01-25-2019, 05:25 PM
#21
User Info
Not that this applies to this post but you cannot clone a brush for example because I hardly doubt you can get a patent on a design shape for the most part unless you clone it as in name and all to look identical in every aspect to the original to the human eye.  That said, I have to call people insane who spend $100 + on a brush alone!  I am sorry, I don't see it and I surely don't see a $300+ price tag on the likes of some!  Afterall, silvertip badger bristles are just that and the handle is just a handle at the end of the day.  On this alone I buy brushes from $5 to $50 tops.  I have to tell you, Simpson and the like would be out of business the first month if they relied on me to spend that kind of money for mass produced CAD machine lathed items.  But then again I am reminded to each their own.  I guess people could say the same for me on some things I have bought like motorcycles and the such.  

That said with soaps and the like...….scents like natural oils cannot be boxed into a patent in my estimation and if someone creates a lavender and lilac soap it is their right. I understand if a patented fragrance like Polo is pirated to make one's own scent but at the end of the day...….things like essential oils both natural and fabricated go into making these and as long as a person is not passing the final product with the same name; design logo and portraying it as the original I don't see any legal means to stop it.  I mean, do companies such as Ralph Lauren own the patent to ingredient measurements that is essentially what produces the final product????  I don't know and I am not a patent attorney or legal scholar on the same otherwise this would flow over into other markets and create a small monopoly on many items we do not even realize daily that would raise prices on things so drastic if a company could that we would all be unable to afford anything.

Sorry for the ramble but I have not issues with a particular scent being replicated as long as the seller is not portraying it as the name brand original.

0 23
Reply
 01-25-2019, 08:56 PM
#22
User Info
This is like the subject of digital music. If you get the original, the artist is properly rewarded for their work and creativity. If you get a bootleg copy of the original (same artist, same everything), this is stealing in my book. I know that many people in my children's generation (also in my grandchildren's generation) think that getting the original music for free makes them an efficient consumer. IMO I say it makes them a thief. No dancing around this one, boys. 

The point has been made about copywrighting/patenting scents. Well, Harley Davidson has successfully patented "the Harley sound." So maybe scents can be too!

17 387
Reply
 01-26-2019, 04:12 AM
#23
User Info
You mention Ralph Lauren, Polo, patents and copyrights. There is another side....Example: L.A. California, had a Polo Club (the sport) going back to the 1920's.
They published a magazine, called POLO since the 20's or something, 50+ years along came Ralph, aka Polo, which he had "Trade marked" and took legal action
against the L.A. Polo club. They longer can call the publication POLO.  Dodgy

1 1,073
Reply
 01-28-2019, 12:15 AM
#24
User Info
I don’t mind clones if the original isn’t available. Otherwise, I generally prefer when imitation with a significant difference occurs. E.G., I find the Simpsons Persian jar and the SV 2.0 similar, yet distinctly different:

[Image: lFeherK.jpg]

34 1,808
Reply
 01-28-2019, 05:47 AM
#25
  • nikos.a
  • Senior Member
  • Athens, Greece
User Info
(01-28-2019, 12:15 AM)mike_the_kraken Wrote: I don’t mind clones if the original isn’t available. Otherwise, I generally prefer when imitation with a significant difference occurs. E.G., I find the Simpsons Persian jar and the SV 2.0 similar, yet distinctly different:

[Image: lFeherK.jpg]


I feel like there is no parthenogenesis on such handles. Especially the artisan made ones certainly copy the historical Simpsons designs on many occasions.

60 2,593
Reply
 01-28-2019, 12:39 PM
#26
User Info
(01-26-2019, 04:12 AM)zipper Wrote: You mention Ralph Lauren, Polo, patents and copyrights. There is another side....Example: L.A. California, had a Polo Club (the sport) going back to the 1920's.
They published a magazine, called POLO since the 20's or something, 50+ years along came Ralph, aka Polo, which he had "Trade marked" and took legal action
against the L.A. Polo club. They longer can call the publication POLO.  Dodgy


Maybe you know, how do they get the horses to swim in water polo?

1 501
Reply
 01-28-2019, 02:44 PM
#27
User Info
(01-28-2019, 12:39 PM)bkatbamna Wrote:
(01-26-2019, 04:12 AM)zipper Wrote: You mention Ralph Lauren, Polo, patents and copyrights. There is another side....Example: L.A. California, had a Polo Club (the sport) going back to the 1920's.
They published a magazine, called POLO since the 20's or something, 50+ years along came Ralph, aka Polo, which he had "Trade marked" and took legal action
against the L.A. Polo club. They longer can call the publication POLO.  Dodgy


Maybe you know, how do they get the horses to swim in water polo?
They use Seahorses..... Tongue

1 1,073
Reply
 01-28-2019, 04:07 PM
#28
User Info
(01-28-2019, 05:47 AM)nikos.a Wrote:
(01-28-2019, 12:15 AM)mike_the_kraken Wrote: I don’t mind clones if the original isn’t available. Otherwise, I generally prefer when imitation with a significant difference occurs. E.G., I find the Simpsons Persian jar and the SV 2.0 similar, yet distinctly different.


I feel like there is no parthenogenesis on such handles. Especially the artisan made ones certainly copy the historical Simpsons designs on many occasions.

Interesting viewpoint. Brush handles certainly have been patented (https://patents.google.com/patent/US790622A/en) though I agree that there is a wide margin of general acceptability in copy/clone/inspired-designs these days. That said, the same can (and has) been done with scents - E.G., the “our take on...” a well known scent. To return the conversation to its origins: I purchased Tom Ford Grey Vetiver EdP after using Fine Accoutrements fresh Vetiver splash. Is there an official TFGV aftershave? I certainly do not know, nor do I have a clear opinion on whether Fine’s fresh Vetiver is a copy or a clone (smells the exact same to me, hence the EdP purchase). So on this case, advertising and availability were the major factors.

34 1,808
Reply
 01-28-2019, 11:33 PM
#29
User Info
I own the original Creed Aventus, but also own 3-4 so called Aventus clones.
They smell pretty close to Aventus.

I dislike the whole idea of clones, but in fragrances a scent that just has a similar vibe to Aventus, but comes in a totally different bottle shape with a totally different name, is perfectly ok by my standards.

The fragrance clones I really hate is the ones that tries to copy the entire bottle design and name. These clones make me angry and disturbed.

But when a company is just inspired by another company, it’s perfectly fine with me.

An example.

DR Harris Windsor to my nose is heavily inspired by Terre d’Hermès, though not a clone, the inspiration is definitely there.
But I can’t fault DR Harris for making Windsor.

Another example.
Caol Ila is a peated scotch whisky.
Distillery was founded in 1846.
Lagavulin is also a peated scotch whisky.
Distillery was founded in 1816.

So Lagavulin can rightfully claim Caol Ila is a clone company of Lagavulin, since I get similar vibes from them ?

How about Ardbeg and Laphroaig ?
Both distilleries were founded in 1815 and both are peated scotch whiskies.
So is Lagavulin also a clone whisky distillery ?

Bowmore distillery is from 1779 and also contains some levels of peat.

Does this make all other Islay based peated scotch distilleries clone companies of Bowmore ?

You see where I’m getting at ?

25 6,547
Reply
 01-29-2019, 05:55 AM
#30
  • RyznRio
  • Active Member
  • Connecticut
User Info
(01-05-2019, 02:36 PM)nikos.a Wrote: First of all, Happy New Year everyone!

I always thought that when buying a clone is like not rewarding the original maker for his time, effort and skills. It can be a fragrance, a razor head or handle etc. If the original product is much more expensive, I'd rather save some money and buy it. That happens when I want something badly and thinking about it for a long time. I want to reward the innovation. These people must be rewarded, not some smart guys who just copy someone else's creation and offer it at a more affordable or super cheap price (Hello China, India, Pakistan). What's the point of doing this? By purchasing a clone, there is no motive for the original makers to keep producing innovative items. If there is someone waiting for you to offer a product and then just make a copy, then why keep making any more? Razorock, Maggard, Fine, Stork are some good examples. They love copying other makers work. I have no problem with vendors and artisans that offer copies of products that are no longer in production. A few years ago, Darwin was a hit. Wolfman, Jurgen Hempel, Asylum made handles or full razors to honor that legendary design. But, if you make a copy of a product that is still in production, even if it's a limited run or expensive or both, then you don't show any respect to the original maker, you just grab money out of his pocket. Because sooner or later, the one who wants something very much will find a way to purchase it. I'm not talking about products that are sold for thousands and there's a copy that costs less than a hundred euros or dollars. This is a different story.
Example: AdP Colonia asl costs about 60 euros. Fine Citrus asl, a Colonia clone, costs 25 euros. Why on earth would anyone buy the Fine instead of the original? I know this happens pretty often, so don't kill me. AdP is a historical brand, Fine is a company whose success is based on making clone fragrances for their asl, soaps and now creams. You will probably say that Fine products are easier accessible, but still...
If I want the Aventus, I'll buy the Aventus. I don't, but let's say I want. If I don't have the money or can't save any, I won't buy it. A clone is a clone, it's not the fragrance you love or think you love if you have never smelled it. I don't even know how many reviews I have read about Aventus clone fragrances saying that the scent is close to the original while the reviewers have never smelled the original. These reviews certainly lack of value.
I could go on and write many examples, but I think you got my point.

Long story short, skills and innovative ideas must be rewarded. Copiers must not.


What's your opinion on this matter?

0 252
Reply
 01-29-2019, 06:06 AM
#31
  • RyznRio
  • Active Member
  • Connecticut
User Info
I am 5 shaves in on wet shaving. I started slow with Cremo (no brush needed) and a qshave futur. For $20 I was shaving. I have deep knowledge of essential oils so I make all of my own products. I just bought 2 vintage Gillette razors and a brush (probably a clone but I don’t know enough to know).
Anyway clones are the free markets way of forcing old establishment brands to get off their laurels and innovate and get patents or hope rich old men keep them in business due to ethical concerns.

0 252
Reply
 01-29-2019, 10:13 AM
#32
User Info
(01-29-2019, 06:06 AM)RyznRio Wrote: I am 5 shaves in on wet shaving. I started slow with Cremo (no brush needed) and a qshave futur. For $20 I was shaving. I have deep knowledge of essential oils so I make all of my own products. I just bought 2 vintage Gillette razors and a brush (probably a clone but I don’t know enough to know).
Anyway clones are the free markets way of forcing old establishment brands to get off their laurels and innovate and get patents or hope rich old men keep them in business due to ethical concerns.

 I guess you have it all figured out!

3 1,412
Reply
 01-29-2019, 10:49 AM
#33
  • nikos.a
  • Senior Member
  • Athens, Greece
User Info
(01-29-2019, 10:13 AM)Paladin Shaving Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 06:06 AM)RyznRio Wrote: I am 5 shaves in on wet shaving. I started slow with Cremo (no brush needed) and a qshave futur. For $20 I was shaving. I have deep knowledge of essential oils so I make all of my own products. I just bought 2 vintage Gillette razors and a brush (probably a clone but I don’t know enough to know).
Anyway clones are the free markets way of forcing old establishment brands to get off their laurels and innovate and get patents or hope rich old men keep them in business due to ethical concerns.

 I guess you have it all figured out!


Sarcasm? (Sheldon Cooper style)

60 2,593
Reply
 01-29-2019, 10:53 AM
#34
User Info
Do clones really stifle competition? Until the "IBM Compatible" PC came out, there was almost no competition and home computing hasn't been the same since. Same as when AMD started making x86 compatible CPUs to compete with Intel.

Maybe it's a little different with scents, but I think at the end of the day the perfumers will continue to innovate in the face of the knockoffs (as I prefer to call them). After all, my $10 Razorock XXX isn't nearly the same quality or complexity of a $90 AdP Colonia, and unlike technology (or medicine), there is more of a brand loyalty attitude plus people who want the exact scent.

And not really related, but I don't think Fine/Razorock/etc. are really making their own clones either - I think they buy them from bulk perfumers who do the work.

6 1,067
Reply
 02-07-2019, 05:53 AM
#35
User Info
Claus, I disagree on your Scotch example.

All those producers make their Scotch with similar techniques and similar raw materials in the same region.
Do they copy each other or are their products simply similar?
The latter, I’d say.

Buying a product from a pirate or thief imo is simply a lack of taste, decency and fairness to the original designer.

I had bought a few times wine bottles which turned out to be faked. A small wine maker produces a success, but only has a few thousand bottles. Wine importers repeatedly have made tens of thousands bottles elsewhere looking the same to meet market’s demand.
I hate those things.

Then there are “artisans” which take a China sourced melt and pour soap base, add faked perfume bought in larger containers at Alibaba and voilà sell “our version of”, “our homage to” GIT, Aventus, whatever. Thanks, no. Not for me.



Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

0 245
Reply
 02-07-2019, 08:11 AM
#36
  • SCOV
  • Senior Member
  • Minnesota
User Info
Companies rely upon sales to fund new product development.  Companies rely on new products to "stay in business."  

I cannot think of any shaving related companies with only 1 product.  Even Soapy Science with an 8th grade developer has several soaps (and hoping production starts again soon).

Clones are copies of successful products.  I do not recall seeing clones of the Ford Edsel or Facebook Home.  Clones do impact innovative people/companies.


I have informed you thusly
Sheldon Cooper

14 778
Reply
 02-07-2019, 10:30 AM
#37
User Info
(02-07-2019, 08:11 AM)SCOV Wrote: Companies rely upon sales to fund new product development.  Companies rely on new products to "stay in business."  

I cannot think of any shaving related companies with only 1 product.  Even Soapy Science with an 8th grade developer has several soaps (and hoping production starts again soon).

Clones are copies of successful products.  I do not recall seeing clones of the Ford Edsel or Facebook Home.  Clones do impact innovative people/companies.


I have informed you thusly
Sheldon Cooper

Cloning rare items is an established practice, even the Edsel.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel_Ra...nvertibles

Counterfeit convertibles: Because of the low production volumes in its three years, all Rangers are collectible; however, the 1960 Ranger convertible is frequently found as being counterfeit. The process for converting a 1960 Ford Sunliner convertible into a 1960 Edsel model involves the simple swapping of trim parts and refashioning of the rear fenders, a simple task for those who have an Edsel parts car. Edsel enthusiasts are generally wary of 1960 Edsels that have been "found" or are offered at lower prices than the going rates.

34 1,808
Reply
 02-07-2019, 11:05 AM
#38
  • SCOV
  • Senior Member
  • Minnesota
User Info
(02-07-2019, 10:30 AM)mike_the_kraken Wrote:
(02-07-2019, 08:11 AM)SCOV Wrote: Companies rely upon sales to fund new product development.  Companies rely on new products to "stay in business."  

I cannot think of any shaving related companies with only 1 product.  Even Soapy Science with an 8th grade developer has several soaps (and hoping production starts again soon).

Clones are copies of successful products.  I do not recall seeing clones of the Ford Edsel or Facebook Home.  Clones do impact innovative people/companies.


I have informed you thusly
Sheldon Cooper

Cloning rare items is an established practice, even the Edsel.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel_Ra...nvertibles

Counterfeit convertibles: Because of the low production volumes in its three years, all Rangers are collectible; however, the 1960 Ranger convertible is frequently found as being counterfeit. The process for converting a 1960 Ford Sunliner convertible into a 1960 Edsel model involves the simple swapping of trim parts and refashioning of the rear fenders, a simple task for those who have an Edsel parts car. Edsel enthusiasts are generally wary of 1960 Edsels that have been "found" or are offered at lower prices than the going rates.

Wow - this forum is really educational - thanks.    As a petrol head and likes to watch the car auctions on TV,  I rarely see an Edsel on the auction block.  The best parts of the TV auctions are the "fine points", "why unique", and what to "watch for".  With all the matching s/n's talk, I would have guessed conversions were be easy to spot.

I separate clones and scammers and licensed replications.  When I see 1,000 copies of the Edsel 1960 Ranger Convertible coming out of factories in Cuba or China, I will consider the Edsel as cloned.

14 778
Reply
 02-07-2019, 01:21 PM
#39
User Info
That’s a distinction without a difference, but you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. Dolly the sheep was a single copy, and arguably the most celebrated clone to date. Relevance is determined by creating a reproduction that is indistinguishable from the original, regardless of the total number achieved.

34 1,808
Reply
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)