair" to vendors -- and I don't think I'm wrong to have my emotions play a part in my opinion. :)

-Aaron
'91 240sx coupe

[S14DB]

Interesting post.

Its presented very objectively, with the law presented and reviewed.

I guess my question is how pharmaceutical companies have a "patent" that actually pays for their R&D costs? I believe its 20 yrs and then its open up to anyone to recreate the product and sell a generic version (aspirin).

Is that a separate patent/copyright law that specifically allows those drug companies to benefit from their development costs (or R&D costs) due to lobbying for the US Patent System? Can this be applied to any type of manufacturing infrastructure?

Unfortunately, morals and a "sense of righteousness" will play a part in this discussion but fairness is subjective. While it should have no place in the interpretation/application of laws --- they do seem to find their way in --- or at least provoke those emotions by those who read about it and react.

To be fair, I understand the arguments made but I don't necessarily agree with it being "fair" to vendors -- and I don't think I'm wrong to have my emotions play a part in my opinion. :)

-Aaron
'91 240sx coupe
Generic drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug)



80% of new businesses fail but only 10% of established business fail every year. Fit's in with the OPINIONS in this thread.

[yudalicious]

I think the discussion here is talking about whether or not it's right to have a company copy a design and produce a product that is similar in function but cheaper by foregoing the R&D costs. I don't think anyone is here to defend lookalike products that lack function or safety and may be dangerous to the consumer, let's just make that clear.

Look, I know this post is going to rub you along with just about every inch of Phlip the wrong way, but unfortunately I do not thing that your law argument really flies in the real world.
On paper everything you say is true, and since you went to lawschool you prob know it all to be true also.

With that being said here is the other side, in its crude, vulgar, and uncut truth.

Now, unrelated to your law books and your work experience, I am going to tell you the failure in your "spend less money on r&d and/or steal a blatant design while changing one minute detail" argument, from an engineering and ethical standpoint, which is something "mr. lawyer" needs to hear.

I am a mechanical engineering student in my 3rd year of undergrad. I, along with hundreds of thousands of engineering students spend 4 years+ of hell to learn tons of math, science and other mechanical specialties in order to create (properly) just about everything you take for granted sir. Now some of our work is 100% innovation, others are just an improvement upon a previous design. I will get to that later.

Now what we learn in school is how to engineer things, PROPERLY. Some people may not do that even with a degree but thats what we are being taught to do.

With that being said let me propose this to you.
Since you think R&D is just a hypothetical number, what happens when that number approaches zero?
(think limits people, lol engineering joke)
ACCIDENTS. thats what.

Think about the amount of R&D that goes into a properly designed product, lets start at the top.

That engineer had to go to school for atleast 4 and possibly upwards of 8 years for school, He or she paid outrageous amounts of money to learn physics, chemistry, cad design, material properties, thermo dynamics, proper mechanical design and other things that will make your fucking head spin, in order to design the product.
Everything learned is put to use in unison in order to create something. That something is a final product of months, even years of constant testing and checking. So lets say I have widget I am creating. This widget is used by humans in some workplace and is placed under certain stresses (thermal, conventional or by other means). In order to create the widget properly I take careful time to pick my materials down to the grades of precious metals or the thickness of the insulations in order to provide a safe and properly working mechanism.
I (or my hypothetical company) may buy a specific hydraulic press in order to test the strength of the widget, or high temperature furnaces to test its resistance to heat. These machines cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars.
We do this so when the product hits your hands it A) works properly for its specified lifetime and B) does not harm the consumer or other mechanisms it is made to work with, among other personal reasons.
So lets cut corners here, shall we?
Ok, forget hiring that materials engineer to pick out the proper grade of Aluminum for your cars doors. What happens when you get in an accident?
Will your dead ass still be happy that you bought the cheaper car made by the company who did their r&d half off to support your craving for a cheaper price ceiling?
I sure fucking hope so cause you deserve it.

Now what does Freddy or Bodykits unlimited do that is so wrong?
They copy designs but they don’t copy craftsmanship or R&D. This is for sure. Have you not heard the stories about excessive failures in these “knockoff” parts which you yourself cannot dub to be a knockoff because of your chicken and egg argument. Unfortunately for you, this is not Darwin vs Christ.

There were people who came before, they created innovative products, they put time into those products and engineered every aspect of them in order to create a safe product that could be utilized by a consumer.

Now buy that knock off part, that Cherry brand automobile, that freddy intercooler. What happens when your tierod snaps because the copy cat company didn’t put any r&d in and didn’t fail to realize that his aluminum grade was no where near strong enough to take the loads produced by a cars steering system? It breaks, you crash, and you injure or possibly kill yourself.
I will tell you the original manufacturer looked into those loads, with their 100k $ tensile stress machine, and their million dollar r&d.
They did that so you the consumer could operate your car correctly and safely.
Look every business is into optimizing costs. This only goes so far. The difference, which you fail to see, is that that threshold can only be crossed by taking dangerous steps in development which can only lead to problems.

Now you bring up this greddy cast oilpan and you ask, “oh how do we not know that freddy was first and they made the oilpan and greddy copied it. (this has to do somely with the optimized pan which greddy sells, not the fucking first oilpan ever made or whatever) Well you can tell easily. If they made a true copy, they would have the exact same materials, same build process, same strengths and finishings. But OH WAIT. THEN THEY MUST COST THE SAME!?!?!?! Well good for you, they don’t have the same materials, strengths and finishings. The freddy one has the cheaper aluminum, which costs half the price, but oh wait wasn’t tested for these heat loads like the greddy one. The freddy one was used in a cheaper cast method which cut a 3rd off the price of manufacturing… too bad that method fails in high heat enviroments.
So the consumer gets their cheaper product. Then they potentially get hurt or injured, start screaming bloody murder when they are amputee pacients and shit after a accident which they did not cause, but one of your “jo blows with 6 beers” “engineering services” did.
Looks like Eisenstein wins, buddy.
So promote the offshoots of knockoffs, and what have you its fine with me. Real consumers who know what a proper product, company, even mindsets will still try to purchase the proper piece.
When you say its cool for these companies to continue to operate, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW, all you do is leave the door open for bad things to happen.
Hold that on your concise.
I don’t care if I have grammatical or spelling errors so don’t bother.

[iwishiwas-all*]

I think the discussion here is talking about whether or not it's right to have a company copy a design and produce a product that is similar in function but cheaper by foregoing the R&D costs. I don't think anyone is here to defend lookalike products that lack function or safety and may be dangerous to the consumer, let's just make that clear.

you need to read civics "other posts" in this thread.

[atom]

Again, all this talk of morals and ethics strikes me as inappropriate at best, obnoxious at worst.

Why does "this company" have a problem with copies? Because it diminishes the market for their own goods thereby diminishing their own profit margin

Let's make it very clear we aren't talking about some dreary eyed situation where poor helpless old lady got her purse stolen; the real issue is whether one company's intellectual property has been infringed upon and the real topic is what are the rules regarding infringement


Why is it inappropriate? Is there no such thing as business ethics? Every industry whether it be advertising, fashion, writing, etc. has it's own set of unwritten rules and while breaking said rules may not be illegal, they are surely frowned upon for very good reasons. S14DB made a good point by bringing up fashion, there are many unwritten rules about fashion to prevent competitors from cannibalizing the entire industry.


The law is cold but it is objective; we all know what the rules are and they are supposed to apply equally across the board. This is what our society is built on.

Ethics, however, sound great, but are highly subjective. It would be impossible to run any large society, much less a large, pluralistic society based on individual ethics for the very reason that everyone has different ethics. We might disagree a little or we might disagree alot, but the point is that we rarely agree perfectly.

Thats why we have law and thats why I find anyone who wants to argue that point solely based on their "ethical" view either shortsighted or just plain stubborn.

While aruging what is "right" based on morals/ethics may be wrong, I'd say it's equally obtuse to base it solely on the law as well. That's just not how society works.

I'm not gonna argue the legal aspect because I mostly agree with the OP.

I think it's interesting that Veilside (http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/VeilsideCoLtd.html) for instance has a couple patents statring from about 2001. When did knockoffs start becoming a problem? Around the same time, maybe a year or so earlier from my recollection. So you can't say companies haven't tried to protect themselves.

[Agent_S13]

Generic drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug)



80% of new businesses fail but only 10% of established business fail every year. Fit's in with the OPINIONS in this thread.

Thanks S14DB +rep for you.

This explains the process and how the company can continue to stay profitable... and fits in with OP's original posts about market strategy to continue to be profitable

i.e. Sell design to cheaper manufacturers, watch the standards and extend the life of the product.

So my initial question seem to be the 1st part of the problem, or what GReddy is going through now -- they didn't take the next step which seems to be what the drug companies already figured out.

-Aaron
'91 240sx coupe

[g6civcx]

Look, I know this post is going to rub you along with just about every inch of Phlip the wrong way

All opinions welcome provided you are civil and play nice.

I do not thing that your law argument really flies in the real world.
On paper everything you say is true, and since you went to lawschool you prob know it all to be true also.

With that being said here is the other side, in its crude, vulgar, and uncut truth.

Now, unrelated to your law books and your work experience, I am going to tell you the failure in your "spend less money on r&d and/or steal a blatant design while changing one minute detail" argument, from an engineering and ethical standpoint, which is something "mr. lawyer" needs to hear.

I am a mechanical engineering student in my 3rd year of undergrad. I, along with hundreds of thousands of engineering students spend 4 years+ of hell to learn tons of math, science and other mechanical specialties in order to create (properly) just about everything you take for granted sir. Now some of our work is 100% innovation, others are just an improvement upon a previous design. I will get to that later.

Now what we learn in school is how to engineer things, PROPERLY. Some people may not do that even with a degree but thats what we are being taught to do.

I don't know what your background has to do with the merits of your arguments, but I'll respond.

I hold an undergrad degree in computer engineering. I also hold an undergrad degre in business management. I also hold a degree in sociology.

I have started 2 startup companies. I extensive management experience on the executive level. I was junior manager for a team of 50 executives managing over $100 billion of capital expenditures. I have brought a product from conception to market and support for my clients.

I have worked in patent on all sides, as applicant, as prosecutor, as advocate for all sides. I have over 5 years of experience in legals. I have worked over 500 cases involving major Fortune 500 companies.

I live and work in the real world every day. On any given day, there are easily $4-500k of work on my docket, and that's a slow day.

I have been beat up, spat on, abused, fired, rehired, cursed at, etc. every day of my professional career by many people.

What does all that mean? Absolutely nothing. I believe that the merits of the arguments stand for themselves. That's why I do not feel necessary to bring anything up.

Now let me ask you this. Given my experience and your experience, who is truly living in the real world and who is living in academia? Whatever the answer is, I don't judge. I'm just responding to your accusation.

With that being said let me propose this to you.
Since you think R&D is just a hypothetical number, what happens when that number approaches zero?

I respectfully disagree. Nowhere did I say R&D is a hypothetical number. To clarify, from a business management objective, you have to maximise returns on R&D dollars to maximise utility.

return on investment = results / cost

If the results do not justify the cost, you just wasted money.

When you start working, you'll realise that you have stakeholders that you have to please, and you just can't R&D to infinity to get small incremental improvements. You have to get the ROI ratio just right to maximise returns for your investors.

(think limits people, lol engineering joke)

I also minored in engineering mathematics so I get it.

ACCIDENTS. thats what.

Not true all the time. It depends on the product and service. Some items just don't matter and should be made as cheaply as possible. Other items need to be as safe as possible within a budgeted cost.

Think about the amount of R&D that goes into a properly designed product, lets start at the top.

Again, when you start working you will realise you have to stick to your budget. You can't R&D to infinity.

That engineer had to go to school for atleast 4 and possibly upwards of 8 years for school, He or she paid outrageous amounts of money to learn physics, chemistry, cad design, material properties, thermo dynamics, proper mechanical design and other things that will make your fucking head spin, in order to design the product.
Everything learned is put to use in unison in order to create something. That something is a final product of months, even years of constant testing and checking. So lets say I have widget I am creating. This widget is used by humans in some workplace and is placed under certain stresses (thermal, conventional or by other means). In order to create the widget properly I take careful time to pick my materials down to the grades of precious metals or the thickness of the insulations in order to provide a safe and properly working mechanism.

You're preaching to the choir. I currently hold a professional engineering certification in my state.

Thanks for the refresher though.

I (or my hypothetical company) may buy a specific hydraulic press in order to test the strength of the widget, or high temperature furnaces to test its resistance to heat. These machines cost HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars.
We do this so when the product hits your hands it A) works properly for its specified lifetime and B) does not harm the consumer or other mechanisms it is made to work with, among other personal reasons.
So lets cut corners here, shall we?
Ok, forget hiring that materials engineer to pick out the proper grade of Aluminum for your cars doors. What happens when you get in an accident?
Will your dead ass still be happy that you bought the cheaper car made by the company who did their r&d half off to support your craving for a cheaper price ceiling?
I sure fucking hope so cause you deserve it.

Respectfully, why are you making the decision to use metal doors vs. aluminium doors? Shouldn't that be left to the consumer to decide?

Some people will want metal doors, like I. Others can't barely afford a car so will want aluminium. Still others will want no door.

Please say why you have made a decision for consumer when each consumer wants something different?


Now what does Freddy or Bodykits unlimited do that is so wrong?
They copy designs but they don’t copy craftsmanship or R&D. This is for sure.

I strongly disagree. We are NOT sure. This is not a court of law and we do not have evidence and testimony from both sides.

X and Y are not here to present their side and show you their engineering specs.

You are convicting before seeing the evidence.

I have never said if X and Y are wrong or not wrong. I simply said that I reserve judgement until all the facts are known. If the facts support your position then I agree with you. If not then I don't support you.

You have convicted people without hearing their sides or presenting facts. That is not ethical.

Have you not heard the stories about excessive failures in these “knockoff” parts which you yourself cannot dub to be a knockoff because of your chicken and egg argument. Unfortunately for you, this is not Darwin vs Christ.

I do not understand the scope of your argument. Please rephrase and post statistics to support your assertion.

There were people who came before, they created innovative products, they put time into those products and engineered every aspect of them in order to create a safe product that could be utilized by a consumer.

Now buy that knock off part, that Cherry brand automobile, that freddy intercooler. What happens when your tierod snaps because the copy cat company didn’t put any r&d in and didn’t fail to realize that his aluminum grade was no where near strong enough to take the loads produced by a cars steering system? It breaks, you crash, and you injure or possibly kill yourself.
I will tell you the original manufacturer looked into those loads, with their 100k $ tensile stress machine, and their million dollar r&d.
They did that so you the consumer could operate your car correctly and safely.

These are all facts but I do not see how this is relevant to anything in this thread.

Look every business is into optimizing costs. This only goes so far. The difference, which you fail to see, is that that threshold can only be crossed by taking dangerous steps in development which can only lead to problems.

That's the job of the government to protect consumers from unsafe products. That's outside of the scope of this thread.

Now you bring up this greddy cast oilpan and you ask, “oh how do we not know that freddy was first and they made the oilpan and greddy copied it. (this has to do somely with the optimized pan which greddy sells, not the fucking first oilpan ever made or whatever) Well you can tell easily. If they made a true copy, they would have the exact same materials, same build process, same strengths and finishings. But OH WAIT. THEN THEY MUST COST THE SAME!?!?!?! Well good for you, they don’t have the same materials, strengths and finishings. The freddy one has the cheaper aluminum, which costs half the price, but oh wait wasn’t tested for these heat loads like the greddy one. The freddy one was used in a cheaper cast method which cut a 3rd off the price of manufacturing… too bad that method fails in high heat enviroments.
So the consumer gets their cheaper product. Then they potentially get hurt or injured, start screaming bloody murder when they are amputee pacients and shit after a accident which they did not cause, but one of your “jo blows with 6 beers” “engineering services” did.
Looks like Eisenstein wins, buddy.

I do not see how this is relevant to anything I've said. I never advocated stealing other people's intellectual property. To the contrary, I advocate protecting people's intellectual property

So promote the offshoots of knockoffs, and what have you its fine with me.

Again, make sure you are addressing the arguments, not something you made up in your mind that can easily be beaten down, i.e. strawmen.

Where did I promote or encourage promoting "offshoots of knockoffs"? To the contrary, I said people who violate other people's intelletual property should be squashed and put in jail.

Real consumers who know what a proper product, company, even mindsets will still try to purchase the proper piece.
When you say its cool for these companies to continue to operate, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW, all you do is leave the door open for bad things to happen.

I respectfully disagree. Again, the point of this thread is to outline the progression of technology and law from the beginning of the US Constitution to where it is today.

I do not advocate violating intellectual property. No. I advocate protecting intellectual property as a constitutional right.

I also advocate innovation and progression in all areas of technology.

I do not see how your comments are relevant to all my points.


My point is simply this: if you disrespect the legal system, the legal system disrespect you. That's the bottom line.

If you pay your dues and try to work with the system, then I will do my best to help you.

But if you say "f* patents. I don't need that s*", then you are at the mercy of the open market. I have no sympathy for you. After all, you brought it on yourself.

If you are unsuccessful with your patent and fail repeatedly, then talk to me. I can help.

[g6civcx]

I guess my question is how pharmaceutical companies have a "patent" that actually pays for their R&D costs? I believe its 20 yrs and then its open up to anyone to recreate the product and sell a generic version (aspirin).

Good. Now we're getting into the meat of it.

A patent is a deed to a piece of intellectual property, like a deed for a house.
Patents protect ideas that are processes, machines, articles of manufactures, and foodstuff. There are also protection for plant and ornamental design.

Patent term is usually 20 years, but can be adjusted based on need: 2701 Patent Term [R-2] - 2700 Patent Terms and Extensions (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2700_2701.htm)

After the patent expires, the patented technology becomes public and anyone can make generic drugs.

Is that a separate patent/copyright law that specifically allows those drug companies to benefit from their development costs (or R&D costs) due to lobbying for the US Patent System?

Other than patent protection, there is legally nothing a drug company can do.

Copyrights are a different class of intellectual property, and applies to stuff you can check out at the library.

Can this be applied to any type of manufacturing infrastructure?

What is "this"? I assume you mean the patent process.

Yes and no. Patents only protect machines, process, articles of manufactures, food, plant, and design.

So if your "manufacturing infrastructure" has something that falls into one of these statutory classes, and provided your invention is new and nonobvious, then yes, you deserve a patent.

Unfortunately, morals and a "sense of righteousness" will play a part in this discussion but fairness is subjective. While it should have no place in the interpretation/application of laws --- they do seem to find their way in --- or at least provoke those emotions by those who read about it and react.

To be fair, I understand the arguments made but I don't necessarily agree with it being "fair" to vendors -- and I don't think I'm wrong to have my emotions play a part in my opinion. :)


You are absolutely correct. The system is not "fair" to vendors because the system respects vendors, believe it or not.

Vendors are smarter and have more money than the typical consumer. Therefore, the system protects the consumer and leaves vendors to fend for themselves.

I am not saying the system is right or wrong. I am simply saying the way it is in an objective manner with no bias towards either side.

I didn't design the system, nor am I defending the system. I wasn't alive when the Constitution was signed.

Please don't vent your frustration on me. Write your Congressperson.

[g6civcx]

So my initial question seem to be the 1st part of the problem, or what GReddy is going through now -- they didn't take the next step which seems to be what the drug companies already figured out.


There are many business strategies a company can employ to stay in business.

It depends on the bussiness fortitude of management, and of course capital.

My only criticism of this particular vendor is their inability to secure patent protection for their relatively simple mechanical design. I think this is what people cannot accept.

[g6civcx]

While aruging what is "right" based on morals/ethics may be wrong, I'd say it's equally obtuse to base it solely on the law as well. That's just not how society works.

While I agree, I have asserted very little of my own personal ethical values in this thread. I tried to be objective based on the facts.

Law is fact. You can find them in law books. Yes we can argue over what they mean, but they're written in books.

Ethics is not fact, but is relative based on each person's individual tenets. Ethics is not easily known, not consistent, and not universal.

I agree this thread is obtuse; however, the purpose of this thread is to be obtuse. I made no claim that my ethics were superior to everyone else's.

I think it's interesting that Veilside (http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/VeilsideCoLtd.html) for instance has a couple patents statring from about 2001. When did knockoffs start becoming a problem? Around the same time, maybe a year or so earlier from my recollection. So you can't say companies haven't tried to protect themselves.

THANK YOU for posting facts. I will respond after I have a chance to review the facts.

[OptionZero]

Why is it inappropriate? Is there no such thing as business ethics? Every industry whether it be advertising, fashion, writing, etc. has it's own set of unwritten rules and while breaking said rules may not be illegal, they are surely frowned upon for very good reasons. S14DB made a good point by bringing up fashion, there are many unwritten rules about fashion to prevent competitors from cannibalizing the entire industry.



While aruging what is "right" based on morals/ethics may be wrong, I'd say it's equally obtuse to base it solely on the law as well. That's just not how society works.

I'm not gonna argue the legal aspect because I mostly agree with the OP.

I think it's interesting that Veilside (http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/VeilsideCoLtd.html) for instance has a couple patents statring from about 2001. When did knockoffs start becoming a problem? Around the same time, maybe a year or so earlier from my recollection. So you can't say companies haven't tried to protect themselves.

I say the interjection of ethical "right/wrong" is inappropriate here because this thread is about the legal framework for intellectual property. If you are discussing what an individual actor in a specific situation should do, then sure, he can have all the ethical considerations he wants. But we are discussing a broader topic here, and when individuals here are throwing moral absolutes around with such authority...i think it's inappropriate. To put it lightly.

[g6civcx]

I think it's interesting that Veilside (http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/VeilsideCoLtd.html) for instance has a couple patents statring from about 2001. When did knockoffs start becoming a problem? Around the same time, maybe a year or so earlier from my recollection.

Ok thanks again for posting all that. It looks like Veilside has design patents on several of their designs.

I'll do a more in-depth search later just to amuse my curiosity.

So you can't say companies haven't tried to protect themselves.

I respectfully disagree. I don't believe anyone in this thread has ever said companies do or do not protect themselves either way.

I said, IF they protect themselves, then we should sympathise and help them. IF they don't, then they don't deserve our sympathy.

I personally do not know what each and every company does. Therefore I cannot say what company does or doesn't do.

[atom]

While I agree, I have asserted very little of my own personal ethical values in this thread. I tried to be objective based on the facts.



But you ultimately come to the conclusion


In conclusion, I personally do not think that we should be beating up vendors who are sponsoring this forum. They're not breaking any law, and are actually doing what they're supposed to be doing by putting companies that disrespect the intellectual property system out of business.

That's where I disagree. If you are going to come to that kind of conclusion, your personal ethics SHOULD be a factor. The issue of knockoffs (replicas, reproductions, whatever people want to call it) encompasses more than simply the legality of the situation. But that's just my opinion.

[g6civcx]

That's where I disagree. If you are going to come to that kind of conclusion, your personal ethics SHOULD be a factor. The issue of knockoffs (replicas, reproductions, whatever people want to call it) encompasses more than simply the legality of the situation. But that's just my opinion.

You don't understand what I said. I ask that people not do it on Zilvia's bandwidth. The vendors broke no law. We legally have no reason to say bad things about them.

If you want to PM people and organise a Web site to badmouth people, please feel free to exercise your free speech.

Do what makes you happy. Just don't do it here and drive away sponsors.