strobbekoen wrote:I will repeat : patents exist to allow innovation.
You can only patent what you have "innovated", so I don't get your argument.
Patents exist to make money from inventions.
Moderator: robbosmans
strobbekoen wrote:I will repeat : patents exist to allow innovation.
SlipperyT wrote:IP theft is still theft.
Copying a whole bike is lame. The so-called difference is not because they are trying to keep it different, but because it's a bad copy job. If they can get original drawings of the Venge, they would not be shy to use it.
SlipperyT wrote:There are many carbon factories in China. Some are good. Many of them suck. Any generalization beyond that simply is dillusional.
Open models can be good, or can be crap.
SlipperyT wrote:Big brands can lose business if they are knocked off heavily, because customers would be pissed if they spend $5K and be mistaken for riding a fake. Some knock-off buyers can also afford higher end stuff (see earlier Di2 FM015).
SlipperyT wrote:This mob-mentality is dangerous.
wassertreter wrote:strobbekoen wrote:I will repeat : patents exist to allow innovation.
You can only patent what you have "innovated", so I don't get your argument.
Patents exist to make money from inventions.
rruff wrote:Leviathan wrote:I frankly don't understand the urge to buy a near-replica of something and try to pass it off as the original... but I'm probably missing the poser gene. Are Pinarello or Specialized suffering because there are cheap replicas of their top frames out there? I think they are. It dilutes the exclusivity of the brand for sure. The posers with lots of money are hesitant to lay down the big $$ when there are all these *poor* posers riding something that looks identical to the untrained eye.
So... basically I think copying a top frame to try and capture the "poor poser" market is lame. But then again the only ones suffering are rich posers... and big companies that can afford it anyway, and won't stop doing what they do. Nobody is missing out on any innovation as far as I can tell.
wassertreter wrote:strobbekoen wrote:I will repeat : patents exist to allow innovation.
You can only patent what you have "innovated", so I don't get your argument.
Patents exist to make money from inventions.
Zigmeister wrote:CharlesM wrote:We keep implying that open mold means the same care and quality of materials is used to stuff the mold...
There's a reason the R5CA is a lot more money than the base r5...
There's a reason the Top Mclaren Venge was 3 times the cost of the standard...
The quality of raw materials and the car in lay up make for massive cost differences in production for the actual reputable brands even in the same mold.
We're also ignoring the fact that molds degrade and get out of spec... Once that happens, the molds for a brand occasionally become "open"...
Visual similarity is creating a facade of quality and brand association way beyond what the reality is...
The busted chinarellos lined with newspaper were a great example...
Sorry, my post is a bit long, bear with me, but this post and some of the things stated are just plain wrong and misguided.
Are you trying to say that ................................................................................................................
jordo99 wrote:I really don't think that the big companies are missing out much on sales of their "top frames". It's the same reason why Oakley and Rolex (as I just mentioned) still sell their products and do very well...However, Rolex and Oakley have it even rougher because their customers have almost nothing to gain from purchasing the real deal whereas bike frames have performance benefits...certainly their watches still tell the same time and their sunglasses still shade your eyes (albeit, there are polarized lens and such that can make a difference...yet a good knockoff would allow a legit lens to be installed in a fake frame/body)
milroy wrote:At the end of the patent term, the invention becomes public property.
rruff wrote:jordo99 wrote:I really don't think that the big companies are missing out much on sales of their "top frames". It's the same reason why Oakley and Rolex (as I just mentioned) still sell their products and do very well...However, Rolex and Oakley have it even rougher because their customers have almost nothing to gain from purchasing the real deal whereas bike frames have performance benefits...certainly their watches still tell the same time and their sunglasses still shade your eyes (albeit, there are polarized lens and such that can make a difference...yet a good knockoff would allow a legit lens to be installed in a fake frame/body)
IMO the real performance difference between fake Rolexes and Oakleys and the real thing is likely no less than the real performance difference between a fake Venge and a real one.
And in all these cases the original company's sales are surely hurt by counterfeits. They aren't going bankrupt, but they are losing some sales. A big reason to spend the money is to gain entrance to an exclusive club... and have everyone aware of it.
tharmor wrote:Is it worth pointing out that I have yet to see anyone post a picture of their OEM build with the name DentFu (etc.) on the frame? It's obvious that no one is necessarily proud of that enough to support the brand name on the bike.
tharmor wrote:Is it worth pointing out that I have yet to see anyone post a picture of their OEM build with the name DentFu (etc.) on the frame? It's obvious that no one is necessarily proud of that enough to support the brand name on the bike.