Right up there with the argument that carbon fiber frames are safe.


Seriously....I don't know if it's a desperate attempt to rationalize one's behavior or someone trying to play IP lawyer.

Someone playing IP lawyer would put some effort into connecting the argument to reality.

This is a case of twisting "reality" to conform with one's desired conclusion. That is, it's rationalization.

================

Note. I'll be busy putting Coca Cola labels on objects that, completely randomly, happen to have brown-colored sugar water in them and that I, completely coincidentally, will sell. Since I'm doing the company a favor, I'll get them to pay me (referring them to this thread if they are silly enough to disagree). That'll work, right?

Heh.

This is CLASSIC! Just made me LOL at work... My wife used to work in the children's bag industry. They would "knock off" designs from other makers/manufacturers. I heard that as long as its 10% or more "different" its ok. I think this is different enough to not infringe on Rapha.

Infringement is decided by a judge or jury. There is no metric for "10% different". Rapha and The Simpsons should prosecute the seller of this jersey if they want to maintain their IP.

That's kind of it, though, isn't it? I mean, consumer protection from swindlers and thieves, sure.

But it's not consumers clamoring for that protection so much as it's other swindlers and thieves, no? (Ok, that's kind of unfair, but the question is begging.)

I mean, is branding/marketing really a thing worthy of protection? I'm probably mistaken, but there are some trades, like (ahem) trading, that traditionally were morally disfavored as not actually making anything. Admittedly, this kind of thinking predates the explicit concept of "service economy"--perhaps predates the concept of "economics" (predates Adam Smith and others). Maybe it's outmoded, but it's a fun thing to think about because I've seen a few posts by TimothyH (God love him, he's a good Catholic[?] and it shows, but how to reconcile this pro-business stance that seems to turn very very ancient values on their head).

So, in the end, it's all just a balance of interests, a question of how we organize and order society. Not everyone, however, is comfortable playing sandbox/god mode. (You can kind of judge who is/isn't from the responses you're getting.)

Of course, if you made something, you should reap benefits of it.

On the other hand, IP sometimes winds up sounding socially damaging along the lines of "it's not enough that I succeed--others must fail". And that's harder to justify, not only because that's a kind of D-baggery, but also because there's really and truly not anything new under the sun, so a kind of overcrediting of human endeavor. And beyond that, a bit of dead hands steering. Does it make sense for there to be decades long protections in an era when product life cycles last just a couple of years, if not shorter? See for example, iPhone releases.

Why is that? Who wouldn't wanna be a highly paid athlete celebrity, unless you're already rolling around in wall street money? Rather, most people wear team jerseys to show support for their team, whether it's football, basketball of cycling. No one should mistake them for misrepresenting themselves as wearing something they didn't earn. Don't worry, if you're 5'9 and overweight no one is going to seriously think you're a professional in any sport.

What about curling?

OK, now you're starting to sound like that other guy, just looking for ways to (mis)construe what I'm saying so you'll be right and I'll be wrong, as if I was trying to get away with something.

In case you missed it, I've already been convinced not to buy the replica, so it's ALL irrelevant!

No, what you say doesn't make sense. That "other guy" is correct.

I didn't miss that. It is just interesting/entertaining to see you continue an argument that was so weird.

Replica?
That's a pirated counterfeit completely bogus item, not a "replica".

-Bandera

I, personally would feel foolish wearing team kit, period. That's just me. Sorry if that offends you. The closest I get to this topic would be the one yellow jersey and I think I have two pink jerseys. These have either Bianchi or Campagnolo as a logo.

Curling, or darts, or bowling... there are lots of sports ("sports") that can be done professionally while a pudgy 5'9".

And it's amazing how many people don't know a thing about IP law and conflate patents, trademarks, and copyright. All three have different laws and restrictions.

I wear team kit for most rides. So do my teammates. I don't feel foolish. I feel proud. We're a great team.

I just ordered one of those Ralpha jerseys. Hilarious. I wish they had matching shorts. I would have bought those too. I don't believe in intellectual property anyway.

OK, good Lord, so its a fake replica...

Everything is a "knock off" of something else pretty much.

Ermmm... Not so much; nobody who is entirely correct would ever be so churlish.
You're welcome?

I agree, and I'm a self-professed poseur!
I don't mind wearing a nice Canondale jersey while riding my CAAD10, but to wear an actual team jersey (or even something close to it)?...eh, not for me.
I like to look good, but not fake.

For what it's worth, when an advertisement is posted on some platform, what the owner of the platform that it was placed on does with the platform afterwards is, first and foremost, a contractual matter.

It's still something the owner is controlling. If the owner disagrees with the details of contract, they won't enter into it.

That's why your logo jersey isn't advertising.

Still "all irrelevant" (it appears).

Now you're on to something!
A real property owner agrees to display an advertiser's (sponsor's) graphics on a billboard for a certain amount of time. If, subsequently the billboard owner allows it to fall apart or become vandalized, or if they keep it up longer than agreed to and have someone re-paint it over and over again and the advertiser has a problem with it, that's really a contract issue - a question of whether the IP is being used as agreed. Similarly, in the case of the team kit, the sponsors agreed to have Biemme produce garments with their graphics on them. Now, if Biemme subsequently licensed the design of the kit or assigned its production to another maker, that would be a contractual matter. As it happens, Biemme explicitly denied that they permitted the (re)production of the kit, so presumably they held up their end of their bargain with the sponsors. That's what matters, and that's proof the HK kit is pirated.

We can be sure that A&S, Mokambo and the others agreed to the manner of placement of their logos on the design of the kit, but whether there were any stipulations regarding material and construction specs, extent of distribution or the assignability of production, etc., and what they may have been, we don't know. However, the fact that the kit was ever for sale by Biemme to anyone besides the team itself indicates a certain lack of exclusivity and opens up the possibility that cheaper versions were not illegitimate.

Ergo, it must not exist?

You said it was "ALL irrelevant". Yet you are still going on about it.

I basically repeated what I said earlier. "Agreement" is the result of a choice made by the company that owns the copyright/trademark.

I suppose it's nice that you are finally catching up.

Whether or not it was "exclusive" is not relevant.

Correct. It's a legal fiction where innovators invoke the violence of the state to protect themselves from competition because it's easier than coming up with more creative ways of protecting their thought capital.