Folding Bikes - Incredible $100 strida rip-off

It is called CF bike (City Folding bike... or Chinese Fake bike)
As you can see it's shameless 99% copy of strida 5.0.
I have also heard that most parts are interchangable too.

And... it only costs $100 in china!
My mates are preparing to import them personally. As far as I have heard, we can get one at <$140 if we import 10 of them. Just too hard to resist...

If one of you are planning to buy 'genine' strida, just wait a while.
I bet cheap chinese stridas will swarm ebay before long.

http://img2.dcinside.com/viewimage.php?id=bicycle&no=29bcc427b48677a16fb3dab004c86b6f9a697bf10be0d1d66a76430b385c79a030254315fab01376d524c08434dfd4641 9291c0439c870940ca9370a6d51863b75fb6d&f_no=2bb99d76b49f6ff63ef1dca511

Anyone who buys them is supporting intellectual property theft and cheating. I'm surprised you would even contemplate buying one. If you think the Strida 5 is overpriced then don't buy one at all. They hardly had the originality that Mark Sanders has to come up with such a concept. I'm sure the parts are inferior too in this case since they are prepared to rip off somebody elses concept.

I thought China had joined the WTO now and would crack down on companies like these. Some hope!

I thought China had joined the WTO now and would crack down on companies like these. Some hope!

Despite the nature of the central government, my understanding is that the central government has limited control over issues like this which are often controlled locally. Just think what Hollywood is going through!

Anyway, I think that you are probably right. Components and quality control are probably poor on such models.

Stridaforum.com has a thread on this subject. It features a letter from Mark Sanders of MAS Design, the inventor and designer of the Strida, on the issue of the Chinese fakes:

http://www.stridaforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=413

Sanders sold all IP rights to the Strida to Ming Cycles of Taiwan some time ago. Mainland Chinese pirates are now ripping off the Taiwanese. This is so wrong.

Mark Sanders sounds a really nice guy.

Yes, he must a nice guy if his words are any indication. He has veritable fan clubs in Asia. There are youTube videos and Flickr albums featuring Strida riders in large numbers gathered to meet and hear from Mark Sanders in his visits to Taiwan, Korea, Hong Kong... How many bike designers inspire that kind of following?

Anyone who buys them is supporting intellectual property theft and cheating. I'm surprised you would even contemplate buying one. If you think the Strida 5 is overpriced then don't buy one at all. They hardly had the originality that Mark Sanders has to come up with such a concept. I'm sure the parts are inferior too in this case since they are prepared to rip off somebody elses concept.

I thought China had joined the WTO now and would crack down on companies like these. Some hope!

100% agree to you that buying ripoff products is supporting intellectual property theft.

But AFAIK, strida patent are pretty old (more than 20yrs old) and overdue now.
So I think there are at least no 'legal' problem buying chinese stridas. (I'm not sure though)

He has an awesome design and is a nice guy. I'd be fangirling over him too. :p

Anyone who buys them is supporting intellectual property theft and cheating. I'm surprised you would even contemplate buying one. If you think the Strida 5 is overpriced then don't buy one at all. They hardly had the originality that Mark Sanders has to come up with such a concept. I'm sure the parts are inferior too in this case since they are prepared to rip off somebody elses concept.

I thought China had joined the WTO now and would crack down on companies like these. Some hope!

Oh please. I'm constantly amazed at the inappropriate words people use to describe copyright and patent violations. "Theft"? "Cheating"? Hardly. What will you call it next, "murder"? I call it progress and, fortunately, Mark Sanders is smart enough not to let it bite him in the ass (unlike some fools who stand with their pants around their ankles whining about "theft", "piracy", etc).

Concerns about inferior parts from inferior vendors is a valid (and separate) issue, but exclusive right to copy is a temporary privilege that will always and should always be eventually violated.

Sanders IS smart and he cares enough to step in and say something of substance in defence of the product he created and feels passionately about, even though he has no monetary reason to do so. Contrast that to the anonymous, silent, talentless, quack counterfeiters who could care less and whose only skill is to rip-off others, yet who are defended by flippant attitudes like yours condoning their actions. Now THAT leaves me "constantly amazed". While not "murder", these blatantly copied products diminish us all and are definitely NOT "progress".

Sanders IS smart and he cares enough to step in and say something of substance in defence of the product he created and feels passionately about, even though he has no monetary reason to do so. Contrast that to the anonymous, silent, talentless, quack counterfeiters who could care less and whose only skill is to rip-off others, yet who are defended by flippant attitudes like yours condoning their actions. Now THAT leaves me "constantly amazed". While not "murder", these blatantly copied products diminish us all and are definitely NOT "progress".

It is progress.

Does your local supermarket rip-off Joseph Bayer when they sell generic aspirin? Is it a good thing that low-cost pharmaceuticals are available to the masses after the patent expires?

If you believe that Bayer is getting ripped-off, then I can understand your response. If you believe that cheap availability of a wonder drug like aspirin is a bad thing, then I can understand your response.

Anyway, we have already talked about patents with regards to Merc. Perhaps Strida can get a copyright on the design too.

The Chinese copy only confirms that Mark Sanders has a winning product and design. I've heard of fake Rolexs, but not fake Timexes (no offence to Timex). Kudos to Mark, the nice guy!

Not sure abt the quality but I've ridden a fake A'Bike - its unbelievably crap. Sells here for less than 60 Euros but its money down the drain really. Unrideable! The fake Strida is in the same boat I bet.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l260/oldiesonfoldies/StridatempleR.jpg

The real McCoy!

:)

It is progress.

Does your local supermarket rip-off Joseph Bayer when they sell generic aspirin? Is it a good thing that low-cost pharmaceuticals are available to the masses after the patent expires?

If you believe that Bayer is getting ripped-off, then I can understand your response. If you believe that cheap availability of a wonder drug like aspirin is a bad thing, then I can understand your response.

Anyway, we have already talked about patents with regards to Merc. Perhaps Strida can get a copyright on the design too.

Oh, for crying out loud! Aspirin was invented in 1899, the patents have long expired, and you won't raise an eyebrow marketing your own unless you call it "Bayer". Your analogy is misleading. Here's another analogy: Rolex watches and Louis Vuitton purses are counterfeited, too. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in buying watches from under some stranger's overcoat on the street or purses from a flea market tent. Look at the fake Strida ads - they don't even bother to use their own photos! Why make the effort to use your own when you can steal the ads, photos and reviews of the product you're ripping off? Does this not bother you?

Think about this for a moment: If someone invests their creative talent and physical effort to develop an innovative product and brings it to market under protection of internationally recognized IP laws but an unauthorized, illegal, blatantly-direct copy is irresistibly cheaper, that makes it "okay" to patronize the faker? Why would anyone bother to invent anything?

Tell me, please: WHERE IS THE PROGRESS IN THAT?

I saw real Stridas in a store window in Taipei. Didn't get to see the price though (store was closed).

Oh, for crying out loud! Aspirin was invented in 1899, the patents have long expired, and you won't raise an eyebrow marketing your own unless you call it "Bayer". Your analogy is misleading. Here's another analogy: Rolex watches and Louis Vuitton purses are counterfeited, too. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in buying watches from under some stranger's overcoat on the street or purses from a flea market tent. Look at the fake Strida ads - they don't even bother to use their own photos! Why make the effort to use your own when you can steal the ads, photos and reviews of the product you're ripping off? Does this not bother you?

Think about this for a moment: If someone invests their creative talent and physical effort to develop an innovative product and brings it to market under protection of internationally recognized IP laws but an unauthorized, illegal, blatantly-direct copy is irresistibly cheaper, that makes it "okay" to patronize the faker? Why would anyone bother to invent anything?

Tell me, please: WHERE IS THE PROGRESS IN THAT?

Since Sanders doesn't mention patent infringement at all, I'm assuming that they have expired after his requisite time span for proprietary production. That means his design is now in the public domain and can be copied by anyone. Remeber, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

He actually sounds pretty reasonable and brings up some good points. Maybe these first iterations will be terrible or actually dangerous. But some time in the future, if Chinese production of them keeps up (i.e. if there is demand for them), quality will increase to the point that they won't be junk. And that will spur Sanders to continually develop his high end version so that they never quite catch up.

The Bayer analogy is actually pretty good--the knockoff isn't claiming to be a Strida, as would be the case if it was compared to the Rolex or Louis Vuitton bags. It would be more like a vendor selling something that was build the same as a Rolex or LV bag, but with some other name on it.

And that's the main point--if they market these as Strida bikes, they are pirateering scum. If they slap any other name on there, no harm, no foul, actually sound business. Those Strida devotees and fans will remain loyal to Sanders's product (look at moultons for eg), and Strida will remain the original and premium brand for that style of bike. But now, many, many others who would balk at a price 5 to 7 times the cost of the knockoff might be able to afford their first taste of folding bike use and ownership. That can't be a bad thing, maybe even *gasp* progress. (Yes, they could very well end up being overweight hardly functional junk that turn more people off than on to folding bikes.)

Oddly enough, even though they are totally ripping off his design legally, they could be in more trouble for appropriating images that aren't theirs--while patent claims are limited to 17 years, copyright on photography and writing is covered for 75 yrs from death of author.

How is ripping off Strida any different than any of the other cheapo bikes ripping off any other design, say a Dahon design?

Tell me, please: WHERE IS THE PROGRESS IN THAT?

Right here (http://www.mas-design.com/Swivel-Head/Press/IF/), apparently.

We can argue theory until we're blue in the face, but the proof is in the pudding.

Oh, for crying out loud! Aspirin was invented in 1899, the patents have long expired, and you won't raise an eyebrow marketing your own unless you call it "Bayer". Your analogy is misleading. Here's another analogy: Rolex watches and Louis Vuitton purses are counterfeited, too. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in buying watches from under some stranger's overcoat on the street or purses from a flea market tent. Look at the fake Strida ads - they don't even bother to use their own photos! Why make the effort to use your own when you can steal the ads, photos and reviews of the product you're ripping off? Does this not bother you?

Think about this for a moment: If someone invests their creative talent and physical effort to develop an innovative product and brings it to market under protection of internationally recognized IP laws but an unauthorized, illegal, blatantly-direct copy is irresistibly cheaper, that makes it "okay" to patronize the faker? Why would anyone bother to invent anything?

Tell me, please: WHERE IS THE PROGRESS IN THAT?

I believe someone else pointed out that the Strida patents expired. So the analogy is fine. Moreover, it is popular to pick an extreme example to make a point; but if you don't like picking a familiar drug or its age, then pick another one where the patent recently expired.

I can't tell from your response whether you got my point or already understood it; that there is a tradeoff between giving people the incentive to innovate and providing the good to society at a more accessible price (a price that excludes the extra rents that go to the inventor or owner of the patent).

The progress is that members of society can now acquire the formerly patent protected good the socially efficient price.

Note that what I described above applies to pharmaceutical drugs and my example. So unless you think that patent protection should be infinite, then you should also recognize that competition -- ignoring the complications of imperfect information since it should not affect the main argument -- reflects progress manifested in lower prices and less deadweight loss.

Now I don't pretend that legislative branches of governments naturally come up with the optimal duration of a patent -- either from the perspective of economic efficiency or sense of fairness. However, it is the relevant standard here.

I can only type so fast with one hand. If you search for Brompton (Merc) and patent (copyright) you should find some relevant threads.

I can only type so fast with one hand.

And it only works til the little one in question gets fed up and starts screaming in your ear, anyway! Mine is 6 weeks old, and I'm noticeably better at one handed typing than I was.

And it only works til the little one in question gets fed up and starts screaming in your ear, anyway! Mine is 6 weeks old, and I'm noticeably better at one handed typing than I was.

:beer:

Right here (http://www.mas-design.com/Swivel-Head/Press/IF/), apparently.

We can argue theory until we're blue in the face, but the proof is in the pudding.

Your pudding has made my point. Those bikes are new designs from Sander's design company. Creative people are the one's driving progress. The counterfeiters are, by their nature, incapable of original thought and could simply care less.

The fake Strida is advertised as "STRDA" (http://www.strda.com/index_e.asp) and uses Strida photos and ads produced by Ming Cycles, edited to remove "strida.com" references. Even Merc doesn't copy every detail of a Brompton. I have read reviews from others familiar with both models (I'm not) and there apparently are some distinguishing features beyond the frame design. They don't market it as a "BROMTON" and I'd hope they use their own photos and ads.

Something is patently unfair here, pun intended.

Oh please. I'm constantly amazed at the inappropriate words people use to describe copyright and patent violations. "Theft"? "Cheating"? Hardly. What will you call it next, "murder"? I call it progress and, fortunately, Mark Sanders is smart enough not to let it bite him in the ass (unlike some fools who stand with their pants around their ankles whining about "theft", "piracy", etc).

Concerns about inferior parts from inferior vendors is a valid (and separate) issue, but exclusive right to copy is a temporary privilege that will always and should always be eventually violated.


Your views are your views and to call people who differ from your opinion 'fools' shows your arrogance and your ignorance. So it's fine for the Chinese to keep copying is it? At least the Taiwanese make original contributions to the innovation of bikes. These guys can't even use original photos. The copy of the Strida is so directly obvious, its unoriginal and no doubt inferior. This isn't quite the same situation as the Merc. If you call this type of copying 'progress' then maybe you are the fool? :D

Your pudding has made my point. Those bikes are new designs from Sander's design company. Creative people are the one's driving progress. The counterfeiters are, by their nature, incapable of original thought and could simply care less.

The fake Strida is advertised as "STRDA" (http://www.strda.com/index_e.asp) and uses Strida photos and ads produced by Ming Cycles, edited to remove "strida.com" references. Even Merc doesn't copy every detail of a Brompton. I have read reviews from others familiar with both models (I'm not) and there apparently are some distinguishing features beyond the frame design. They don't market it as a "BROMTON" and I'd hope they use their own photos and ads.

Something is patently unfair here, pun intended.

Are we talking about fairness or are we talking about progress?

If your only point is that creative people are the ones driving progress then you have no basis for arguing that the counterfeiting competition is hindering progress in any way. On the contrary, just as the creative people are the ones driving progress, the counterfeiting competition are the ones driving the creative people.

Is it unfair? Perhaps, but it really doesn't matter because I doubt any legislature in the world is powerful enough to contradict Adam Smith's invisible hand and the near infinite supply which is inherent to all kinds of information. Is Mark Sanders ceasing to be creative because he is being treated unfairly? No, because profit, not fairness, is what drives the market; And if Mark Sanders has enough profit motive to continue creating is he really being treated unfairly?

You can make any point you want, but the fact of the matter is that we see progress happening before our very eyes: Consumer prices dropping on the award winning Strida design and innovative new improvements from the award winning Strida designer. I can't say the same about the situation at the Brompton company, who, according to you, has apparently had fewer "unfair" crimes against them. So which should take precedence, progress or your personal sense of "fairness"?


Your views are your views and to call people who differ from your opinion 'fools' shows your arrogance and your ignorance. So it's fine for the Chinese to keep copying is it? At least the Taiwanese make original contributions to the innovation of bikes. These guys can't even use original photos. The copy of the Strida is so directly obvious, its unoriginal and no doubt inferior. This isn't quite the same situation as the Merc. If you call this type of copying 'progress' then maybe you are the fool? :D

I'm not calling people who differ from my views fools. I'm calling people who allow themselves to become victims of economically inevitable IP "theft" fools. Any business plan which depends on the government to outmuscle the laws of supply and demand is a recipe for failure.

I don't think Mark Sanders is a fool and I'd be very surprised if his views didn't differ from mine. On the contrary, I think he is a very intelligent man as he clearly knows how to protect himself from market realities, both just and unjust.

You can make any point you want, but the fact of the matter is that we see progress happening before our very eyes: Consumer prices dropping on the award winning Strida design and innovative new improvements from the award winning Strida designer. I can't say the same about the situation at the Brompton company, who, according to you, has apparently had fewer "unfair" crimes against them. So which should take precedence, progress or your personal sense of "fairness"?
Brompton is a very good company actually and one of the very few to keep its production and emplyment within the UK which is actually quite an admirable achievment. That's not defying progress it's merely sticking to what Andrew Ritchie believes in and many people are happy to suscribe to that. Brompton remains a very profitable company so if you are citing the laws of competition, then they are prevailing despite market forces or because of them.

I might accept some of your arguments applied to say greedy corporations or the music industry. There is a difference between protecting IP when it has involved a lot of R&D and using legislation to allow corporates to abuse market supply and supernormal profits. I'd like to see your Adam Smith ideals work in a world without IP protection. Somehow I think innovation would slow and R&D budgets cut back. Are you sayng patents are pointless? Surely the ability to use the legal system to protect copyright involves competitive capabilities too and therefore its part of market forces?

Anyway the Strida is out of patent as pointed out to me earlier. Although, using Ming's photos and descriptions is deceiving, I guess it's a free for all on this type of bike concept in itself overall.

I prefer "non-aspirin pain reliever" to Tylenol;).

Are we talking about fairness or are we talking about progress?

If your only point is that creative people are the ones driving progress then you have no basis for arguing that the counterfeiting competition is hindering progress in any way. On the contrary, just as the creative people are the ones driving progress, the counterfeiting competition are the ones driving the creative people.

Is it unfair? Perhaps, but it really doesn't matter because I doubt any legislature in the world is powerful enough to contradict Adam Smith's invisible hand and the near infinite supply which is inherent to all kinds of information. Is Mark Sanders ceasing to be creative because he is being treated unfairly? No, because profit, not fairness, is what drives the market; And if Mark Sanders has enough profit motive to continue creating is he really being treated unfairly?

You can make any point you want, but the fact of the matter is that we see progress happening before our very eyes: Consumer prices dropping on the award winning Strida design and innovative new improvements from the award winning Strida designer. I can't say the same about the situation at the Brompton company, who, according to you, has apparently had fewer "unfair" crimes against them. So which should take precedence, progress or your personal sense of "fairness"?

I doubt Mark Sanders/MAS Design of Windsor, England is motivated to create because he is being driven by copycats to do so. He creates because of who he is and what he does, not by what others do. I doubt the Nameless-Manufacturing-Company of Somewhere-In-China is motivated to keep Mark Sanders on his toes. Their motivation is to profit from the work of others, not by their own efforts.

As I mentioned, I know little about Merc vs. Brompton and did not mean to imply a lesser degree of fakery was okay. I was simply pointing out that the “Strda” vs. Strida issue may not equate to that comparison in that everything about “Strda”, down to the ad photos, has been copied across the board from Strida and represented as being the same product at a quarter of the price of the original.

Counterfeiters may not hinder progress (though that is arguable, too), they just don't contribute anything that constitutes progress. They are certainly not a source of inspiration for the creative process necessary for progress, which I believe means to advance the human condition by our capacity to innovate and improve ("Innovate or die!"). There is nothing new or innovative in a direct copy.

On the other hand, if progress is ultimately to be defined by a lower consumer price, how low should it be and at what cost? Costs can be gauged in terms of quality, sale price, safety, etc., but what about other costs that can’t be quantified. What does it say about our society if we forego originality and condone blatant fakery at the lowest price? What does it say about us individually if we wish to buy into it knowing what it is? Irresistibly low price can come with a high cost.

I guess we have different views of our world. Yours scares me.

You can make any point you want, but the fact of the matter is that we see progress happening before our very eyes: Consumer prices dropping on the award winning Strida design and innovative new improvements from the award winning Strida designer. I can't say the same about the situation at the Brompton company, who, according to you, has apparently had fewer "unfair" crimes against them. So which should take precedence, progress or your personal sense of "fairness"?


While you are certainly entitled to your "might makes right" view of the world, IMO it is pure nonsense. You might as well argue that it is progress if I rob a jewelry store and sell the stolen watches on the street at ten cents on the dollar because consumer prices are dropping. While there is no legislature in the world powerful enough to stop robbery, that doesn't mean that we should ignore it, accept it, or much less support it.

Counterfeiters may not hinder progress (though that is arguable, too), they just don't contribute anything that constitutes progress. They are certainly not a source of inspiration for the creative process necessary for progress, which I believe means to advance the human condition by our capacity to innovate and improve ("Innovate or die!"). There is nothing new or innovative in a direct copy. Hear hear! well said! I think you said everything I needed to say.


Brompton are a great little company. There is much to admire about them. You don't have to buy into Brompton prices if you don't like it. Same with Strida. I still think some of these low-end, and I do stress low-end Chinese companies are cheats in every sense of the word and don't conform to any form of fair competition or quality. That's a funny sort of 'progress'. As for the 'invisible hand' theory, it's ancient economics and a lame argument for advocating cheap rip-offs.

As for using IP protection like the Sony rootkit scandal or overpricing of digital music downloads then I agree that progress forces greedy record companies to rethink. However in the low margin world of bikes the context is a little different to say the least. Yet we have many companies who products or upgrade their innovations on a constant basis. Dahon even get criticised for too many new products but it can only be applauded. The progress in folding bikes hasn't been made by low-end Chinese Strida copiers and they certainly haven't been the inspiration to the likes of Dahon, Birdy, BF, Pacific or Downtube. It's the innovators who push each other forward not the copiers. if copiers dominated the market with dirt cheap versions (which thank god they don't) then everything would be based on old technologies and their would be no such word as progress. I suppose it's perfectly acceptable for any Chinese company to take the new IF folding design for 26" wheel bikes and use it for free without paying for the copyright which is owned by pacific? If so. Mark Sanders and the like would not bother with progressing new ideas would they now?

When Schumpeter talked about his concept of 'creative destruction' in markets, he was talking about innovators displacing each other not imitators.

I doubt Mark Sanders/MAS Design of Windsor, England is motivated to create because he is being driven by copycats to do so. He creates because of who he is and what he does, not by what others do. I doubt the Nameless-Manufacturing-Company of Somewhere-In-China is motivated to keep Mark Sanders on his toes. Their motivation is to profit from the work of others, not by their own efforts.

As I mentioned, I know little about Merc vs. Brompton and did not mean to imply a lesser degree of fakery was okay. I was simply pointing out that the “Strda” vs. Strida issue may not equate to that comparison in that everything about “Strda”, down to the ad photos, has been copied across the board from Strida and represented as being the same product at a quarter of the price of the original.

Counterfeiters may not hinder progress (though that is arguable, too), they just don't contribute anything that constitutes progress. They are certainly not a source of inspiration for the creative process necessary for progress, which I believe means to advance the human condition by our capacity to innovate and improve ("Innovate or die!"). There is nothing new or innovative in a direct copy.

On the other hand, if progress is ultimately to be defined by a lower consumer price, how low should it be and at what cost? Costs can be gauged in terms of quality, sale price, safety, etc., but what about other costs that can’t be quantified. What does it say about our society if we forego originality and condone blatant fakery at the lowest price? What does it say about us individually if we wish to buy into it knowing what it is? Irresistibly low price can come with a high cost.

I guess we have different views of our world. Yours scares me.

If you think that Mr Sanders is solely motivated by the fulfillment of his identity as an inventor then why would blatant fakery of his prior designs entail foregone originality?


While you are certainly entitled to your "might makes right" view of the world, IMO it is pure nonsense. You might as well argue that it is progress if I rob a jewelry store and sell the stolen watches on the street at ten cents on the dollar because consumer prices are dropping. While there is no legislature in the world powerful enough to stop robbery, that doesn't mean that we should ignore it, accept it, or much less support it.

I was not trying to espouse a "might makes right" point of view. As Thomas Jefferson put it:


If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

BTW, I just went to see the Thomas Jefferson memorial last weekend...brilliant man.

Based on Jefferson's logic all the most advanced nations should share their military secrets with every nation on Earth including North Korea. Companies should spend billions on R&D and then just give it away. That makes sense doesn't it? The only way to support such Utopian logic would actually to be to have all R&D and inventions nationalised and made public goods! Your ideas of Adam Smith style market forces and Jefferson style free IP are at paradox with each other.

There are many great minds and orators like Jefferson, that doesn't always make them right. Marx supported a classless society concept free of exploitation but sadly his great mind didn't stop him abusing one of his female servants. Neither did he ever quite explain why a medical doctor should earn the same as a road sweeper after giving up nearly 10 years of their life to study.

I feel my taper has been lit so strongly I'm off to now to build a factory in Poland and I'll call my company Brompton, copy their fold and logo and flood the market with £350 Brompton bikes with 8 speed hubs! Stand aside Mr Ritchie I'm ready to make progress!

if copiers dominated the market with dirt cheap versions (which thank god they don't) then everything would be based on old technologies and their would be no such word as progress.

Absolutely not. This is not a what if situation. Here the very topic of this thread is that we have a copier selling a dirt cheap version and, yet, Mark Sanders continues to innovate. We also have the same situation happening with the A-bike.

Your assertions are inconsistent with the facts.


Based on Jefferson's logic all the most advanced nations should share their military secrets with every nation on Earth including North Korea. Companies should spend billions on R&D and then just give it away. That makes sense doesn't it? The only way to support such Utopian logic would actually to be to have all R&D and inventions nationalised and made public goods! Your ideas of Adam Smith style market forces and Jefferson style free IP are at paradox with each other.

Conversations about the military belong in the politics subforum. That being said, I don't think Jefferson's logic at all implies that companies should spend billions on R&D and then just give it away. It implies that companies spending billions on R&D had best keep their projects under wraps because nature itself will ensure that their exclusive use will only last as long as their secrets. This is not utopian logic, but a common practice in the corporate world.

Don't even get me started on abuses of the IP law which render it nearly pointless. The only thing paradoxical here is the conflict between your utopian philosophy and the factual evidence.

Conversations about the military belong in the politics subforumIt was an analogy like many of yours. You went off the Strida issue a long time ago. What a know-all!

One minute you are quoting Smith's 'invisible hand' theory and the next Jefferson's views on the diffusion of ideas. As I said this would only work if most inventions were made the property of the state under the public good concept. It just doesn't hack it to have no IP protection in the commercial world of capitalism.

Not all IP law is abuse, it depends on the industry and its pointless arguing with you because you never got back on point about what makes it acceptable to have a Chinese company not only copying the Strida but even stealing their photos and a spin-off of the name?

Finally I just don't think you get what motivates innovation. It's achievment and money. Manfacturing secrets can't be hidden because they would get reverse engineered once the product is released. Patents aren't the exclusive domain fof the big corporates who like to abuse IP, they allow the rise of small companies such as Dyson in vacuum cleaners and Brompton in compact folders. You have a queer logic. What about the new IF folding technology for larger wheeled bikes that Pacific bought off Mark Sanders? Do you think it should just be copied as a free-for-all? Are you denying their right to IP protection for a certain length of time? Are you saying it's OK for a Chinese company to rip-off another company's photos and use a near identical brand name? (I'll accept the fact the Strida design is out of patent now.)

if copiers dominated the market with dirt cheap versions (which thank god they don't) then everything would be based on old technologies and their would be no such word as progress.
Absolutely not. This is not a what if situation. Here the very topic of this thread is that we have a copier selling a dirt cheap version and, yet, Mark Sanders continues to innovate. We also have the same situation happening with the A-bike.Your assertions are inconsistent with the facts.His assertions are not inconsistent. Low cost copiers simply don't dominate the market because companies are given IP protection for unique innovations for a certain length of time and get the chance to build brand equity around the product. Without IP protection, we simply wouldn't witness the same wholesale level of innovation and product development as their would be no risk-return trade-off.

The only issue I have with product patents is price skimming strategies for new technologies leading to over-pricing and restricted uptake as a result. A good example is HSDPA romaing charges abroad. Also the use of excessive DRM to restrict the freedom of music users and to exploit them price-wise, Sony BMG being an example of this.

As for Brompton you can't equate them to such companies above in trying to protect some copyright aspects on their design and look. Even Brompton know they can't prevent the general fold from being emulated anymore as Flamingo Bikes (Grace Gallant Enterprises) now use an adapation of the Brompton fold in their new folder range. What's your issue with Brompton then?

This conversation has gotten a bit out there; societal progress hardly has a positive correlation with how well Strida fends off strda. Quality is still quality and knock off is still, usually, crap. There really aren't many people who don't clearly know the difference between the two. And for someone who buys a knock off and thinks they're getting a deal, they're also buying an important lesson: you get what you pay for.


To narrow the focus on a more particular kind of progress, I just think if poor Raxel (the OP) tries too much of the forward kind on his new strda, he's gonna find the thing falling apart before he gets too far.

If you think that Mr Sanders is solely motivated by the fulfillment of his identity as an inventor then why would blatant fakery of his prior designs entail foregone originality?

I doubt Mr. Sanders “is solely motivated by the fulfillment of his identity as an inventor” nor did I say that I think so. He doesn’t sound like that kind of egotist if you listen to him. Quite the opposite, his motivation in a larger sense may stem from the fact that he appears to be a genuinely good individual who had the creative means within him to solve an observed problem, producing an innovative design that had not existed before and has benefited thousands of people. He has since moved on to other creative problem-solving efforts.

Contrast that to the anonymous person in China who, not inclined to make his own problem-solving effort, has decided to forego originality (assuming he even has the capacity for it), opted to copy Sander’s work instead, and present it as an equal product at a questionable, bargain-basement price. It is remarkable that he didn’t even come up with an original name but simply stripped out the letter “i” in Strida - you know, “i” as in “innovative” and “imaginative”. It's missing. How appropriate!

Very intense discussions so far, almost like a debate competition. I always know that foldie owners somehow have something substantial between their ears and this thread confirms it :)

Here in Singapore, the fakos of A'Bike (arrived abt a yr ago) and recently Strida are sold openly in the big name supermarkets. If I'm not mistaken, a fake Strida advertised at 130Euros and the A"Bike maybe half of that. Yet, I don't see them sell like hot cakes and in fact, the fako A'Bike's prices have been drastically cut. The poor demand for these no quality fakes resulted in their natural death despite a much hyped up start.

Contrast that with the originals - they have enjoyed unprecedented sales here. Enough said.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." A Lincoln

well, shucks! i spent some time gathering up hot air to blow into this conversation, but oldiesONfoldies trumped me with what i can't offer: the story on the ground, the facts.

but i might as well play :)


chainstrainer: He creates because of who he is and what he does, not by what others do.

a fan of ayn rand, are you? :)

makeinu brings up an interesting point with the quotation from thomas jefferson. it's not that the counterfeiters are stealing an idea; they're building bikes. it's the physical construction based on the idea, not the appropriation of the idea itself, that causes offense; as jefferson says,


no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.

sanders' rights to the design have expired. his concerns about quality are good, but the only real insult is that they're using his name.

the analogy with the music industry is flawed, because the cost of copying is higher: it doesn't take as much "genius" to build bikes from a copied design as it does to design originals, but you still need to be running a decent manufacturing operation, so it's not like the counterfeiters are completely talentless.

you might say, "they're just a bunch of ****ty counterfeiters" -- well, in the long run, they should realize that having that image is going to limit their success. they have to live or die on the strength of their quality control in the end. [edit after reading oldiesONfoldies: from the sound of it, they're dying. life goes on.]

this is progress, sort of.

sure, some of us wish they played the game by different rules. but they don't have to. someone earlier was lamenting the lack of a world government to shove IP law down their throats. well, i'm glad there isn't one to do that. privileges for the individual inventor might be the source of creativity in some cultures, but in others, it's the diversity of competing opinions and strategies that stimulates creativity. what they're doing is legal in their country, so why can't they? and aren't there plenty of ways to outcompete them even if they copy?


mulleady: I feel my taper has been lit so strongly I'm off to now to build a factory in Poland and I'll call my company Brompton, copy their fold and logo and flood the market with £350 Brompton bikes with 8 speed hubs! Stand aside Mr Ritchie I'm ready to make progress!

Hey, do! If you have a good chance of success, I'll invest in you, and I mean that sincerely. Might want to pick a different name, though; you'll mislead people. How about Prombton? :D

(By the way: The analogy with military secrets is flawed, because military secrets are what we use to kill each other, so who knows what is more critical. Bicycle R&D is a good deal less serious, no? Though, if I had a button labeled "Open-source all the world's military secrets," I'd push it. Then at least everyone would know exactly what we were all capable of, which would be a good start to rationally constructing sustainable peace agreements.)

My friend bought one of those fake A-bikes from a Singapore supermarket and the tire valve snapped off, with NO recourse to repair it. I told him, you are lucky nothing else broke off, and nothing broke while you were riding the damn thing.

$50 down the drain. Ah well. Haha!

These low quality fakes might actually lead to some sales of real ones: Someone, intrigued by the bikes, buys the ****ty copy, thinking 'what the heck it's only $50,' rides a bit and perhaps enjoys it, it breaks, they think 'bugger this, I'm going for a quality one.'

These low quality fakes might actually lead to some sales of real ones: Someone, intrigued by the bikes, buys the ****ty copy, thinking 'what the heck it's only $50,' rides a bit and perhaps enjoys it, it breaks, they think 'bugger this, I'm going for a quality one.'

Spot on mate! And then they get stuck with some scrap metal that resembles a bike that no one wants.

These low quality fakes might actually lead to some sales of real ones: Someone, intrigued by the bikes, buys the ****ty copy, thinking 'what the heck it's only $50,' rides a bit and perhaps enjoys it, it breaks, they think 'bugger this, I'm going for a quality one.'

The problem is this scenario often works the other way around: Consumers unfamiliar with folding bikes in general and Strida in particular may acquire a very negative impression of one or both based on their first purchase, say a "Strda", damaging the reputations of the quality manufacturers who are guilty by association in the consumer's mind. That is why major companies with well-known trademarked brand names have legal departments to hunt down impostors.

chainstrainer (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=111741)

yes that could be a likely outcome.

which would be sad. So we have to reach all these potential buyers.

Quick comments:

Generally, lower prices mean a greater availability of a good to the masses. How many people do we know that are willing to pay $100-200 for a bike but not $500? Writing generally, lower prices are a sign of greater efficiencies which let us apply our resources elsewhere including recreation/leisure.

I don't know what is so ancient about incentives driving behavior -- my interpretation of the "invisible hand". But the point that welfare analysis has become more sophisticated is, of course, true.

I agree that intellectual property laws are important. The point that it forms an integral part of economic growth is an excellent one in my opinion since it does allow for one to gain from one's ideas that are otherwise easily duplicated.

I also think that the "STRDA" versus "STRIDA" is a little nefarious. I have no problem with another company copying a product that no longer has patent protection. But here it seems like the company is trying to conceal its origin and free ride off the reputation of Strida. This not only hurts Strida but also reduces the incentive for a companies to produce quality goods and be responsive to consumers.

My crazy idea. What if we all write them and suggest other names and tried to engage them
in the ethics of using a almost identical name.

We could help them make a more true homepage.

This is not the original Strida. This is our rip off.
We have done our best to copy it to the best of
our ability.

If you could see how we could improve the quality of
our version then you get first take on the new badge.

Obviously I am bad at writing such texts. We could
at least give them a link to this thread?

Stridaforum.com has a thread on this subject. It features a letter from Mark Sanders of MAS Design, the inventor and designer of the Strida, on the issue of the Chinese fakes:

http://www.stridaforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=413

This letter says it all - it also acknowledges that some people like the bike but simply can't afford it. In the design video I am sure it says the original aim was to make an affordable £100 bike (in 1980s money).

A part from any patents Strida shape is so distinctive I am sure they must be able to get good protection using copyright laws - if Chinese officials would enforce them.

I personally prefer to support the originators ie Brompton, Strida, Dahon, swift, moulton, R&M, Pacific, downtube, etc.

Progress and creativity: Mark Sanders can bring these things to market for prices most won't pay for them; this other company can bring them in that much cheaper. Obviously they've come up with a more creative way to manufacture these if they can get them done for cheaper. This also represents the natural progress in manufacturing. Stridas are made in Taiwan now, yes? Remember when people were dumping on cheap Taiwan knockoffs, and before that, cheap Japanese knockoffs?

"The progress in folding bikes hasn't been made by low-end Chinese Strida copiers and they certainly haven't been the inspiration to the likes of Dahon, Birdy, BF, Pacific or Downtube. It's the innovators who push each other forward not the copiers. if copiers dominated the market with dirt cheap versions (which thank god they don't) then everything would be based on old technologies and their would be no such word as progress."

I see this as 180 deg away from the way things work. Someone comes up with an idea and it's theirs. They fail to capitalize on it while they have proprietary control over the design and then someone comes along with the cheap copy of what they created. What are they going to do then? Cry in their beer? Curse the fates? No, they're going to come up with something EVEN BETTER. Look at Sanders. Great idea "I'll manufacture and market it! (Strida)" "Woah, that was tough. Maybe next time I'll license these to mfgs with marketing in place... (Pacific IF designs, etc.)" If anything, the threat of patent expiration and inevitable encroachment of the knockoff mfgs spurs and inspires new designs. Dahon continually refines and overhauls their designs--one of the benefits is that they stay ahead of the knockoffs. Innovators may push each other forward, but market demands also put pressure on mfgs to innovate... and so they turn to the designers. Again, look at Sanders's licensing further designs to other companies--I bet he has a lot more time for the design that he's so good at if he doesn't also have to run a bicycle mfg and marketing co. at the same time.

Heck. I wonder if they have a US distributor yet...

I do think the basic 3 speed Brompton should have come down in price by now to a realistic point of say £400 0r $800. They can still make margins on UK made entry level models.

Obviously they've come up with a more creative way to manufacture these if they can get them done for cheaper.

Or ... they dont need to bother with: R&D, passing bicycle standards, having insurance, making marketing materials, materials testing, using strong bolts, belts, etc. etc.

I doublt they have come up with ANYTHING creative except ways of getting away with selling rubbish dressed up as another product. And this is bad for all because people (who maybe know nothing about bikes) WILL be fooled into thinking it is the same bike they might have seen someone else with, but at a bargain price.

Although this thread has been most entertaining I sniff a lot of justifying - .... the same as often heard about copying DVD's, MP3's, software etc. we know its wrong, but try and make a case for it being OK. The consequences for small brands like strida and brompton could be bad ... likewise A-Bike (too small for me - but great innovation) ... have the many fakes killed it ?

... a fan of ayn rand, are you? :)...

Close. I'm no Howard Roark but I am an architect by profession and therefore passionate about IP rights.

I'll have to read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" someday I guess.

Just to put a different perspective on things:

If you complain about the rubbish and cheap copies that come out of China and think the West is a victim, think again.

We are victims of our own desire to buy anything at a cheaper price.

The real victims in this scenario are, believe it or not, the people who make these dirt cheap copies. They are really the ones exploited, who work in apalling conditions because there's nothing better, who get paid peanuts because if they don't want this dirty job there's another 10 in line.

This is a moral issue. Stop buying cheap copies, for the sake of those who are exploited. If they can no longer sell the crap, they'll move on to hopefully better things.

Close. I'm no Howard Roark but I am an architect by profession and therefore passionate about IP rights.

And so the true motive comes out. Perhaps you would feel a bit differently if you were the manager of a chinese metal shop.

So sad how some people can't see past their own self interest. Although I also produce IP for a living, I don't feel a need to strong arm fair competition with ridiculous laws just to get ahead. Too bad for the "poor" saps who think they can live the rest of their lives on just one moment of eureka without ever lifting a finger again, I guess.


This is a moral issue. Stop buying cheap copies, for the sake of those who are exploited. If they can no longer sell the crap, they'll move on to hopefully better things.

Or perhaps they'll just starve to death after you take away their best available opportunity.

I'm not saying that that would definitely be the case, but I don't understand why so many folks can't seem to get off their high horses and recognize that the situation is more complex then just "Strida knockoffs are bad" or "Strida knockoffs are good".