The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Save $

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I think the question is, should anyone be promoting a product which is in breach of IP law, even if you are not breaking the law by buying it? It might be legal but is it ethical? (I don't mean this as an attack on Willem because I doubt he did it intentionally)
I understand what you are saying but the user has no idea what is patent or not too. People promote stuff all the time , you yourself like the Sinar stuff which is fine but we don't ask about your intentions if any. It's what you like and everyone accepts that. Seems kind of along those same lines to me.
 

Rethmeier

New member
Wow,
did I open a can of worms.
The amount of people at LL that send me PM's including Martin Vogt.
They all want to know how I like the Multiflex.
Martin said that of course it won't be as good.
I'll keep you all posted,when I receive the Multiflex.
Best,
Willem.
N.B Correspondence with the company(Photoclam) was swift and in perfect English.
I could even pay with PayPal.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Peter,
we all know that you have deep pockets and only want the best!
But hey,I would have bought the real thing too,if money was no object.
Remember,I did have a Hy6 kit.
Best,
Willem.
Hey Willem - sorry my comment wasn't aimed at you!

I just think whenever people start saying THIS is too expensive - it is meaningless. Everyone has their own preferences.

Regarding yoru 'cube' I am interested to hear what you think for sure. I woudl rather pay 50% than 100% for a bit of CAD cutting.:)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Willem: Please plan on doing a detailed review, with pictures if possible, and you are more than welcome to post it here!
 

FromJapan

Member
I know Swiss and I've seen many of their manufacturing facilities as well as the very similar south-German facilities. I've worked for a company which did both, production in Germany and Korea.
To make a long story short: entirely different history, philosophy and ecological/social standards - the company used Koreans as cheaper workers to enter the Asian market but of course the German production had to introduce new productions and solve problems...
Just one example: Swiss/German workers in production are usually educated over many years in certain technical tasks (I'm not talking about engineers) to maintain complex machines and react to problems and discuss them with production/R&D-engineers, in Korea we had to use simpler production lines with more manual work. Don't get me wrong, the Korean engineers I've met were interested and motivated (I've never met the workers) but they were never more than a cheap alternative and "pressure tool" ("see how happy they are with their wages"...) for the management. I don't think Arca would offshore production to Korea (when Multiflex would gain market shares from Arca) but the long-term effects wouldn't be positive.
I don't get this. It's okay "ethically" to use Asian workers to reduce costs but it's not "ethical" if those same Asians cut out the expensive Europeans and turn out a cheaper product?

Reverse engineering isn't a crime. That's how you get third party lenses to work on Canons and Nikons, or Hasselblad V lenses on Mamiya cameras for that matter. The OEM lens protocols are undocumented. So Tamron and Sigma buy a bunch of lenses, figure out how they work with various bodies and put their own lenses on the market. The OEMs can't and don't stop them. They rely on their secrets - and firmware updates - to deliver better performance.

On a similar note, Cambo and Alpa cameras now have Hy6 mounts, though they compete with Sinar's Artec. So why don't Phase make a back in the Hy6 mount? Not because sinar prevents them. They can simply lock them out with a firmware update.

The issue of the patent on the Cube isn't so simple. Kerry Thalmann of http://reallybigcameras.com/ carries the PhotoClam ballheads but not the Multiflex, because of a patent dispute. Whether that dispute has been resolved or not is unclear. And A/S has not publicly stated that they have a patent on the Cube, or a worldwide license to use the goniometric patent. If the license is for the US/Europe, they can only prevent it from coming there. Perhaps Multiflex has a license for Asia? Willem, can you ask PhotoClam whether the Multiflex is available in the US, or can be delivered to the US?

Cheers,
Kumar
 
Last edited:

Graham Mitchell

New member
I don't get this. It's okay "ethically" to use Asian workers to reduce costs but it's not "ethical" if those same Asians cut out the expensive Europeans and turn out a cheaper product?
That's not the issue at all with these 'problem' Asian goods. The first issue is the legal issue of patent infringement, the second issue is the moral issue of giving your business to the 'cloners' (even if it's legal) who didn't spend the money on R&D, and finally there are quality and support issues such as durability, fit, smoothness, warranty.

You might feel differently if you were an inventor who'd spent years on an innovative new design.

For example, see http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3467568n (there may be a short ad displayed first)
 

ARCA

New member
Just to clarify a few points and stop speculation:

I simply asked Mr. Rethmeier questions in a PM, based on his comments which I did not agree with or which I found incorrect in relation with the links provided.
I was NOT:
-asking for any apologies
-that he deletes his comments,
-threatening anybody with legal stuff

But it is our interest to inform customers that this product is entirely based on ARCA-SWISS intellectual property.

kdphotography:
As a side note, Arca apparently has either horrible customer service or an apparent severe apathy towards consumers. I know Capture Integration made several requests for the Cube (yup---a real one!) and Arca apparently didn't think well enough to provide one to a dealer to sell.....

We have about a dozen Cubes for demonstration purposes at dealers Worldwide. However we are sometimes not able to supply a Cube for a certain
Show or Demo because they are all out at the dealers or not back in time.

Regards
Martin Vogt
 

Henry Goh

Member
I think several people here have painted every country in Asia with one BIG brush when they actually mean China. That in itself shows the ignorance of many Westerners.

Japan is in ASIA and are you saying Japanese knock off US or European products? Laughable.

I'm in Singapore and the last time I read a report on product piracy, we were ranked much higher than the US and many European countries, except perhaps, Norway.

Do I condone knock-offs? Of course not. But I do take issue when people shoot off their mouths with wind that normally comes out of their rear end.

Sorry about the rant.
 
Last edited:

FromJapan

Member
For the record, I'm not condoning or supporting piracy in any way.

This is probably getting a little political, but anyway. I was reacting to georgl's post where he spoke about German and Swiss companies using Korean workers. Many western companies use Asia as production bases to get over environmental and other regulatory concerns in their own countries. This is legal, because most Asian countries do not yet have these regulations. But is it moral? From whose perspective?

"Giving business to cloners"

Anyone who has used Sigma, Tokina or Tamron lenses on Canons and Nikons, Hasselblad lenses on Mamiya cameras, Hy6 mount backs on Cambo and Alpa cameras has given business to cloners. This would probably mean all of us.

As far as the Cube and MultiFlex are concerned, as I said, we don't know if there's a patent infringement. If there is one, then A/S should be able to stop PhotoClam from producing the MultiFlex. Otherwise, it's Economics 101. If A/S dropped their price to $1500, almost everyone would prefer to buy the Cube. People are willing to pay a premium for quality, but they somewhat object to being gouged. Dropping the price would immediately stop production of the MultiFlex. AFAIK, Jack bought his Cube in 2005 for $1300. Does anyone think there's a rational reason for the price to double in a little over three years? Has A/S increased prices on all of its products by that much? Have other manufacturers of fine photographic equipment done that? It is of course A/S' prerogative to set its own prices, but then they have to live with MultiFlexes popping up. Agreed, the MultiFlex may not be up to the quality of the Cube, but the buyers know that already.

Perhaps A/S needs an Asian marketing manager.

And I have a Manfrotto 405 which serves my needs more than adequately, so I'm not buying a Cube or a MultiFlex any time soon.

Cheers,
Kumar

EDIT: I see Martin has said that the MultiFlex is entirely based on ARCA-SWISS intellectual property. If so, it is wrong to buy the MultiFlex. Has A/S proved its patent? Given A/S' resources, aren't they able to get PhotoClam to stop production of the MultiFlex? Doesn't their (French or Swiss) government help them in this?

EDIT: I have been informed that Alpa's Hy6/AFi mount is officially supported by Sinar and Leaf, so there was no reverse engineering there. I stand corrected.

Again, this is about marketing and economics. As photographers, we copyright our images and go after any one who copies our images. Similarly, if A/S protects its intellectual property and goes after copycats, more power to them. BUT, if we do not protect our images, we have only ourselves to blame.
If A/S has not taken the proper steps to protect itself, nothing we say here will stop PhotoClam from selling the MultiFlex. And pricing it competitively might be more effective than a patent suit.
 
Last edited:

Graham Mitchell

New member
I think several people here have painted every country in Asia with one BIG brush when they actually mean China. That in itself shows the ignorance of many Westerners.
I don't think anyone is doing that and I certainly didn't. I referred to 'problem asian goods' - a term which actually implies that there are non-problem goods too!

Japan is in ASIA and are you saying Japanese knock off US or European products? Laughable.
Again, wondering who you are addressing this question to? I certainly never said anything like that.
 

carstenw

Active member
I think several people here have painted every country in Asia with one BIG brush when they actually mean China. That in itself shows the ignorance of many Westerners.
Whoa, I didn't see anyone saying this. Something seems to have hit an existing nerve. And about tarring with a big brush, what do you think "westerners" feel about reading such an accusation? Really, you ought to match what you get insulted by with what you say a little more carefully.

Japan is in ASIA and are you saying Japanese knock off US or European products? Laughable.
Laughable? Fact, historically. Here is one example:

http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/copies/lcindex.htm

I agree that Japanese products *today* aren't copies, but the Japanese photo industry got to where it is today by copying, so I do think this is a question of "thou doth protest too much".

Now this role has moved to other countries, such as China, but it isn't elegant to claim innocence and then point the finger at the neighbour, when, apart from the timing, the strategy was the same. How do you think the Chinese members of this forum feel about your statement?
 

FromJapan

Member
A bit OT, but the issue of patents got me thinking. In Asia, community knowledge is the norm. Trade secrets are handed down through family members, and are rarely documented. Since the idea of family and community are so strong, these secrets are rarely betrayed, and those who do so are treated as traitors, with appropriate punishment. The idea of revealing secrets to government authorities so that they can be legally protected is an alien concept.

On a side note, did any of you know of biopiracy? I invite you to read this:
http://www1.american.edu/ted/turmeric.htm
http://www1.american.edu/ted/basmati.htm
http://www1.american.edu/TED/enola-bean.htm
http://www1.american.edu/ted/maca.htm
http://www1.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/lifepat.htm

Cheers,
Kumar
 

FromJapan

Member
Laughable? Fact, historically. Here is one example:
http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/pp/copies/lcindex.htm
I agree that Japanese products *today* aren't copies, but the Japanese photo industry got to where it is today by copying, so I do think this is a question of "thou doth protest too much".
This page says "Canon had built and marketed a camera inspired by the Leica in 1935. But they had gone to great pains to design around existing patents, and these early cameras did not take Leica mount lenses." Perfectly legal. Moral? Ethical? You decide.

And "As part of German war reparations, all German patents were made public. This was done with the intention of helping allied industry, but the effect in the photographic world was to create a giant postwar Japanese photo industry." Again, absolutely legal, though old-time employees of Zeiss and Leica might disagree.

Cheers,
Kumar
 

carstenw

Active member
Yes, I agree. I understand that the patents were open, but there is more to it than is written in this page. I believe that it was Canon who started copying the Leica after several top executives had a Leica factory tour, for example... Anyway, my point was that "laughable" is inappropriate here. Japan has a long history of first copying products (whether exact or not), and then improving them over time. I am not against this strategy, by the way. I think it is brilliant, even if it lacks a little vision and R&D initially. I don't advocate violating patents however, and if this is the case with the A-S head, then this should be made public so that those who make purchase with morality in mind can make the appropriate decisions.
 

FromJapan

Member
If only A/S would state unequivocally that yes, they have a patent, this is the patent number and and they've already filed a dispute with the patent office, all this conversation, though entertaining, could have been avoided.

A/S is technically brilliant, but needs a better marketing manager.

Cheers,
Kumar
 

jlm

Workshop Member
i doubt the application of the goniometric device can be patented; it has been in the public domain for at least 40 years (i used to spec and use Spectra Physics devices way back when).
the real issue is an ethical one, especially since we are only speculating about "legal" property. Ethics and legality are not the same in my book
so I pose this question: doesn't the fact that the Clam is what appears to be a dead ringer for the cube imply that only one of the manufacturers did the R&D? And therefore, legality aside, is it ethically correct to buy the cheapest (the knockoff)?
my position is to support for higher standard, not necessarily determined by the $

few of the other examples illustrate such an obviously identical copying
 

Lars

Active member
Setting the patent issue aside and just considering the ethical side, I'd vote with my wallet and buy the knockoff. It really isn't my problem as consumer if the original designer cannot protect its intellectual property.

There is no such thing as an ethical responsibility for me as consumer to hand over my hard-earned money to a corporation. This is part of the competitive business landscape - if you cannot protect your market share you are doomed. My brand loyalty in petrol stretches as far as half a percentage point in price difference - why should tripod heads be any different? Once again, not my problem as consumer.
 
Top