Originally Posted by
overbyte
All of the above are my thoughts too. This isn't the first time that the Brompton was cloned. I found this from 2004:
Reference:
Brompton swoops on Scoop | Bicycle Business | BikeBiz
So although the Brompton patents have expired, if it "looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck" it's too much like a duck to be anything else in the mind of the consumer and of the law. Copyrights have much longer lifespan than patents do. I know that in the US there are patents called design patents, which don't protect an invention but rather protect the distinctive artistic design of a product, such as the shape of the original Coke bottle. I don't know if US copyright law applies to designs of products, but apparently copyright does apply to designs of products in the Netherlands.
China is notoriously bad about enforcement of intellectual property infringements.
there was recently a very long and stupid thread about this topic in which the majority of posters failed to (for whatever reason) comprehend the difference between patents, copyright, and/or industrial design law. additionally, a sentiment that was uniformly expressed by those who willfully failed to understand the importance or purpose of design law, was that they had no moral or ethical problem buying counterfeit or stolen goods. even going to far as to refer to the theft as "competition".
not surprising really...