Thread: Beyond bogus
View Single Post
Old 04-15-18, 03:15 PM
  #6  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18373 Post(s)
Liked 4,508 Times in 3,351 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat
The problem with buying Chinese knockoffs is it encourages their manufacturing culture of ripping off other businesses that invested a lot of money into establishing a marque.

Business and marketing media on all sides of the issue have talked about this for years. Western companies whose primary product is intellectual property have said whenever they try to do business in China the government twists their arms to divulge trade secrets, source code, etc., as a condition of doing business in China. Then the IP is stolen and the creators get nothing.

This doesn't just hurt the bottom line of big corporations. It's outright theft from individual artists and graphic designers who see their designs stolen and used by Chinese manufacturers without compensation or legal recourse. I personally know some artists and graphic designers who've been victims of this type of theft.

And some unscrupulous U.S. and European companies take advantage of this. They'll steal the designs, create the marketing schemes, then have the products (let's say socks) made in China and blame the Chinese for the theft. But the American or British folks who actually own the companies will continue selling the products knowing the graphics were stolen.

I've bought some cheap Chinese made cycling apparel, but only stuff that didn't seem to be a knockoff of someone else's design. But I've avoided Sponeed because it appears they're trying to make a half-assed impression of aping the look of Specialized designs at a quick glance. Well, that... and as dumb as "Specialized" is as a brand name, Sponeed is worse. Sounds like offal from a hide rendering facility. "Honey, go soak in a tub with deodorant, you reek of sponeed."
Of course, copyright and trademark issues can become more complicated.

For example, Puddles the Duck (1920's) came before Donald Duck (1934).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Duck

But, the characters merged around 1940, but have both shared features, as well as differences.

Walt Disney apparently was aware of the Oregon Donald Duck.

But, after Walt's death (1966), Disney Corp decided to renegotiate the licensing deal (1973).

And, of course, copyright law has been changed many times since 1934/1940. So, while the original Donald copyright should have expired years ago, we're stuck with still being under Disney Corp's thumb... and pay royalties for all UofO gear.
CliffordK is offline