02-03-2018, 01:16 AM
#21
  • Mr_Smartepants
  • Senior Member
  • Cambridgeshire, UK (CONUS post address)
User Info
(02-03-2018, 12:12 AM)WegianWarrior Wrote:
(02-02-2018, 04:11 PM)Watson15 Wrote: I don’t understand the ethical point of view, since it’s not an original design and any patent would have expired. For the same reason, I don’t see the problem with using the M7, Rover, and 4125 designs for the Asylum brushes. If there is a distinction or difference here, please correct me. Maybe I just don’t get it.

Morals and ethics are even more YMMV than razors and brushes... Angel

Copying an old design that isn't in production is one thing, copying an old design that is currently being manufactured by someone else is a somewhat different thing. Whether you consider it morally right or wrong comes down to personal ethics.

So similar in principle to what's happening between the Merkur Futur (currently produced) vs the copy produced by Chinese firm Ming Shi (and others).  Perfectly legal, but morally questionable.
Sounds like free-market capitalism to me.
I don't think Phil has anything to worry about.  I consider Monopoly-game rules, where typically whoever enters the market first (and puts up hotels first) generally wins the game.  Phil's got his hotel parked firmly on Park Place. Wink

48 2,028
Reply
 02-03-2018, 08:05 AM
#22
User Info
(02-02-2018, 03:00 PM)BrickHud Wrote: I don't know why anyone would plunk down money months or years in advance on a crowdfunded project for a product that is already produced at an extremely high level of quality by another manufacturer and which is currently available.  The crowdfunded item may never be brought to market or may be of poor quality when it shows.  If you wanted a modern Darwin, why wouldn't you just buy an Asylum Evolution and have it in hand in two or three days?


I can see people buying one when it is available because it says "Darwin" on the razor.

0 304
Reply
 02-03-2018, 02:42 PM
#23
User Info
No offense to anyone, but personally I see it as the design has been out there for anyone to copy.  If someone purchases the rights to a brand to gain an advantage, then let them take the risk.  Otherwise, hopefully the best product and customer service thrives in the market.  If they sell it cheaper then Phil (why???), then good for the consumer if the product is of acceptable quality.
I guess I just see it as typical business and I am not seeing any ethical issue.  People make similar competing products all day.  Wolfman was making the Darwin style handle before Phil decided to make the whole razor.  Did the new Darwin folks buy the rights to the Darwin brand?  I assume so.  One could argue that at least they paid for the rights to the Darwin name, etc.  

Asylum has been making the razor, but the razor was mild.  I was told as someone that bought black, there was no market to make a more aggressive version for me. If there is no market for the product I bought, I do not see how there is much of a market for an all new player selling basically the same thing.  If Darwin can improve the razor, offer great service, at a fair price, then the market and consumer are better served. 
Steve

0 825
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)