While you are certainly entitled to your "might makes right" view of the world, IMO it is pure nonsense. You might as well argue that it is progress if I rob a jewelry store and sell the stolen watches on the street at ten cents on the dollar because consumer prices are dropping. While there is no legislature in the world powerful enough to stop robbery, that doesn't mean that we should ignore it, accept it, or much less support it.

Hear hear! well said! I think you said everything I needed to say.


Brompton are a great little company. There is much to admire about them. You don't have to buy into Brompton prices if you don't like it. Same with Strida. I still think some of these low-end, and I do stress low-end Chinese companies are cheats in every sense of the word and don't conform to any form of fair competition or quality. That's a funny sort of 'progress'. As for the 'invisible hand' theory, it's ancient economics and a lame argument for advocating cheap rip-offs.

As for using IP protection like the Sony rootkit scandal or overpricing of digital music downloads then I agree that progress forces greedy record companies to rethink. However in the low margin world of bikes the context is a little different to say the least. Yet we have many companies who products or upgrade their innovations on a constant basis. Dahon even get criticised for too many new products but it can only be applauded. The progress in folding bikes hasn't been made by low-end Chinese Strida copiers and they certainly haven't been the inspiration to the likes of Dahon, Birdy, BF, Pacific or Downtube. It's the innovators who push each other forward not the copiers. if copiers dominated the market with dirt cheap versions (which thank god they don't) then everything would be based on old technologies and their would be no such word as progress. I suppose it's perfectly acceptable for any Chinese company to take the new IF folding design for 26" wheel bikes and use it for free without paying for the copyright which is owned by pacific? If so. Mark Sanders and the like would not bother with progressing new ideas would they now?

When Schumpeter talked about his concept of 'creative destruction' in markets, he was talking about innovators displacing each other not imitators.

If you think that Mr Sanders is solely motivated by the fulfillment of his identity as an inventor then why would blatant fakery of his prior designs entail foregone originality?

I was not trying to espouse a "might makes right" point of view. As Thomas Jefferson put it:
BTW, I just went to see the Thomas Jefferson memorial last weekend...brilliant man.

Based on Jefferson's logic all the most advanced nations should share their military secrets with every nation on Earth including North Korea. Companies should spend billions on R&D and then just give it away. That makes sense doesn't it? The only way to support such Utopian logic would actually to be to have all R&D and inventions nationalised and made public goods! Your ideas of Adam Smith style market forces and Jefferson style free IP are at paradox with each other.

There are many great minds and orators like Jefferson, that doesn't always make them right. Marx supported a classless society concept free of exploitation but sadly his great mind didn't stop him abusing one of his female servants. Neither did he ever quite explain why a medical doctor should earn the same as a road sweeper after giving up nearly 10 years of their life to study.

I feel my taper has been lit so strongly I'm off to now to build a factory in Poland and I'll call my company Brompton, copy their fold and logo and flood the market with £350 Brompton bikes with 8 speed hubs! Stand aside Mr Ritchie I'm ready to make progress!

Absolutely not. This is not a what if situation. Here the very topic of this thread is that we have a copier selling a dirt cheap version and, yet, Mark Sanders continues to innovate. We also have the same situation happening with the A-bike.

Your assertions are inconsistent with the facts.

Conversations about the military belong in the politics subforum. That being said, I don't think Jefferson's logic at all implies that companies should spend billions on R&D and then just give it away. It implies that companies spending billions on R&D had best keep their projects under wraps because nature itself will ensure that their exclusive use will only last as long as their secrets. This is not utopian logic, but a common practice in the corporate world.

Don't even get me started on abuses of the IP law which render it nearly pointless. The only thing paradoxical here is the conflict between your utopian philosophy and the factual evidence.

It was an analogy like many of yours. You went off the Strida issue a long time ago. What a know-all!

One minute you are quoting Smith's 'invisible hand' theory and the next Jefferson's views on the diffusion of ideas. As I said this would only work if most inventions were made the property of the state under the public good concept. It just doesn't hack it to have no IP protection in the commercial world of capitalism.

Not all IP law is abuse, it depends on the industry and its pointless arguing with you because you never got back on point about what makes it acceptable to have a Chinese company not only copying the Strida but even stealing their photos and a spin-off of the name?

Finally I just don't think you get what motivates innovation. It's achievment and money. Manfacturing secrets can't be hidden because they would get reverse engineered once the product is released. Patents aren't the exclusive domain fof the big corporates who like to abuse IP, they allow the rise of small companies such as Dyson in vacuum cleaners and Brompton in compact folders. You have a queer logic. What about the new IF folding technology for larger wheeled bikes that Pacific bought off Mark Sanders? Do you think it should just be copied as a free-for-all? Are you denying their right to IP protection for a certain length of time? Are you saying it's OK for a Chinese company to rip-off another company's photos and use a near identical brand name? (I'll accept the fact the Strida design is out of patent now.)

His assertions are not inconsistent. Low cost copiers simply don't dominate the market because companies are given IP protection for unique innovations for a certain length of time and get the chance to build brand equity around the product. Without IP protection, we simply wouldn't witness the same wholesale level of innovation and product development as their would be no risk-return trade-off.

The only issue I have with product patents is price skimming strategies for new technologies leading to over-pricing and restricted uptake as a result. A good example is HSDPA romaing charges abroad. Also the use of excessive DRM to restrict the freedom of music users and to exploit them price-wise, Sony BMG being an example of this.

As for Brompton you can't equate them to such companies above in trying to protect some copyright aspects on their design and look. Even Brompton know they can't prevent the general fold from being emulated anymore as Flamingo Bikes (Grace Gallant Enterprises) now use an adapation of the Brompton fold in their new folder range. What's your issue with Brompton then?

This conversation has gotten a bit out there; societal progress hardly has a positive correlation with how well Strida fends off strda. Quality is still quality and knock off is still, usually, crap. There really aren't many people who don't clearly know the difference between the two. And for someone who buys a knock off and thinks they're getting a deal, they're also buying an important lesson: you get what you pay for.


To narrow the focus on a more particular kind of progress, I just think if poor Raxel (the OP) tries too much of the forward kind on his new strda, he's gonna find the thing falling apart before he gets too far.

I doubt Mr. Sanders “is solely motivated by the fulfillment of his identity as an inventor” nor did I say that I think so. He doesn’t sound like that kind of egotist if you listen to him. Quite the opposite, his motivation in a larger sense may stem from the fact that he appears to be a genuinely good individual who had the creative means within him to solve an observed problem, producing an innovative design that had not existed before and has benefited thousands of people. He has since moved on to other creative problem-solving efforts.

Contrast that to the anonymous person in China who, not inclined to make his own problem-solving effort, has decided to forego originality (assuming he even has the capacity for it), opted to copy Sander’s work instead, and present it as an equal product at a questionable, bargain-basement price. It is remarkable that he didn’t even come up with an original name but simply stripped out the letter “i” in Strida - you know, “i” as in “innovative” and “imaginative”. It's missing. How appropriate!

Very intense discussions so far, almost like a debate competition. I always know that foldie owners somehow have something substantial between their ears and this thread confirms it

Here in Singapore, the fakos of A'Bike (arrived abt a yr ago) and recently Strida are sold openly in the big name supermarkets. If I'm not mistaken, a fake Strida advertised at 130Euros and the A"Bike maybe half of that. Yet, I don't see them sell like hot cakes and in fact, the fako A'Bike's prices have been drastically cut. The poor demand for these no quality fakes resulted in their natural death despite a much hyped up start.

Contrast that with the originals - they have enjoyed unprecedented sales here. Enough said.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." A Lincoln

well, shucks! i spent some time gathering up hot air to blow into this conversation, but oldiesONfoldies trumped me with what i can't offer: the story on the ground, the facts.

but i might as well play

a fan of ayn rand, are you?

makeinu brings up an interesting point with the quotation from thomas jefferson. it's not that the counterfeiters are stealing an idea; they're building bikes. it's the physical construction based on the idea, not the appropriation of the idea itself, that causes offense; as jefferson says,

sanders' rights to the design have expired. his concerns about quality are good, but the only real insult is that they're using his name.

the analogy with the music industry is flawed, because the cost of copying is higher: it doesn't take as much "genius" to build bikes from a copied design as it does to design originals, but you still need to be running a decent manufacturing operation, so it's not like the counterfeiters are completely talentless.

you might say, "they're just a bunch of ****ty counterfeiters" -- well, in the long run, they should realize that having that image is going to limit their success. they have to live or die on the strength of their quality control in the end. [edit after reading oldiesONfoldies: from the sound of it, they're dying. life goes on.]

this is progress, sort of.

sure, some of us wish they played the game by different rules. but they don't have to. someone earlier was lamenting the lack of a world government to shove IP law down their throats. well, i'm glad there isn't one to do that. privileges for the individual inventor might be the source of creativity in some cultures, but in others, it's the diversity of competing opinions and strategies that stimulates creativity. what they're doing is legal in their country, so why can't they? and aren't there plenty of ways to outcompete them even if they copy?

Hey, do! If you have a good chance of success, I'll invest in you, and I mean that sincerely. Might want to pick a different name, though; you'll mislead people. How about Prombton?

(By the way: The analogy with military secrets is flawed, because military secrets are what we use to kill each other, so who knows what is more critical. Bicycle R&D is a good deal less serious, no? Though, if I had a button labeled "Open-source all the world's military secrets," I'd push it. Then at least everyone would know exactly what we were all capable of, which would be a good start to rationally constructing sustainable peace agreements.)

My friend bought one of those fake A-bikes from a Singapore supermarket and the tire valve snapped off, with NO recourse to repair it. I told him, you are lucky nothing else broke off, and nothing broke while you were riding the damn thing.

$50 down the drain. Ah well. Haha!

These low quality fakes might actually lead to some sales of real ones: Someone, intrigued by the bikes, buys the ****ty copy, thinking 'what the heck it's only $50,' rides a bit and perhaps enjoys it, it breaks, they think 'bugger this, I'm going for a quality one.'

Spot on mate! And then they get stuck with some scrap metal that resembles a bike that no one wants.

The problem is this scenario often works the other way around: Consumers unfamiliar with folding bikes in general and Strida in particular may acquire a very negative impression of one or both based on their first purchase, say a "Strda", damaging the reputations of the quality manufacturers who are guilty by association in the consumer's mind. That is why major companies with well-known trademarked brand names have legal departments to hunt down impostors.

chainstrainer

yes that could be a likely outcome.

which would be sad. So we have to reach all these potential buyers.

Quick comments:

Generally, lower prices mean a greater availability of a good to the masses. How many people do we know that are willing to pay $100-200 for a bike but not $500? Writing generally, lower prices are a sign of greater efficiencies which let us apply our resources elsewhere including recreation/leisure.

I don't know what is so ancient about incentives driving behavior -- my interpretation of the "invisible hand". But the point that welfare analysis has become more sophisticated is, of course, true.

I agree that intellectual property laws are important. The point that it forms an integral part of economic growth is an excellent one in my opinion since it does allow for one to gain from one's ideas that are otherwise easily duplicated.

I also think that the "STRDA" versus "STRIDA" is a little nefarious. I have no problem with another company copying a product that no longer has patent protection. But here it seems like the company is trying to conceal its origin and free ride off the reputation of Strida. This not only hurts Strida but also reduces the incentive for a companies to produce quality goods and be responsive to consumers.

My crazy idea. What if we all write them and suggest other names and tried to engage them
in the ethics of using a almost identical name.

We could help them make a more true homepage.

This is not the original Strida. This is our rip off.
We have done our best to copy it to the best of
our ability.

If you could see how we could improve the quality of
our version then you get first take on the new badge.

Obviously I am bad at writing such texts. We could
at least give them a link to this thread?

This letter says it all - it also acknowledges that some people like the bike but simply can't afford it. In the design video I am sure it says the original aim was to make an affordable £100 bike (in 1980s money).

A part from any patents Strida shape is so distinctive I am sure they must be able to get good protection using copyright laws - if Chinese officials would enforce them.

I personally prefer to support the originators ie Brompton, Strida, Dahon, swift, moulton, R&M, Pacific, downtube, etc.

Progress and creativity: Mark Sanders can bring these things to market for prices most won't pay for them; this other company can bring them in that much cheaper. Obviously they've come up with a more creative way to manufacture these if they can get them done for cheaper. This also represents the natural progress in manufacturing. Stridas are made in Taiwan now, yes? Remember when people were dumping on cheap Taiwan knockoffs, and before that, cheap Japanese knockoffs?

"The progress in folding bikes hasn't been made by low-end Chinese Strida copiers and they certainly haven't been the inspiration to the likes of Dahon, Birdy, BF, Pacific or Downtube. It's the innovators who push each other forward not the copiers. if copiers dominated the market with dirt cheap versions (which thank god they don't) then everything would be based on old technologies and their would be no such word as progress."

I see this as 180 deg away from the way things work. Someone comes up with an idea and it's theirs. They fail to capitalize on it while they have proprietary control over the design and then someone comes along with the cheap copy of what they created. What are they going to do then? Cry in their beer? Curse the fates? No, they're going to come up with something EVEN BETTER. Look at Sanders. Great idea "I'll manufacture and market it! (Strida)" "Woah, that was tough. Maybe next time I'll license these to mfgs with marketing in place... (Pacific IF designs, etc.)" If anything, the threat of patent expiration and inevitable encroachment of the knockoff mfgs spurs and inspires new designs. Dahon continually refines and overhauls their designs--one of the benefits is that they stay ahead of the knockoffs. Innovators may push each other forward, but market demands also put pressure on mfgs to innovate... and so they turn to the designers. Again, look at Sanders's licensing further designs to other companies--I bet he has a lot more time for the design that he's so good at if he doesn't also have to run a bicycle mfg and marketing co. at the same time.

Heck. I wonder if they have a US distributor yet...

I do think the basic 3 speed Brompton should have come down in price by now to a realistic point of say £400 0r $800. They can still make margins on UK made entry level models.

Or ... they dont need to bother with: R&D, passing bicycle standards, having insurance, making marketing materials, materials testing, using strong bolts, belts, etc. etc.

I doublt they have come up with ANYTHING creative except ways of getting away with selling rubbish dressed up as another product. And this is bad for all because people (who maybe know nothing about bikes) WILL be fooled into thinking it is the same bike they might have seen someone else with, but at a bargain price.

Although this thread has been most entertaining I sniff a lot of justifying - .... the same as often heard about copying DVD's, MP3's, software etc. we know its wrong, but try and make a case for it being OK. The consequences for small brands like strida and brompton could be bad ... likewise A-Bike (too small for me - but great innovation) ... have the many fakes killed it ?

Close. I'm no Howard Roark but I am an architect by profession and therefore passionate about IP rights.

I'll have to read "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" someday I guess.

Just to put a different perspective on things:

If you complain about the rubbish and cheap copies that come out of China and think the West is a victim, think again.

We are victims of our own desire to buy anything at a cheaper price.

The real victims in this scenario are, believe it or not, the people who make these dirt cheap copies. They are really the ones exploited, who work in apalling conditions because there's nothing better, who get paid peanuts because if they don't want this dirty job there's another 10 in line.

This is a moral issue. Stop buying cheap copies, for the sake of those who are exploited. If they can no longer sell the crap, they'll move on to hopefully better things.

And so the true motive comes out. Perhaps you would feel a bit differently if you were the manager of a chinese metal shop.

So sad how some people can't see past their own self interest. Although I also produce IP for a living, I don't feel a need to strong arm fair competition with ridiculous laws just to get ahead. Too bad for the "poor" saps who think they can live the rest of their lives on just one moment of eureka without ever lifting a finger again, I guess.

Or perhaps they'll just starve to death after you take away their best available opportunity.

I'm not saying that that would definitely be the case, but I don't understand why so many folks can't seem to get off their high horses and recognize that the situation is more complex then just "Strida knockoffs are bad" or "Strida knockoffs are good".