OK, so I am super, super late to the party (this discussion), but I feel I have to add my 2 cents. When it comes to watches, most of the time, the seller doesn't acknowledge the original designer. In fact, it would be detrimental to the sales of the "homage" to do so, being that the serious watch community is so militant about wanting to keep the purity of the hobby. Yes, to many, that is what it is though I suspect it's more about status than anything else. Look at me (my fancy expensive Rolex), I have "arrived".

The bike world is somewhat more forgiving and mentioning that a Brompton look alike is in fact a clone or copy is more widely accepted. That said, the term "homage" isn't out of place in this too except that sounds wieird since many in this community are not to used to it. Saying that a bike is based on the Brompton's design is actually a good thing unless you're a hardcore fanboy of the brand and find it offensive.

We also know that outside the EU, there is nothing Brompton can do about these clones since the patents expired a while ago. Like it or not, anyone who creates a Brompton clone doesn't have to pay the company any royalties or other so called "licensing fees". That's business folks. Live goes on.