Do you plan an exposé Brant? Or are you going to respect your contact’s privacy?…

What’s there to expose? Just because names are in a contact list doesn’t necessarily mean they are actual customers. I’ve got several famous guitarists in my contact list – have they actually bought one of my amplifiers, unfortunately not, they are just there because I’ve made contact at some point.

How do we know that’s not just a Chinese frame with stickers on it?
Was this thread just an elaborate way to set up the knock off frame you’d already bought as genuine, prior to a classified post?
😈

(Joking, btw….)

that hongfu is the same one in the picture

rumour has it they are shite…but hey its the bike industry i can only go on rumours and an email from a guy who said they like the frame but dont survive a CEN test

holy **** i managed to upload a picture

A 330i badge on a 318 Beemer?

That, along with an M3 badge has been done loads. Whats better is a 316 badge on an M3 and the look on the saxo boys faces after they pull up for a race.

rumour has it they are shite

Good at spreading rumours these industry types, aren’t they… 😉

Ive heard rumours that they’re excellent… I’d rather believe they’re not as good as my proper one, but the point I’m making is that there is just as much plagiarism in this frame – that the STW Massive seem to think is OK – as there is in an S5-esque frame with a Cervelo logo printed on the side.

So; what if the ‘real’ frames are simply liveried up and skilfully marketed versions of the ‘off the peg’ product the Chinese company supplies to anyone? Are western companies really doing allthat ‘R+D’, or is all that work actually being done in China, and the end product simply sold on here for a huge mak up? Is the cycle industry really any different to the clothing industry, or the consumer electronics industry? What are we actually paying for; a product or a brand?

Shibboleth; is that a ‘real’ Eames chair, or a ‘fake?

It’s real… It’s a fake Park workstand though… 😉

Those Hong Fu road frames are $730 ish dollars for the SL version,under 1kg, less for the heavier one.

It’s real…

is it? 😆

Well, I bit the bullet and a big pallet arrived yesterday. First impressions are that it is indistinguishable from a Vitra/Herman Miller version. Quality and finish is spot on and the proportions are exact.

I don’t think it’s frothy Ive found it highly amusing at times and am now a lot more aware of differing attitudes to knock off frames.

Shibboleth; is that a ‘real’ Eames chair, or a ‘fake?

Show me the person who would try so hard to justify buying a fake bike frame and would buy an original Eames chair.

Show me the person who would try so hard to justify buying a fake bike frame and would buy an original Eames chair.

It’s not a ‘licenced’ Eames Chair, I was joking… the workstand is real though! 😀

I was joking

Hilarious.

It’s not a ‘licenced’ Eames Chair, I was joking

I’m releived to hear that. The Eames chairs are a perfect example of how companies rip people off; a friend has had both a ‘real’ chair and a ‘fake, and the two were indistinguishable. More than likely made in the same factory. He sold the ‘real’ one at a sizeable profit, and kept the ‘fake’.

I suspect that the same practice happens with bike frames; companies know that we are mugs enough to pay massive premiums for ‘brands’, so they hike the proces of goods up to whatever they can get away with. All so people can say ‘I’ve got a genuine X product’. And whilst there undoubtedly are cheap inferior knock offs out there, a lot of the ‘this product isn’t as good as a ‘real’ version’ is more than likely just bullshit spread by those with a vested interest in making as much profit as possible.

The Eames chairs are a perfect example of how companies rip people off; a friend has had both a ‘real’ chair and a ‘fake, and the two were indistinguishable. More than likely made in the same factory. He sold the ‘real’ one at a sizeable profit, and kept the ‘fake’.

They’re not made in the same factory. The European licenced version is made by Vitra in Germany and costs about £3600-£4000. The “originals” are made by Herman Miller in the US.

Mine is exact in every way, but made in China for a quarter of the price. I’d sat the base is cast from an original, even the clips that attach the pads to the shells are identical. I’d lusted after one for over 20 years, so I’m quite familiar with it, and I can also confirm that it’s indistinguishable apart from lacking the Eames signature sticker on the base.

“Made in China” doesn’t mean “poor quality”. It often means better quality than something made in Europe.

Well, the chair was apparently identical in every way to the ‘original’. Just like yours it seems. Cheaper labour costs aside, how can one identical product justifiably cost many times more?

I have a cheap pair of Aldi or whatever cycling shoes, they cost about £18. The sole pattern is identical to a pair of Specialized ones. The uppers may be an older ‘Specialized’ design. The specialized version is £60-70. Why?

Have not read every link, but a branded fake frame is a trademark, copyright infringement.

I found a guy faking t shirts from a famous road brand. Trading standards offered to seize all his stock and equipment.

Technically you could have your frame taken away. But I doubt it will happen.

Have not read every link, but a branded fake frame is a trademark, copyright infringement.

A frame that copies patented design cues is also a copyright infringement.
But for some reason, people on here think that’s fine…

The reason the unbranded R5 copy from Deng Fu would be unlikely to be confiscated is that very few customs officials would recognise the similarities unless it’s festooned with logos.

And it seems, that on that basis, this is where we find the dividing line between STW’s double standards: people are happy to buy, use or tolerate fakes, as long as they’re faked in a way that makes it unlikely for them to ever be held accountable for committing a crime.

And it seems, that on that basis, this is where we find the dividing line between STW’s double standards: people are happy to buy, use or tolerate fakes, as long as they’re faked in a way that makes it unlikely for them to ever be held accountable for committing a crime.

The unbranded may or may not look like or be a direct copy of something, it’s hard to tell but it is being sold as such – a blank frame. The other is trying to look like something more expensive, pretend to be something it is either or it isn’t. Which ever way it’s counterfeit which is illegal. The unbranded may be a copy but are not pretending to be anything so are potentially design infringements.

A frame that copies patented design cues is also a copyright infringement.

In the case of Spesh FSR maybe- slender stays no. How can you successfully globally copyright a profile/outline that doesn’t have a logo on it?

Eh? Are you saying its copyright infringement because a bike frame looks like another?

So what about all the standard steel hardtails? Many alu etc etc that all look similar except for paint and graphics?

Nit-picking but unless it is stickered up its not trademark, copyright infringement. Branded tshirts is. For me, its a similar looking frame.

An unbranded white cotton t-shirt vs one with a Nike logo. One infringes copyright.

Samsung may or may not have infringed on Apple’s patents with their smartphones, but they didn’t write “Apple” or “iPhone” on them.

I believe Cervelo hold the patent for the Squoval tube profile. The R5-esque Deng Fu looks like they’ve copied the profile exactly.

If they have – as I suspect – taken a pair of calipers to an original, then they have infinged Cervelo’s patent.

Is that OK?

Samsung may or may not have infringed on Apple’s patents with their smartphones,

They used the same software supplier for certain functions didn’t they? Hence why in some markets it was thrown out against Apple and others (US) upheld.

Is that OK?

Open question. Is there an international patent that covers all countries? To copyright a bicycle profile- would that be possible in every market? Would it be granted or classed as ‘pending’?

I believe Cervelo hold the patent for the Squoval tube profile. The R5-esque Deng Fu looks like they’ve copied the profile exactly.

If they have – as I suspect – taken a pair of calipers to an original, then they have infinged Cervelo’s patent.

Actually, patents are usually a lot harder to violate than companies would like you to believe. In order to get patents on this sort of thing you need to come up with some pretty precise “inventions” and generally “we used a square tube” won’t cut it. Doesn’t stop companies using the patent for marketing or the the patent lawyers from reaping the benefits of putting the patent together and defending it.

And in this case it’s Canyon’s somewhat questionable patent anyway:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11200
http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/01/14/canyon-and-cervelo-settle-seat-tube-patent-dispute/

Disclaimer : I am not a patent lawyer, though my name is on a patent, and I do own an FM066 frame.

And it seems, that on that basis, this is where we find the dividing line between STW’s double standards

There’s no double standards at all. The only reason to buy the fake branded is to give the impression to others that its a real one. You might want to pretend there’s another reason, but you’d be kidding yourself

Whereas the unbranded or (for instance) Ribble branded version is same tech at much reduced price. No deception

Gary, that lawsuit regarded a tapered seat tube. Squoval is a profile developed by Cervelo, a square with ovalised covered, which is designed to put an equal proportion of the carbon material at any distance from the centre of the tube, thereby offering the greatest resistance to twisting forces.

Whereas the unbranded or (for instance) Ribble branded version is same tech at much reduced price. No deception

…But if its a ‘structural’ copy, that’s also a deception… No?

The deception is if you’re “passing off” ie pretending something is real, when its not. In what way is the unbranded version claiming to be a real one, when it can’t be indentified…?

Gary, that lawsuit regarded a tapered seat tube. Squoval is a profile developed by Cervelo, a square with ovalised covered, which is designed to put an equal proportion of the carbon material at any distance from the centre of the tube, thereby offering the greatest resistance to twisting forces.

You’re right re: the different context, didn’t read the articles very closely. The point still stands though, there is a good chance there is more to a patent than an external shape, all good grey areas for patent lawyers to clean up on.

And a quick search doesn’t show up any Vroomen/White patents that seem to cover that profile, most are related to the time trial frames.

I’m really baffled by all the people who got into an apoplectic rage about the branded fake arguing the unbranded copy is absolutely fine. 😕

It’s still IP theft surely?

Strong thread this one, wonder how long it will last? 😀

I’m really baffled by all the people who got into an apoplectic rage about the branded fake arguing the unbranded copy is absolutely fine.

Where has anyone said it’s fine?

I suspect people are just refusing to take the bait from the increasingly desperate OP.

Because the unbranded copy isn’t trying to be something it’s not. I’m certain that a company making cervelo or de rosa frames will sell unbranded version, it’s unlikely the same company would sell a fake branded one. ( as to do so would be commercially v stupid). So it’s likely therefore that’s the branded fake will come from a different source, and you may make the claim that the quality is the same, but you cannot know for certain, and it follows then that the makers of branded fakes won’t have the same interest in making the frame properly, it might but you cannot know for certain.

So, for your money you can buy the frame as branded real, some people want that reassurance
Unbranded real, same frame without the brand cache, don’t care for the image, short of cash: take your pick
Branded fake: possibly same frame ( don’t know for sure) but want others to think it is, slight possibility of being impounded.
Yep, I can see where the smart money would go….

Not paid enough to get apocalyptic, sorry

Where has anyone said it’s fine?

Er…. here:

There’s no double standards at all. The only reason to buy the fake branded is to give the impression to others that its a real one. You might want to pretend there’s another reason, but you’d be kidding yourself
Whereas the unbranded or (for instance) Ribble branded version is same tech at much reduced price. No deception

There’s no double standards at all? 😕

People go on and on and on about how the fake harms the brand/kills children’s faces off, but an unbranded exact clone, or exact clone sold under another much cheaper brand does no harm? 😕

It’s still IP theft surely?

Legally? Only if it breaches one of Cervelos patents, which on a cursary search it doesn’t. Put a Cervelo sticker on it though and it becomes a counterfit so could (should) be seized by customs, and you might get a telling off.

I think Cervelo registered the word “Squoval” as a trademark, not the tube profile – you have to be Apple big before you can register a patent on something squareish with round corners.

Where has all this rubbish come from about if you buy a fake branded frame you are just trying to convince other people you have a genunine one?
The OP clearly states that the reason for getting fake branded frame would be because it looks fantastic.

I think my Cannondale with a lefty looks great but I am told repeatedly by her indoors that it looks terrible, I don’t care what she thinks in this regard though as she doesn’t have to ride it; I do and I want to ride a bike that I think looks good and I don’t care what other people think.
For the same reason I am conetmplating one of those green and yellow On One frames that most people think look disgusting but I like them.

I’m really baffled by all the people who got into an apoplectic rage about the branded fake arguing the unbranded copy is absolutely fine.

Personally I wouldn’t touch either, but one is obviously a crime and the other isn’t (although I agree it’s morally wrong). I haven’t seen both frames to compare them so can’t really comment on whether one is an exact copy of the other or not.

Where has all this rubbish come from about if you buy a fake branded frame you are just trying to convince other people you have a genunine one?
The OP clearly states that the reason for getting fake branded frame would be because it looks fantastic.

Because as well as possessing an astonishingly simplistic black and white world view some people have the power to read minds?

Legally? Only if it breaches one of Cervelos patents, which on a cursary search it doesn’t.

Are you a patent lawyer? Sounds unlikely to me – its not just very similar, it looks identical. Never mind whether its morally IP theft of course.

Grum,

you left out an important word there which has completely changed the intended meaning of the post that you refer to. “copy”. There is unbranded and there is also unbranded copy. You must make a differentiation between these two.