Hi Norman. Nice to see you here.

I hope you read my comment about your service up above. Thanks again for all your help. I appreciate it.

If it's ok with you, I'll come and buy other stuff when I need it.

I don't get "snarky" over bikes; I have a life. But since you don't read threads well enough, here's the gist of my point: if you're going to complain about what a rip-off and copy the Merc is, and then go and sell parts to support the Merc, then what are you complaining about? Aren't you both directly and indirectly supporting Merc? Or are you compelled, as some may think, to sell anything to anyone who walks into your store?

As far as copying your post from another forum, I wanted to give you full credit. After all, you do stand behind them, don't you? Otherwise I fail to see why you'd write them in the first place.

Ratdog, should most bicycle manufacturers today still have to pay royalties to the first person who patented a double-diamond framed bicycle? Or their distant descendants?

I think that most here agree generally that there should be a point where the original innovator/inventor of something can no longer charge others for the privilege of producing/distributing their design. Where should that point be? With patentable designs, I'd say that it should be when the patent expires. Letting someone patent an invention, then sue for copyright infringement when the patent expires, seems to give them a double-jeopardy kind of authority over their competitors. In my opinion, even if another company copies the original exactly, after the patent runs out, then why should the original inventor be able to sue using a secondary version of "you copied my idea"? I'd answer, "Yes, I copied it exactly, but so long as I'm not misleading others into thinking that I *am* you or your business, then so be it. Your exclusive rights on the design of that particular bicycle have expired.

That's the point, isn't it? In terms of the Merc, it is misleading.

A lot of folding bikes and folding bike companies out there. They just all don't LOOK EXACTLY like the Brompton.

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."

....except for the stencil/badge/paintjob which says "MercBike" (or whatver they say) on it.

I would *definitely* agree with you on this if the bikes were named "Bimpton" or "Pomton" or something like that. Unless you see them from a distance, or silhouetted against the sunset, every one is loudly advertising exactly which company made them.

I agree with bookishboy that Merc is not pretending to be a Brompton. It is clearly labeled and in some advertisements, Merc clearly distinguishes itself from Brompton. However, they are imitating the Brompton just like other companies imitate competitor's products.

From a layperson's perspective, the curved top tube and other Brompton characteristics seem to be closely related to function, so I am surprised that the copyright was enforced. If anyone has any information on the arguments/examples Brompton used in the Scoop/Neobike case, I would be interested in reading about them. If they changed the size of the fold or riding characteristics, then it would seem that the look is based on functionality.

What you're mistakening is terminology here. Patents are for inventions and not the look of said invention unless an argument can be made that the only way for the function of such invention is so predicated on the specific design or look. If this is the case then the inventor of that "look" should be entitiled to royalties (patent) for a period of time. But, Merc has copied the "look" but will not be able to prove that the only way to make a folding bike is to copy the Brompton "look". For that matter, the other folding bike manufacturers have already proven that it can be done.

Again, read the above, patents cover inventions that are significant to the advancement of the industry. It merely protects the original innovator & allows them to keep being innovative from a financial perspective. IMO, the design & looks are more along the lines of intellectual property that does not have an end date to royalties unless it can be proven that the form or look is the only way that said product can function.

Basically, Design, looks & function are not the same in regards to royalties. Yet you're treating them the same in regards to patents.

You can't say that it's the only way to make a folding bike & that's where the argument falls apart. It's a bold face attempt at copying a sucessful design without even an attempt at changing the curved top tube. I doubt that Merc even went through the trouble at looking at possible different geometries in order to avoid any possible legal claims by Brompton.

Well, apparently the Dutch court also agreed that the copies were close enough, including stencil/badge/paintjob and "Merc" sticker, unless there's a problem with the Dutch court too.

Pedantry can only go so far before much of it turns to BS. I believe they call it "infinite regression."

Not to descend too far into the hell this thread has become but from an engineering perspective if can quite successfully be argued that the curved top tube is an arc; one of the strongest structures in engineering. Why do you think we have arches? In a bike frame it will better resist torsional loads on it since it is one piece.

It could also be argued that the curve in the top tube is there for functional reason to more closely follow the curve of the rear tire when folded. This is where the expired patents could be used against Brompton.

Dante would be pleased.


What about a truss frame?
What about a solid arc that has no hinge in the frame at all?


That was pretty freakin' ingenious.

Hmmm ... no the standard is more specific than to simply make a folding bike.

Anyone in society is allowed to use Ritchie's patents for the Brompton to make a folding bike. If fully exploiting those patents to maximize the functionality of a folding bike leads to the Brompton design, then the copyright should not apply.

Clearly, compactness of the fold is one function of a folding bike. If optimizing that function leads to a curved top tube, then the copyright of the curved top tube is inappropriate. In application the problem is more complicated since one is optimizing functionality in many different dimensions; i.e., weight, size, handling, and so on. Perversely, the better a Brompton is, the more likely it is close to some local maximum (optimum). Hence, the easier it is to explain the similarity.

Consider the example with automobiles. Aerodynamics are a clear component of building a functional automobile. That many sports cars have a strikingly similar appearance is expected. However, slight variations in the look have minimal effect on aerodynamics. Hence, an exact duplication of appearance is unwarranted and (probably) illegal.

Supposedly, in its court case against Scoop/Neobike, Brompton demonstrated how its patents could be effectively utilized without infringing on its look. In other words, to show that the copyright is appropriate, Brompton had to show that a patent's functionality is unencumbered by the copyright. (at least this is my interpretation of it ... a real copyright/intellectual property lawyer could help at this moment) It would be interesting to see those models.

More generally, I am unsure who has the burden of proof. These type of technicalities often differ across jurisdictions as well. My reading of the Brompton case suggests that in Europe, Brompton bears most of that responsibility. In the US, that is almost certainly the case. Assuming that such a case is on the way in the UK, it will be interesting to know who has the burden there.

Is this not heaven?

I think you know the answers to some of these questions so why ask? The hinge is pretty much necessary to make a more compact fold.The simple arc is quite strong and minimizes welding how it is done. Of course the hinge could have been put in a different place but without running a structural analysis on it I can’t say for sure. I dealt with a lot of these intellectual property issues and patents in a previous job. I personally don’t have much desire to revisit that time in my life when it relates to something I am not directly involved in.

Bottom line is sometimes you get a patent when you shouldn’t and sometimes you shouldn’t get one but you do anyway. I have no stake in this situation so I’ll let the relevant parties sort it out rather than be an armchair advocate (lawyer) here. If/when it all plays out then I’ll be more interested. As it is I like my Merc much better than my last Brompton. For me it is functionally better bike and I don’t give a darn if it looked like a Brompton or not. I was never that taken (actually NEVER taken) with the Brmoptons looks. About the only thing I really liked about it was its diminutive fold. The Merc substantially addressed most of my major issues with the Brompton and did it at a price that undercut Brompton’s less well equipped models. It could have been more expensive and I would still have bought it. Price wasn’t a factor for me; functionality was.

Keep in mind that bike designers have limited sizes and specs of equipment they can buy “off the shelf” so as to reduce costs and minimize building everything custom and in house. Then we’ll all complain about all the non-standard parts it uses, yada, yada, yada. The plus to the basic Brompton design is it is very simple. No complex folding bits like Birdy.

Just thought you had something more specific in mind.

I was just trying to think of ways Merc could have used the patent but not infringed on the copyright (I guess that's what's at stake here).


Except for you, I think this is the heart of the issue for most people whether spoken or unspoken.


Birdy's not that bad. They just suffer from Bromptonitis - expensive.

Not to drift off into another thread but I just don't get the Birdy. It is not super small. It is quite expensive for what you get. It has odd size tires that don't have a lot of choices. It isn't featherweight. After riding one I wasn't super impressed. Dare I say it but a Brompton is a better value. To say that makes me feel like I am going to cough up a hairball as I don't particularly love Bromptons. Compared to Birdy they seem like a great deal. The new Birdy seems more promising but with the dollar/Euro exchange rate being pretty bad must foreign bikes aren't looking so good if they come from Europe.

What really interests me is how the Merc's Aluminium frame will hold up - particularly as the Brompton's geometry was based around a steel main-frame. I assume Merc have thoroughly tested their product, but even so, the frame will be less durable. Any thoughts?

How many miles would you expect an alloy frame to last, given normal road use and average weight rider?

Alloy frames are a new thing to me. I've got three alloy bikes of my own and my sons have three more. Earlier bikes we have owned have all been steel framed, and some proved very durable and tolerant of abuse over more than twenty years before I threw them out. I just gave away a fifteen year old mountain bike (?must be about that?) which had suffered a slight bend in the back end when my eldest son got to that kamikazi stage of hurling himself down precipitous, rocky slopes. It still worked fine, except that the alloy stem and seat post were utterly siezed into the steel frame. An old guy I know is toddling about on it now and I can confidently say it will see him out, since he's 82 years old. He had this awful ancient single speed ladies bike that he could hardly pedal into the wind anymore. He thinks the 21 speed Marin is a revelation.

The Merc does not have noticeably larger tubing diameters than the Brompton so it must have considerably thicker-walled tubing. This will compensate for not using steel, but it does mean that the Merc is as heavy as a non-Ti Brompton...

What really interests me is how the Merc's Aluminium frame will hold up - particularly as the Brompton's geometry was based around a steel main-frame. I assume Merc have thoroughly tested their product, but even so, the frame will be less durable. Any thoughts? -Fear&Trembling

That is one of the most important feauture of the steel frame bike, it's proven longevity. Alumimun is for the person looking for probably cheaper, lighter weight, more (but not total) corrosion resistance, that flashy "in" sort of cycling style. Not to keep it for a long period of time (say, longer than 5 or so years). That is fine for racers or other sport orientated professional cyclists who probably throws out their bikes after one season (and can write if off on their income tax each year), but I don't think it is for the average rider, unless he/she is another uniformed Lance-clone I see riding around periodically calling attention to his/her self and their overrated (and expensive) aluminum bike. Steel is more forgiving, can be reshaped or bent to a certain extent into accepting different components when needed. Try doing that to aluminum. I'll stick with steel untill I probably give up cycling (when I am dead).

The Merc if equivalently fitted is less than a non-Ti Brompton. It weight would be very close if not possibly less than the Ti Brommie. IF you read their specs and compare the weights of each bike, you may assume incorrectly that the Merc weighs more. It doesn't as it has more stuff fitted on it.

To go superlight you could take the Merc frame and add the Ti Brommie bits. You could strip off the light and dynamo and rack. You could probably get to under 20lbs in this configuration even with the internal hub.

It is quite difficult to compare like for like, but you're right on the first point. I believe the Merc GT3 is based on the Brompton T3. The latter weighs in at approx 12.18 Kg from the factory (inc of carrier, dynamo lights and mudguards). The GT3 weighs 12.34 Kg (inc of carrier, dynamo lights, mudguards, kickstand and tapered front block). The addition of the kickstand and front block certainly weigh more than the difference. Still, it is a pretty small margin.

A fully specced 3 speed Ti Brommie should under-cut the Merc, but someone else can verify that by subtracting the difference of the Ti forks, rear triangle and seatpost...

The accessories offered by Merc are incredibly cheap.

EvilV - does the GT3 Merc come with anything else on the frame that I have missed?

No I think you've got it all covered. Obviously you get the front luggage bag, a carrying bag and an under-seat pouch to store it while riding, but I doubt they've been included in the weigh in.

One thing - Merc use thinner rear spokes than Brompton have since 1990 (14 gauge rather than 13). This is becoming a matter of regret for me, since a second one twanged yesterday. Then, as if that wasn't enough, I stupidly punctured the tube while putting the rear tyre back on after fixing it.... I might have the wheel rebuilt with 13 gauge spokes. It's a pain having the damned wheel off twice in sixty miles for the same problem. The Brompton spokes are dirt cheap at £0.26 each.

EvilV - maybe it's the spoke pattern? When I switched to two cross, 14 guage has held up fine. On the standard Brompton wheel at least, the angle is too steep for a three cross, especially using 13 guage.