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

lol.
You have got to be kidding me.

__________________
http://bhworld.wordpress.com/

DOOK

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?

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.

__________________
<------ Grumpy Old Asshole
MY REVIEW THREAD: Ltdnismoracer4=DOOK
#/f/showthread.p...ltdnismoracer4

yudalicious

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 Seems to have some good cases that draw parallels.

Seems like you can live and die by: U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

__________________
Comments should be taken as Opinions not as Statements of Fact

g6civcx

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

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.



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?


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?

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

g6civcx

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

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

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

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.

__________________
"Speak softly,..." -Pres. Teddy Roosevelt
"Be polite, be professional, ..." -Gen. James Mattis

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

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.

__________________
IG @gabednconfused
https://www.youtube.com/user/gabedm

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

Generic drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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

__________________
Comments should be taken as Opinions not as Statements of Fact

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.

iwishiwas-all*

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

__________________
IG @gabednconfused
https://www.youtube.com/user/gabedm

atom

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 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

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

All opinions welcome provided you are civil and play nice.

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.

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.

I also minored in engineering mathematics so I get it.

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.

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

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

Thanks for the refresher though.

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?


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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

OptionZero

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

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.

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

But you ultimately come to the conclusion

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

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.