View Single Post
Old 04-23-19, 12:55 AM
  #46  
berlinonaut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 645
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 301 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by tcs View Post
Yeah, no such thing as 'international copyright'. Every jurisdiction allows and disallows various things, sometimes including what in the USA is separately called design patent and sometimes not.
A design patent is something you actively have to apply for (like for any patent). Copyright is something you gain automatically as the creator of something. To enforce it is - especially internationally and even more in Asia - a different, sometimes risky but always expensive story. Nobody apart from you was using the term "international copyright" - possibly because it is not a legal term as far as I know. To invent a term as you did and immediately claim it would not exist seems a bit silly...

Originally Posted by tcs View Post
We've also had some Brompton fans claim the bike was uniquely covered not by patent, copyright or trademark but by some sort of double secret intellectual property protection. What this might be has never been spelled out, I suppose owing to its double secret nature.
There's no secret to that. Brompton sued Neobike in 2004 and 2010 by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neobike#Court_cases Just because of lining this out I would not consider myself a fan and just because you do not now the fact and are at the same time to lazy to research I would noch call it "double secret".

Originally Posted by tcs View Post
I think the real world reason Chinese-built folding bikes of the Andrew Ritchie pattern aren't seen in Europe is the importation tariffs/customs charges.
That's interesting. Would they not be able to compete? Would their prices be too high for the quality and service offered? How come, if it is so easy to build the whole thing as good but far cheaper than the original? Btw: Are those clones offered in the US?
berlinonaut is offline