keyven

Because they are legally allowed to now? The Curl is not unique because there existed before it the Flamingo London NX7 and MIT V8, among others.

Dahon copying Brompton could be a defensive move - after all, if not them, then someone else (see above).

Brompton and Dahon have almost completely different philosophies regarding folding bikes, and it's hard to see them collaborating on any scale. Dahon has been pumping out dozens of models with widely differing folds - Brompton has one single design which they tweak biennially.

The Curl's long delay could be due to working up a foolproof legal defense if Brompton ever tried to challenge it - after all, how tough could it be to copy another design with a few changes?

In the short term, it could be a setback for Brompton, but if they ramp up quality and innovation, then it's a good thing for ALL customers. That said, Dahon may present a formidable challenge on 2 fronts:

1) Dahon does not have to expend significant resources to keep their older customers happy (all of Brompton's older models are still rigorously supported while Dahon's Curl is new to the market and hence have greater flexibility to evolve with consumer expectations)
2) Keeping the manufacturing in the UK may prove to be prohibitively expensive compared to Dahon's Bulgaria/China-made Curls.

Mr. Fly

You know, if Dahon needs so much time to work through legal concerns, in what appears to be a fairly straightforward design question, maybe that's an indicator that perhaps they shouldn't be doing it?

I have significant reservations about the "excuse" of being "legal". That was the exact argument presented by banks and financial institutions a few years ago when they were asked to answer for the crisis that all of us are familiar with. "But it's entirely legal" didn't sit well with me when there were millions who were adversely impacted by the financial shenanigans. While Dahon's copying of the Brompton basic design isn't anywhere close to the scope of what the banks did, I will ask if being legal but not ethical is something one will support.

And let's be clear. What Dahon is doing now isn't remotely innovative. In fact, to me (not that anyone cares) it's distasteful and dishonorable copying. With its engineering staff, I expected more from Dahon than "let's try to see how little we can tweak of Brompton's design and still have the lawyers OK it". If they move forward with the Curl, they'll be pumping out imitations to undercut by price alone. If they are truly innovative, they should come up with a different design that's just as smart as the Brompton fold.

keyven

Not sure why the bike industry is so enamored with "innovation". At some point even folding bikes have their limits. The greatest ideas evolve and get funneled to a point where there is nowhere left to go. For all we know, the Brompton has the perfect fold (for commuting), bar none.

If after 20+ years of having the smallest practical fold in such a competitive industry proves anything, it's that an army of 21st century engineers have tried and failed. Companies with billions could not find a better way, so if it makes you feel better, then take it as Dahon finally throwing in the towel.

IMO it deserves to be everywhere. An affordable Brompton certainly has the potential to trigger a multi-modal revolution in the same way the Sony Walkman did for portable audio devices, Ford did for motorized transport, and so on. Not that the Curl is really all that cheap, but here's to hoping for the future.

bhkyte

I am waiting for another bike manufactor to produce a good 16" compact(or there abouts).
Don't like brompton for many reasons. Mainly part choice and limited gearing options. Don't like the curve d3 or the sl due to the fold or the handlebar stem. Don't like the stiff mezzo offroad.
Choice is good. Let's have more.
Brompton copyright has expired, they are free to use expired copy rights also.

I just want another compact that is not a brompton, brompton could expand their range, but I will be dead by then......

feijai

The debate over your claim aside, the handlebar thing is because the Brompton was directly influenced by the Bickerton.

mulleady

Influence is fine just like in music, cloning isn't.

It's a weak defence for anyone to claim Dahon have shown much originality with the Curl or are free to make a bike that is so incredibly similar. This is not about patents, it's about copyright design. To say that this will be a threat to Brompton sales is an exaggeration to say the least. I sincerely doubt it.

It's a shame because the other 2 bikes in their video do appear somewhat different and very interesting.

mulleady

The Dahon Eezz fulfils this space anyway and looks quite nice. The new 2015 model has an interesting greasing proposition.

Dahon tries to make too many models. David Hon should learn from his son Josh who has a much more consolidated range of bikes at Tern.

DAHON Bikes:*Dahon EEZZ

invisiblehand

Has the Brompton copyright expired?!? I know that the patent expired; but a copyright lasts much longer. At least it is in effect much longer here in the US.

mulleady

A long time!

Copyright Duration Directive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

invisiblehand

FWIW, I see nothing dishonorable, devious, or bad-in-general when a company's patent expires and other companies use that idea. As a society we protect an inventor -- or whoever owns the rights to the invention or idea -- for a period of time allowing them to have a monopoly on it. After the patent expires, the rest of society gets it's return by allowing everyone to use that patent.

When Pfizer's patent on Lipitor ran out, I was happy that people could now get their cholesterol medication at lower prices rather than worried that generic manufacturing companies were doing the dishonorable thing by producing a copy of someone else's product. Similarly, if we think that the Brompton-fold is a really neat design that a lot of people could benefit, then I think it's a great idea that Dahon is willing to enter the market to provide that product at a more economical price.

One can argue that patent's should be longer or perhaps even infinite if one thinks that the incentives for innovation are too low. But there is no free lunch: it comes at a trade off of inefficient pricing of a firm with market power.

mulleady

I don't think comparing pharmas to a small company like Brompton holds fort. Dahon is several times bigger. By all means emulate the fold but make some effort to differentiate elsewhere. This is about copyright not patent. It's a very unoriginal attempt from Dahon who are clearly capable of better.

Schwinnsta

I think invisiblehand has it right. The Curl is not a copy. It has a similar fold. It is like when Schwinn had the so called cantilever frame. They patented and no one else could have it. When their patent ended everyone copied it. Outside of the painted names and badges the bikes were the same.

All of this is for the good of the consumer and enhances innovation. Without the patent, inventors would be discourages. Without the patent ending, innovation would be discouraged. Hopefully this presses Brompton to step up their game.

keyven

The problem is maybe there's little to 'differentiate'. Brompton's absolute focus on a single design has been refined to the point where minor changes to the fold - just for the sake of it - may be redundant and even prove dangerous and inefficient.

And will it really stop the naysayers anyway? I shudder to think how backwards the world would be now if every industry had such ardent opponents to companies copying great concepts. Especially when it is done legally, as Dahon must surely be doing, as there's been no opposition from Brompton regarding the Curl.

mulleady

I think that opposition might only come to light once the Curl has an imminent release?

ThorUSA

mulleady is right ... lets all calm down a bit ... ride our existing bikes or buy exisiting bikes..lol
I have seen the Curl evolve into a real nice bike so far, there are many nice improvements over the early ones, but I wish for more before the bike is finally released.

to me it it almost funny that the fanboys get their knickers in a bunch when Brompton introduces that they will have a quick release lever on the caliper brakes. Such a thing is standard on my old schwinn from the seventies .... together with the caliper brake design ... and than get all fuzzy about Dahon and claiming that there is nthing new and the bikes are copycats ...

Again I have no problems being a fanboy and I use it not as a negativ.... Its way cool that Brompton has this base of very loyal customers , congrats and respect to them.

I have been in Eurobike and Interbike and I have seen so many new details, besides the Clinch and other cool stuff on the Dahon booth, its not all black and white folks. They are inventing and re designing and making things better...

Like nobody seem to notice that a lot of current models have internal cables for example. Super clean look and truly new and revolutionaery on a production folder ...

invisiblehand

Perhaps I misunderstood earlier comments that seemed to be about the fold. Since a judge ruled the the copyright is enforceable -- anyone unfamiliar can look up the Brompton Neobike case -- I have no issue with Brompton defending it. And defending your copyright is dependent on firm size since legal overhead can be significant.

So if the complaints are that it looks too much like a Brompton then I have very little to add other than appearance is often in the eye of the beholder.

mconlonx

Copyright is for words, "copy"; patents are for inventions, tech, and gadgets.

Brompton won a legal suit against another company because that company was led by idiots who copied Brompton marketing material which fell under copyright laws. Not because of any kind of copyright on the design -- that would be patent infringement and Brompton's patents are expired.

Today, I believe copyright is death of author plus 75 years. But any time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain, US Congress extends copyright protections.
@Mr. Fly. An honor and ethics argument coming from someone located in Silicon Valley is actually kind of funny, considering the way tech companies deal fast and loose with patent, and keep the patent attorney field vibrant with a panoply of lawsuits at any given moment. Business honor and ethics have radically changed in the past few decades, and that's only in the USA. Business honor and ethics are situational, cultural, and very subjective -- viewing the actions of a modern Chinese businessman through the lens of a British gentleman from times gone by may lead one to think Dahon is being dishonorable or unethical, but I doubt they see it that way, and most businesses would shrug it off as inconsequential emotionalism.

mulleady

Dahon aren't breaking copyright design? Look above. It's not just about brochures, product design can be copyrighted. The Dahon Qix fulfils the compact folding space and is much more original so why would Dahon want to release one model too many and such an unoriginal at that?

Designs and design rights

mconlonx

There's no such thing as design copyright. Product design cannot be copyrighted. Business decisions Dahon makes are up to Dahon.

From your link: "Design rights exist independently of copyright, while copyright may protect documents detailing the design as well as any artistic or literary work incorporated within the finished product, the design right focuses more on the shape, configuration and construction of a product."

The article goes on to outline registered design rights in the UK, which translates across the Atlantic in the USA as patents. Design may be protected via Registered Design Rights in the UK or Patent law in the USA, but not via copyright, which only applies to written material regarding the product. Difference (in the USA) is 17 year IP protection for patents; death of creator + 75 years IP protection for copyrighted material.

Since Brompton patent is expired, the design is in the public domain. Anyone copying the design (not the marketing material) is not doing anything shady, they are within the law, ethics, and morality. During the time Brompton did have IP protection on their design, they could have teamed up with a PacRim manufacturer to manufacture a cheaper, maybe aluminum model to expand their line, but they kept things small and traditional and as a result have gained a stellar reputation as a boutique manufacturer. Business choice on their end, one that has paid off well for them so far.

And with the Chinese Aluminum Curl coming in at $1200 retail, I don't think those who were in the market for UK Steel Brompton will be tempted to go with the competing Dahon model over a couple hundred dollars. Just doesn't have the cache, which Brompton has carefully cultivated. The Curl isn't competition for the Brompton, but as you point out, it may very well compete with Dahon Qix sales where compact fold is paramount for a customer.

invisiblehand

Actually that is an older Curl. The 2015 has a pretty similar appearance.

2015 Dahon Curl???? **********2014************************************************************?

invisiblehand

If Thor is right that the Curl comes in at $1200 with a 7 speed IGH, rear rack with "EZ wheels", adjustable stempost, but no front bag mount to the frame, I think Brompton should be worried if their basic 3-speed model is $1450. (I quickly glanced at the NYCE Wheels site)

I don't know if people will prefer the ERTO 355 wheels to ERTO 349 ... it looks like only moderately wide tires will fit the Curl. So they might both be limited in tire width ... say ~35-40 mm. If the Curl could fit the Big Apples in ERTO 355 -- I'm a fan of wide tires for small wheels -- then it would have another significant advantage, IMO.

Human_Amplifier

err... Strida Mk1, 1987, had internal cables Oh, and belt drive

ThorUSA

yeah ... do they need a brake on that bike ? and gears? :-)

jur

Birdy has internal cables. And long ago, a belt drive version. Not sure why they dropped it.

keyven

I stand corrected on this point. Let the courts handle and decide on Dahon's case IF it does come through. If Brompton decides to manufacture cheaper options or speed up innovation instead, that's even better.