Who are the customers for rip-off products?

[Roybot]

^^^ No need for that. But what are the odds that you already comment on every China related thread, are very pro China, and also belong to that German minority who are against Intellectual property rights.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

^^^ No need for that. But what are the odds that you already comment on every China related thread, are very pro China, and also belong to that German minority who are against Intellectual property rights.

Some people win the lottery, some get struck by lightning.

 

[below_freezing]

copying items illegally causes companies and individuals to lose a lot of money each year. Its 2012 and these should stop. Blatantly copying someone else's product with cheaper materials is just stealing.

intellectual property is an artificial construct designed to keep the US on top.

the US had zero respect for intellectual property laws of Britain when they smuggled a cotton gin to the US and illegally made counterfeit copies of it. Incidentally, the fake illegal counterfeit cotton gins of the US fueled slavery.

 

[mahabharath]

I have to come up with better and newer products all the time and not rest on my laurels. That's how comapnies like Dior, Hermés, Gucci, Armani, Rolex, Lange & Söhne, but also Bosch, BMW, Mercedes are successful.

That doesn't make any sense..I agree that companies have to be continuously innovative but are you saying that they have to keep introducing the new products so frequently so much so that fakers can not copy it, and leave the previous products at the mercy of the fakers?

 

[Jade]

copying items illegally causes companies and individuals to lose a lot of money each year. Its 2012 and these should stop. Blatantly copying someone else's product with cheaper materials is just stealing.

Intellectual property rights have to be respected. Violation of IPR stunt innovation and cause losses to economies and people. Violation of IPR is stealing and is a crime

 

[Götterdämmerung]

copying items illegally causes companies and individuals to lose a lot of money each year. Its 2012 and these should stop. Blatantly copying someone else's product with cheaper materials is just stealing.

Keep innovating and you'll make money. People can't steal something from you that you still can use.

 

[scholseys]

intellectual property is an artificial construct designed to keep the US on top.

the US had zero respect for intellectual property laws of Britain when they smuggled a cotton gin to the US and illegally made counterfeit copies of it. Incidentally, the fake illegal counterfeit cotton gins of the US fueled slavery.

what us did, does it make it right? 2 wrongs do not make it right. i am sure if you invented something and had a company revolving around and if someone copied your product exactly using your exact logo you wouldnt be happy. Stop looking at conspiracy to justify what you are doing is right.

 

[livingdead]

intellectual property is an artificial construct designed to keep the US on top.

the US had zero respect for intellectual property laws of Britain when they smuggled a cotton gin to the US and illegally made counterfeit copies of it. Incidentally, the fake illegal counterfeit cotton gins of the US fueled slavery.

Do you oppose intellectual property in principle? Forget US.
Will you be happy if somebody sells "Lonovo" brand laptops, with exactly same letter and font and color.

 

[below_freezing]

what us did, does it make it right? 2 wrongs do not make it right. i am sure if you invented something and had a company revolving around and if someone copied your product exactly using your exact logo you wouldnt be happy. Stop looking at conspiracy to justify what you are doing is right.

who says what is right or wrong? I'm sure the US thought it was 100% right to get cotton gin technology.

Intellectual property is an artificial construct that has no natural meaning. Taken its natural extremes, that would mean every time you read a book, you are stealing intellectual property. If you learn physics, you are stealing the intellectual property of Einstein, Newton and Bohr. The only way to not steal intellectual property is to be illiterate forever.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------

Do you oppose intellectual property in principle? Forget US.
Will you be happy if somebody sells "Lonovo" brand laptops, with exactly same letter and font and color.

i have no problem with that because Lonovo's quality will be inferior and people will naturally gravitate towards Lenovo over Lonovo.

if they want to copy, they're copying the thing after it goes to market and by that time, Lenovo has already moved on to its next project.

the only intellectual property i can possibly support is for literature and artwork, and only to prevent someone from taking an existing work and claiming it as their own, not for copying purposes.

 

[livingdead]

who says what is right or wrong? I'm sure the US thought it was 100% right to get cotton gin technology.

Intellectual property is an artificial construct that has no natural meaning. Taken its natural extremes, that would mean every time you read a book, you are stealing intellectual property. If you learn physics, you are stealing the intellectual property of Einstein, Newton and Bohr. The only way to not steal intellectual property is to be illiterate forever.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------



i have no problem with that because Lonovo's quality will be inferior and people will naturally gravitate towards Lenovo over Lonovo.

if they want to copy, they're copying the thing after it goes to market and by that time, Lenovo has already moved on to its next project.

So your way of opposing intellectual property is to take it to an ridiculously extreme level, and prove it wrong.

Surely there must be a more realistic ground between blatantly copying(stealing) somebody's property and this.
So that both side gets fair due, otherwise why would anybody invest billions of dollar into R&D and brand building.
Wont be everybody(i mean cosumers) be pooer then?

 

[scholseys]

who says what is right or wrong? I'm sure the US thought it was 100% right to get cotton gin technology.

Intellectual property is an artificial construct that has no natural meaning. Taken its natural extremes, that would mean every time you read a book, you are stealing intellectual property. If you learn physics, you are stealing the intellectual property of Einstein, Newton and Bohr. The only way to not steal intellectual property is to be illiterate forever.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------



i have no problem with that because Lonovo's quality will be inferior and people will naturally gravitate towards Lenovo over Lonovo.

if they want to copy, they're copying the thing after it goes to market and by that time, Lenovo has already moved on to its next project.

the only intellectual property i can possibly support is for literature and artwork, and only to prevent someone from taking an existing work and claiming it as their own, not for copying purposes.

thing is those scientists havent copyrighted their teachings or the universities they worked under held rights to those findings and they have made it free for the masses or for the public to read them by buying books, thus its free for us to learn or costs minimal. your communist ideology will never match mine since you think for all the masses i guess and I with my individualitic view point.

 

[livingdead]

who says what is right or wrong? I'm sure the US thought it was 100% right to get cotton gin technology.

Intellectual property is an artificial construct that has no natural meaning. Taken its natural extremes, that would mean every time you read a book, you are stealing intellectual property. If you learn physics, you are stealing the intellectual property of Einstein, Newton and Bohr. The only way to not steal intellectual property is to be illiterate forever.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------



i have no problem with that because Lonovo's quality will be inferior and people will naturally gravitate towards Lenovo over Lonovo.

if they want to copy, they're copying the thing after it goes to market and by that time, Lenovo has already moved on to its next project.

the only intellectual property i can possibly support is for literature and artwork, and only to prevent someone from taking an existing work and claiming it as their own, not for copying purposes.

No, many people will buy it without knowing.
People are ready to spend more for a brand because they rely on it.
I buy lenovo because I understand it stands for quality.
So somebody who is copying it is cheating me.(I am not buying 100s of laptops).

Also, it is cheating lenovo. Because lenovo spent so much money for brand building so that customers feel attracted, and be loyal.
The product is missold as lenovo, that money should have gone to lenovo, for which it was intended.

 

[Jade]

who says what is right or wrong? I'm sure the US thought it was 100% right to get cotton gin technology.

Intellectual property is an artificial construct that has no natural meaning. Taken its natural extremes, that would mean every time you read a book, you are stealing intellectual property. If you learn physics, you are stealing the intellectual property of Einstein, Newton and Bohr. The only way to not steal intellectual property is to be illiterate forever.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------



i have no problem with that because Lonovo's quality will be inferior and people will naturally gravitate towards Lenovo over Lonovo.

if they want to copy, they're copying the thing after it goes to market and by that time, Lenovo has already moved on to its next project.

the only intellectual property i can possibly support is for literature and artwork, and only to prevent someone from taking an existing work and claiming it as their own, not for copying purposes.

You seem to confuse between IPR and area of knowledge. IPR have economic goals, while area of knowledge don't.

 

[fly2012]

A lot of people do including those from rich countries. For instance, Beijing silk street market is famous for selling rip-offs and it is one of the must-go place for a lot of rich westerners as well. (Heck even President Bush went). The branding is more expensive because, well, branding. My American colleague showed off a fake North Face bag from Beijing and said he can buy 10 fake North Face that has fairly good quality and it lasts much longer than one real North Face.

In Shenzhen's famous Huaqiangbei road that sells fake branding cell phones, last time I checked, there was a line of Indian buyers. So don't tell me this "only rural Indians buy the fake stuff" crap. There was no single day you could not find Indian buys there.

I am not for this but as long as there're market for this thing, there're sellers. Of course, cheap knock-offs like SANY don't have buyers, that was probably 20 years ago.

 

[below_freezing]

You seem to confuse between IPR and area of knowledge. IPR have economic goals, while area of knowledge don't.

the design of a transistor is supposedly public knowledge. but it can be easily made a trade secret and patented.

the operation of a diode is taught in all solid state physics classes. but this could easily be patented.

how do you distinguish what is going to be an IPR? Would solid state physics be complete without knowledge of diodes and transistors?

why not patent band theory too and keep that secret?

why not patent the idea of an atom?

why not patent the entire theory of quantum physics, so only Germany can legally use quantum physics?