Originally Posted by
Derek Cohen
Ron, as I mentioned in an earlier post, this very issue came up a few months ago over a Tite-Mark clone. There were those who argued from a legalistic-perspective, and those who supported a moral-ethic-perspective. It became clear that there was a strong separation of the groups, and neither gave way much. If there was a lesson to take away from this, it is that the forum likely is a representative sample of the larger world of tool buyers - those who believe in supporting original makers, and those who see the world as dog eat dog. Personally, I would not buy a clone, and I speak out in situations such as this. However, I recognise that there are counter arguments and that others have a right to their view, as much as I disagree with them.
Regards from Perth
Derek
One problem with the "moral-ethic-perspective" on this forum is that people seem to only have that perspective for certain tool makers. If you really believe in that perspective you should have the same attitude towards all products that copy another manufacturer's product. But that would mean you would would have a very small set of products that you could purchase.
Essentially all products copy other products. It's the way our economic system works. What about a product that is patented and the patent runs out? Should another company be able to use that intellectual property at that time? Or does the "moral-ethical-perspective" require that another manufacturer not use that intellectual property because the first company developed it? If you agree that another company should be able to use it, you are agreeing that unprotected intellectual property is public domain - and that public domain intellectual property is available to all.
To live the "moral-ethical-perspective" you would have to research every product you were considering purchasing to discover whether the product copied any intellectual property that was developed by someone else, and whether that person consented to the use of that intellectual property.
Of course, that's what our legal system is for. If a company is infringing someone else's protected intellectual property, the owner of the intellectual property has the responsibility and legal ability to address that issue, not the consumer. The "responsibility" of the consumer is to choose the best product for his or her needs, and best includes price.
I am left to wonder if the people who advocate your "moral-ethical-perspective" are those who are manufacturers or who are closely associated with manufacturers.
The focus of our economic system is to provide value to the consumer, not to provide a monopoly to a manufacturer. And that, I submit, is the proper focus and the one that will provide the highest long term value to the nation.
Mike
[Monopolies are properly discouraged in our economic system because they do not have an incentive to provide the best value to the consumer. A patent is a legal monopoly and is granted for a specific reason and for only a limited time.]
[Regarding copying, I always think of Sir Isaac Newton's comment in 1676: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulder of giants." Building a product that uses the public domain intellectual property of a predecessor is essentially the same as Sir Newton development of the calculus. I submit that Taylor tools has enhanced the public domain intellectual property of the Tite-Mark by showing that it can be profitably sold for 1/3 the price of the Tite-Mark. This enhancement is valuable to the consumer, which is the focus of our economic system. What value is it to the consumer to pay significantly more for a generally equivalent product? It's only a value to the manufacturer.]
Last edited by Mike Henderson; 04-20-2017 at 12:10 AM.
Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.