Originally Posted by Norman Fay
I'm not quite sure what the point of your copying my post from another forum over here is, but I have no doubt that if I'd refused to sell Tony the spokes you'd be snarky about that as well, maybe even snarkier.
I don't have any particular problem with Tony, he paid his money and made his choice. If he's happy with what he's bought, good for him. I was, and am disgusted with the product itself - a direct copy in every way that I could see of a highly distinctive product, even down to many of the special moulded plastic parts - the rear swing arm and the bag bracket for example - appearing to be identical to the point where one could reasonably speculate that they'd been moulded from the originals. I told Tony that when he was in my shop. It was, I guess, interesting to see one in the flesh, so to speak.
I think that to speak of "innovation" when comparing these 2 products is a gigantic red herring. If you look at a Bromton from today, compared with one from when we started selling them, 10yrs ago - better frame and handlebar stem hinges, better front hub, better dynamo, better handlebars, better brakes, better tyres, better wheel rims etc etc etc. If you were to put and old and a new machine together, I wouldn't be surprised if you could list 100 or more improvements to the design, made over the years. This is real Innovation. You could say the same thing of several of Brompton's competitors in the folding bike market - Riese und Muller, Dahon, Bike Friday, Airframe. Companies whose products have been consistently and constantly improved in quality and function over the years. This compared to what?
Given the build quality of the machine - comparable to anything on the market today, and the company's exemplary treatment of (rare) warranty complaints, I don't think they're expensive, personally. The only other machine I get through that is ready to ride from the box is the Challege recumbent - a handbuilt machine costing over 1100 UK pounds. But, then I would say that wouldn't I.
Best wishes.
Hi Norman, welcome!
Norman, you say that you were disgusted with the bike, but the only thing you mention specifically is that it appears to be a pretty exact knockoff of a Brompton.
What were your impressions of the bike itself? Did the build quality appear to be lacking? Was the ride or fold in any way inferior to a Brompton? Did you test-ride one, or try out to see if the accessories tend to rip/break easily? Were the accessories, components and price reasonable in your opinion?
We're not deliberately trying to gang up on you, or be "snarky" towards you or other Brompton owners/sellers. I think that what sparks the discussion here is that there seems to be a somewhat fierce loyalty towards Brompton in the UK, which is completely understandable: They're very good bikes. But there also seems to be a hostility, sometimes understated, sometimes outright, towards the knockoffs that are going to come inevitably once the patents have expired on the original (admittedly great) bike. If a competitor can bring in a bike that is nearly as good, for significantly less money, then doesn't that benefit nearly everyone (excpect for Brompton and their retailers)?
I think that you were quoted not to make fun of you, but because you are involved professionally with Bromptons, and your opinion was germain to this discussion. Your stated opinion, is an example of the type of opinion that perplexes some folks on this board. It's an opinion that seems to be shared by a lot of folks, and concentrated in the UK, Brompton's home turf. It comes out somewhat like: "I detest these Brompton knockoffs, and get irritated when people say good things about them. I consider them to be piracy despite the fact that they are putting expired patents to use. I would never sell or buy one, despite the fact that they cost noticably less than a similarly-fitted Brompton. I will continue to denigrate them, rather than test-riding them or fairly comparing them side-by-side with the Bromptons that they copy/imitate."
Again, the main point of contention seems to be over the length of the patents. Just how long should an inventor be allowed to exclusively profit from their ideas? How long a wait should we have before it's "OK" for another company to deliver a pretty exact knockoff of an original idea? If the intertwining of "patent" and "copyright" that happens today also took place a century ago, I shudder to think of what society would be like today....and is heading towards for the future. Every valve, every piston, every joined-frame angle, on just about every product you can imagine, would still be protected by a slew of intellectual property laws, and the licenses for them would be funding the lifestyles of multi-generational families.
"What do you do for a living?"
"Me? Oh, nothing. My great-great-grandfather invented some obcure piston 94 years ago that everyone uses. We get $0.54 every time an engine gets built, anywhere. Except of course for certain Asian and sub-Saharan African nations, where they don't obey copyright. But we have legions of lawyers too, and they're lobbying Washington to go to institute sanctions if those countries don't start paying up too."