This is kind of an interesting thread that crosses into so many areas. The "Cube" that A/S has built and is selling at a price that some find quite high, is quite an attractive and effective device, based on what owners and users have commented. They decided to put it into the marketplace, knowing that they either owned patents and are prepared to defend them or not. That is a simple, but important business decision on their part. Did they get it right or blow it? Time will tell. They knew how much effort went into the construction and build, and apparently, the earlier price, though maybe a bit shocking to some, was reasonable. When they were either unable, or unwilling to fill orders for it, and then elevated the price significantly, what did they expect others in the market to do? They set themselves up for someone to copy and produce more cheaply. Does that make what the Korean company did wrong? Maybe not, especially if the "Cube" is not covered under patents to protect it, or if A/S is not prepared to defend those patents. They saw a product that had building demand, low availability, and a price point that the market was straining at. Seems like a perfect "storm" set of conditions to come in and create a clone, sell it at a more reasonable price, and make some money.
With respect to IP.....well, if A/S feels "hurt" or infringed upon, they had the chance to flood the market with their version at a price that would have made it a lot harder for the Korean company to copy, tool up, and put into production to make a profit themselves. For all anybody knows, the Cube may only cost $50 in materials and another $200-300 in build labor and distribution. We just do not know that part of the equation. Obviously it has to be something reasonable to encourage somebody else to build it and sell it for a lot less than A/S. Fine machining can be done almost everywhere in the world today.
The interesting point, for those railing against "the Asians" and other such lumpings, is when some of these IP "kings" go out of business, or stop designing and building cool stuff like this. Then what will there be to copy? That is not saying the folks copying things do not have their own ideas or designs, as we know they do, but one of their strengths seems to be in the ability to produce things of high enough quality at low enough costs to be able to effectively compete in the marketplace. Anybody remember how much of toy the Hyundai or Kia automobiles were when first introduced? What about what they are building today? Maybe not the cost of a Mercedes, but gee, they are not horrible cheap heaps either anymore. Something to be said for that.
Policing the markets is not the responsibility of the consumer. They select things all the time based on the criteria that matters to them: price, service, availability, innovation, etc. They will seek it wherever they can find it.
In the case of the Cube versus the Clam-whaever.....if the clone does the job, satisfies the buyer and comes in a price that is attractive, it will succeed. If A/S is unable or unwilling to fight that competition, be it in court over valid patents, or in the marketplace by offering a competitive price, good service, and all those other things that buyers seek, then they will suffer. It is too bad if they fail, as a lot of their designs are quite slick and I would hate to see them be "lost", but why should I, as a consumer have to pay some quite high premium for something when it may be available elsewhere for considerably less? I have to deal with this myself when selling my prints and services.....A/S does also. If the Cube is vastly superior in build, and for what it does, the market will help select it to its top. If it is just overpriced, it will be relegated to collectors.
Just my thoughts on this.
LJ