Interesting post from Wilier on fakes

notfastenough wrote:
the

notfastenough wrote:

the Chinese judicial system would not enforce intellectual property rights, so handing over proprietary designs to a manufacturing outfit there carries obvious and visible risks.

It’s worth noting that a hundred years ago or less, the US didn’t recognise (and so wouldn’t enforce) foreign patents. Prior to that, at least some European nations also had periods of not recognising foreign patents. So… Funnily enough, these periods often correspond with periods of great economic development too.

That said, I think China *does* recognise foreign patents, and I believe it is possible to sue there to enforce your patents, if you really want. What the success rates are, I don’t know.

It’s also worth noting that the Anglo/US/Western patent system is not necessarily a very good system to follow, for innovators or society generally.

.
.

pirnie wrote:Flying Scot

pirnie wrote:

Flying Scot wrote:

Is it churlish to point out that nowhere on the linked document to Wilier say its CHINESE or where they bought it.

Point is, it’s down on every single strength parameter, whilst a similar weight, so it’s just not the same.

a mould is just the cake tin at the end of the day.

Here’s the link to the original press release:

http://www.wilier.com/en/news/beware-fakes-frame

Where they specify they bought it from Aliexpress.com.

I hadn’t expected this to cause so much debate :P

Sorry, the first link to the test sheet didn’t say that.

Many thanks.

Is it churlish to point out
Is it churlish to point out that nowhere on the linked document to Wilier say its CHINESE or where they bought it.

Point is, it’s down on every single strength parameter, whilst a similar weight, so it’s just not the same.

a mould is just the cake tin at the end of the day.

notfastenough wrote:What?

notfastenough wrote:

What? 8}

Living up to your name, eh :))

notfastenough

notfastenough wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Think you (and maybe some other noggins too) missed the point.

Bringing political issues like hacking allegations into a situation like fake bike frames is convoluted and misguided. Ofc that would look like the pot calling the kettle black. That was the point of my post, I was holding a mirror to you.

Holding a mirror to me, my arse. My point was, it’s entirely forseeable that the Chinese judicial system would not enforce intellectual property rights, so handing over proprietary designs to a manufacturing outfit there carries obvious and visible risks.

It’s entirely foreseeable that any judicial system would not enforce intellectual property rights.

That’s why we have, you know, judicial systems :))

MKultra wrote:unconstituted

MKultra wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

MKultra wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

notfastenough wrote:

Crikey has a point. I get that many products and services need to be outsourced and/or offshored to keep the brand company competitive, but if you outsource your proprietary designs to a country famous for a. it’s widespread counterfeiting, and b. evidence that even the state colludes in this practise, with efforts to hack into overseas computer systems being traced to Chinese government sources, can a company really be surprised to then find counterfeit products being made available?

As opposed a country like ours that colludes in mass surveillance of its own citizens including capturing private webcam imagery? Or maybe that’s okay, and it’s our bombing and torturing of overseas nationals in cooked up neo-con war plots that you have issue with? Perhaps you don’t mind that but are opposed to the way we’re run by corporate interests, landed gentry and a bunch of self-serving career politicians ensuring wealth inequality widens?

Take your red scare sanctimony elsewhere please.

It’s got nothing to do with the quite quaint term “Red Scare” it’s to do with the Chinese trying to do business while being at least on the surface Maoists.

They represent a massive economy that manufactures on a global scale, they are acquisitive and they are known to engage in industrial espionage just like we have in the past.

They are no different to countries such as the UK and the US when it comes to wanting to make money, the only twist to that is that a communist state does not recognize patents or copyright, this can cause an interesting dilemma when they then engage in the global market

You taking offence because of your childish black and white view of the world and lack of knowledge of social history is not moving the conversation forward. If you really want to get into political mudslinging I could point out that China provides about 90% of the AK47 rifles used by child soldiers in Africa.

UKIP in 2015 then?

Complete nonsense of course – China does have a patent system and you can enforce foreign patent claims in China.

Calling China surface Maoists either ignores the complex reality of a fluid and contradictory market system, or is meaningless. Probably both.

Were the ‘childish’ and ‘black and white’ view jibes meant to a self-reflecting irony?

And how do you know so much about my education? Where did you study ‘social history’ by the way? Oxbridge Social History PHD or? :))

And yet they engage in industrial espionage and hacking.

This being pointed out caused you to have a flounce and engage in onanistic denouncement of all things British and American in a manner seldom seen outside of the students union lounge of the nearest 6th form college.

Flounce? Do you know what flounce means? :))

And no I didn’t flounce (I’m still here), and no it wasn’t an ‘onanistic denouncement of all things British’ you sensitive Kipling.

I was taking the piss while making the point that bringing politics into an issue like this is hypocritical.

Still waiting to hear about your ‘social history’ education pedigree by the way. Do tell. 😕