Counterfeit morality if the OEM doesn't provide.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

This particular question came after a situation that I'm going through right now.

At the moment I am trying to acquire a particular pair of sneakers. Specifically Nike Air Jordan Retro 12 Black/Purple/Aquamarine. Personally I find this shoe rather snazzy however I can't find it for 2 reasons. A) The shoe was originally made in 2009 and is no longer being made B) it only came in children sizes. With these two things glaring before me I began feeling rather depressed. I searched the internet and found a plethora of sites claiming to see the aforementioned shoe except in mens sizes. I did a few domain name searches and checked their email addresses and they all link to places in China. One had a telephone number for Putian China, a town cited in a NYT article for being the capital of shoe counterfeiting.

This situation brought me to the question. Is counterfeiting really counterfeiting if the original designer and manufacturer are no making the product in question and there is still a demand? Or even more simply is counterfeiting immoral in this situation if there is a demand for the product and the original manufacturer no longer produces the product in question?

This isn't the only instance of replica/reproduction/custom or counterfeit products being produced. A company in Australia makes aluminum copies of Nissan and Toyota engine blocks for sale to consumers. Some of these engine blocks are aluminum some are not, but the ones in question are no longer in production by their respective manufacturers. Another company makes fiberglass replica bodies of classic cars that are also no longer in production. No doubt there are other examples but those are the only two I had in mind.

[mr friendly guy]

Does it still count as a counterfeit, or a replica? Because I have seen custom made figures made to represent characters from shows of which the show is not currently making figures for. As long as they say its not official then I see it as a replica rather than a straight up counterfeit.

[phred]

I don't personally see a problem with it if the original manufacturer is no longer making them. Although I might take issue with them if they're trying to pass the shoes off as the real deal.

For instance, nobody on either end of the deal with the fiberglass replica cars believes they are getting an actual 57 Chevy, and I would consider it to be fairly poor form if the replica guys tried to sell them as if they were.

[Psawhn]

I've actually seen a couple videos that talk about something similar.

This link talks about copyright/patents in the fashion industry, and this link talks about Nike's response to someone copying their shoe design. (I tried to make the second video link to the relevant part. If it starts at the beginning, the part you want to hear about starts at about 23:00)

Legally, I don't know what your position is. If these companies produce the shoes with the Nike logo and everything, then they're probably guilty of trademark infringement, but I don't know what, if any, legal ramifications would be on you for purchasing. Morally, I'm not sure myself what my opinion is, assuming they're copying trademarked things like the logo.

Without any potential trademark issues, then morally and legally you'd be in the clear, at least for the shoe case. I don't know if similar principles apply to the engine block or car body cases.

Another interesting (to me) aspect to consider for discussion is the case of cheaper, accessible, 3D printing. What would happen when it's almost as easy to download and print off your own copy of the shoe as it would be to download and burn to DVD your own copy of an out-of-print movie?

[B5B7]

When considering ethics, another point is the ethical nature of the original product. Nike has a dubious reputation in regard to how its products are made, so the original ethical standing of the product is low. So, a replica may be of equal or even superior ethical level.

[sciguy]

If these companies produce the shoes with the Nike logo and everything, then they're probably guilty of trademark infringement...

Probably also patent infringement, since Nike almost certainly has design patents on the look of their shoes.

[Psawhn]

If these companies produce the shoes with the Nike logo and everything, then they're probably guilty of trademark infringement...

Probably also patent infringement, since Nike almost certainly has design patents on the look of their shoes.

Actually, if you watch those two videos I posted (the first one in particular) you'll find that in the fashion industry there basically is no patent or copyright protection. That second link (if you skip ahead to 23:00) discusses the case where someone copies the look of one of Nike's shoe, except for the logo (and changing the colours).

[Simon_Jester]

If these companies produce the shoes with the Nike logo and everything, then they're probably guilty of trademark infringement...

Probably also patent infringement, since Nike almost certainly has design patents on the look of their shoes.

They might be able to patent special features, but there's no way they can patent the look: it's not the kind of concrete innovation you need to be able to point to to file a patent.

[sciguy]

Actually, if you watch those two videos I posted (the first one in particular) you'll find that in the fashion industry there basically is no patent or copyright protection. That second link (if you skip ahead to 23:00) discusses the case where someone copies the look of one of Nike's shoe, except for the logo (and changing the colours).

I don't know what the video says, but Nike (and other shoe companies) most certainly do have design patents to protect the look of their shoes, and they routinely sue people who infringe upon them. In fact, Nike is one of the top filers of design patents in the US.

They might be able to patent special features, but there's no way they can patent the look: it's not the kind of concrete innovation you need to be able to point to to file a patent.

You're thinking of utility patents. The patent office also issues design patents that cover the look of a product.

[Molyneux]

Actually, if you watch those two videos I posted (the first one in particular) you'll find that in the fashion industry there basically is no patent or copyright protection. That second link (if you skip ahead to 23:00) discusses the case where someone copies the look of one of Nike's shoe, except for the logo (and changing the colours).

I don't know what the video says, but Nike (and other shoe companies) most certainly do have design patents to protect the look of their shoes, and they routinely sue people who infringe upon them. In fact, Nike is one of the top filers of design patents in the US.

They might be able to patent special features, but there's no way they can patent the look: it's not the kind of concrete innovation you need to be able to point to to file a patent.

You're thinking of utility patents. The patent office also issues design patents that cover the look of a product.

This is partially because the US patent system is fucked beyond all belief.

[sciguy]

This is partially because the US patent system is fucked beyond all belief.

There's nothing unique about the US patent system in that regard. All the world's other major patent offices (the European patent office, Japanese patent office, etc.) issue similar design patents to cover the look of a product.