before you buy your next bike stand

[CBR929RE]

this isn't exactly new information. PSR has been doing this for years, its been the basis of their business since the beginning.

If its a copy of a quality stand, it would also theoretically be a quality stand.

you ever seen one in person? visually they look as if they might be the same but they aren't. for whatever reason they aren't as stable as a pit-bull. could be the dimensions just aren't as perfect.

[rbrais]

Yep, but Honda did get sued by Harley. Not to mention I still get scoffed at by the occasional weekend Hog rider.

But then again Honda didn't strip down a Harley and sell it as a Honda.

What that bike stand company did was pretty low. But it was a pretty good alternative to a lawsuit using the internet to try and stop these fools.

Honda sells a quality product. They couldn't strip a harley and re-brand it. It would kill their reputation!

[rbrais]

I don't recall specifying *metric* cruisers.

I wish to state that in no way shape or form do I endorse ripping off someone's patented design however, ripping off another's design is, unfortunately enough, how some businesses proceed on building their foundation. Sad as it is, it's true and it's happening in more places than we care to think about.




Read more if you wish.


Looking quickly, you would think that the car below is a Nissan Maxima.



It's actually a Samsung SM5 . A Maxima clone right down to about 90% of the interior. I know this because I was in a car very much like this one when I was in S Korea.

From what year? I thought it looked more like a 2000 Buik Regal.

[ilikenapalm]

[butcher bergs]

From what year? I thought it looked more like a 2000 Buik Regal.

I'm guessing 98-ish?

Another view of an SM5

...most of the models that have appeared under the Samsung brand name are based on existing Nissan models. For example, the SM3 is based on Nissan Bluebird, the SM5 on the Nissan Cefiro and Nissan Maxima and the SM7 on the Nissan Teana.

Yes, there is a partnership between Samsung and Nissan however, in light of the topic of this particular conversation, Samsung is all but copying at least one design from Nissan.

More here.

[Jonny Rocket]

Pit Bull FTW!!!!

[Kurlon]

Yes, there is a partnership between Samsung and Nissan however, in light of the topic of this particular conversation, Samsung is all but copying at least one design from Nissan.

More here.

That's pretty common in Korea actually, and it's not copying. Nissan likely can't get permission to import with any volume, so instead they partner with an in country company to have them assemble and sell for them under the in company's name. It may be done using older designs/tooling/etc, but Nissan makes out by selling / licensing that info so it's happy.

Hyosung does it for Suzuki in Korea for example, which is why people assume the Hyosung export bikes are direct/exact clones of the SV650 which they are not.

[Uncle Snake]

So is everyone going to piss and moan at all the cruiser riders because they're not riding a real Harley?

Didn't think so. So why is this any different?

I don't recall specifying *metric* cruisers.

Since "metric" cruisers are at least 95% of the non-HD cruiser market I assumed you meant them. Since I'm wrong, which cruisers were you referring to? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious?

[butcher bergs]

Since "metric" cruisers are at least 95% of the non-HD cruiser market I assumed you meant them. Since I'm wrong, which cruisers were you referring to? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious?

All flavors outside of HD. I agree with you that it pretty much only leaves the metric types however I was trying to attempt not to limit it to metric crusiers rather just the flavor of "cruiser" in general.....much like the example I posted earlier where anyone can basically make an HD clone without purchasing a single HD part.

[butcher bergs]

That's pretty common in Korea actually, and it's not copying.

I don't see how it isn't considered copying when a design that is already available becomes available thru another company albeit with very slight variations, similar tooling and processes, I imagine, don't stray too far from how Nissan produced their example. Is the Samsung SM5 a "carbon-copy" of the Nissan Maxima? No. If you asked me, I consider it a copy because the design has already been generated by another company--> Nissan.

In the case of our Samsung SM5, the example we are seeing is a design that was in production at the same time the Maximas were being stamped out.

When there is the mention of licensing agreements, that indicates to me that the design Samsung wanted to use was close enough to the Nissan design that a legal agreement allowing Samsung to produce such a product became necessary. Keep in mind that Samsung went to Nissan asking for permission, not the other way around.

[scottieducati]

hai bergs

[butcher bergs]

[Kurlon]

I don't see how it isn't considered copying when a design that is already available becomes available thru another company albeit with very slight variations, similar tooling and processes, I imagine, don't stray too far from how Nissan produced their example. Is the Samsung SM5 a "carbon-copy" of the Nissan Maxima? No. If you asked me, I consider it a copy because the design has already been generated by another company--> Nissan.

In the case of our Samsung SM5, the example we are seeing is a design that was in production at the same time the Maximas were being stamped out.

When there is the mention of licensing agreements, that indicates to me that the design Samsung wanted to use was close enough to the Nissan design that a legal agreement allowing Samsung to produce such a product became necessary. Keep in mind that Samsung went to Nissan asking for permission, not the other way around.

If you want to see copying vs licensing, take a look at the Cherry QQ in China. It's a copy done without the assistance of Chevy. You can take a door off a Euro market Chevy Spark and swap it onto the QQ and it'll fit perfectly. On the other hand, based on crash tests they very clearly got some of the design WAY wrong when copying.

Wiki's got a nice article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chery_QQ

[butcher bergs]

I hear what you're saying, Josh, but in my mind when two companies seemingly require a legal agreement based on the design of a certain product, that doesn't suggest to you that at least one of those companies are closely replicating a design of the other to the point where an agreement becomes necessary?

Think "IBM" and "Microsoft" and how that debacle panned out without the licensing agreements.

[Turbocharged]

I'll buy what I can afford. A pit bull stand isn't gonna happen, but for $20 more than the Harbor Freight stand I was considering, I can get a PSR stand that is likely 10 times better than the harbor freight stand.
Yeah, a pit bull is most likely 10 times better than a PSR, but costs almost 3 times as much.

PSR appeals to a different market. Pit Bull appeals to more serious riders, who can afford a more expensive stand for their more expensive bike.

[Kurlon]

I hear what you're saying, Josh, but in my mind when two companies seemingly require a legal agreement based on the design of a certain product, that doesn't suggest to you that at least one of those companies are closely replicating a design of the other to the point where an agreement becomes necessary?

Think "IBM" and "Microsoft" and how that debacle panned out without the licensing agreements.

I look at as the licensing agreement coming first giving Samsung a quicker path to market and Nissan some income they weren't otherwise going to get. If Nissan could sell product directly in Korea they wouldn't have licensed Samsung to sell matching vehicles.

[butcher bergs]

I look at as the licensing agreement coming first giving Samsung a quicker path to market and Nissan some income they weren't otherwise going to get. If Nissan could sell product directly in Korea they wouldn't have licensed Samsung to sell matching vehicles.

Exactly. The design Samsung desired was, more or less, that of a Nissan and therefore, in order for Samsung to avoid possible legal action, licensing from Nissan became necessary.

If Samsung went ahead and simply produced their SM5 sedan we see pictured here we'd likely be reading a Wiki article very similar to that of the QQ.

As far the the Pit Bull vs PSR scenario, the only thing that makes PSR look like douches is their lack of a design agreement (aka "licensing") with Pit Bull however I'm not sure why so many people are taking the holier than thou route when everyone ultimately has the freedom of choice. That said, I bet a good portion of the folks lynching PSR over on WERA are guilty of the exact thing they are denouncing because I am certain hardly any of them (if any) go directly to Honda when their clutch lever snaps, they don't go to Yamaha for oil filters, they don't go to Ducati for new clutch plates, etc.

Many people choose to weigh the balance as to what is good for themselves and sometimes that decision is made much to the disliking of the masses.

For me, when it comes to motorcycle stands, I'd rather spend the extra money on the good stuff knowing that my bike isn't going to randomly fall off the stands and smash into the Boston Moto trailer at VIR.......errr...nevermind. That was a Woodcraft.

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (HTC EVO "DROID" : Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; Sprint APA9292KT Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Sorry bergs I disagree. Chances are, that Nissan approached Samsung. Samsung gets to sell a vehicle that sells very well every else in the world and Nissan gets a cut, or at the very least a big chunk of change for the "blueprints" to begin with.
Kinda like why spend $22k on a Ford ranger when you fan get a Mazda B4000 for $18k. Ford and Nissan actually approved the making of these vehicles and I'm sure they approved for a price.

What its really like is me using whiteout on the LRRS results and putting my name in place of Scott greenwoods

[Chippertheripper]

So, I used to own a klx400. On the frame it said Suzuki drz. Who do I get angry at?


Don't want it, don't buy it. Am I supposed to hate all Epiphone guitar owners because they didn't buy gibsons?

[butcher bergs]

Oxx, please read the link in post 30.

Disagree all you want. It was Samsung who was seeking partners.

[Kurlon]

"Samsung seeking partners" does not automatically mean they copied the car and THEN asked Nissan for permission after the fact. Too risky to spend the money gearing up for a clone to risk being told 'no' or hear the price is too high when you can instead roll out some crap to get your production line established, seek a partner and bring in their TDP once everything is contracted up.

[CBR929RE]

"Samsung seeking partners" does not automatically mean they copied the car and THEN asked Nissan for permission after the fact. Too risky to spend the money gearing up for a clone to risk being told 'no' or hear the price is too high when you can instead roll out some crap to get your production line established, seek a partner and bring in their TDP once everything is contracted up.

exactly. this whole thing boils down to Samsung is making LEGAL copies of a Nissan product. PSR is making ILLEGAL copies of many products.

[NobodySpecific]

exactly. this whole thing boils down to Samsung is making LEGAL copies of a Nissan product. PSR is making ILLEGAL copies of many products.

My company has a joint development deal with another company. That means we produce stuff in our own facilities (often using a design obtained through the joint development project), they produce stuff in their own facilities, and then we have a jointly operated facility that we each take a 50% cut of. That means there are potentially 3 different versions of the same underlying product, all marketed independently (we can have no pricing information other than what is obtained from market analysis). There may be 3 clones of the same product, but it is legal because development costs are shared equally. By buying an existing design, Samsung was simply retroactively sharing development costs. It is way cheaper for Samsung, and it really doesn't have a downside for Nissan (because they still profit from the clone). The problem with PSR is that they don't compensate the designing companies for their effort to bring the products to market. Sharing development costs is a necessary practice in low margin industries, but stealing designs to make a profit is just wrong.

[CBR929RE]

My company has a joint development deal with another company. That means we produce stuff in our own facilities (often using a design obtained through the joint development project), they produce stuff in their own facilities, and then we have a jointly operated facility that we each take a 50% cut of. That means there are potentially 3 different versions of the same underlying product, all marketed independently (we can have no pricing information other than what is obtained from market analysis). There may be 3 clones of the same product, but it is legal because development costs are shared equally. By buying an existing design, Samsung was simply retroactively sharing development costs. It is way cheaper for Samsung, and it really doesn't have a downside for Nissan (because they still profit from the clone). The problem with PSR is that they don't compensate the designing companies for their effort to bring the products to market. Sharing development costs is a necessary practice in low margin industries, but stealing designs to make a profit is just wrong.

ya, that's what I said

[Uncle Snake]

So, I used to own a klx400. On the frame it said Suzuki drz. Who do I get angry at?


Don't want it, don't buy it. Am I supposed to hate all Epiphone guitar owners because they didn't buy gibsons?

Epiphones are licensed by Gibson but go ahead, I do......