Cheap + Cheap = Experiment

[FretRiff]

Whether lawyers 'win' is tangential to protecting one's IP, and it's a cost of doing business if that's the kind of business you're in. If you are a company with intellectual property worth protecting you protect it. It's more powerful to wield a sword in the US/EU than be a Chinese company that has to hire lawyers in another country, speaking another language, in a different time zone, to wield a shield: that's their 'roll of the dice'.

 

[agedhorse]

Whether lawyers 'win' is tangential to protecting one's IP, and it's a cost of doing business if that's the kind of business you're in. If you are a company with intellectual property worth protecting you protect it. It's more powerful to wield a sword in the US/EU than be a Chinese company that has to hire lawyers in another country, speaking another language, in a different time zone, to wield a shield: that's their 'roll of the dice'.

That’s the point, the cost of defending IP can often exceed the value of the IP once the lawyers (on both sides) get the taste of blood. There aren’t a lot of products in this industry that are worth the cost of defending, especially if the defendant is relatively judgement proof.

How much would you estimate the cost of SUCCESSFULLY defending IP might cost beyond the cease and desist letter process in the US or EU?

China is a different story, even if a product has been registered in China because the system is completely opaque and offers almost no effective protection. We dealt with this in the pro audio industry, big companies with deep legal resources spent a LOT of money to successfully defend their IP. Companies many times (like 10-100x) the size of the typical bass amp/cabinet company.

Just pointing out how fundamentally unfair the system is under real world conditions, though it might appear fair to those who profit via the legal system). Theory is an entirely different scenario.

 

[FretRiff]

I'm not going to engage on the lawyer-bashing. When you're in a business that has IP that needs protection (and which legally requires defending in order to maintain one's trademark) it is simply the cost of doing business in those business categories.

I get your point but (a) that point is tangential and (b) you entered into a discussion in which I was engaging with someone who claimed that it was not possible to stop import of hardware or software, not merely that it was expensive, and that itself arose from someone else who wondered about how 'innovators' can survive in the current situation (never mind that it's been this way for literally hundreds of years - in the 1800s Charles Dickens fulminated at American reprints of his books which ignored his copyright and paid him nothing).

Just pointing out how fundamentally unfair the system is under real world conditions

Life ain't fair.

 

[agedhorse]

I’m bashing a system that isn’t all that fair, and like any service industry, generally benefits the service providers over those needing the service.

In theory, sure it’s possible to defend IP, but in practice it’s MUCH more difficult and expensive than most folks might imagine. I know this from first hand experience.

 

[FretRiff]

Anytime attorneys have to get involved, it’s going to cost big money

That’s still costly,

Just pointing out how fundamentally unfair the system is under real world conditions

the cost of defending IP can often exceed the value of the IP once the lawyers (on both sides) get the taste of blood.

I’m bashing a system that isn’t all that fair

As soon as the lawyers get involved, there are no real winners except for the lawyers..,

I get it, we all get your opinion. Life is unfair, the system is unfair, lawyers are sharks, yadda yadda. Point made, underscored and italicized.

 

[agedhorse]

Just note that I never said that lawyers are sharks. I did say that layers (for both sides) are expensive.

More expensive than the value of some IP in many cases.

Hopefully some TB members have a better appreciation of the challenges that innovators face compared with those who copy their work face. This impacts the development of some potentially valuable ideas into real world products.

 

[FretRiff]

Just note that I never said that lawyers are sharks.

“the lawyers (on both sides) get the taste of blood” but they’re not sharks. No siree. Just piranhas, or maybe vampires, or perhaps piranha-vampires or something other than a shark that gets the taste of blood. My mistake. You were probably thinking of pitbull-leeches. How could anyone possibly think ‘shark’ when you talk about getting the taste of blood.

Life is so unfair.

 

[agedhorse]

Mosquitos also get the taste of blood, and they become intensely focused (in a mosquito kind of way).

Sorry if I offended you, that wasn’t my intent. I’m sure you know that.

 

[FretRiff]

I’m not offended and I’m not a lawyer. But I’m sometimes a pitbull.

 

[pepj]

I can't get my head around the employees rights and salaries/wages of products like this.

 

[Dust2Dust]

Yes I wonder how the Aliens feel about us Humans reverse engineering their Tech

Last I heard they were fine with it, as we were not doing the most impressive job of copying their tech.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hopefully the intergalactic rules are more straightforward.

Man, please!! . . . when UFOs fly by Earth they roll up the windows and lock the doors

 

[Al Kraft]

Whether lawyers 'win' is tangential to protecting one's IP, and it's a cost of doing business if that's the kind of business you're in. If you are a company with intellectual property worth protecting you protect it. It's more powerful to wield a sword in the US/EU than be a Chinese company that has to hire lawyers in another country, speaking another language, in a different time zone, to wield a shield: that's their 'roll of the dice'.

And as a consumer of products, who do you think ultimately pays the cost for this? IME (spanning 6 decades) no firm or attorney does this IP infringement work for free, and since profit focused companies aren't charities (by definition), all costs (usually with a mark-up for capital cost of money reflecting delays in getting to market) are passed on to the consumers.

I have decades of IP experience on both the government side and the industry side. I have never once seen IP disputes drive down the cost of anything. So even if people think "creatively reverse engineering a product" (i.e., stealing IP) is "acceptable business as usual" and a "victimless crime", most every product we buy costs more because of bad behaviors that companies need to defend themselves against.

It is an admittedly weak analogy, but to me this isn't a lot different than how shoplifting losses and "loss prevention programs" add to the cost of everything those of us who respect the law purchase at retail establishments.

As always, YMMV...but IMO bad behavior costs all of us who play by the rules, respect the laws, and adhere to a code of ethical business conduct..

 

[Al Kraft]

Man, please!! . . . when UFOs fly by Earth they roll up the windows and lock the doors

I always thought of aliens with their advanced tech being similar to a bulldozer operator wondering if it would make sense to ask an ant how to effectively move dirt.

 

[FretRiff]

I admire the idea of living in a cotton candy world that expects perfect enforcement of IP in a world that doesn't exist: in which a company claiming IP rights in one country cannot be pushed back against, where IP law is identical in all countries, and where enforcement ought to be the same everywhere.

IP law is a business tool, not a moral law of nature. Patents and copyrights are government-created monopolies meant to encourage innovation. But they can just as easily be used to block competition and extend profits long after the inventor has recovered their costs.

And global markets don’t owe U.S. law compliance. A patent in the U.S. is not a patent in China, India, or Brazil. Those countries set their own balance between innovation incentives and consumer access. Moreover, blaming them thar' countries ignores that U.S. companies also benefit from lax IP enforcement abroad when it suits them to copy non-U.S. designs or software concepts without licensing when possible. (Immediately coming to mind: US companies copying and selling Tetris clones, Midway and Atari cloning Japanese games before securing rights, US drug companies freely copying drug forumations not in the U.S. prior to WTO/TRIPS, etc)

Reverse engineering is legal in many countries unless patents are actively enforced and valid in that jurisdiction. It's fine (and maybe emotionally satisfying) to rail against that, but it doesn't change the facts. Moreover, many “copies” aren’t literal clones; they’re design-arounds, which may be entirely legal. Your company disputes that in a specific instance? Great: go to court to stop the import at the very least. It's the cost of doing business. Plenty of “innovators” spend more money on litigation and lobbying to extend IP rights than on actual R&D. Someone with "decades of IP experience" should understand this with open eyes instead of 'wondering' how much longer 'innovators' can survive in the current market situation (which I pointed out earlier has existed for hundreds of years).

It is an admittedly weak analogy, but to me this isn't a lot different than how shoplifting losses and "loss prevention programs" add to the cost of everything

The shoplifting analogy is emotional, but misleading and wrong. Shoplifting removes physical goods, which must be replaced at cost. IP infringement creates more supply in the market, which, in economic terms, lowers consumer prices, even if it cuts into one company’s profits. This is why enforcement is complicated: the harm is about competition rather than physical loss. Shoplifting is simply a bad analogy.

 

[el murdoque]

My best bang for the buck score was a Carlsbro combo that had 100W into a 115 and a jack for an external speaker.
It cost me €5.
The external cabinet .... I literally dragged in from the street (from a complex with a few band rooms that got cleared out). A JBL enclosure with a 115 Zeck speaker, IIRC. That stack could hold its own against a loud drummer.

I sold the combo for €50 and lost the speaker in a fire.

 

[S-Bigbottom]

More expensive than the value of some IP in many cases.

This is it.

When you're in a business that has IP that needs protection (and which legally requires defending in order to maintain one's trademark) it is simply the cost of doing business in those business categories.

A third or more of your profit going to fight for an IP, smaller companies just have to except that there are copies and hope that they are putting out a good enough product and people see the value of buying from the original.

I do not think you realize how small the music instrument industry is, then you break it down to just the Bass category and it is much smaller.
Some Bass gear manufactures can go a full day or two without moving a single product, to only moving a few products a day.


A Darkglass copy is in the Original Post of this thread, they are not a big company that can fight all the copies. (I am not affiliated)
It was either Darkglass or Earth Quaker Devices I can not remember, that have resorted to printing on their circuit boards a message saying, "Go make your own designs" because they know it will be reverse engineered/copied.

 

[Al Kraft]

The shoplifting analogy is emotional, but misleading and wrong. Shoplifting removes physical goods, which must be replaced at cost. IP infringement creates more supply in the market, which, in economic terms, lowers consumer prices, even if it cuts into one company’s profits.

Just to be sure I fully understand your assertion, you feel that IP infringement is actually in the public interest because it creates more supply thus lowering prices...and I admittedly prarphrased just a tad. As absurd as some might think that sounds at first, I think that economic model could actually have validity on a one time basis.

To me though as someone who works in areas where IP is created and protected, the only business case that allows that IP can be generated in the first place is if we have some type of protection that allows us to amortize development costs over a product run at a price point that will attract consumers.

As for reverse engineering being legal, in my world it would often be foolish. There are well-known anti-tamper approaches for military gear that can vary from lethal to life-changing.

FWIW, most companies that are not charities, need to make a profit to attract operating capital. Profit is not exactly an evil thing and neither is rewarding people who fund risks to move the technological ball further down field.

 

[FretRiff]

you feel that IP infringement is actually in the public interest because it creates more supply thus lowering prices...and I admittedly prarphrased just a tad..

More than a tad. That’s a misrepresentation.

I wouldn’t say IP infringement is “in the public interest”. That’s a slanted paraphrase, not my position. My point is simply that more market supply, from any source, tends to lower prices. That’s basic microeconomics any college student learns in Econ 101, not an endorsement of infringement. Please don’t misstate what I clearly wrote.

The fact is, innovation happens even in industries and countries with weak or inconsistent IP enforcement. Open-source software, consumer electronics, and the fashion industry are thriving examples. Companies still invest in R&D because speed-to-market, branding, and ecosystem lock-in can be just as effective as legal exclusivity for recouping costs. As Sabre Systems is well aware.

Amortizing development costs matters, but strong IP laws aren’t the only way to make that possible. Historically, the U.S. itself became an industrial leader by freely copying European patents in the 19th century — a point I’ve raised repeatedly, which you haven’t addressed.

Universal IP protection is not a realistic expectation. Global enforcement is patchy, and yet innovation still flourishes, so clearly, other models work too, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[agedhorse]

IP infringement creates more supply in the market, which, in economic terms, lowers consumer prices, even if it cuts into one company’s profits.

This statement appears to condone IT infringement because "IP infringement creates more supply in the market, which, in economic terms, lowers consumer prices, even if it cuts into one company’s profits".

The implication that this is "ok" actually makes me a little sick to my stomach... but clearly this is also a good example of how and why some companies justify their actions of IP infringement.

 

[gln1955]

You can always tell in these discussions who makes their living by the creation of IP and who doesn't.