On the contrary, as a firm believer in the sanctity of copyright I must argue that the copyright laws must be exercised to remain healthy and beneficial to society. In order for copyright law to work there must be a balance between the interests of inventors and the interests of the public. If the public does not push then there will be no balance and everyone will lose. Therefore, it is every consumer's moral responsibility to buy and encourage knockoffs. Let the copyright holders fight for their rights, if they really think it is worth it.

Anything less is downright uncapitalist. You aren't some kind of pinky pink communist are you? :)

A copyright is not a patent, and they protect completely different aspects of a product. Same with a trademark.

:) I hope I didn't get too over the top....

I really like the Brompton design. I think they are very nice bikes. I like the steel frame too. I'd really like the raw laquer one if it had a twistgrip change, mudguards, a rack, a lighting set, a bag to carry it in and the front luggage system - oh - as long as it cost £330 and could be delivered in three days from paying on the internet.

At the time I really wanted one, they had a ludicrous waiting list - I was quoted several weeks, and the damned thing cost about six hundred pounds. I'd have paid it if they could have handed over a bike, but that isn't the way it works. I started looking for second hand ones and found the Merc. I had it within days.

I'm sure that people who have Bromptons love them. I know they do, and I'm glad for them, but if you go to the Bromptontalk Yahoo list, you'll find a right bunch of sychofantic, narcisists and masochistic overpayers who squeel with delight at the long waiting lists and high prices and convince themselves that it's all because the bike is so exclusively wonderful..... 'Beat me harder - harder and charge me double what it's worth.' :)


Dont worry :lol: .... I may not always agree with everyone on here, but this is a MUCH better forum than the Bromptontalk Yahoo list ... which I just find SO boring. The many perspectives and many different folding bike 'champions' here along with a whole spectrum of riders from 2 miles to the shops to 200Miles every w/e (or whatever Jur does :) ) makes for a much more lively discussion.... (even if some of us are cheapskates and promote fakes :lol:)

The moderators are cowards.

The moderators are cowards.

How do you know the clone you bought was legal? "Legal" can be determined only after very costly litigation.
Putting ethics aside for a moment, I had lunch with my attorney yesterday and we spoke about this very topic. (Luckily he's on a retainer.) According to him, as the buyer, there is nothing which compels me legally not to buy a clone. Even if the clone represents stolen intellectual property, if I buy it, it is not as though I am receiving stolen property. Others here have said that the patent on the Strida has expired. If that is the case (and BTW I was unaware of that when spouting my prior pontification), there is nothing to keep a manufacturer from making a clone. Where there would be trouble is if the clone manufacturer or anyone in the sales chain were to represent the clone as an actual Strida.

Then I asked him about the ethics of the situation. He pointed at his Rolex and said, "This cost me $150. Looks great, doesn't it?"

Unfortunately this is a rather utopian position based on, it seems, the assumption that if something is available for purchase, it is "legal". How do you know the clone you bought was legal? "Legal" can be determined only after very costly litigation. The infinged party has to have pockets deep enough to successfully withstand one's opponent's defense. Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent wiper, took decades to get judgements against the patent infringements by the big three automakers. There are illegal copies of DVDs, etc., sold all the time, through traditional outlets. So while you might be able to decide moral questions, I don't see how you can possible decide the legal ones. If I see a clone, I avoid it. That is how I make my decision.

Your thoughts on the matter while admirable are a bit naive. This phenomena, "right" or "wrong" being irrelevant, is the cost of doing business. I work in an industry where it is almost certain our company will be sued about every 5th contract, not because we have any reason to be and we haven't really "lost" in court, but because that's just the business and very common for anyone in it. We build potential legal fees into our cost structure. If you're going to enter the market place as a large manufacturer with a newly patented product, be prepared to have to pay for litigation for it, pure and simple. Legal protection is not a right in this country or the world. It is a service that is contracted and sold, especially true in business. If that is displeasing to someone in business, they need to get out. Many consumers have unrealistic views of how patent litigation takes place. A patent many times can be picked apart by a gifted lawyer if a lousy one prosecuted the patent. Further, only specific pieces of a product can be patented, and again is largely subject to the talent of the attorney. Most budding inventors get the cheapest patent prosecution possible and get half-assed patents that most large legal teams can rip apart in a weekend. Anyway, keep in mind exclaiming an idea is yours is not a black and white process and there is no "base" like in tag to protect you. The patent process is not only designed to protect the inventor, but also to protect the consumer from monopolized industry.

Are there not many different factors in this.

1.) Legal matters. Will the Toll or Police take it and me get fined or have to go to jail?
2.) Moral and Ethics. How it feels and what all those around me feel about it.

Will I be able to sleep well? Will I be able to look myself in the eyes knowing me have bought
a fake? Am I ok with telling relatives and friends and neighbors that I bought a fake?

I bought a SmartBike, which I feel a bit unsure of if it is so ethically ok to do?

Why is that? Cause if you look closely it sure looks like a Handybike with bigger wheels.
If I where the guy designing the Handybike me would feel had by the SmartBike folks.
The small changes SB made is more cosmetic or to make it cheaper to build than HB. SB is steel that rust even new so not good quality? HB use Aluminum

Not a new design nor a really different bike. So on HandyBike's behalf I feel a bit odd.
And I bought it heavily overprised too. 3 to 4 times the price SmartBike in England. :)

Dont worry :lol: .... I may not always agree with everyone on here, but this is a MUCH better forum than the Bromptontalk Yahoo list ... which I just find SO boring. The many perspectives and many different folding bike 'champions' here along with a whole spectrum of riders from 2 miles to the shops to 200Miles every w/e (or whatever Jur does :) ) makes for a much more lively discussion.... (even if some of us are cheapskates and promote fakes :lol:)

I completely agree and yes - I am a cheapskate. That's why after a lifetime of meanness and fakery, I can live on my bank interest and plan the aquisition of more and more fakes.

:lol:

At the end of the day, we'll all be dead and our relatives will have the joy of clearing out and selling all our possessions. Imagine the disappointment of mine when all they can find is fakes and junk. It'll be a lesson to them on the pointlessness of pursuing possessions at the expense of better things.

Are there not many different factors in this.

1.) Legal matters. Will the Toll or Police take it and me get fined or have to go to jail?
2.) Moral and Ethics. How it feels and what all those around me feel about it.

Will I be able to sleep well? Will I be able to look myself in the eyes knowing me have bought
a fake? Am I ok with telling relatives and friends and neighbors that I bought a fake?

I bought a SmartBike, which I feel a bit unsure of if it is so ethically ok to do?

Why is that? Cause if you look closely it sure looks like a Handybike with bigger wheels.
If I where the guy designing the Handybike me would feel had by the SmartBike folks.
The small changes SB made is more cosmetic or to make it cheaper to build than HB. SB is steel that rust even new so not good quality? HB use Aluminum

Not a new design nor a really different bike. So on HandyBike's behalf I feel a bit odd.
And I bought it heavily overprised too. 3 to 4 times the price SmartBike in England. :)

Thanks - this gave me a great laugh.

If buying a fake or a 'maybe fake' is all you have to trouble your conscience you are too good for this sinful planet mate.

If I want to examine my wicked past, I have plenty else to bother me aside from riding on a Merc and telling people how I like doing it.

Makeinu - you are a fan of 'carry-me' by pacific .... would you buy a fake carry -me ?

In principle, yes, but in practice, most likely not; Reason being that I tend to buy products at the cutting edge and copiers are very rarely quick enough to implement the latest ideas. As a market participant, I most often demand innovation and innovation is simply not what the fakers have for sale.

The fact of the matter is that there is not a fake Carry-me on the market, but if there were then I would hope that Pacific would step up to the plate and offer the improvements we all want. If, on the other hand, Pacific decided to simply continue to manufacture the same old product at a higher price than the copycat competition then I would have no qualms about buying a fake instead of second genuine. I already bought a genuine because Pacific was the only one supplying the innovation I demanded. If they stopped selling innovation then I may no longer have any reason to buy from them.

Take for example, the fake Strida's. If they were available a couple years ago I might have bought one, because authentic Strida's do not offer any added value to me as a customer (whether innovation or otherwise). Now, however, Mark Sanders designed and released the IF Mode fixing many of the gripes I have with the Strida (small wheels, single speed, etc). So buying a fake Strida is out of the question because it's no longer the best match for my needs.

When inventors are serving the portion of the market demanding innovation, questions of authenticity usually do not apply. Copycats digging into an inventor's livelihood usually mean that the inventor is slacking off, in which case I would have no problem "firing" the creator and "hiring" the copycat until the creator shapes up. This, of course, isn't always the case. The market doesn't always work the way it should, but I believe the laws in place err enough on the side of lazy has-been former creators that I can do whatever I want within my legal rights (even going so far as buying illegal copycats) without worrying about morally offending creators.

A copyright is not a patent, and they protect completely different aspects of a product. Same with a trademark.

I'm well aware of the differences between a copyright, a patent, and a trademark, thank you very much, but I was trying to refer to the similarities.

Unfortunately, the language of the topic is a bit biased. I refuse to group them all under the umbrella of "intellectual property" due to the connotation of inherent ownership, theft, etc. Unlike the right to physical property copyright, patent, and trademark are each a privilege and a temporary right, specifically the right to copy, and although they each relate to different kinds of information the fundamental notion in all three cases is that of a copy right (perhaps I should have put a space in my original post for clarity).

Putting ethics aside for a moment, I had lunch with my attorney yesterday and we spoke about this very topic. (Luckily he's on a retainer.) According to him, as the buyer, there is nothing which compels me legally not to buy a clone. Even if the clone represents stolen intellectual property, if I buy it, it is not as though I am receiving stolen property. Others here have said that the patent on the Strida has expired. If that is the case (and BTW I was unaware of that when spouting my prior pontification), there is nothing to keep a manufacturer from making a clone. Where there would be trouble is if the clone manufacturer or anyone in the sales chain were to represent the clone as an actual Strida.

Then I asked him about the ethics of the situation. He pointed at his Rolex and said, "This cost me $150. Looks great, doesn't it?"

...which is why we all have to get out of the habit of calling various legal rights to duplicate information "intellectual property" and the violation of such rights "theft".

As you noted "stolen intellectual property" is a complete misnomer because while it may be intellectual it is neither stolen nor is it property.

...which is why we all have to get out of the habit of calling various legal rights to duplicate information "intellectual property" and the violation of such rights "theft".

As you noted "stolen intellectual property" is a complete misnomer because while it may be intellectual it is neither stolen nor is it property.
You are twisting my words to suit your argument. I did not say that intellectual property is a misnomer. I indicated that in the case of the Strida clone, I as the end buyer am not stealing the intellectual property. It would be the manufacturer who did the stealing, that is if the patent were still in effect.

Intellectual Property is "owned" on the same basis that everything else is. Broad social agreement. There is nothing about that $20 bill in your wallet that makes it "yours." It's the same as the $20 bill in everyone else's wallet. The only thing that makes it "yours" is social agreement. The same can be said for your bike or anything else you own. The concept of ownership altogether is artificial, and similarly real or unreal as we choose to make it. Once we agree that ownership exists as a concept, it is really only a short step to the concept of intellectual property. People are punished for IP theft all the time, so for you to deny the concept is really irrelevant. My point was that as the buyer, we are not complicit in the theft when we buy the Strida clone. This is for two reasons. First, we didn't copy the Strida to manufacture the clone. Second, the clone is not being represented as a Strida.

But for the sake of clarification, let's take the example of my attorney's fake Rolex. The manufacturer of the fake is committing a crime for which, jurisdictional impediments notwithstanding, he could be punished. It is implicit that the seller of the watch is representing the watch as a genuine Rolex, so he is culpable. The buyer has a legal leg to stand on though. He can always say he thought that $150 was the going rate for Rolexes, and had no idea it was counterfeit. As far as the ethics of the situation go, the buyer has to actually believe the watch is genuine or he is ethically in the wrong.

...I had lunch with my attorney yesterday and we spoke about this very topic.

Then I asked him about the ethics of the situation. He pointed at his Rolex and said, "This cost me $150. Looks great, doesn't it?"

Lawyer? Ethics? HAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAhahahahahaaaaaaaa...... *hack, gasp, cough, wheeze*

You are twisting my words to suit your argument. I did not say that intellectual property is a misnomer. I indicated that in the case of the Strida clone, I as the end buyer am not stealing the intellectual property. It would be the manufacturer who did the stealing, that is if the patent were still in effect.

Intellectual Property is "owned" on the same basis that everything else is. Broad social agreement. There is nothing about that $20 bill in your wallet that makes it "yours." It's the same as the $20 bill in everyone else's wallet. The only thing that makes it "yours" is social agreement. The same can be said for your bike or anything else you own. The concept of ownership altogether is artificial, and similarly real or unreal as we choose to make it. Once we agree that ownership exists as a concept, it is really only a short step to the concept of intellectual property. People are punished for IP theft all the time, so for you to deny the concept is really irrelevant. My point was that as the buyer, we are not complicit in the theft when we buy the Strida clone. This is for two reasons. First, we didn't copy the Strida to manufacture the clone. Second, the clone is not being represented as a Strida.

But for the sake of clarification, let's take the example of my attorney's fake Rolex. The manufacturer of the fake is committing a crime for which, jurisdictional impediments notwithstanding, he could be punished. It is implicit that the seller of the watch is representing the watch as a genuine Rolex, so he is culpable. The buyer has a legal leg to stand on though. He can always say he thought that $150 was the going rate for Rolexes, and had no idea it was counterfeit. As far as the ethics of the situation go, the buyer has to actually believe the watch is genuine or he is ethically in the wrong.

On the contrary, there is something about a $20 bill in your pocket that makes it yours in a very real and physical way, despite any kind of arbitrary social agreement. When you have a $20 in your pocket you control that bill by physical force. There's nothing artificial about it and all associated laws and social agreements are merely elaborations of this real physical fact.

Information, on the other hand, has exactly the opposite nature. As I posted earlier in this thread, Thomas Jefferson has quite eloquently point out the very real, physical, and nonartificial fact that information not only evades any and all exclusive physical control, but it forces itself into the control of all people who are made aware of it. So the concept of intellectual property is not only a long step from the concept of physical property, it's also a step in the opposite direction (opposing the natural order instead of reinforcing it).

The fact that as a buyer we are not complicit in any crime when buying a Strida clone, has absolutely nothing to do with our direct involvement or how the clone is represented. For example if the manufacturer did, in fact, steal Stridas (as in, actually steal as opposed to duplicate), then we would indeed be complicit if we knowingly purchased the stolen goods. The reason we are not complicit in the case of copy right infringement is because copy right infringement is obviously not theft.

I'm sorry for twisting your words and assuming when you said "stolen intellectual property" is not "stolen property" you meant to imply that "stolen intellectual property" is not "stolen property", but your clarification here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If your attorney's fake Rolex was actually stolen then what you say about feigning ignorance while morally failing would be true, but this is not the case. Your attorney can tell the entire world that he willfully and knowingly bought a fake Rolex and he still would not be culpable.

Copy right and theft have absolutely nothing to with each other and no matter how much you'd like to deny it your examples very clearly illustrate the difference.

On the contrary, there is something about a $20 bill in your pocket that makes it yours in a very real and physical way, despite any kind of arbitrary social agreement. When you have a $20 in your pocket you control that bill by physical force.
By that reasoning, if I have the wherewithal to take your $20 bill from you, it becomes legitimately mine.

. . . copy right infringement is obviously not theft.
Of course it is. In the case of copyright infringement, or more properly for the examples used in this discussion, trademark infringement, what is being stolen is the reputation of the trademark holder and by extension any profit lost due to sales of fake items. Furthermore, from a consumer point of view, if you had paid $5000 for a fake Rolex that had been represented as authentic, wouldn't you feel ripped off?

By that reasoning, if I have the wherewithal to take your $20 bill from you, it becomes legitimately mine.

And what reasoning would that be? I said that physical objects have a real basis on which laws and precepts of possession can be elaborated. I did not say that possession is the sole determination of legitimate ownership. This is in contrast to ethereal objects like ideas or information or light for which notions of ownership are 100% artificial.

To spell it out, you said that legitimate ownership of both are 100% artificial and I retorted that only ownership of ethereal objects is 100% artificial whereas ownership of physical objects is at least partially (if not mostly) grounded in reality.

Of course it is. In the case of copyright infringement, or more properly for the examples used in this discussion, trademark infringement, what is being stolen is the reputation of the trademark holder and by extension any profit lost due to sales of fake items. Furthermore, from a consumer point of view, if you had paid $5000 for a fake Rolex that had been represented as authentic, wouldn't you feel ripped off?

Of course not. Despite what you feel or how you like to describe it, trademark infringement can in no way be interpreted as "theft of reputation". If it were then the end customer would be culpable for "buying a stolen reputation". Like it or not, that is the way theft works and, economically adverse as it may be to creative parties, selling/buying a fake Rolex ain't it.

Your entire perspective is couched in false illustrations. For example, "lost" implies that you had something. Lost opportunity for sales is not "lost sales". "Lost sales" would be if you dropped the cash box in the river on the way to the bank and mere opportunities do not have anywhere near the same legal and moral status as actual possessions (in other words, according to social agreement there's nothing wrong or even unusual about a lost opportunity).

Lost opportunity for sales is not "lost sales".

I understand the logic here, but is there a relevant legal precedent that spells this out? For instance, there have been settlements for projected loss of wages, which means that sometimes lost opportunity for wages is the same as "lost wages." I know there's a great difference between sales and wages, but it would be interesting if anyone could find any cases made for projected loss of sales due to any kind of defamation or trademark infringement.

And what reasoning would that be? I said that physical objects have a real basis on which laws and precepts of possession can be elaborated. I did not say that possession is the sole determination of legitimate ownership. This is in contrast to ethereal objects like ideas or information or light for which notions of ownership are 100% artificial.

To spell it out, you said that legitimate ownership of both are 100% artificial and I retorted that only ownership of ethereal objects is 100% artificial whereas ownership of physical objects is at least partially (if not mostly) grounded in reality.



Of course not. Despite what you feel or how you like to describe it, trademark infringement can in no way be interpreted as "theft of reputation". If it were then the end customer would be culpable for "buying a stolen reputation". Like it or not, that is the way theft works and, economically adverse as it may be to creative parties, selling/buying a fake Rolex ain't it.

Your entire perspective is couched in false illustrations. For example, "lost" implies that you had something. Lost opportunity for sales is not "lost sales". "Lost sales" would be if you dropped the cash box in the river on the way to the bank and mere opportunities do not have anywhere near the same legal and moral status as actual possessions (in other words, according to social agreement there's nothing wrong or even unusual about a lost opportunity).

Thanks for lending your authority and expertise to the conversation.

Lost opportunity for sales is not "lost sales".

I understand the logic here, but is there a relevant legal precedent that spells this out? For instance, there have been settlements for projected loss of wages, which means that sometimes lost opportunity for wages is the same as "lost wages." I know there's a great difference between sales and wages, but it would be interesting if anyone could find any cases made for projected loss of sales due to any kind of defamation or trademark infringement.

That's an interesting question.

But still I think the point remains that if copy right infringement were theft then there would be no question. The very fact that the question must be separately answered goes to show that theft and copy right infringement are entirely separate matters.

On the contrary, there is something about a $20 bill in your pocket that makes it yours in a very real and physical way, despite any kind of arbitrary social agreement. When you have a $20 in your pocket you control that bill by physical force. There's nothing artificial about it and all associated laws and social agreements are merely elaborations of this real physical fact.

Not directly related to the thread, but what the heck ...

If we think about the $20 bill, there really is a social agreement regarding its value. It is just a plain piece of paper & fabric with some fancy ink. Yet we all accept that it has value such that if I give one person $20, that person gives me goods or services with the understanding that they can use that $20 to garner some amount of goods and services from another individual/group.

Not directly related to the thread, but what the heck ...

If we think about the $20 bill, there really is a social agreement regarding its value. It is just a plain piece of paper & fabric with some fancy ink. Yet we all accept that it has value such that if I give one person $20, that person gives me goods or services with the understanding that they can use that $20 to garner some amount of goods and services from another individual/group.

But we were talking about appropriation of the bill, not its value.

That's an interesting question.

But still I think the point remains that if copy right infringement were theft then there would be no question. The very fact that the question must be separately answered goes to show that theft and copy right infringement are entirely separate matters.

OK, so let's look at the Strda thing:

They are not involved in patent infringement--patent ran out and even the designer admits that the design is in the public domain and may be approprated by anyone who wants to manufacture it.

They are involved in copyright infringement with the marketing matierial they... what?... infringed from Ming? Approprated from Ming? At some point, someone at Strda went to the Strida site, copied the images and put them up on their own site. Electronically, sure, but there was a physical act where the Strda person went and copied a file for which they have no copyright, and posted it on their site. It is most definitely copyright infringement, but tell me how the act of procuring those files was not theft...

Maybe we're talking semantics. In popular parlance, that is theft. Maybe the legal term is a bit more narrow?

In English law the act of copying a file from an internet site would not be theft. Here for an act to be theft, the perpetrator must intend to 'permanently deprive the owner of the property.' This can not be applied to an act such as copying a file and using it, since the original file remains intact and available to its owner. Copyright infringement - the use of a digital photograph without permission, for example, is probably illegal, but it is not theft. Furthermore the concept of copyright protection is more naturally confined to literature, or the works of cinema, or music, where large scale creative work is involved. How can a novel of a hundred thousand words, or a music album, be compared to a bent tube, some U shaped handlebars and small wheels? It's a joke. Some people would seek to copyright a witty sentence if they could. I would question the right to copyright photographs for the same reason, They are the result of an instantaneous act, not some long term process of creative endeavor.

Once again, I assert that the general principles of making a bicycle, even a folding one are so well established that an individual who has arranged the parts in a slightly novel way ought not to be able to prevent others from making a bicycle with the same arrangements. The makers of Strida and of Brompton have built their businesses on the work of hundreds of mechanics and designers who brought the first crude bicycle designs to a mature and well established set of principles. How dare they now seek to prevent others (if they do) from utilising their own small contribution to the process of design and making.

Strda are almost certainly guilty of the trading offences in Britain of 'Passing Off', and counterfeiting. This is where a trader seeks to capitalise on the marketing work and the reputation of a different business by imitating and presenting the product in such a way that they are deemed to be confusing the customer into thinking they are buying a different product than they are. STRDA should rename their product and take their own marketing pictures of it.

There is a parallel discussion (http://www.stridaforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=421&highlight=) on this topic over at Strida Forum (now part of new foldingforum (http://www.foldingforum.com/forum/))

Interestingly, the Strida Folding bars patents are still in force.

Once again, I assert that the general principles of making a bicycle, even a folding one are so well established that an individual who has arranged the parts in a slightly novel way ought not to be able to prevent others from making a bicycle with the same arrangements. The makers of Strida and of Brompton have built their businesses on the work of hundreds of mechanics and designers who brought the first crude bicycle designs to a mature and well established set of principles. How dare they now seek to prevent others (if they do) from utilising their own small contribution to the process of design and making.

This I do not agree with .. that Strida and Brompton design are not innovative and just derivatives of previous designs .. if so they would not have been granted patents in the 1st place.

Whilst i too 'like a baaargain', and I do have a few doggy DVD's, software that in not 100% within licencing rules etc. close copies and fakes in my posession - but i am not trying to justify that 'fakery is OK'.

If I had a fake Brompton, Strida, Swift, dahon, carry-me, birdy, moulton .... or whatever .. I would not try and justify the decison by some of the above, frankly crazy (and now rather boring arguments), I'd just say, hey I like that design but i chose not to buy the original, and I know this is bad for the originators, and maybe even illegal, and move on.

So, yes I fess up I am a hipocrit :D .. but at least I am being straight about it ... and I know that my actions are ultimately harming originators, (and also the people employed by fakers ... how else are prices so low ?? ).

To see why fakes are bad see: Common Myths about Counterfeits (http://www.myauthentics.com/myths.html)on myauthentics.com

Wow. I am brand spankin' new here, and what a way to get a baptism of fire, so to speak. I guess I have to play the devil's advocate and ask the question:

Does anyone know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the "Strda" is of poor quality?

I've read a lot of what sounds like peculation and conjecture, but no solid facts. In fact, it seems that one poster here bought a "fake" Strida and it was actually a good bike. Personally, I have only the opinion that if someone can do better and also cheaper, then go for it, as long as it's within applicable laws.

Should Yamaha have been sued for copying a French Horn design and producing a horn that plays as well or better than one that is twice, or even three times the price? Granted, everyone and their brother uses that same design, for the most part, but you get the idea. Granted, also, that China produces a lot of crap, but some of their stuff is actually very good, since they want to compete on the global market (one Chinese maker of french horns has stated that they want to be the next Yamaha). Sure, you have to take the approach of "may the buyer beware," but if it's legal to do so, why not make a similar product and sell it for less, especially if the quality is just as good. Let the market decide the winner.

As for the Strida, I think it looks great (how is it when climbing hills?), but I fail to see $800 USD worth of material on the whole thing (that's about what it costs here).

Whew! Glad it's over. Let me get my flame-suit on :D.

As for the Strida, I think it looks great (how is it when climbing hills?), but I fail to see $800 USD worth of material on the whole thing (that's about what it costs here).

Just to clear up a point: Goods never are sold for what they cost. They are always sold for profit. The seller will consider parameters such as original production cost, license fee, development amortization, market forces eg demand, what other similar products are sold for, and will try to make a price which will attract buyers without sacrificing too much profit. If there is competition, then the price will come down until profit becomes zero, at which point a seller will lose interest in selling the product, or may (rarely) keep it on as something to attarct customers.

But in the end, a product is always sold at the maximum amount at which it will sell, which seldom bears any real resemblance to production cost. End of story.

I've read a lot of what sounds like peculation and conjecture, but no solid facts. In fact, it seems that one poster here bought a "fake" Strida and it was actually a good bike.


Two people have actually bought the clone Strida. Trueno92 and myself. And I agree with Trueno92's assessment that it's decent, but not as good as the original (which I own also).

Just to clear up a point: Goods never are sold for what they cost.

Sometimes they are even sold for less than cost.

Oh yeah, I understand that. And perhaps it's the shape that the dollar is in being the reason that it costs so much in the States. It just seems to me that mass production would make it less expensive. :) I'll also attest that if the knockoff is not as good as the original (but sometimes they are), then I'm not interested. I want the "best bang for the buck," but I'm also content to wait until I can afford what I really want.

As an aside, how is the Strida for climbing hills? Not mountain bike trail hills, but grades like you'd find on city streets. I was thinking about getting a Strida for my trip to Burbank, CA next year, and riding it instead of renting a car. Should I wait until the 8 speed hub is a reality? I wonder how that would work?

Two people have actually bought the clone Strida. Trueno92 and myself. And I agree with Trueno92's assessment that it's decent, but not as good as the original (which I own also).

I agree 100%, in comparing my faker to the genuine the bikes appear to be the same. The copy has good tires that are 16x1.75 and only 45 psi max, this detracts greatly from the overall ride of any single speed bike. This is the most obvious flaw in the fake that hinders the ride quality.

In short for the faker I would highly suggest to upgrade the following:

Tires - the original strida is 65 psi max. Only 20psi diff from the chinese rubber.. I would scrap both of these for 100 psi Kevlar-lined schlawbe marathons. Difference is huge.

Saddle - the copy has a soft somewhat weak, $2 plastic + vinyl seat. The genuine saddle is more plush, but still too cushy. Decent for the run to the corner store. Upgrade to a brooks sprung champion flyer.

Brakes - readjust the copy. Most likely they will stop the bike easily. But the brake feel will be crap and shudder is almost guaranteed as well as drag. Lube the lines too. I ditched the front for an Avid BB7 full kit 160mm.

Other things on the copy - locktite most bolts when retightening them. Especially the ones for the seat mount, front piviot joint, etc.

I got mine for $180 but there is a yellow one on Toronto.craigslist.com new, for $300.

If you can score one on the cheap and know how not to strip bolts, it could be a decent ride. Just took mine to grocery for 2 2l torpedo bottles of coke. Threw them into the side pannier and the bike rides great.

riding hills is surprisingly easy. The single gear is well suited to the small wheels. Higher inflation pressure makes it a breeze. I got to some hills that I thought would make me start walking the bike, but it was a non issue.

I dont think an 8 speed will happen. At most a 3 speed but even a two speed will be good. It has the hill climbing, just needs a bit more top end in an overdrive ratio. The hubs are super thin and narrow. A Schumph speed drive will be most probable

There are hills, then there are HILLS. I find the hill-climbing limitations of the Strida's 56 gear inches to be about what I expected it to be. Yes, short moderate inclines are not a problem - say freeway overpasses and the like - but you will not climb HILLS. I've skipped the belt teeth trying, believe me. The Strida was never designed to be a climber though. It is great at multi-modal transport - relatively fast and nimble maneuvering over low-rolling and flat urban surfaces when riding it; quick and convenient portability when transporting it. The Strida Forum has rumors of a Schlumpf Speed drive under development. Personally I think the single speed is best suited to the pure simplicity of the design. I don't always need to ride a Swiss Army knife bike.

yes I meant city urban based hills. Not out in the country hills.

Ive tackled some more intimidating slopes ( if you reallly want, you can google map the terrain between st clair and king st along yonge, in Toronto) and the belt seems to be holding up. The rear snubber makes a huge difference and the only time it will skip a tooth is if the bottom tube really twists with pedalling. Finding the right belt tension is critical for optimum performance and efficiency.

In reference to EvilV's comment waaaaaaay back when, here is a Strida-similar bike ...

http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/

http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/indeximages/backgroundindex6.jpg

In reference to EvilV's comment waaaaaaay back when, here is a Strida-similar bike ...

http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/

http://www.pedersenbicycles.com/indeximages/backgroundindex6.jpg

Geez, this looks like a warning poster for frame-welders on crack...:eek:

Just to clear up a point: Goods never are sold for what they cost. They are always sold for profit. The seller will consider parameters such as original production cost, license fee, development amortization, market forces eg demand, what other similar products are sold for, and will try to make a price which will attract buyers without sacrificing too much profit. If there is competition, then the price will come down until profit becomes zero, at which point a seller will lose interest in selling the product, or may (rarely) keep it on as something to attarct customers.

But in the end, a product is always sold at the maximum amount at which it will sell, which seldom bears any real resemblance to production cost. End of story.

On the flip side (which I think is the appropriate side for most of us in this forum except Yan and a few others) one could also say that a product is always bought for the minimum amount at which it will be sold.

Since, in this case, the execution of the sale is necessary for the seller and discretionary for the buyers, if the buyers refuse to buy at any price over slightly more than the production cost then, by definition, the maximum amount at which it will sell will be about the production cost. The production cost is unique because at or below it the seller is no longer compelled to sell and without compulsion there can be no sale and, thus, no sale price.

That is why we, as discretionary buyers, are interested in the production cost. Despite being the one to print up the tags the seller doesn't have any more authority in setting the actual sale price than we do as buyers. The production cost is a concrete anchor in a battle of wits.

On the flip side (which I think is the appropriate side for most of us in this forum except Yan and a few others) one could also say that a product is always bought for the minimum amount at which it will be sold.
Contrary to both of you :D, it is my understanding that there is no truly valid procedure to determine the optimal price of a product. While the tendencies of supply and demand will always be in play, there are also psychological factors that are rarely acknowledged by the ordinary consumer. E.g. if you have 2 products with the same general functionality, and one is $100 and the other is $150, chances are the consumer will go for the cheaper one. But if you introduce a higher-end and higher-priced item (e.g. a $250 iPod), you will increase sales of the $150 iPod.

Also, people apparently get confused by highly exact pricing. So pricing your product at $150 will have different results than pricing it at $148.75.


Since, in this case, the execution of the sale is necessary for the seller and discretionary for the buyers, if the buyers refuse to buy at any price over slightly more than the production cost then, by definition, the maximum amount at which it will sell will be about the production cost....
I assume that "production cost" means the total costs of manufacturing the item? In which case, I don't see how anyone could possibly run a business selling their items that cheap.

There are lots of costs that ordinary consumers do not consider when they try to figure out the value and costs of an item. Let's say I manufacture the Great Bike Thingummy. It costs me $1.25 per unit to make. So in theory, I can charge $2 and make a profit, right?

Wrong. To get the $1.25/unit cost, I need to order at least 10,000. Plus I have to package it, so tack on another $0.50 per unit. I have to either put up that capital or finance it, so I need to make at least $17,500 in sales just to break even. I need someone to handle sales and distribution; I need an accountant and a lawyer; I have to pay taxes; I need to warehouse my inventory; I have to market and advertise my product. And unless I'm selling this product purely to make the world a more wonderful place, I'm going to want a profit. You could easily charge $4 a unit and only turn a $2,500 profit. That is, if you sold every single last one -- which only happens when you make Wii consoles and Tickle-Me Elmos. :D

That is why you, as a consumer, would be mislead by a manufacturing or production cost.



Should Yamaha have been sued for copying a French Horn design and producing a horn that plays as well or better than one that is twice, or even three times the price?
If the design of a French horn is 150 years old, and no longer covered by IP laws, no. If the design is 10 years old, and still covered by various IP laws, yes.

I.e. I can legally go out and make a new electric guitar, as long as it doesn't look too much like a specific brand of guitar that is protected by trademarks. (http://news.harmony-central.com/News/2004/Gibson-PRS-Case.html)

Contrary to both of you :D, it is my understanding that there is no truly valid procedure to determine the optimal price of a product. While the tendencies of supply and demand will always be in play, there are also psychological factors that are rarely acknowledged by the ordinary consumer. E.g. if you have 2 products with the same general functionality, and one is $100 and the other is $150, chances are the consumer will go for the cheaper one. But if you introduce a higher-end and higher-priced item (e.g. a $250 iPod), you will increase sales of the $150 iPod.

In the classical sense, the optimal price is set at the point where the marginal cost of the last unit sold is equal to the marginal benefit of the last unit bought; i.e., where the supply and demand curves meet. Cost in this case includes "opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost)" such that the accounting cost are just a component of total cost.

But Bac brings up a good point. Remember that the classical case is one where you have many sellers producing an identical product, there are no transactions costs, and everyone has perfect information.

Also, people apparently get confused by highly exact pricing. So pricing your product at $150 will have different results than pricing it at $148.75.

I don't know if confused is quite the right word, but I guarantee that some graduate student or uber tenured professor is working on 99 cent pricing at this moment.

Yep, I agree there are all kinds of models used by economists. But in the messy world of retail no one really quite knows how to set the perfect price that would maximize sales while preserving profits. And many times you don't want to go as low as possible -- as that could easily damage your brand or miss your target demographic....


I don't know if confused is quite the right word, but I guarantee that some graduate student or uber tenured professor is working on 99 cent pricing at this moment.
FYI, here's an article that discusses, among other things, how irrational human behavior affects our economic decisions.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/02/25/080225crbo_books_kolbert?currentPage=all

Contrary to both of you :D, it is my understanding that there is no truly valid procedure to determine the optimal price of a product. While the tendencies of supply and demand will always be in play, there are also psychological factors that are rarely acknowledged by the ordinary consumer. E.g. if you have 2 products with the same general functionality, and one is $100 and the other is $150, chances are the consumer will go for the cheaper one. But if you introduce a higher-end and higher-priced item (e.g. a $250 iPod), you will increase sales of the $150 iPod.

Also, people apparently get confused by highly exact pricing. So pricing your product at $150 will have different results than pricing it at $148.75.

Yeah, but that doesn't change our rational objective as consumers. If I think I may reasonably be able to get something for $100 I'm not going to say, "gee, I'll pay more since I'm confused by the $148.75 sticker price". That's not to say I won't be psychologically confused and pay more...just that I'm not going to do it on purpose.

Yes, it is a game of psychology, but the name of the game for us consumers is "escew psychology in favor of rational resolve". That's why I said "the production cost is a concrete anchor in a battle of wits". The seller has his psychological tendencies and we have ours and the winner of the battle is determined by the superior ability to stave off such tendencies.


I assume that "production cost" means the total costs of manufacturing the item? In which case, I don't see how anyone could possibly run a business selling their items that cheap.

There are lots of costs that ordinary consumers do not consider when they try to figure out the value and costs of an item. Let's say I manufacture the Great Bike Thingummy. It costs me $1.25 per unit to make. So in theory, I can charge $2 and make a profit, right?

Wrong. To get the $1.25/unit cost, I need to order at least 10,000. Plus I have to package it, so tack on another $0.50 per unit. I have to either put up that capital or finance it, so I need to make at least $17,500 in sales just to break even. I need someone to handle sales and distribution; I need an accountant and a lawyer; I have to pay taxes; I need to warehouse my inventory; I have to market and advertise my product. And unless I'm selling this product purely to make the world a more wonderful place, I'm going to want a profit. You could easily charge $4 a unit and only turn a $2,500 profit. That is, if you sold every single last one -- which only happens when you make Wii consoles and Tickle-Me Elmos. :D

That is why you, as a consumer, would be mislead by a manufacturing or production cost.

Obviously, for the reasons you've elucidated here, it's much more useful to define the production cost as the total cost of putting the product on the shelf (ie the selling price minus the profit). Since the manufacturing cost is a component of that, estimating it is a start.

Although the interesting thing about this definition is that the price to shelf goes up with every day the product sits on the shelf (due to the cost of maintaining the shelf). So if we do actually come close to achieving the zero profit price point then we, as consumers, only have a small window of opportunity to buy before we kill the seller's ongoing interest to sell. That's not to say we can't drive the price lower for that particular product (in fact, the seller could be quite willing to liquidate stock to prevent further losses); just that we can't rationally expect such circumstances to be ongoing. This is another reason why I, as a consumer, am interested in the production cost: negotiating a purchase below it forfeits the opportunity for future purchases and although that is my opinion as a discretionary buyer I may not want to take that option.

In the classical sense, the optimal price is set at the point where the marginal cost of the last unit sold is equal to the marginal benefit of the last unit bought; i.e., where the supply and demand curves meet. Cost in this case includes "opportunity cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost)" such that the accounting cost are just a component of total cost.

But Bac brings up a good point. Remember that the classical case is one where you have many sellers producing an identical product, there are no transactions costs, and everyone has perfect information.

Yeah, but the key distinction here is that we are discretionary buyers. That means that the marginal benefit is, well, at our discretion, which accomplishes two things:
1. It eliminates the need for competition because when we arbitrarily chose the marginal benefit at zero not buying anything becomes a substitution for buying which is effectively the same as having an infinite number of sellers.
2. The more apathetic we choose to be the lower the marginal benefit is, which drives down the marginal cost until the business is no longer profitable.

The transaction costs can be lumped together with the rest of the total cost and the information, well, that's what we are discussing. The sellers obviously know that we are discretionary buyers (and, thus, should also know that our marginal benefit can be vanishingly small as long as we remain rational) and we, as buyers, would like to estimate the marginal cost in order to achieve the favorable scenario above without milking it to death by forcing the seller into losses. The degree to which we can accomplish this depends on our ability to accurately estimate the marginal cost.

In short, my point is just that it's perfectly reasonable for us to use estimates of the production cost as estimates of how low we can negotiate the retail price.

Completely irrational buyers, of course, spoil it for the rest of us, but I would hope that there are a limited number of them and once they've been suckered the rest of us can enjoy the rational scenario outlined above (at least to an approximation consumate with our rationality).

Yeah, but the key distinction here is that we are discretionary buyers. That means that the marginal benefit is, well, at our discretion, which accomplishes two things:
1. It eliminates the need for competition because when we arbitrarily chose the marginal benefit at zero not buying anything becomes a substitution for buying which is effectively the same as having an infinite number of sellers.
2. The more apathetic we choose to be the lower the marginal benefit is, which drives down the marginal cost until the business is no longer profitable.

The transaction costs can be lumped together with the rest of the total cost and the information, well, that's what we are discussing. The sellers obviously know that we are discretionary buyers (and, thus, should also know that our marginal benefit can be vanishingly small as long as we remain rational) and we, as buyers, would like to estimate the marginal cost in order to achieve the favorable scenario above without milking it to death by forcing the seller into losses. The degree to which we can accomplish this depends on our ability to accurately estimate the marginal cost.

In short, my point is just that it's perfectly reasonable for us to use estimates of the production cost as estimates of how low we can negotiate the retail price.

Completely irrational buyers, of course, spoil it for the rest of us, but I would hope that there are a limited number of them and once they've been suckered the rest of us can enjoy the rational scenario outlined above (at least to an approximation consumate with our rationality).

Well, any specific individual may not be the marginal buyer where price = benefit. So even in the case of perfect competition there are people who collect extra benefit/utility. But anyway, someone mentioned the notion of an optimal price which I interpreted as something about the socially optimal price. Clearly, our optimal price as consumers would be zero or even negative; i.e., we get paid to take the product.

And yes, knowing how much a widget costs the seller is perfectly reasonable way of negotiating a better price.

Time to eat. Take care guys. Happy Father's Day to fellow dads. (Is this a holiday overseas?)

Yeah, but that doesn't change our rational objective as consumers. If I think I may reasonably be able to get something for $100 I'm not going to say, "gee, I'll pay more since I'm confused by the $148.75 sticker price". That's not to say I won't be psychologically confused and pay more...just that I'm not going to do it on purpose.
Yes, actually, you will. You walk into a Starbucks, look at the prices on the wall, somehow forget that you can get a cup of the exact same substance for $1.50 at the corner deli, and drop $4.82 for an iced coffee.

The economists' presumption that humans behave rationally and in their own best interests is quite likely wrong, and certainly not in effect 100% of the time. There's plenty of other research into cognition which indicates that while reason can triumph, the human brain was not designed for accuracy and logic, and the general human tendency is to rationalize rather than reason.


Yes, it is a game of psychology, but the name of the game for us consumers is "escew psychology in favor of rational resolve". That's why I said "the production cost is a concrete anchor in a battle of wits". The seller has his psychological tendencies and we have ours and the winner of the battle is determined by the superior ability to stave off such tendencies.
If you're in a store off of Khao San Road and haggling over sarongs, then I agree that knowing the costs will give you some idea of how low the seller is willing to go. (So will offering a price, and walking away if the seller doesn't agree.)

However, that is not how it generally works in most Western societies. 1) Haggling is generally restricted to specific areas like autos and housing; and the latter is rarely, if ever, based on production or ownership costs. 2) Not every product is available at every price point (especially if it's unique, or you think it's a unique object). 3) You rarely (if ever) will get a reliable or accurate knowledge of the total production cost. 4) Costs are fluid anyway, as the economic impacts of fluctuating gas and food prices ought to make abundantly clear these days. 5) Buyers -- and presumably sellers as well -- are simply not rational most of the time.

Nor are consumers generally collaborating in any intentional and meaningful way that genuinely influences prices. Rather it is a haphazard collection of (at best) independent individuals whose purchasing decisions are influenced as much, if not more, by advertising, desire for status and the price on the wall as by any rational decisions.

By the way, does your position indicate that if you plan to buy a road bike, you will pore over the financial statements of Trek, Cannondale, Specialized, Cannondale, and try to infer Cervelo's and Pinarello's operating costs? And from there, attempt to determine how much, exactly, that specific road bike that you are considering costs the company? And after that, figure out the retailer's operating costs, and the economic impact of their offering that one bike?

That seems unlikely. Worse yet, all that effort would be a total waste if the retailers refuse to haggle. (Or, to put it another way: if everyone is charging $3,750 for a high-end carbon-fiber road bike with Dura-Ace components, how will knowing the total cost to the manufacturer alter the price?)

Instead, you will probably figure out what level of quality you want (or are willing to spend), who charges what for that level, what is available near you, and the aesthetics of the bike.

You will also very likely solicit or research opinions on functionality and quality, but realistically the differences are tiny or non-existent. As an irrational human, of course, this won't stop you from exaggerating whatever miniscule differences you do detect, and use that as the basis for your decision. ;)

The economists' presumption that humans behave rationally and in their own best interests is quite likely wrong, and certainly not in effect 100% of the time. There's plenty of other research into cognition which indicates that while reason can triumph, the human brain was not designed for accuracy and logic, and the general human tendency is to rationalize rather than reason.

Mad Magazine called this the Law of Supply and Idiots.

Mothers-in-law are like seeds, you don't need them but they come with the tomato. - Alfred E Newman

Another fake?

http://www.sorida.com

Another fake?

http://www.sorida.com

This model is very popular in Thailand apparently.

Sorida SF-103 (http://www.sorida.com/en/enlarge.asp?f_id=16&s_id=0&ID=1203)

Coat!

This model is very popular in Thailand apparently.

Sorida SF-103 (http://www.sorida.com/en/enlarge.asp?f_id=16&s_id=0&ID=1203)

Coat!

I'd be really put off by this reference to the bike - "Strida Folding Bike For Man Lady SF-103."

Some one ought to talk to them about their marketing. There really aren't that many people who are going to walk in and ask for a bike to suit a Man Lady. :eek:

"Jefferson, always the scientist, warmed to his duties [as head of the patent office] and became more open to the idea of patents when he saw how many inventors put forth their ideas as a result of the new system of protection, claiming that "it had given spring to invention beyond my conception." (As cited in Malone, 1951)."

[emphasis added]

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jefferson.html

Regards
T