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!
I think that's really harsh. All inventors and designers would LIKE to protect their work and I think they deserve to earn the reward for their effort and contribution. In an ideal world, they could all afford to do it but do you realize how difficult and expensive it can be for a family-size business to get a worldwide patent?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.
A moral obligation? Wow, Islamic, Christian or Jewish? I hope that you're kidding, how did choosing between 2 competing products suddenly become a moral issue? I'm not condoning copying or ripping anyone's hard work off, but please, lets keep things in perspective here.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.
I have my own patents that I've fought in the past to defend, and am currently in litigation with a large European corporation over a patent infringement issue. Sure, I don't like it and I'll never be able to recoup the cost of this litigation even if I win, I'm not even certain if I can the cost of this litigation, but its part of doing business, that's all. At best we can try to diplomatically make our clients aware of the situation but this has nothing to do with the consumer and at this point they're free to choose and purchase either product which better suits their budget and tastes.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)
Some of us do work for profit, and aren't exactly starving, though we're artists.Now, if this was about a starving artist selling paintings I might reconsider, but in this case we are talking about commercial industrial products made for profit.
Hi Martin,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
And what do they tell their loyal customer who paid 2k+ for theirs? Their only choice is to try to PhotoClam through legal action, the price war assumes too much about the knowledge of consumer that competing products even exist.Some of us do work for profit, and aren't exactly starving, though we're artists.
If A/S were smarter, they could have priced the Cube at $1500, and PhotoClam wouldn't have had the incentive to make a clone. If they were really, really smart, they would have lowered the price to $1000 after the clone came out, and destroyed the Korean company's investment.
Kumar
Or how many own AS type plates and clamps made by others!I hope all the folks here shouting for moral and ethical behavior on the part of the manufacturers are not using MS Windows machines... THAT would be taking hypocrisy too far... :ROTFL:
I never used the word obligation, so you're off on your own tangent thereA moral obligation? Wow, Islamic, Christian or Jewish? I hope that you're kidding
They tell them the same thing that Hasselblad told its loyal customers when they dropped prices. A few people on this forum know what they said.And what do they tell their loyal customer who paid 2k+ for theirs? Their only choice is to try to PhotoClam through legal action, the price war assumes too much about the knowledge of consumer that competing products even exist.
Yes, you never used the word obligation but I don't see how I'm off on a different tangent:I never used the word obligation, so you're off on your own tangent there
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)
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.
This is a slippery slope and I'm a bit surprised that so many photographers would gladly turn their back on other 'creators'.
Well you started bring 'obligation' and religion into things which achieves nothing but obfuscation and was far from my point. A debate on morality is beyond the scope of this forum, so I will simply say that some purchase choices can be immoral in my opinion and you are free to disagree.Yes, you never used the word obligation but I don't see how I'm off on a different tangent:
haaaaahahahahahahaha.If the Korean company had copied just one aspect, that would be understandable, but to copy the entire device with its many facets is immoral and unethical, and probably illegal. I do wish that Arca-Swiss would make the presumed struggle public, to raise awareness of the issue. If the Korean company saw some kind of backlash due to their behaviour, maybe they would cancel the product and stay within reasonable competitive behavioural guidelines.
Personally, I find myself hoping that the copy is of inferior quality and manufactured with sufficiently low tolerance that it becomes useless in practice. This is not inconceivable, given that the design as is presumably relies heavily on exact tolerances throughout the design. I did see someone on another forum who had bought one and complained of sloppy tolerances in some axis.
Arca-Swiss' (lack of) support is a completely separate issue. There are no clubs.haaaaahahahahahahaha.
Backlash due to their behavior? what, that they're offering a product that can easily be purchased online rather than jumpin through hoops and joining a club and waiting a month to get a product from an european company?
Carsten, I think that nobody has said definitively it is illegal, so the assumption is it's legal. Even Arca themselves, who clearly know about it to the point of saying it involves their IP, have not officially said it is in violation of any patent they hold...There appears to be no one here taking the position that they would buy a copy only if it was legal. This puzzles me a bit, but I guess that is the world we live in.