Copy Cats and Market Shift

You say that like its a bad thing   Kidding, what you say is true which is why its such a tough business - if each shaver buys a $20 razor once and a couple tubs of soap a year plus a bottle of aftershave those artisans aren't getting rich.

On the subject of world wide patent protection there is a Patent Cooperation Treaty among most countries around the world that helps streamline the process of applying for patents in every jurisdiction you want protection.  Problem is that most razors probably wouldn't be patentable - the inventor needs to have some novel feature to qualify for a patent.  Trademark and copyright protection of designs and the common law remedy for passing off would be more applicable but still expensive, labour intensive and not a slam dunk - there is really very little good news in terms of legal rights and protection so it does really boil down to buyers being informed and making the right choices.

Honestly, patents are jokes, a false sense of security. As long as the other company can out spend you in court, he wins. The world we live in. lol

I agree.  For small to medium players it really provides no practical protection.  People seem to think that there are patent police who go around enforcing patents.  There aren't, its a purely self help and self funded process.  Its a lot of time and money to prepare and prosecute a patent application and it has to be done in each country you want to sell your product (or stop others from ripping you off) and at the end of the day all you really get is some ego gratification for the inventor who can say he has patents - the fact that its infringed with impunity is another matter.  It really is a problem because innovation drives the economy and future progress and the inability to adequately protect IP is a major obstacle.

You are correct. Protecting our patents has been a battle of diligence in notifying potential violators, litigation brought to those who violate, and dollars spent at the attorneys to protect and uphold the patents and copyrights. It gets easier with each battle won and additional precedence set but wow what a battle. I would assume we have spent more money protecting our property than a smallish artisan gross' in a year.

You say that like its a bad thing   Kidding, what you say is true which is why its such a tough business - if each shaver buys a $20 razor once and a couple tubs of soap a year plus a bottle of aftershave those artisans aren't getting rich.

On the subject of world wide patent protection there is a Patent Cooperation Treaty among most countries around the world that helps streamline the process of applying for patents in every jurisdiction you want protection.  Problem is that most razors probably wouldn't be patentable - the inventor needs to have some novel feature to qualify for a patent.  Trademark and copyright protection of designs and the common law remedy for passing off would be more applicable but still expensive, labour intensive and not a slam dunk - there is really very little good news in terms of legal rights and protection so it does really boil down to buyers being informed and making the right choices.

Honestly, patents are jokes, a false sense of security. As long as the other company can out spend you in court, he wins. The world we live in. lol

I agree.  For small to medium players it really provides no practical protection.  People seem to think that there are patent police who go around enforcing patents.  There aren't, its a purely self help and self funded process.  Its a lot of time and money to prepare and prosecute a patent application and it has to be done in each country you want to sell your product (or stop others from ripping you off) and at the end of the day all you really get is some ego gratification for the inventor who can say he has patents - the fact that its infringed with impunity is another matter.  It really is a problem because innovation drives the economy and future progress and the inability to adequately protect IP is a major obstacle.

and this is why it's 2018 and I still don't have a personal Jetpack!!!! lol

Honestly, patents are jokes, a false sense of security. As long as the other company can out spend you in court, he wins. The world we live in. lol

I agree.  For small to medium players it really provides no practical protection.  People seem to think that there are patent police who go around enforcing patents.  There aren't, its a purely self help and self funded process.  Its a lot of time and money to prepare and prosecute a patent application and it has to be done in each country you want to sell your product (or stop others from ripping you off) and at the end of the day all you really get is some ego gratification for the inventor who can say he has patents - the fact that its infringed with impunity is another matter.  It really is a problem because innovation drives the economy and future progress and the inability to adequately protect IP is a major obstacle.

You are correct.  Protecting our patents has been a battle of diligence in notifying potential violators, litigation brought to those who violate, and dollars spent at the attorneys to protect and uphold the patents and copyrights.  It gets easier with each battle won and additional precedence set but wow what a battle.  I would assume we have spent more money protecting our property than a smallish artisan gross' in a year.

Exactly!

Honestly, patents are jokes, a false sense of security. As long as the other company can out spend you in court, he wins. The world we live in. lol

I agree.  For small to medium players it really provides no practical protection.  People seem to think that there are patent police who go around enforcing patents.  There aren't, its a purely self help and self funded process.  Its a lot of time and money to prepare and prosecute a patent application and it has to be done in each country you want to sell your product (or stop others from ripping you off) and at the end of the day all you really get is some ego gratification for the inventor who can say he has patents - the fact that its infringed with impunity is another matter.  It really is a problem because innovation drives the economy and future progress and the inability to adequately protect IP is a major obstacle.

and this is why it's 2018 and I still don't have a personal Jetpack!!!! lol

Man, I so want that jetpack!

As an economist and a consumer i really don't see what is wrong with "copy cats" . I don't see a reason why should we feel sorry for anyone.

When it comes to drugs, most people are against big pharma and their patents enabling them to keep the prices of drugs high and not allowing generic cheaper ones to enter the market. With that we are enabling them to offer what they want when they want. We are allowing them no competition. We are allowing them not to be effective on purpose and inventing cure becomes not profitable.
Can't see why people want wetshaving market to became a regulated market and prevent competition.

Wetshaving is a niche market, a rather free one. So far we haven't seen many producers go under meaning the demand is still higher than supply. (even if they do that happens everday in every other industry and its not bad per se or is anyone rebelling against that)
But, the fact is the number of people in wetshaving doesn't grow that quickly. The producers rely on the hobbyists and collectors. Cause actually who needs more than 1 razor 1 brush or 2-3 soaps? I bet no one on the forum had 7 Fusions/Machs whatever before this. Back to the point, to satisfy the hobbyists and keep the demand the producers have to differentiate and innovate (or don't). That's why we see new soap formulas every day. Tallow is not enough apparently. Goat, duck, donkey, zebra? milk.... Everything done in order to offer something different, something new and to keep the demand.
Same thing with razors. In order to be in the spotlight, you offer new stuff, offer limited editions etc etc. It's up to the producer to find the right business model.
Sure, creating a new razor requires some time, effort and money. Once you put it on the market you enjoy the spoils of it. And even charge it double it's production cost, since no one else offers it (almost like big pharma drugs).
That can last for a long time, or for a short time, depending on a lot of stuff. For one you might have produced your own razor in china (which is logical for a lower value razor) and willingly gave someone else the knowhow how to make it. So you made a relatively easy to make razor for a low price, which you charge more and make a profit. By that you are risking for that same producers or anyone else will copy you. It happens with almost everything made in china. If there is market for it of course someone will copy it and sell it cheaper, why not, it's not like it's prohibited. If you made it in the US it would probably take more time for someone in china to create a knockoff. Also, we see what is copied: cheap razors, easy to make, not a lot of complexity or R&D involved. We don't see Rex ambassador copies, Timeless copies etc etc. Those are quality, high end, premium products hard to knockoff and the buyer knows what it is and pays the quality of it. Hard to compare it to a plain three piece zinc razor made by numerous producers.

As said previously its a small market and buyers/hobbyists are what keep it going and they are pretty much involved in new products and are well aware of what's going on on the supply side. That is why most of them will buy from artisans/US small time makers cause they appreciate their work, know what it took to make it and so on. They will buy from you cause they want to keep the innovation going, to keep your r&d going. After all, they buy from you just for the brand.

In clothing industry Zara copies high fashion designers and sell stuff cheaper. Maybe they use cheaper materials, maybe they use exactly the same thing, still there is a market for Zara clothes and a market for high fashion designers. You don't see them going under cause of it. If anything they help one another, just like someone buying a Merkur clone will maybe after a while want the real deal. But even if he doesn't a regular joe buying a copy of DOC/SLOC/whatever on aliexpress probably won't have a den and is not a factor on keeping the industry going.
Same with brushes - there are people who will appreciate a Simpson and there are people who will buy a Maseto. Also, with parfumes. We all appreciate the fact we can have a Creed dupe and smell good for a lower price. Yet, there are people who will buy the real deal.
For a consumer it can only be a good thing. For the producer it might be or might not be. It's his job to find the right way and model of doing business. (as said in the OP, the market going premium is one way, which gave us a more quality, more choice etc etc, all good things)

Just want to add a note on allowing competition demotivates innovation - there are other models of making money for innovation. Example are lot of foundations around the world where people collect to for eaxmple find cure for cancer. We don't need government monopolies to ensure someone will invest in R&D. One more example is crowdfunding, which has already been used in wetshaving multiple times to fund innovation.

Made this a TL;DR but what I wanted to say is competition is good, monopolies are bad and the consumers shouldn't be for it, it hurts them.

You are equating competition with theft of intellectual property.

You are equating competition with theft of intellectual property.

Sorry but I am not.
We can argue what exactly intellectual property is and what are the ways for protecting it and where we set a limit what is copied or what is not. If it's a property where is it registred? We can't talk about stealing something that isn't "owned".

To put it to perspective, we can patent a toothpick making it impossible for anyone else to make it. It's great for the producer, but noone else.
Why would i support such a thing? I simply do not approve of government imposed protections. It hurts competition, creating monopoloies and in the end costing the buyer more. Protecting a DE can lead to selling a 10$ razor for a 100.

The fact that "original" still sells despite chinese copies means it's still a profitable option (cause of what i previously said, not everybody will buy the copies, and let the market decide - to buy or not to buy a copy). Making it easy to copy means it was easy to "invent" it in the first place, but when we come to it all new razors are modifications of the ones invented decades ago. Who copied who then. The phone was invented and it evolved, a football was invented and pefrected itself by modifications... Everything can be an example.

I understand this is not good to hear but we need to be concise and coherent, not argue for some rights when it suits us but argue against them when they do not.




Sent from my PRA-LX1 using Tapatalk

A patent is a statutory monopoly granted for a limited time period. Its public policy based on the view that innovation is good and its better if inventors share their inventions in exchange for the limited monopoly - innovation and new knowledge is accelerated when new knowledge/inventions are shared. The quid pro quo of any patent system is that the inventor publicly discloses the invention in return for the limited monopoly to exploit it. If you look at the most innovative nations on earth you'll see a correlation with a strong patent system and a general respect for intellectual property rights. Its not a coincidence. If you were to deny the drug companies the opportunity to make a profit from all of their research and investment they would stop doing it and humanity would be worse off. The generic drug companies would also have nothing to knock off and their businesses would evaporate.

I disagree. We only know of the one system which we're in, so maybe it's hard to see something in abstract.
People are good and humane, but also above all are curious and since the beginning of time they are innovating and inventing, with or without patents. No scientist or doctor chooses its field for mone (ok some do). When somebody researches a new drug or a disease he doesn't do it for the money. It's the corporations and other business ventures (whose main goal is to bring profit to its owners and shareholders) that want money so they invest. Which is all legit, I'm all for profit.
Anyway, even now, as is, there are numerous for profit/non-profit organizations and foundations that invest into drug research, finding the cure for diseases and so on. I think Mark Zuckerberg is investing in free internet in poor countries knowingly they won't have the monopoly from it.
Imagine how it would be there were no monopolies & patents for it (or not in the degree we have atm) - would those who give money to the above cause stop or flourish? If there was no other way of innovating but investing, wouldn't we invest in those branches even more? Monopolies demotivate that. Why would i.e. Bill Gates give a billion dollars for studying breast cancer when he knows Pfizer will do it for him? In the current state of things, it's logical people won't spend money on something when they know somebody else will (driven by profit) and of course, innovation will happen only where patents are possible. Since the Pharma is the major player in drug innovation, and they are protected by regulation, we have no other choice except them. There is also an option (if there were no state enabled monopolies) of public funding or subsidizing innovation. Why the hell not? Maybe the government would have spent less money on subsidizing inventing cure than paying health insurance for costly drugs. Crowdfunding is a way as well.
All of this is not visible and therefore people don't see it, but there are ways and options.

Luckily for us, the wetshaving market is not regulated like that. Imagine there was only one company making DEs. Nobody else has the right to make it. they patented gazillion designs. What then? If there are alternatives (straight razor, cart) great, we can switch, but if there are no alternatives - the producer could charge a simple plastic DE 100$. And you have to buy it, you have to shave.....

Also, what I said earlier - patent in the current system do spring innovation, up to a point but monopolies can actually hurt innovation or slow it down (Tabbarock Curve: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the...rok-curve/ ). If there are limited players on the supply side they control everything, what to produce, at what price to sell it and so on. It's not in their interest to invent cures for everything at once, but if there are barriers to enter that market nobody else can come in and they can do whatever they want. Not only that, but the consumer/insurance is paying the drugs maybe far more than he should and all that money could have been invested in R&D. Patents cost, probably a lot. All that has an effect on the final price of the good and the money spent for it could have been spent in innovation. Same can be said for a DE razor.

Actually, it's rather simple: The best evidence there is innovation even without patents is just in front of us.
New DEs are being invented all the time. DE, SE, injector, GEM, new synthetics brushes, knots, handles, soaps, whatever - can someone deny that?

If none of this makes any sense, then by all means: If you want to create a DE nobody can copy - apply for a patent. It'll cost you money, so charge the razor higher and hope nobody else will invent something similar. Probably not gonna happen. Thank god for us.
If it's something that took a lot of time and effort probably it won't be easy to copy it, especially with a patent. If a DE is rather simple to copy, probably your alleged cost and effort of R&D isn't so great in the first place. If it's a fine tunned adjustability mechanism in question or a special kind of donkey milk taken from a special sort of special donkey who eats special food probably you won't get copied too easily, cause it takes time and money do copy such a thing.
So maybe don't make razors. Do something else. Or don't give the production to the Chinese in order to minimize the cost and then cry to me that they took your unprotected design. Find the best business model you can, try doing a Kickstarter and offset your R&D cost (Rockwell, Model T) change it, adapt it. Noone can guarantee you anything. It's the way the world works. It's a suppliers problem, not the consumers, why should we deal with it?

As a product designer, I expect to be paid for my work just like anybody else. I enjoy my work, but I also have a mortgage, kid, fiancé.... I also have some familiarity with patents from multiple perspectives.

As an employee faced with layoffs every year, on average, for as long as I can remember, I see people buying knockoffs and shopping at Walmart and wondering why their own job is stagnant, vanishing, or just doesn’t pay the bills anymore.

As a consumer, I’ve learned that if one big box store doesn’t have what I’m looking for, none of them will because they are all the same. The great local hardware stores that had a great selection of useful stuff are gone. I patronized them, but too few others did. Once you start buying everything from Amazon and Walmart, you lose the option of NOT buying from them.

That Tabbarock curve applies to competition too. Up to a point, it’s good for everyone. Beyond that point, everyone loses.