Rockbros

[Jdsk]

Back to spurcycle, did they even apply for a patent? Why not? Could it be that they just repackaged an existing technology albeit made a rather nice product?

The article says that they intended to but got the dates wrong.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

This notion that the teeniest of design tweaks to a very well established technology somehow makes a unique piece of property that should only belong to one fellow, despite 99.9% of the design being a conglomeration of a hundred or more of previous design elements stretching back into the mists of history, well .... it's just silly, is it not?

Personally I feel that the whole notion of intellectual property is highly suspect, since it's a rare intellectual construct that doesn't contain only 0.01% innovative new stuff added to the 99.99% already extant design, technology, material science et al.

The "prior art" is a major consideration in granting a patent. If there isn't sufficient novelty on top of that the application will fail, and this is one of the most common reasons for failure.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

People need to put emotions aside and realise that spurcycle is just a rather nice looking metal bicycle bell not something unique technology wise.

Legal protection against counterfeiting does not rely on having "unique technology" (or a patent or copyright). The article shows the packaging as well as the design of the bell. Do you think that is likely to mislead a potential purchaser?

Thanks

Jonathan

[Cugel]

People need to put emotions aside and realise that spurcycle is just a rather nice looking metal bicycle bell not something unique technology wise.

Legal protection against counterfeiting does not rely on having "unique technology" (or a patent or copyright). The article shows the packaging as well as the design of the bell. Do you think that is likely to mislead a potential purchaser?

Thanks

Jonathan

In these matters I am a self-centred little skinbag, so tend to look at things as a consumer. (This is just following one of the overarching informing "principles" of the neoliberal hegemony and its cod "philosophy", after all. Their game, not mine). How can I get best quality for least dosh, in a context where I want to continue being able to get that best quality?

The patent/copyright notion attempts to claim that innovation, quality and several other aspects of "progress" in the production of new & improved stuff can only happen if producers are motivated by the guarantee of a very large return via a monopoly on a product. This is a doubtful claim.

Many (I would say virtually all) innovate and produce evolving designs and associated products out of the basic human drive to be creative, not out of the basic human drive to be rich. Of course, some combine both motives but the latter (wanting to be rich) can actually undermine the former (wanting to be creative) as if they can't see the road to riches, they stop creating "on principle".

Most patents and copyrights end up in the hands of business corporations, some sold by "inventors" but most got from a company's wage slaves. The innovators get a wage, the capitalists get the riches. It seems that "intellectual property", like ordinary property, somehow tends to end up in the hands of the few and not in the hands of the creators or maintainers of the property.

As a consumer, I look at things with similar designs and try to pick that with most quality for the dosh I'm willing to pay. The design plays a part but not nearly as much as the quality quotient. In market of designed things, there's a slot for every sort of producer, from "cheap but basic" to "very expensive but ultimate quality". Once a copyright or patent expires, this becomes an obvious advantage, to everyone in the market - producers as well as consumers - as there's a proliferation of the designed-thing at price points affordable by many more than when the monopoly applied.

************

These are just a few of the considerations that are relevant to the various forms of patent and copyright notions. A more thorough examination of the notion, especially that regarding "theft", tends to reveal that "intellectual property" is often a scam to form a monopoly with the only convincing justification a law enforcing such monopolies. It's rare to come across arguments for intellectual property that go beyond the cry, "It's illegal to break the monopoly and thus theft".

*************
What about those products that try to pretend that they're another product (via identical look, packaging and logo) but are in reality made of ticky-tacky? That's not so much a theft from the producers of the pukka product but a theft from the consumer, who would not have bought the expensive real item, so the producer of the quality item has not lost a sale.

Cugel

[simonineaston]

Back down to earth, I just fitted a compact bell, from Rockbros. It's good - neat & tidy, effective and inexpensive - w'sntl? The sound? I would attach the word "mellifluous' to it, if pressed... it remains to be seen what effect it will have on pedestrians / dogs / other cyclists, whether mutton or with the hearing acuity of a new born infant!

[reohn2]

But I did unknowingly bbuy six copies of Spurcycle bells ,would I do it again or not have bells yes I would os guilty as charged

It's not as if there were only two types of bells: The Spurcycle and fraudulent copies of the Spurcycle. There are indeed hundreds if not thousands of different bells on the market. So your argument "either I buy a pirated copy or I have no bell" is obviously not valid - it is a cheap justification for yourself, nothing more. It's your choice how you behave. But please have at least the balls to stand in for your decision and do not try to find silly excuses on that level like a 3 year old why you had to behave like that.

First off you might want to refrain from the personal attacks,the balls I have are big enough thanks especially to answer a post like yours.
I have a perfectly valid reason to buy Rock Bros bells because it was the type and size of bell I wanted at a price I was willing to pay for them.
I looked at many other bells and couldn't see any that were the size that fitted where I had in mind,as explained in my previous post.
I don't try to pass off the the Rock Bros bell(s) as Spurcycle bells,they're just bell(s) that serve a purpose of announcing my being there.
The other point is that I'm not stealing anything from Spurcycle because I would never spend £50 on one of their bells let alone £500 on six of them for the other bikes I had at the time,which I also took pains to explained in my previous post.

We have a couple of art prints in my home that we like,they are prints of the "real thing" nothing famous but prints of paintings that would have cost around £1000,we recognise them as prints but still like them,am I not to have them because they aren't the "real thing"?

If you want to buy the "real thing" knock yourself out it's none of my business,but when you start throwing around the personal insults it says more about you than it does about my bell buying habits.

Here's a story for you:-
I'm a retire joiner/cabinetmaker/woodturner.
I saw a meditation stool in a woodworking magazine,liked the design and copied it changing the undercarriage/leg design slightly to to make it easier to make.
A friend saw it and liked it so I made another for him.
He at the time had connections with Manchester Buddhist Centre mentioned the stool to them,they asked me to show them with a view to selling them in their shop.
Cut a long one short,over the years in batches of 40 or so I sold hundreds of near copies of the original design,and also developed a folding version which I also sold hundreds of too.
The original was made from an expensive hardwood that would have made small batch production unprofitable,my copies were made from softwood(selected pine),easier to work and much cheaper to make and sell.

Here's the kicker,a few years later at a woodworking show I met the chap who'd designed the original,a chap named Charlesworth,who's first name I forget ATM,we discussed the design.
I told him I'd slightly redesigned the undercarriage/legs and used cheaper materials for better batch production,he was really delighted and said I'd made his day and was glad I'd sold so many.
Make of it what you will if it rings any bells!

[Cugel]

Back down to earth, I just fitted a compact bell, from Rockbros. It's good - neat & tidy, effective and inexpensive - w'sntl? The sound? I would attach the word "mellifulous' to it, if pressed... it remains to be seen what effect it will have on pedestrians / dogs / other cyclists, whether mutton or with the hearing acuity of a new born infant!

And lookit all these bells, all of which have obviously been stolen i' their design from Mr John Richard Dedicoat, who will now turning in his grave (or perhaps ringing a-one o' them "I'm not actually dead!" bells the Victorians had on their coffins.

https://www.bikester.co.uk/accessories/ ... cle-bells/

Cugel, just a stolen intellectual-property receiver.

[simonineaston]

stolen i' their design from Mr John Richard Dedicoat

I don't know of the bloke - I will have a gander... but, am guilty as charged - I bought the Chinese knock-off (RockStar). In my defence, a) I didn't know it was a rip-off of another, earlier, design b) the Chinese do it so well !! YT is rigid with videos posted by punters who've bought lovely knock-offs of great American Icon, to wit the Gibbo Les Paul etc.etc. for a couple of hundreds bucks... the punter is mad for it!!
I recently bought 2 consumer durables from Great British Icons, to wit Quad and Barr & Stroud - where exactly was said consumer durable made?? That's right - China!!
So, one way or another, a goodly part of the world's stuff is being made in the far east, one way or another, with or without permisssion. Fair play to them I say... They're only doing what we did a century ago, say.

[Tangled Metal]

People need to put emotions aside and realise that spurcycle is just a rather nice looking metal bicycle bell not something unique technology wise.

Legal protection against counterfeiting does not rely on having "unique technology" (or a patent or copyright). The article shows the packaging as well as the design of the bell. Do you think that is likely to mislead a potential purchaser?

Thanks

Jonathan

Two aspects, copying the part/tech and deliberate attempt to deceive. Not seen the packaging but I've seen many cases of packaging design aping brand leader but with details such as different model name, company name and details. I think companies like lidl and aldi have both done that in the past. Without anyone posting photographs of the two sets of packaging I can't be sure about how bad the issue is.

I'm just wary about other factors to people's dislike of Chinese brands and transgressions when European cases get a free pass. It is the same with perceptions of quality. I have experience of dealing with Chinese suppliers through work and the term "Chinese quality" and "European quality" were often raised. That was 10 or 15 years ago now. Right now we get good and bad from Europe and China. Quality really is not about where it's made these days.

[simonineaston]

Said "Chibsons" often arrive packed in classic tan, 5 latch, pink-lined guitar cases, clearly marked Gibson. The guitar's headstock is clearly marked 'Made in USA" complete with a random serial number. These are overt Sextons * - and to judge by YT, there's a ton of happy punters out there. As well as loads who grumble about the quality - or lack of it. Funnily enough the same sort of criticisms were levied at the Real Thing not so long ago... funny ole' business. I'm not sure if any law is being broken when a punter buys a Chibson off of Ali Express. Maybe something to do with import / export - I dunno...
Rhyming slang - Sexton Blake was a '60s telly detective. Sadly, I recall the programme...

[Vorpal]

But I did unknowingly bbuy six copies of Spurcycle bells ,would I do it again or not have bells yes I would os guilty as charged

It's not as if there were only two types of bells: The Spurcycle and fraudulent copies of the Spurcycle. There are indeed hundreds if not thousands of different bells on the market.

While I have some sympathy for Spurcycle, I feel the need to point out that there is nothing fraudulent about the Rock Bros version.

The owners of Spurcycle failed to legally protect their design.

[Jdsk]

People need to put emotions aside and realise that spurcycle is just a rather nice looking metal bicycle bell not something unique technology wise.

Legal protection against counterfeiting does not rely on having "unique technology" (or a patent or copyright). The article shows the packaging as well as the design of the bell. Do you think that is likely to mislead a potential purchaser?

Two aspects, copying the part/tech and deliberate attempt to deceive. Not seen the packaging but I've seen many cases of packaging design aping brand leader but with details such as different model name, company name and details. I think companies like lidl and aldi have both done that in the past. Without anyone posting photographs of the two sets of packaging I can't be sure about how bad the issue is.

There are photographs of the packaging in the article, as stated above.

Jonathan

[Tangled Metal]

Must admit I didn't read that far, it got too laboured for my liking. Sounded like an American website promoting American produce, as in biased and overstated.

The packaging is different it doesn't hide the fact it is rockers brand. Sketch of the bell is as different as a sketch of two similar products can be. I don't think spurcycle have any cause to stop others putting a Sketch of the bell on the box. I've seen much much worse in certain German supermarket chain!

My view is that the cheaper bell does look different as does the sketches on the box. Rockbros seem slightly wider and flatter IMHO. The design tech is not novel so I don't see it as a problem.

[scottg]

The Japanese make the best American bell....

https://www.somafabshop.com/shop/produc ... earch=bell

[reohn2]

The Japanese make the best American bell....

https://www.somafabshop.com/shop/produc ... earch=bell

Well would you believe it another bell to buy for people without balls,or so some people think

Here's another "stolen" idea I(among many)bought one/some,that's if you can claim to have invented a handlebar shape.
Jeff Jones US bicycle designer claims he invented and sells a handlebar known as the the Jones Loop Hbar,which is sold in the UK for £119 Planet X sells a very similar one,known as the On-One Geoff for £30
Jeff Jones also sells another handlebar known as the Hbar Bend for £105.
Planet X also sells a very similar one known as the On-One Mike for £20.

My spherics are intact and my wallet is thicker,I'm a happy man