Originally Posted by
makeinu
Are we talking about fairness or are we talking about progress?
If your only point is that creative people are the ones driving progress then you have no basis for arguing that the counterfeiting competition is hindering progress in any way. On the contrary, just as the creative people are the ones driving progress, the counterfeiting competition are the ones driving the creative people.
Is it unfair? Perhaps, but it really doesn't matter because I doubt any legislature in the world is powerful enough to contradict Adam Smith's invisible hand and the near infinite supply which is inherent to all kinds of information. Is Mark Sanders ceasing to be creative because he is being treated unfairly? No, because profit, not fairness, is what drives the market; And if Mark Sanders has enough profit motive to continue creating is he really being treated unfairly?
You can make any point you want, but the fact of the matter is that we see progress happening before our very eyes: Consumer prices dropping on the award winning Strida design and innovative new improvements from the award winning Strida designer. I can't say the same about the situation at the Brompton company, who, according to you, has apparently had fewer "unfair" crimes against them. So which should take precedence, progress or your personal sense of "fairness"?
I doubt Mark Sanders/MAS Design of Windsor, England is motivated to create because he is being driven by copycats to do so. He creates because of who he is and what he does, not by what others do. I doubt the Nameless-Manufacturing-Company of Somewhere-In-China is motivated to keep Mark Sanders on his toes. Their motivation is to profit from the work of others, not by their own efforts.
As I mentioned, I know little about Merc vs. Brompton and did not mean to imply a lesser degree of fakery was okay. I was simply pointing out that the “Strda” vs. Strida issue may not equate to that comparison in that everything about “Strda”, down to the ad photos, has been copied across the board from Strida and represented as being the same product at a quarter of the price of the original.
Counterfeiters may not hinder progress (though that is arguable, too), they just don't contribute anything that constitutes progress. They are certainly not a source of inspiration for the creative process necessary for progress, which I believe means to advance the human condition by our capacity to innovate and improve ("Innovate or die!"). There is nothing new or innovative in a direct copy.
On the other hand, if progress is ultimately to be defined by a lower consumer price, how low should it be and at what cost? Costs can be gauged in terms of quality, sale price, safety, etc., but what about other costs that can’t be quantified. What does it say about our society if we forego originality and condone blatant fakery at the lowest price? What does it say about us individually if we wish to buy into it knowing what it is? Irresistibly low price can come with a high cost.
I guess we have different views of our world. Yours scares me.