Justice is Blind

[Roentgen]

Daimler loses - Greek court rules in favor of Chinese smart fortwo clone - Worldcarfans (http://www.worldcarfans.com/9090527.010/daimler-loses--greek-court-rules-in-favor-of-chinese-smart-fortwo-clone)

Oh noes......

This is getting ridiculous. :mad:

[blingbling]

what is ridiculous, exactly?

[NSXType-R]

Not really much of a loss, unless you really really like Smart cars.

[Roentgen]

what is ridiculous, exactly?

Chinese making cheap rip off of cars (or things in general), then re-branding them as their own.

[blingbling]

seems pretty logical and unridiculous to me

[Black Edition]

seems pretty logical and unridiculous to me

Somehow, the chinese makes cars that look almost EXACTLY the same as the foreign original versions

Just look at this, they went a little too far here:
Rolls-Royce considering trademark suit against Geely GE (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/04/23/rolls-royce-considering-trademark-suit-against-geely-ge/)

[jump15vc]

if this isnt grounds for nuking china and setting off ww3 idk what is. and yes i know that daimler isnt american, but it is our duty to protect the world from such evil

[Rockefella]

seems pretty logical and unridiculous to me

Ripping off a design and reverse engineering it, albeit in a worse version, seems pretty rediculous to me. If Chevrolet did the same with their own version of a Ferrari F430 and claimed it to be the Corvette ZO6 would you say it'd be logical?

[Buen]

I just hate the general Idea of it. I kinda get that it's an easy way into the motoring market. Especialy as with the small capital that the avarage chinese dude has, but couldn't they just pay to lend the platform, and then just build a new chassis and stuff some other interior items in it.

I really hate this, and allways have hated the chineses tendancy to copy. What do you recon causes this lousy behavior? Because I really only see the chinese doing it in such large scale.

[lightweight]

if this isnt grounds for nuking china and setting off ww3 idk what is. and yes i know that daimler isnt american, but it is our duty to protect the world from such evil

hahahahahahahahah

[LeonOfTheDead]

hahahahahahahahah

seconded.

BMW already lost in a similar case in which Shangyuan, the brand selling the Noble (the car featured in this article), was trying to convince the Italina Court that their CEO wasn't a copy of the X5.
Now, knowing how bitches the Italians are and how they hate copying their own stuff, when the judge declared there isn't something going wrong since the quality, the price and the customer they are aiming for are completely different between an X5 and a CEO (starting a about 25.000 € iirc), I laughed.
And I became aware corruption is legal.

http://www.rpmgo.com/images/ceo_x5_copy.jpg

That said, this has going on for ages.
Remember this Lexus LS (http://www.leasetrader.com/photos/actual71966/640x480/Lexus-LS-430-Sedan.jpeg)? Now tell me it wasn't trying to like an S-Klasse as much as possible.

What I don't like is that in this way we are fomenting two things:

- cheaply and badly designed cars (not saying all chinese cars are, but those who tried to be sold here up to know were pretty scaring)

- we aren't explaining peiope they dno't have to pursue the image of a car but it's quality. That's to say, in this way we are just adding value to the badge (or to the style in this case) and not to the car itself.
Why did you buy the CEO? Because it looks like an X5, dude.
Awesome.

I prefer another approach, done by other Chinese makers, that's to say buying dismissed products from other automakers, restyle them and then sell them again at low price but with a decent overall quality. That's the same thing the very original brands are doing, with the Clio Story, or the 206+ and so on.
An example is Chery. The DR Group (European importer of the Saleen S7, fyi)sell Cherys here as Dr cars, with the first and main product being the DR5, or if you prefer a previous gen Toyota Rav4. Coming at 18.000 € full optional, with mainly Fiat's engines and transmissions.

http://www.mrauto.it/wp-content/uploads/dr5.jpg

[IBrake4Rainbows]

It's really lazy and certainly wrong from an Intellectual Property point of view, but what price do we really place on brand and design?

[jump15vc]

I just put a jihad on chinese people that copy european cars. i dare them to copy a 430 scuderia, i double dare them.

[LeonOfTheDead]

I just put a jihad on chinese people that copy european cars. i dare them to copy a 430 scuderia, i double dare them.

they did something even better, they copied the 330 P3/4:

http://dilatua.libero.it/c/img66/economia/03/3678/2006/4/322frattini.jpg

That's the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the time (and even now, thanks Berlusconi).
here is a higher res image (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/2974305d.jpg)

[Ferrer]

It's really lazy and certainly wrong from an Intellectual Property point of view, but what price do we really place on brand and design?
A lot apparently.

[cargirl1990]

Chinese making cheap rip off of cars (or things in general), then re-branding them as their own.

exactly. they have the last generation Corolla and the last generation Sebring. lets not forget that they have a car concept shaped like a flippin baseball cap.

[Matra et Alpine]

exactly. they have the last generation Corolla and the last generation Sebring.^^^^^^^^^ It's what we Europeans have been saying about the American market Fords and GMs for decades :)

[f6fhellcat13]

they copied the 330 P3/4

Kill them.
Kill them dead.

[RacingManiac]

At least they are copying and branding it as a different car. A far more serious problem is copying product and selling it as the original and mixed in the supply chain. Fake bearings, electronics, health and food products.....

[Ferrer]

^^^^^^^^^ It's what we Europeans have been saying about the American market Fords and GMs for decades :)
That was nasty... :D

[blingbling]

Ripping off a design and reverse engineering it, albeit in a worse version, seems pretty rediculous to me. If Chevrolet did the same with their own version of a Ferrari F430 and claimed it to be the Corvette ZO6 would you say it'd be logical?why wouldn't it be?

reverse engineering is amazing.

[Rockefella]

why wouldn't it be?

reverse engineering is amazing.

Sure, but it's probably also illegal in this case

[blingbling]

that is for the courts to decide...

[Roentgen]

that is for the courts to decide...

Yes sure... but the courts seem so wrong in this case...

[blingbling]

do you have a degree in automotive design, mechanical engineering, and patent law to decide if it seems wrong or right?

i know the legal system seems to get caught up in bureaucratic bullcrap every now and then but when you are dealing with copying/reversengineering technology, you HAVE to step into the realm of legal practice. in this case, the best lawyers from both companies went in and the chinese came out on top. suck it up.

[blingbling]

you can't say it is illegal, because the court says otherwise

you can't say it is wrong, because reverse engineering is a beautiful and efficient thing

you can't say the consumers will suffer, because in the end, they make their own choices in this capitalist world

i am starting to think this is just blatant racism

[Matra et Alpine]

no blatent engineering :)
It is ILLEGAL to reverse engineer and then build the same on any product with patents, trademark or image intellectual property.

Until 1991 China didn't recognise engineering copyright or design rights.
Only when international trade grew did pressure come to sign to the international accords.
Still not ideal but at least 95% of their copyright has now been rewritten to align a little better with what we understand copyright and design rights to be.
So they do NOT have a culture which protects another's designs.
We do.
I do argue ( and as a patent holder myself ) that modern IP protection is wrong and is seen as an opportunity in it's own right. NOT what was intended when patents were first created :( So I'd like more of the "reverse engineering" to be allowed in some areas. BUT balanced with reasonable protection.

Oh and recently one of the companies were stopped from exporting a blatant Fiat copy ( might have been the Panda ? ) and if they try to import them to weurope they will pay a 50K euro fine for EACH car sold. So in that case it was upheld.

This isn't "racism" but is "culturism".
If CHina wishes to share in trade it has to learn the lessons of reasonable operation and protectino of individuals and business rights.
"we" went through the same 100-200 years ago, so not unreasonabel for China to have to come up the same learning path ... jsut preferably a little quicker :)

[Roentgen]

i am starting to think this is just blatant racism

Strange you say that. I'm Chinese myself, and it's not as if I hate my own country? I just truly believe this "cheapness" should be avoided. Our culture have this incredible lust for money, and it seems like they're happy to sacrifice everything for that. This I really disapprove. That's why when I saw this article, I was quite disappointed, and angry. This is a shame to my nation, and pointing it out is not blatant racism.

[LeonOfTheDead]

you can't say it is illegal, because the court says otherwise

you can't say it is wrong, because reverse engineering is a beautiful and efficient thing

you can't say the consumers will suffer, because in the end, they make their own choices in this capitalist world

i am starting to think this is just blatant racism

Saying it isn't "illegal" because the court said is fine is like saying a court can't be corrupted. Perhaps not in this case, I can't say it, but generally, you logical isn't flawless.
So the Italian Prime Minister didn't do something illegal just because a year ago he established a new law stating he is immune from the main art of legal actions.

o rlly?!

Also, we aren't really talking about reverse engineering in most cases, but just of badly designed and built cars that looks exactly like much more famous and important (and eventually even better built) cars.
I don't think the BMW X5 is the best engineered car in the world, but I'm pretty sure the Shangyuan CEO isn't even remotely as good as the X5.



no blatent engineering :)
It is ILLEGAL to reverse engineer and then build the same on any product with patents, trademark or image intellectual property.

Until 1991 China didn't recognise engineering copyright or design rights.
Only when international trade grew did pressure come to sign to the international accords.
Still not ideal but at least 95% of their copyright has now been rewritten to align a little better with what we understand copyright and design rights to be.
So they do NOT have a culture which protects another's designs.
We do.
I do argue ( and as a patent holder myself ) that modern IP protection is wrong and is seen as an opportunity in it's own right. NOT what was intended when patents were first created :( So I'd like more of the "reverse engineering" to be allowed in some areas. BUT balanced with reasonable protection.

Oh and recently one of the companies were stopped from exporting a blatant Fiat copy ( might have been the Panda ? ) and if they try to import them to weurope they will pay a 50K euro fine for EACH car sold. So in that case it was upheld.

This isn't "racism" but is "culturism".
If CHina wishes to share in trade it has to learn the lessons of reasonable operation and protectino of individuals and business rights.
"we" went through the same 100-200 years ago, so not unreasonabel for China to have to come up the same learning path ... jsut preferably a little quicker :)

It was the Great Wall Peri, so yes, a Fiat Panda.

[Black Edition]

they did something even better, they copied the 330 P3/4:

http://dilatua.libero.it/c/img66/economia/03/3678/2006/4/322frattini.jpg

That's the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the time (and even now, thanks Berlusconi).
here is a higher res image (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/2974305d.jpg)

omg:eek:

even ferrari has a chinese clone???

and i thought that wasn't about to happen.:(

[cargirl1990]

^^^^^^^^^ It's what we Europeans have been saying about the American market Fords and GMs for decades :)

i feel your anger dude.

[f6fhellcat13]

I think that our problem is not so much racism, but fear for the status quo of car quality and engineering. (Call me old-fashioned. :p)
If China eventually does get into the global car market in a big way, they will significantly undercut all of the competition. If this happens current carmakers will be forced to dumb down and under engineer their cars. Then we are left with a market flooded with cheap, but shitty, cars. As car enthusiasts, we want well designed cars and, I assume, love the engineering of them. If shoddy workmanship and R&D become the kings of automotive design, I think all of us will be disappointed.
I realize that China's car industry is very young and the easiest way for them to get their feet wet is to copy other's designs, but I don't think it's the best way.
The Koreans did a similar thing in the '80s, I think trying to copy Japanese designs, and look at them now. They are still struggling for acceptance in terms of perception and originality.
The Japanese, on the other hand, and I'm well aware they did copy numerous Western designs, started their big marketing thrust in the late '60s and in like 15 years or so they had become popular. I realize oil crises and idiotic domestics had a lot to do with it, but the Japanese still brought something either different or better than the current thing to the table.
This "originality" allowed Japan to become such a force. I think that the Koreans are now realizing they cannot just make the cheapest crappiest car out there and expect it to sell. Hyundai's recent improvements speak a lot to that, imo.
However, the Koreans were a much more minor threat to car quality. I think China has the strength to muscle its way in with shitty cars and force everybody to sink to their level.

[cargirl1990]

I think that our problem is not so much racism, but fear for the status quo of car quality and engineering. (Call me old-fashioned. :p)
If China eventually does get into the global car market in a big way, they will significantly undercut all of the competition. If this happens current carmakers will be forced to dumb down and under engineer their cars. Then we are left with a market flooded with cheap, but shitty, cars. As car enthusiasts, we want well designed cars and, I assume, love the engineering of them. If shoddy workmanship and R&D become the kings of automotive design, I think all of us will be disappointed.
I realize that China's car industry is very young and the easiest way for them to get their feet wet is to copy other's designs, but I don't think it's the best way.
The Koreans did a similar thing in the '80s, I think trying to copy Japanese designs, and look at them now. They are still struggling for acceptance in terms of perception and originality.
The Japanese, on the other hand, and I'm well aware they did copy numerous Western designs, started their big marketing thrust in the late '60s and in like 15 years or so they had become popular. I realize oil crises and idiotic domestics had a lot to do with it, but the Japanese still brought something either different or better than the current thing to the table.
This "originality" allowed Japan to become such a force. I think that the Koreans are now realizing they cannot just make the cheapest crappiest car out there and expect it to sell. Hyundai's recent improvements speak a lot to that, imo.
However, the Koreans were a much more minor threat to car quality. I think China has the strength to muscle its way in with shitty cars and force everybody to sink to their level.

wow, rant much? :D ( joking )

[blingbling]

Saying it isn't "illegal" because the court said is fine is like saying a court can't be corrupted. Perhaps not in this case, I can't say it, but generally, you logical isn't flawless.
So the Italian Prime Minister didn't do something illegal just because a year ago he established a new law stating he is immune from the main art of legal actions.the legality of a phenomina is, indeed, for the (uncorrupted, as you say) court to decide. a head of state that makes himself exempt from laws may not be altruistic, or good, but that is up to the individuals to decide. but by definition, the legality of that is upheld since what he says is legislated into law. you guys tend to mix up legality with the good/bad.

its like if I kill a serial killer with my hands by wringing his neck before he kills more innocent people. this is illegal, but still a good thing in my opinion. likewise, slavery in the dirty south used to be LEGAL, but BAD in my opinion.

so no, this logic is not flawed. you have to differentiate between legality and the good or bad
Also, we aren't really talking about reverse engineering in most cases, but just of badly designed and built cars that looks exactly like much more famous and important (and eventually even better built) cars.
I don't think the BMW X5 is the best engineered car in the world, but I'm pretty sure the Shangyuan CEO isn't even remotely as good as the X5.again, there is nothing wrong with coming out with an inferior product. this is a capitalist world, and if people want to pay less for a lesser product, it will be so. if Shangyuan wants to make the CEO, and people are happy buying it, and the state/court do not have a problem with it, i really fail to see what is the big fuss.
Strange you say that. I'm Chinese myself, and it's not as if I hate my own country? I just truly believe this "cheapness" should be avoided. Our culture have this incredible lust for money, and it seems like they're happy to sacrifice everything for that. This I really disapprove. That's why when I saw this article, I was quite disappointed, and angry. This is a shame to my nation, and pointing it out is not blatant racism.okay i see it is not really racism. what you see as cheapness, i see it as efficient. as for sacrificing everything? what is being sacrificed for money? can you point it out exactly. do not be ashamed of your nation. you will eventually see the beauty of it.
no blatent engineering :)
It is ILLEGAL to reverse engineer and then build the same on any product with patents, trademark or image intellectual property.so why did the chinese not lose their case? they must have done it legally. they came into the greek court and came out on top. they played by someone else's rules and came out on top.
Oh and recently one of the companies were stopped from exporting a blatant Fiat copy ( might have been the Panda ? ) and if they try to import them to weurope they will pay a 50K euro fine for EACH car sold. So in that case it was upheld.this just makes me think that the smart car clone must have done something different to differentiate it from the original smart car. regardless, this IS a case of when it is illegal. they car you speak of is the peri minicar. it does not look like a panda as much as the other chinese car looks like a smartcar, but i guess the courts rule on engineering rather than design
Until 1991 China didn't recognise engineering copyright or design rights.
Only when international trade grew did pressure come to sign to the international accords.hahaha well what did you expect them to do? the most populous country was recovering from a century of humiliation, opium, and war crimes, along with political strife, and unavoidable famine/overpopulation that came with it.

[LeonOfTheDead]

the legality of a phenomina is, indeed, for the (uncorrupted, as you say) court to decide. a head of state that makes himself exempt from laws may not be altruistic, or good, but that is up to the individuals to decide. but by definition, the legality of that is upheld since what he says is legislated into law. you guys tend to mix up legality with the good/bad.

its like if I kill a serial killer with my hands by wringing his neck before he kills more innocent people. this is illegal, but still a good thing in my opinion. likewise, slavery in the dirty south used to be LEGAL, but BAD in my opinion. so no, this logic is not flawed. you have to differentiate between legality and the good or bad

I'm not confusing them, and don't end up in a semantic war.
By illegal, and I'm not consider the vocabulary definition (see: don't nitpick), I mean someone copying someone else stuff without adding something to improve it, to make it just different, to make it distinguishable, without asking any sort of permission and relying on the similarities between the two products to sell yours.
There might be a law saying it's fair, but when the Italian judge came out saying the two cars (both the X5 clone and the Smart clone) are sold at different prices confronted to the actual X5 and the Smart, there couldn't be a conflict.
That's exactly the point of a fake product though.
A fake bag sold for 100$ isn't obviously aiming to the same woman paying 3.500 $ for the same bag. But that's illegal, not only replicating the bradge, but also replicating the style.
That's why I said illegale, no matter what the judge said.
and that's why I consider illegal what the Prime Minister has done/is doing, because he is doing it in a legal way.


again, there is nothing wrong with coming out with an inferior product. this is a capitalist world, and if people want to pay less for a lesser product, it will be so. if Shangyuan wants to make the CEO, and people are happy buying it, and the state/court do not have a problem with it, i really fail to see what is the big fuss.

I'm not considering inferior products, but inferior (or even superior) products relying on the image established by someone else.
If it was just a case of a cheap car looking like nothing else, then yes, it would have been up just to those willing to buy it, as it happens for other chinese and non cars.

[blingbling]

its pretty hard to avoid a semantic war when you are talking about the legality of something. you have to pick your word very carefully.

but regardless i HIGHLY DOUBT that they are really relying on another brands IMAGE to sell. i mean anyone who is buying a car knows very well that the logo is different and they are purchasing a cheap imitation with very poor image.

[LeonOfTheDead]

its pretty hard to avoid a semantic war when you are talking about the legality of something. you have to pick your word very carefully.

but regardless i HIGHLY DOUBT that they are really relying on another brands IMAGE to sell. i mean anyone who is buying a car knows very well that the logo is different and they are purchasing a cheap imitation with very poor image.

then why to make it looks exactly like an X5?

[092326001]

i don' really care
i trust that the people are sensible that they can differentiate between high quality product and a cheap copy
i don't think that chinese cars will drag down the rest of the automotive world, i'd think that the european makers would actually go for higher quality and leave the cheap stuff for the chinese

[blingbling]

then why to make it looks exactly like an X5?buddy, if someone is dumb enough to buy a car that looks like an x5 because of the image of the x5, they clearly deserve to be exploited

[Rockefella]

The issue at hand, I think is that a copy of something like an X5 or Panda helps the sale of the car at BMW or FIAT's expense considering the patents and engineering/design funding.

[NSXType-R]

I think that our problem is not so much racism, but fear for the status quo of car quality and engineering. (Call me old-fashioned. :p)
If China eventually does get into the global car market in a big way, they will significantly undercut all of the competition. If this happens current carmakers will be forced to dumb down and under engineer their cars. Then we are left with a market flooded with cheap, but shitty, cars. As car enthusiasts, we want well designed cars and, I assume, love the engineering of them. If shoddy workmanship and R&D become the kings of automotive design, I think all of us will be disappointed.
I realize that China's car industry is very young and the easiest way for them to get their feet wet is to copy other's designs, but I don't think it's the best way.
The Koreans did a similar thing in the '80s, I think trying to copy Japanese designs, and look at them now. They are still struggling for acceptance in terms of perception and originality.
The Japanese, on the other hand, and I'm well aware they did copy numerous Western designs, started their big marketing thrust in the late '60s and in like 15 years or so they had become popular. I realize oil crises and idiotic domestics had a lot to do with it, but the Japanese still brought something either different or better than the current thing to the table.
This "originality" allowed Japan to become such a force. I think that the Koreans are now realizing they cannot just make the cheapest crappiest car out there and expect it to sell. Hyundai's recent improvements speak a lot to that, imo.
However, the Koreans were a much more minor threat to car quality. I think China has the strength to muscle its way in with shitty cars and force everybody to sink to their level.

I think you hit all the most important points.

Japan had copied some of the successful cars- look at the early Celicas and Supras. Plus, the Mazda Miata.

They moved away from it when they got successful.

The Koreans didn't do that- they tried to undercut everyone with their prices, and it worked to a point. Now they're trying to move up the market to a more upscale sort of thing, and are hitting a roadblock because they've perpetuated a stereotype.

If it really is an inferior product, it'll sink on arrival. If it isn't, it'll succeed.

Look at all the crash test stuff- there's no way these cars are leaving the Chinese market if they're that crappy.

And basically, I leave it at that. Even the Tata Nano won't be leaving the cheaper Asian market unless it goes under heavy modifications, and that had serious engineering forethought.

Sure, the Chinese knockoffs are a real eyesore, but they really aren't a threat. And if they do become one, they'll make everyone step up their act. Capitalism is self correcting.

[blingbling]

The issue at hand, I think is that a copy of something like an X5 or Panda helps the sale of the car at BMW or FIAT's expense considering the patents and engineering/design funding.which is why the courts pwned the panda and x5 clones and not the smartcar clone

[cargirl1990]

i did some research on the Chinese cars and found new horrors ( that i never knew about ) in Chinese automotive design. a bunch of knock-off Bimmers, Benzs, Toyota's, and i could of swore that they took the Nissan Cube, and possibly other vehicles as well.
( like the car A Puff of Cloud will go far in the automotive world, or the baseball cap shaped car. )
seeing those cars kinda piss me off. :mad:

[jump15vc]

which is why the courts pwned the panda and x5 clones and not the smartcar clone

You sound like someone that downloads all their music and movies for free, wears fake oakleys, a knockoff rolex and imitation lacoste shirt. The whole point of this thread is that people are saying that the courts got it wrong by allowing the smart car clone off. If you think a court has never made the wrong decision your head is deeper in the sand than Baghdad.

If chinese companies are allowed to continue copying the work of other manufacturers it will devalue the market as a whole. in a free market you should come up with a better idea than someone elses if you want to make money. thats why there are patent and copyright laws. im all for chinese cars if they are of completely original design and good quality, but dont try to pass this crap off as real cars are automotive progress for china. all it is it them relying solely on the ability to mass produce without any intelligence or engineering whatsoever. it just shows chinese industry for what it is.

and as for your point regarding chinas decision not to recognize the copyrights or engineering of others until the 1990's and your excuse that they should be given a free pass because they were oppressed or whatever is bs. the rules of the global market are the way they are, play by them or go home. being oppressed is not an excuse to break the law. its like how blacks and latinos are oppressed in america and thats why they commit crimes. its bs and shouldnt be tolerated

[RacingManiac]

One thing I feel the need to stress though, the copying the "design" and copying the "engineering" are 2 different thing. Those cars, at least to my understanding, is copying the design styling of the BMW or Ferrari or whathaveyou. That doesn't mean the car is a copy of a Ferrari or BMW, just that it looks like one. It'll probably be closer to infringing a trademark law rather than intellectual property law. This is particularly confusing concerning automotive since designer and engineers are not one of the same.....

I still think this is far less of an issue than actual counterfeit product sold as a genuine.....You don't want to be buying a bearing or something design to be rated at some load and the counterfeit can only handle 10% or that or something....

[blingbling]

You sound like someone that downloads all their music and movies for free, wears fake oakleys, a knockoff rolex and imitation lacoste shirt.if that is how i sound then you clearly should get your disfunctional ears checked out because i couldn't care less who or what comapny makes the clothes i make. i haven't watched a movie since the transformers movies came out well over a year ago.

i download music, so what. art in it's true form is not meant to make money. do you realize how important bootlegging is to up and coming artists? they even ENCOURAGE bootlegging to get their message out. the artists i like the most couldn't even care less about downloading. sampling is also encouraged among fellow artists.

and what if i did wear fake brands? if it looks nice and i want to wear it who the hell cares if its fake/real/branded/whatever.
The whole point of this thread is that people are saying that the courts got it wrong by allowing the smart car clone off. If you think a court has never made the wrong decision your head is deeper in the sand than Baghdadjust relax i already said that some courts can be corrupted.
and as for your point regarding chinas decision not to recognize the copyrights or engineering of others until the 1990's and your excuse that they should be given a free pass because they were oppressed or whatever is bs.wow before you run your mouth like this how about familiarizing yourself with some history that happened towards teh end of the qing dynasty before you illegitamize what i said. actually now that i think about it your lack of comprension will probably disallow you to deduce anything meaninful from studying history.
the rules of the global market are the way they are, play by them or go home. being oppressed is not an excuse to break the law.oh, so when china doesn't play by the "international" (made by the west to their advantage, but lets call it international anyways) rules, it is bullshit. when china plays by the international rules and the courts rules in their favour, its bullshit again?

when you take a case to court, you go by their rules. play by them or go home. :)

[jump15vc]

exactly, play by the rules or go home. that means you chinaman mao, come up with something remotely creative or interesting rather than copying what everyone else does. the people that actually do this shouldnt have to worry about mr lee copying his design then having to go to court at all. you should respect that someone was able to come up with something cool and not support people who lack the talent or intelligence making a quick buck off of them. designers get hired by bmw or whoever because they have talent, apparently the design staffs at chinese companies know nothing about this or they wouldnt be copying designs. since china has such a wealth of history shouldnt they be able to come up with designs of their own? or would that be too much effort.

and the chinese didnt have a say in how international laws and politics played out for so long because they were perfectly happy shutting themselves out from the west. great walls only work against mongolians though. because they were shut off for so long their culture that was once as advanced as any stagnated and countries like the british jumped ahead, kicked their wall down and bent them over their knee. chinas oppresion was mainly its own fault for its paranoia of all change and advancement.

[blingbling]

the people that actually do this shouldnt have to worry about mr lee copying his design then having to go to court at all. you should respect that someone was able to come up with something cool and not support people who lack the talent or intelligence making a quick buck off of them.a country that wants to not be involved with any of your ancestors opium shouldnt have to worry about mr. montgomery coming in with weapons and drugs either. i wish they really would have respected the people's decision that they were afraid of opium and not gotten on their backs for it.
and the chinese didnt have a say in how international laws and politics played out for so long because they were perfectly happy shutting themselves out from the west. great walls only work against mongolians though. because they were shut off for so long their culture that was once as advanced as any stagnated and countries like the british jumped ahead, kicked their wall down and bent them over their knee. chinas oppresion was mainly its own fault for its paranoia of all change and advancement.first of all, the way you learn history is really one sided. i will still, after all this, give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that it was your teachers that screwed up and that there is not much inherently wrong with you. (oh wow did i just vomit in my mouth typing that)

but even lets just use YOUR logic for a second. so if the united states were to invade and smother the whole continent of africa with cocaine, it would be cool because their developement had stagnated and the continent is not as "advanced" as america's?

im just going to leave it at this and let you figure out where you messed up yourself. if not, then clearly you are just being hopeless. good luck man.

[jump15vc]

but even lets just use YOUR logic for a second. so if the united states were to invade and smother the whole continent of africa with cocaine, it would be cool because their developement had stagnated and the continent is not as "advanced" as america's?


1. africa has never shut itself off from the white devil the way china did.
2. theyre development never stagnated, they never developed; big difference.
3. why would we smother them with cocaine, when theyve smothered themselves with something much more effective at ruining nations, aids.

next time why dont you come up with an analogy that makes sense rather than making excuses for the chinese's lack of ethics and taking shots at my education/intelligence

[Buen]

I must admit that i fully understand Jump's case, with his fear of breaking intellectual property.I'm in the process of educating towards becomming an Architect myself (Perhaps steering towards Industrial desing, but I'm indesisive yet) as such I don't see it as much of a stretch that a design that I hypothetically made myself, being directly stolen (Because that's what this is, no matter what the court decides). Not only would that make me as a professional very mad, mainly because your work get associated with the sub-par work that still is the chinese car industry, but it would also give me with a feeling of redundancy.

I think your differences at one point BlingBling is that you seem to have to totally different approach to intellectual property. As you mentioned yourself you aren't a stranger to copycat goods and the like. This suggests that you mostly look at the free market from a consumers point of view, wanting the best of both world (Being price and design). All this without recognizing that theres a creative progress behind all things popular (Mostly) where companies hire a slew of people (or use exsistingly hired ones, usualy at a high fee) to get their wanted product just right. They do this not only because they want to sell their product, but because they want to make a statement, and protect (Or in younger companies, create) an Image unique to them.
All this only to have it ripped off from producers who don't care about that stuff, only to be sold on to people who have no respekt to the process behind new ideas.

As I read trough my own reply, it sorta seems clear to me that the main reason people dislike copycats (Besides the missing quality) is that they are essentially cheating. They are cheating the creative progress and cutting corners to deliver the cheapest goods at the lowest price. All in the name of money.

Edit: Rewriting sentences for better readability.

[cargirl1990]

exactly, play by the rules or go home. that means you chinaman mao, come up with something remotely creative or interesting rather than copying what everyone else does. the people that actually do this shouldnt have to worry about mr lee copying his design then having to go to court at all. you should respect that someone was able to come up with something cool and not support people who lack the talent or intelligence making a quick buck off of them. designers get hired by bmw or whoever because they have talent, apparently the design staffs at chinese companies know nothing about this or they wouldnt be copying designs. since china has such a wealth of history shouldnt they be able to come up with designs of their own? or would that be too much effort.

and the chinese didnt have a say in how international laws and politics played out for so long because they were perfectly happy shutting themselves out from the west. great walls only work against mongolians though. because they were shut off for so long their culture that was once as advanced as any stagnated and countries like the british jumped ahead, kicked their wall down and bent them over their knee. chinas oppresion was mainly its own fault for its paranoia of all change and advancement.

exactly. you definatly got to the point that's for sure.