4 ms·

> Who says a fake Gucci is a crime, if the buyer knows it's fake. It's not enough for the buyer to know it's fake, everyone who sees it must also know it's fak

> Who says a fake Gucci is a crime, if the buyer knows it's fake. It's not enough for the buyer to know it's fake, everyone who sees it must also know it's fake, or else the fake is freeriding on the cachet generated by Gucci's marketing. People buy prominently branded fashion objects for their signalling value more than their utility value. Signalling which is easy to fake isn't very valuable. It's perfectly possible to think that social signalling using fashion objects is wrong and should be eliminated, but signalling appears biologically determined and is common across many species, it's unlikely to be eliminated without committing greater wrongs.

dalbasal 9y ago
I wasn't trying to make a semantic point, more of a sovereignty or legislative point. I'm perfectly willing to concede the semantic point: that bag is fake. The legislative one is "does thia have to be a crime?" Trademark (like most IP rules) are ultimately decided mostly on utility grounds. Does this IP system produce or destroy economic value, and who's value is it producing and destroying. Maybe China can do without trademarks and patents. Whatever you think about ip laws in general, there is certainly a self interested swing in favour of more liberal if you don't currently own any IP.
- pm90 9y ago
  This has always been the case. America "stole" IP from Britain during the industrial revolution. China is doing the same now. IP laws are part of the legal doctrine of any country; another Sovereign entity cannot be compelled to follow it legally. So you use other tactics, e.g. membership in the WTO, which gives access to Western markets, to try and force other Sovereign nations to respect those laws.
  - ninkendo 9y ago
    > America "stole" IP from Britain during the industrial revolution. This seems like a really fascinating subject. Any links to articles/youtube channels you can recommend on how industrialization spread?
    - pm90 9y ago
      It is very fascinating. There is a LOT of nuance behind the question of why certain countries manage to industrialize/develop and others fail to. And then answer isn’t obvious or simple. I think this is a nice article about this specific topic: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/
stickfigure 9y ago
It's worth having a dialogue about this. This specific type of signaling (flashing brands) is enforced by social rules that prevent chameleons. It would be pretty easy to imagine relaxing this - allowing products to appear externally in any form, as long as their nature is always recognizable to the owner (to prevent fraud). It's not clear this would be bad for society. IANAL, but it seems to me that plastering logos all over a handbag is an abuse of trademark functionality doctrine. The function of the pattern is to make the owner appear wealthy, not to prevent buyers from being misled.
- pm90 9y ago
  The purpose of brands and high fashion is not to be functional in the utilitarian sense. They are meant purely for signalling and their utility is an afterthought at best. See for e.g. women's jeans which have fake pockets. For people who care about such things, its more important for their outfit to be congruent to some fashion principles (color, fit etc.) rather than the actual utility that such things provide.
- barrkel 9y ago
  Fashion is but the extreme end, where 90% or more of the value is created by the branding and designer cachet, but it goes all the way to much more prosaic items, like washing machines (Miele) and DIY tools (Makita), where the brand is acting much more as protection for a promise of quality, yet the branding still has pose value - showing off your middle class credentials when someone is visiting your house or borrowing your tools. I don't think there's any real cut-off point where you get to say it's an abuse, because value is whatever we humans think is valuable, whether that's high quality or socially desirable.
loceng 9y ago
It's more important to know where your money/the profit is going IMHO, who is being rewarded for their effort, etc, what type of behaviour is rewarded/perpetuated. Similarly, do we want to reward people who participate in and perpetuate Pyramid-Ponzi scheme-like structures? Where money and resources flows will have an impact on quality of life, the amount of offspring, and the role modelling/knowledge/behaviours passed down through generations.

dalbasal 9y ago

I wasn't trying to make a semantic point, more of a sovereignty or legislative point. I'm perfectly willing to concede the semantic point: that bag is fake. The legislative one is "does thia have to be a crime?" Trademark (like most IP rules) are ultimately decided mostly on utility grounds. Does this IP system produce or destroy economic value, and who's value is it producing and destroying. Maybe China can do without trademarks and patents. Whatever you think about ip laws in general, there is certainly a self interested swing in favour of more liberal if you don't currently own any IP.

pm90 9y ago
This has always been the case. America "stole" IP from Britain during the industrial revolution. China is doing the same now. IP laws are part of the legal doctrine of any country; another Sovereign entity cannot be compelled to follow it legally. So you use other tactics, e.g. membership in the WTO, which gives access to Western markets, to try and force other Sovereign nations to respect those laws.
- ninkendo 9y ago
  > America "stole" IP from Britain during the industrial revolution. This seems like a really fascinating subject. Any links to articles/youtube channels you can recommend on how industrialization spread?
  - pm90 9y ago
    It is very fascinating. There is a LOT of nuance behind the question of why certain countries manage to industrialize/develop and others fail to. And then answer isn’t obvious or simple. I think this is a nice article about this specific topic: http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/12/06/we-were-pirates-too/

stickfigure 9y ago

It's worth having a dialogue about this. This specific type of signaling (flashing brands) is enforced by social rules that prevent chameleons. It would be pretty easy to imagine relaxing this - allowing products to appear externally in any form, as long as their nature is always recognizable to the owner (to prevent fraud). It's not clear this would be bad for society. IANAL, but it seems to me that plastering logos all over a handbag is an abuse of trademark functionality doctrine. The function of the pattern is to make the owner appear wealthy, not to prevent buyers from being misled.

pm90 9y ago
The purpose of brands and high fashion is not to be functional in the utilitarian sense. They are meant purely for signalling and their utility is an afterthought at best. See for e.g. women's jeans which have fake pockets. For people who care about such things, its more important for their outfit to be congruent to some fashion principles (color, fit etc.) rather than the actual utility that such things provide.
barrkel 9y ago
Fashion is but the extreme end, where 90% or more of the value is created by the branding and designer cachet, but it goes all the way to much more prosaic items, like washing machines (Miele) and DIY tools (Makita), where the brand is acting much more as protection for a promise of quality, yet the branding still has pose value - showing off your middle class credentials when someone is visiting your house or borrowing your tools. I don't think there's any real cut-off point where you get to say it's an abuse, because value is whatever we humans think is valuable, whether that's high quality or socially desirable.

loceng 9y ago

It's more important to know where your money/the profit is going IMHO, who is being rewarded for their effort, etc, what type of behaviour is rewarded/perpetuated. Similarly, do we want to reward people who participate in and perpetuate Pyramid-Ponzi scheme-like structures? Where money and resources flows will have an impact on quality of life, the amount of offspring, and the role modelling/knowledge/behaviours passed down through generations.