# Replica Watches



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

OK, hopefully I won't get virtually beat-up for this, but I wondered if anyone has had experience with replica watches. Not exactly "Folexes" that can be found for $30 on the street, but ones that come from places like www.watch-replica.net or www.watchez.com. I know these seem to scream "Avoid me!" but they do seem to have some decent looking products, and since I don't have $10,000 to drop on a Patek Philippe at the moment, I thought maybe this could be a good alternative since I like the style so much. Any thoughts?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

In most instances, the maker and sellers of replica watches are usually in violation of the legal copyrights on the original manufacturer's copyrights and trademarks.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

I don't mind lookalikes (or items 'inspired by'), but I would avoid ones that actually include a fake brand name (eg, it says 'Cartier' but it's not), which really makes it a counterfeit.


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

Ah, this topic will surely bring up some heated discussion. My personal feeling is to stick with the original. There is nothing wrong with unwilling or unable to fork over $$$$ for some fancy, expensive watches. If you like the particular style, chances are some other legitimate manufacture will make a watch in that style; maybe not exactly, but quite similar. For instance, if you go to any Coach store, you will find that their watch styles mirrors very closely those of Cartier. Timex does make some watches that resemble Rolex. One could look at Tudor if one desires the "look" of a Rolex but not the price.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

About how much are you looking to spend? My guess is that for the money you will spend on a low-quality fake, you could get a watch of acceptable (or even good) quality from an obscure Swiss or German brand.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Let me reiterate the trafficking of counterfeit watches is a federal crime in the United States. For a detailed summary, this U.S. Department of Justice site might be of assistance:


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

Anyone that works in an industry that relies on copyright or patent protection (and whether you know it or not, you probably do) should be able to understand the importance of respecting intellectual property. That is virtually all that is left in this country anyway. This isn't China where such laws either do not exist or are not enforced.

I would not purchase an imitation rolex (or any other imitation watch) and frankly they should throw those who sell them in jail and confiscate the watches from those who knowingly buy illegal counterfeits.


----------



## lee_44106 (Apr 10, 2006)

amen brother!


----------



## SartoriallyChallenged (Jun 13, 2006)

You can get good deals on some really nice secondhand Swiss watches.. some of the lesser known brands - Oris , Baume and Mercier,Ebel, Gevril, Raymond Weil can be purchased in near perfect shape from reputable dealers for 50-75% off of original retail prices

You are MUCH better with one of these than a fake..


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

If you like Rolex styles, take a look at the offerings from Invicta. They do a very decent watch. I've owned several over the years, both quartz and automatics, and they have given me very good service. You might also look at some of the current Russian watches. My favorite watch, at the moment, is an Orion, remarkably resembling a Breguet skeleton, 25 jewel automatic with a nicely decorated movement.

For legal, ethical and horological reasons, stay away from the fakes. No matter how nicely you choose the words, whether "reproduction", "replica" or "look-a-like", they are all fakes, phonies and counterfeits, made to a very low standard with, if at all, teeny-tiny jewels or a 20 cent quartz movement.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

joeyzaza said:


> Anyone that works in an industry that relies on copyright or patent protection (and whether you know it or not, you probably do) should be able to understand the importance of respecting intellectual property.
> 
> 
> > Even if you work in an industry where patents do not exist (and there are some where that is the case), you can appreciate that stealing - even if it is a simply a design - is wrong.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Thanks guys, points taken. I suppose avoiding breaking federal laws is a good idea. Anyone have any suggestions for a watch similar to this one but in the range of probably less than $200, possibly $300?


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

To give you an idea, you can find some things vaguely similar - look at the offerings by Limes and Jacques Etoile.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Trip, also take a look at this recent thread at SF.


----------



## shoefetish (Jan 15, 2006)

tripreed said:


> OK, hopefully I won't get virtually beat-up for this, but I wondered if anyone has had experience with replica watches. Not exactly "Folexes" that can be found for $30 on the street, but ones that come from places like or . I know these seem to scream "Avoid me!" but they do seem to have some decent looking products, and since I don't have $10,000 to drop on a Patek Philippe at the moment, I thought maybe this could be a good alternative since I like the style so much. Any thoughts?


Firstly replica watches are no better or worse than the imitation LVs, Guccis, Montblancs, etc out there today. A LV bag bought in Thailand was not discovered to be an imitation till a LV workperson discovered that the thread used was different from the original (bag was sent in for re-stitching).
This begs the question - are the originals that bad or are the replicas that good

That said I have seen replica Rolexes with the Valjoux 7750 movements that were actually used by Rolex in their Daytona handwound models. Ditto the Zenith El Primero movements for the imitation automatic chronograph Rolexes (original Rolex used to use them as well). There are even solid gold replicas that can fool an expert.

At the end of the day, are you trying to impress or do you want a good watch? Contrary to popular believe the present day imitations are nothing to be sniffed at. Forget about the moral issue - people buy 3rd party stuff, that have been researched and tested by the originator, all the time. The person who sniffs at an imitation will buy a no brand DVD player, MP3 player, etc without batting an eyelid (ie. no licencing paid to the originator). These are all imitations to an extent.

If you want a brand buying a replica will satisfy your ego but you know its not the real thing. If you want a good timepiece there are many good, reliable and well priced original watches out there.

Only you can decide the route you want to take. Just remember this - the moment someone knows you are into replicas (watches or whatever) there goes your integrity.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

*...*

Trip I'm gonna give my .02$ here even though it goes against what most have stated above. I'm a huge fan of replica watches but you really need to know where to go to get the best pieces.

That being said I've "seen" replica submariners for 50-75$ that are exact copies of the original. You would think that for that price you would be able to differentiate between the two from a mile away, however, this is certainaly not the case. I dont want to post pics of my friends watch but I'd be willing to bet that if I were to post two pics side by side noone would be able to tell the difference.

For me, I cannot justify spending 5k on a real submariner when that money can be spent on bespoke clothing. In addition, I like to have a different watch for every day of the week and enjoy pairing them with whatever I am wearing that day.

As I said however, if you do choose to go this route, shop around a bit and don't trust any online dealers. Most of them post pics of the originals, not their replicas.

O and FYI, there is a good quality replica for literally any watch you could ever want.

gl searching

MrR


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

shoefetish said:


> At the end of the day, are you trying to impress or do you want a good watch?


I'm not really out to try to impress anyone. If I was I would simply look for a fake Rolex. I'm more interested in finding a particular style (like the one I posted above) but have been having trouble finding one in that style in my price rangeand wondered if a replica might be the way to go. However, it does seem that it might be better to keep looking.

*Cantabrigian:*

Thanks for that link. Those watches are right on with what I'm looking for. Hoping I can maybe get a deal on one of those off of Ebay or something.

Anyone have experience buying watches from pawn shops?


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

Replica watches arn't the Canal Street specials that most people think of any more. Take for instance Panerai. Panerai is one of the most copied watches out there mostly because they became very popular and but also because they are so simple and cheap. It pains me (as someone that owns real ones) to know that the $300 replica has the exact same movement from the same factory as my $3000 real one. The fake has a CNC'd case made out of the same material (even the Titaniums ones) copied from a genuine (so it is exactly the same) and you have to me an expert on the watch with them both in your hand to really tell the difference...

Now is the guy buying the replica buying a $3,000 watch or did I get duped into buying a $300 watch for 10x more money?


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

German brands - which don't command the premium associated with the 'Swiss Made' designation - offer a darn good value. If you hunt around, I'm sure you can get a decent deal from an authorized dealer. 

I would especially recommend looking for a dealer in somewhere like Singapore.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Mithras said:


> It pains me (as someone that owns real ones) to know that the $300 replica has the exact same movement from the same factory as my $3000 real one.


It may have the same base ETA movement - though I doubt even that. But even if that is true, it is certainly not exactly the same. The Panerai movement will have had some parts replaced, will have been finished and regulated in a way that the replica will not have.

Even if the fake looks somewhat - or even very - convincing, it is not the same movement bu any stretch.

Is a Panerai worth $3k - 5K? Probably not. It's a very popular brand and the company knows that. But is it worth much more than a fake? You bet (if, of course, you care about the quality - and legality).


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> It may have the same base ETA movement - though I doubt even that. But even if that is true, it is certainly not exactly the same. The Panerai movement will have had some parts replaced, will have been finished and regulated in a way that the replica will not have.
> 
> Even if the fake looks somewhat - or even very - convincing, it is not the same movement bu any stretch.
> 
> Is a Panerai worth $3k - 5K? Probably not. It's a very popular brand and the company knows that. But is it worth much more than a fake? You bet (if, of course, you care about the quality - and legality).


From the ones I have seen and handled, all the good ones have ETA based movements, and some of the really good ones have ETA made movements (easy enough to get, but not as much margin for the Chinese factories pumping them out so is more rare). You are very correct that any of the fakes would not have the bridgework and finishing of the ETA movements that were comissioned by Panerai, but I have seen fakes that are much too close for anyones comfort...

And then there's the whole "Frankenwatch" phenomena. A tudor case, aftermarket sourced and modified movement, real face and braclet off of E-bay and you have yourself a $10,000 rolex with wrong serial numbers. How many of those have been sold to unknowing people?


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

medwards said:


> Let me reiterate the trafficking of counterfeit watches is a federal crime in the United States. For a detailed summary, this U.S. Department of Justice site might be of assistance:


Medwards, I find this interesting from a legal/political perspective (I'm not interested in replicas). Exactly who is committing a crime in this replica-watch scenario? Surely, online sellers are not breaking the law--or are they?--given the openness with which they advertise and sell. Is the person purchasing such a watch breaking the law by being a party to the "trafficking" of the watch? Is the manufacturer of the replica watch breaking the law if the watch is made in a country that doesn't have counterfeit laws like the U.S.? I can see that a person in the U.S. (or Canada, I assume) making and selling such a replica watch could be seen as being in violation of the law, and perhaps a person in the U.S. selling what s/he knew to be counterfeit watches too. But what if the watch is made in an Asian country without such laws, and the watch is sold over the Internet to a buyer in the U.S.? Who in this chain is liable to prosecution?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

According to the US Justice Department, _to "traffic" in goods or services, is defined broadly in 18 U.S.C. § 2320(e)(2) to mean "transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent so to transport, transfer or dispose of." This definition is broad enough to cover all aspects of commercial activity from initial manufacture to sale to ultimate purchasers. ...However, the knowing "purchase" of goods bearing counterfeit marks for personal use was not intended to be covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2320. _

Of course, the legality of such transactions -- and how individual laws are applied and enforced -- differs from country to country.

Let me suggest that the original posting seemed appropriate to the Fashion Forum, but if the discussion becomes one primarily centered on legal or ethical issues, we may want to take this to The Interchange.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

Mithras said:


> And then there's the whole "Frankenwatch" phenomena. A tudor case, aftermarket sourced and modified movement, real face and braclet off of E-bay and you have yourself a $10,000 rolex with wrong serial numbers. How many of those have been sold to unknowing people?


I forget which two models were involved but apparently there was an arbitrage between two Rolex models. They would buy the chaper one, put a fake face and (I think) bezel from the more expensive one on it and have what would very easily pass for a completely authentic more expensive Rolex.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

*hmmm*

Judging by the secrecy in which (cheap) replicas are sold on canal street, I figure that the individual selling the item is to be held accountable to some extent. I've also heard of louis vuitton suing certain ebay sellers for selling fake bags.

I would have to think that the manufacturers are liable to a certain degree also though.

A while back I heard a rumor that certain companies like rolex are the actual manufacturers of the better quality fakes. While I doubt this to be true, I suppose by doing so they are able to reach a market that isnt willing/able to pony up 5k for an original.

Interesting though.

In the leather market in Florence, where you cant go 5 feet without seeing fake hermes and gucci belts, signs are in place stating that anyone found purchasing fake items will be prosecuted. Just an afterthought

MrR


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

medwards said:


> According to the US Justice Department, _to "traffic" in goods or services, is defined broadly in 18 U.S.C. § 2320(e)(2) to mean "transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent so to transport, transfer or dispose of." This definition is broad enough to cover all aspects of commercial activity from initial manufacture to sale to ultimate purchasers. ...However, the knowing "purchase" of goods bearing counterfeit marks for personal use was not intended to be covered by 18 U.S.C. § 2320. _
> 
> Of course, the legality of such transactions -- and how individual laws are applied and enforced -- differs from country to country.
> 
> Let me suggest that the original posting seemed appropriate to the Fashion Forum, but if the discussion becomes one primarily centered on legal or ethical issues, we may want to take this to The Interchange.


I think what I'm trying to get at here is whether or not any law is being broken (which your earlier posts seemed to suggest) when a person in a country lacking the U.S.'s counterfeit laws makes a replica watch, which is then sold on the Internet by someone also based in such a country, to someone in the U.S. According to the statement you reproduced above, the final recipient in the U.S. is not liable to prosecution. It would also seem that the other two links in the chain aren't either (as long as they don't do this in the U.S.). Thus, unless I'm mistaken here (always a possibility!), the whole process/transaction is "legal." Such a U.S. citizen, therefore, need not feel that s/he is breaking any law, and the issue ultimately comes down to the morality displayed by countries that do not have our counterfeit laws. Is this about it?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The overlooked second ethical concern is who PROFITS from counterfeit goods. Do you really want to finance known criminal gangs and terrorists?


----------



## chobochobo (May 5, 2006)

*My approach*

I would get a second hand one from a decent seller either brick and mortar or ebay (with excellent feedback). I've bought one watch on ebay, a second hand Bueuche Girod (I'd never heard of it before) which although a simple gold dress watch is simply stunning particularly the thinness of the watch and the 'woven' gold bracelet.

I would rather get 'used' items rather than 'replica' if I couldn't afford them new.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*Better off with a non-counterfeit!*



Cantabrigian said:


> About how much are you looking to spend? My guess is that for the money you will spend on a low-quality fake, you could get a watch of acceptable (or even good) quality from an obscure Swiss or German brand.


I agree. As an example AAAC is generally about clothes. If my budget were about $300, I would rather havea 100% wool suit in a decent style than a $300 "replica" Zegna or Armani suit. Remember, part of the price will be in the value of the name, be it a genuine article or a counterfeit!


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

Back in the day when I was trying to impress people (especially women) I bought a 'fauxlex' while on holiday in Rhodes. It looked convincing, but kept going wrong and it was bloody embarrassing taking it to shops to be mended. 

In the end I ditched it and decided to go Trad and bought a £21 Timex instead. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm not sure the legality of the purchase should be the big issue here. Personally I find myself repulsed by the idea of sporting anything fake. If I can't afford the real deal, I will go with a less expensive option, that is authenic in it's own right. To do otherwise would be nothing more than "putting on the dog," as we used to say. There will always be something (or some brand) that we can't afford. We will all be better off if we avoid allowing such realities to define us. Be authentic and be happy!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

A watches function is to give the correct time. There was a time when watches was to expensive for the majority of working people. A watch was handed down from father to son. To know the time was not easy.
Today time is everywhere one does not need a watch to know the time , time is on our computers , cell phones , c-pads , in our cars and everywhere we go there appears to be a clock.
The most accurate watches is not the analog systems such as the so-called time pieces but digial watches quartz crystals watches.
If one is looking for accuracy ones buys a watch run by batteries.
The high end watches such as Patek Philippe , Rolex , Audemars Piguet , Brequet , etc. are great time pieces but unlike fine cars are clothing the performance is many cases not as good as lower cost watches such as a $ 100.00 digital Seiko.
Why not a replica ? princes Diana wore fake jewerly , actress Elizabeth Taylor wears fake diamonds. A good replica is as accurate as the real thing and looks just as good plus cost thousands less ! Why spend $25.000 dollars for a watch and chance losing it or having it stolen when one can wear a replica and store the more expensive one. Are is it all ego ?Male ego.


----------



## london_gent (Jun 13, 2006)

Law aside, I'd much rather get a decent 2nd hand one like others have mentioned. You can pick up a decent Omega in some places for as little as £300+ in the UK, which isn't bad for a timeless design that hasn't missed a beat since the 1980s. If you want more vintage, e.g. 50s onwards, it's a bit more, but I'd prefer to have the genuine article.

Plus you should get some sort of warranty from the retailer.

It would be most embarrassing if someone admired your watch, asked to see it and, assuming they knew even a little bit about watches, realised you had a fake. Even if you're upfront about it being a replica I still think it's somewhat embarrasing.

If you can't afford say £300 (other brands no doubt are less and a lot depends on condition), then just go for a nice new watch from someone like Accurist, still will have two hands that does the job. Have a nice one from a teenager that was £29! Looks superb, although it was rare to find such a gem at such a low price. Served me well and still ticks away.

Never looked on ebay etc., as I like to inspect and touch in person plus am a little wary, but I'm sure the prices absolutely plummet and like others have said, decent internet sellers exist.


----------



## chobochobo (May 5, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Why not a replica ? princes Diana wore fake jewerly , actress Elizabeth Taylor wears fake diamonds. A good replica is as accurate as the real thing and looks just as good plus cost thousands less ! Why spend $25.000 dollars for a watch and chance losing it or having it stolen when one can wear a replica and store the more expensive one. Are is it all ego ?Male ego.


There is an important difference. 'Fake' jewelry as you put it, is jewelry where the stones are not precious stones or the gold/silver/platinium isn't. I'm sure neither Princess Di nor Liz Taylor would wear 'knockoff' Cartier's or Tiffany's. Yes, you don't need to spend a lot to have a good functional watch, but that's not the point - the point is whether you should be hankering after brands that you can't afford/won't pay the price for and buy the 'fake' goods that have the manufacturers name on it but aren't actually made by them. I'm quite happy to wear my plastic Swatch as well as my vintage Jaeger Le Coultre.


----------



## creat3cp (Apr 2, 2006)

I think the idea is to wear fakes when going for unimportant event or if there is a chance which you might lost your watch. To wear real when going for important function. But to have a mixture of both is best. Just dont confuse and wear the wrong one. ;p


----------



## chobochobo (May 5, 2006)

Not really. The point trying to be made is that fakes are fakes - that's when a brand's marks and designs are being used without its permission in a product that it did not make.

If you want a watch that you don't mind damaging/losing to wear on those informal occasions then by all means by a cheaper watch for that purpose, but is/should buying a fake/copy/replica an acceptable practice? What is the lure/cachet of wearing something that isn't the real thing? 

Sorry, too many forward slashes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chobochobo said:


> Not really. The point trying to be made is that fakes are fakes - that's when a brand's marks and designs are being used without its permission in a product that it did not make.
> 
> If you want a watch that you don't mind damaging/losing to wear on those informal occasions then by all means by a cheaper watch for that purpose, but is/should buying a fake/copy/replica an acceptable practice? What is the lure/cachet of wearing something that isn't the real thing?


The "lure/cachet of wearing something that isn't the real thing" is the wearers desire to cause friends and associates to assume it is the real thing and that the wearer spent far more for the item than was actually spent. Rather than spending (sometimes) considerable amounts of money on fakes, perhaps we should spend it on counseling to figure out why we are not comfortable in our own skin. I will say again...be yourself. It's the healthy option!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*replica watch*

Is she a blond or a red head ?, only her hair stylist knows. What do we really pay for the car or the star ? Is it the image or the item itself ? 
How many raincoats copied the look of the famous Burberry trench coat ? Can many of us tell the difference ? A Mercedes S series will generally outperform lesser cars , a Burberry trench coat to is known for it's lasting value. But will a Rolex keep better time than a Timex or a replica ? we know the answer NO! Why not have both replica and the real thing. 
There are those who wear replica's and can afford the real thing. Some replica's are better made watches than a Swatch.
A Patek Philipe will last a hundred years it is an outstanding time piece , but a 
digital watch will keep better time. A Burbery trench coat will generally last longer , fit better and protect you better from rain than a copied trench coat.
I have a Girard Perregaux , Rolex , and Cartier plus three replica's. It is almost impossible to tell the difference between my Breitling , Audemars Piguet and Omega replica's unless you open the case and the replica's keep excellent time.
Again is she a blond or redhead ? Is she a fake if she dyes her hair ????
Those men who wear hair pieces are they fakes also ? and there is store bought teeth etc. etc.
My observation.


----------



## chobochobo (May 5, 2006)

Again, the point is being missed. 

You are buying/using counterfeit goods. It is not comparing an expensive brand with a cheaper brand, it is purchasing/condoning the copying of something and passing it off as an original. I guess we all have different opinions on this, and different levels of 'acceptance'. For me, I find it increasingly uncomfortable - if I cannot afford the branded product (either new or used), I buy a cheaper (but in itself 'original') product. That is, I'd buy a Marks and Spencers trenchcoat if I can't afford the Burberry, and not buy a coat that looks like a Burberry, and is labelled a Burberry but isn't made by Burberry. Somewhere along the way, a crime has been committed.


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

Chobochobo, it's not that your point is being missed; rather it's that someone else disagrees with it. There's a difference. Perhaps you are missing silverporsche's point. He is making a different point than you are. You are saying that you don't feel comfortable with replicas and, further, see their purchase as in some way immoral, with a crime having been committed. The fact that you feel that way doesn't mean that everyone else should agree.

Consider silverporsche's point: Do you never (never!) misrepresent yourself in some way? Have you never ever presented yourself in a better light than you knew to be true for you in order to get a job, impress someone else, be accepted, etc.? I think that silverporsche's point is that this kind of "innocent" misrepresentation is just a little further back on a continuum which has purchase/wearing of replica watches a little further along (perhaps). The two are not qualitatively different. (And the latter analysis assumes that the wearer of replica watches is representing them to others as the genuine article--which may not necessarily be the case.)

As I tried to understand and clarify much earlier in this thread, the issue of whether or not a crime has been committed seems--at least to me--to be somewhat opaque. Suppose the replica watch is manufactured in China, where it is not a crime to do so. Further, suppose that this watch is then sold on the Internet from a website in China and is shipped by a Chinese courier to a buyer in the U.S. Who has committed a crime in this scenario? We know, from the passage from the document that Medwards presented, that the U.S. government does not consider one of its citizens buying such a watch as a crime. Further, we know that the manufacturer, seller, and courier have not committed a crime in their country. Although it's true that had these people been engaged in the same activity in the U.S., they would have been committing a crime, this fact doesn't, I think, make the scenario criminal--just that it _would be_ criminal if the circumstances were changed. (Perhaps a legal expert would see my analysis as flawed, and I'm prepared to be corrected on this.)

I reiterate that I have no dog in this fight. I have no interest in replicas of any kind, but don't really feel that others who, for reasons that make complete sense to them, find them an appealing alternative are immoral, unethical, or necessarily wrong.


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

There is the whole “Art” facet too. How many of us have a print of a famous painting hanging on our wall? Why do we have that print on our wall? Because we enjoy the aestetics of it, the history of it, the story behind it. The original oil painting, bought in the parking lot of a holiday inn during an art fair, is not a replica, but I’d rather have the Cezanne or Van Gogh print on my wall. I can't afford the tens of millions to buy one though!

Watches have beautiful aestetics also. While you can buy dozens of watches that look like a rolex stylistically, you can’t get a watch that looks like a Audemars Piguet Royal Oak unless you buy a replica...


----------



## chobochobo (May 5, 2006)

*Apologies*

I'm not trying to make it a moral issue when it comes to buying 'replicas'.

I was 'just' trying to make the point that there is a difference between having a brand B item which looks similar to a brand A item, as opposed to something which says its brand A, but actually isn't. In the latter case, brand A's rights are being infringed - (even in China, this is a crime and this has been made clearer after China joined the WTO, it is the enforcement that suffers laxity). Legalities notwithstanding, doesn't everyone think that the unauthorized reproduction of someone elses work is 'wrong' (with a small 'w')? It's not comparable to 'misrepresenting' oneself, dying one's hair, having an authorized print of a Van Gogh on your wall.

I just think that there is a difference in the two scenarios. I was hoping that this was a 'fact' not an opinion. I guess I was wrong. I wasn't trying to force my opinion on others and certainly did not mean to offend, and I apologise if this was the case. I think I'm flogging a dead horse here and I should just shut my trap


----------



## Roger (Feb 18, 2005)

chobochobo said:


> (even in China, this is a crime and this has been made clearer after China joined the WTO, it is the enforcement that suffers laxity).


 I didn't know this. If this is the case, the nature of the scenario changes somewhat for me. (BTW, I don't think anyone was offended, least of all me--just trying to break the phenomenon into its essentials. :icon_smile_wink: )


----------



## Trilby (Aug 11, 2004)

What's the story with calling these things "replicas"? Does that make it sound better than "fakes" or "counterfeits"?

Not trying to be inflammatory here, but it's a curious choice of words.


----------



## WN2 (Nov 12, 2005)

I can't understand fake ("replica") watches or people who are using them. Essentially they are saying that if you want something but can't or don't want to afford it, it's ok to steal it. 

In any case you can't fool yourself. The satisfaction that one gets from owning and wearing (for example) Patek Philippe comes from the fact that it is a Patek Philippe. If you just like the aesthetics you can buy a lookalike that doesn't pretend to be a real thing. I'm really surprised to see grown up people using fake watches to impress their peers. That would be amusing if it wasn't so disappointing.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*China & Fakes*

As has been noted, China is not a safe haven for fakes. Moreover, the extent to which the international community has outlawed such counterfeiting should suggest how blatantly inappropriate such traffick is. Here are just a few recent headlines:

From the BBC:

_LVMH 'wins fake China goods case' 
Luxury goods firm LVMH has reportedly won a lawsuit against fellow French business Carrefour, which it accused of selling fake handbags in China. 
According to media reports, a Beijing court has ordered Carrefour to pay $375,000 (£210,000) in damages to LVMH for violating its trandemark rights. 
Carrefour was alleged to have sold LVMH branded handbags for $6 when the real thing can be worth more than $880. The case was one of the first trademark suits between foreign firms in China. China has pledged to crack down on widespread counterfeiting and piracy._

From The Times:
_
Global brands join hands against IPR theft
Saibal Dasgupta
[ Thursday, May 04, 2006 11:26:13 pmTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]_

_BEIJING: The battle for survival has finally brought together owners of 19 international brands in a joint campaign to rough it out with retailers in different cities of China. The brands include Adidas, Puma, Louis Vuitton, Calvin Klein, Chanel and Gucci. Firms producing these brands are taking the fight against theft of intellectual property rights (IPR) to the doors of retail shops instead of relying on the Chinese government to protect them. The companies have chalked out a year-long programme that would involve posing as customers to catch sellers of counterfiet goods red-handed and report them to the authorities. _

_Vuitton Wins Fake Handbag Case in Beijing 
A department store in Beijing which was selling fake handbags supposedly produced by designer Louis Vuitton has been ordered to pay the Frenchman 150,000 yuan (US$18,500) by a city court.The Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court ruled that Chaowai Men's Department Store had infringed the world-famous Vuitton trademark._


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Apologies to GS, a fake is a fake is a fake, and I think the person who wears a fake watch is as phoney as the watch he (she) wears.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

How could you tell if a replica watch is fake?


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*Spotting Counterfeits*



Howard said:


> How could you tell if a replica watch is fake?


Try this website for advice on spotting counterfeit watches:

https://www.chronocentric.com/watches/counterfeit.shtml


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

i am not familiar with us laws on this, but isnt it also illegal to have in your possession a counterfeit product? wouldn't this be the same as possessing a faux louis vuitton purse, or a fake dvd? with the case of "replica watches", which i prefer to call "fake watches" they are harder to spot, though.


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

If I might first briefly explain the standpoint from which I am writing, I have a more than passing familiarity with intellectual property laws, though I am yet to handle a case in the area. I am friendly with counsel who have conducted cases on the scale of Napster and Kazaa. I have read about the use and misuse of WTO instruments such as the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement. I am, broadly speaking, an advocate of many of the thoughts of Stanford Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig, who favours significantly scaling back certain IP laws.

On the other hand I am now (to my ongoing surprise), a published author, as well.

An early legal theorist, Saint Augustine, said that "lex injusta non est lex" - an unjust law is no law at all. The inevitable consequence of this is that there is no obligation to follow such a law. This argument was successfully used by prosecutors in the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials, to argue that the enforcement of race laws and death warrants, notwithstanding their legality under Nazi statute, were still Crimes Against Humanity. 

While obviously copyright laws bear no comparison, it may be worthwhile to consider that saying it is objectively wrong to break any law as a matter of course, is probably NOT a statement which most of us would agree with. 

Secondly, I would take issue with the notion that the trade in replicas, counterfeits, etc, necessarily harms the commercial interests which they imitate. I had a colleague who was defending a seller of fake Vuitton bags against a civil suit for damages, and I suggested to him the following argument. Because no right-thinking person would believe that the Chinese gentlemen selling bags on the beachside was actually an authorised dealer of genuine merchandise, no confusion occurred in the minds of purchasers. It is not as if someone would be en route to an LV store to pick up a $1500 tote, only to see the "same" for $50, thank their lucky stars, and deny the LV store the business.

For that reason, the counterfeit seller was not actually costing LV any money in lost income, and therefore may be liable for an account of profits, but no more than nominal damages. I'm fairly certain the case settled without going to court, but I wonder how it would have turned out.

To be sure, LV has suffered damage to its reputation to some extent. But, I consider this to be the company's fault for marketing a product at an exorbitant price point, solely or primarily on the strength of its logo. That the prevalence of fakes, which are nearly indistinguishable from the originals, has compounded the problem is to my mind simply just deserts for their overexposure, and their treating customers as idiots.

Compare Burberry, another marque hurt by the perceived ubiquity of their product. Although they are often faked, it was the "chavs" and football hooligans wearing genuine goods that exposed the somewhat comical nature of the mass luxury phenomenon. They might as well have been fake, as it was the mere presence of the check, not the quality or style of the garments, which is why they were being worn.

On the other hand, there would be little value in wearing a fake Borrelli shirt or Charvet tie, as without logos, they would simply appear to be plain and low-quality goods.

What then of replica watches, you ask? Well, I firstly would reiterate my LV point above - the market for a Patek, and for a fake Patek, do not overlap. The company is not selling fewer watches because people are buying fakes. In fact, given that the recognisability of the the real thing is thereby increased, they are perhaps even getting a little free advertising on the side. Who knows, maybe the person buying the fake today will pick up the real thing in five years time, when he has the money.

On the other hand, if he feels the replica is of such a quality that there's no incentive to get the real thing, I suppose that means the real item is truly overpriced. I think few of us would deny that luxury watches are.

Even if we are, for example, to recognise inherent value in the heritage of the brand, and the hours that go into making, eg, a Patek, there is one example which I consider illustrative of some perfidy. Consider a watch that you like, of whatever brand. Compare the prices of that watch with a steel case, and with a gold case. You will most likely find that, rather than an arithmetic progression, there is instead a geometric increase in price.

That is, if you have a watch which costs $5000 (and let us assume that is a fair price, for argument's sake), but add $200 worth of gold (which is probably more than you'll find in any watch anyway), what would you expect to pay? $5200 is the logical amount. Even assuming that the wholesale price increases by $200, and there is a 100% dealer's markup on that, you come out with $5400. But, in reality, the cost of a gold model will be more likely in the vicinity of $8000-$10000.

Even if one is prepared to justify the high base price for a steel watch, I see no rational basis to conclude that the watch companies are behaving fairly in relation to gold or silver or platinum models. One cannot avoid the feeling that they are behaving like little LVs themselves (indeed, I understand that LVMH, PPR etc own quite a few of the watchmakers). The head of Panerai is late of Cartier, perhaps the masters of adding "value" through a nebulous concept of luxury or exclusivity. 

To me, this sort of behaviour hurts the market, in that it stifles the pace of innovation. Rather than competing on the basis of constant innovation to try to make a better product that people will prefer to your competitors, money is thrown into advertising, into running polo matches, into this nebulous attempt to impart class and worth into chunks of steel and gold and leather.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

*Faux Argument*

Sorry, PF, but you lose this case.

1. The trafficking in counterfeits IS illegal.

2. There is obvious value in the look, name and trademarks of the original items or there would be no point in counterfeiting them.

3. The makers of the original items have an interest in protecting the name, quality, and public confidence in the integrity of their product.

4. The relative price/cost of the original product is not a factor. It is no less wrong to counterfeit an item that is selling for twice its worth than counterfeiting one that is selling for less than its full value. The idea that it is okay to buy stolen property because the original is overpriced is without merit.

5. Nor does the price of the counterfeit make such ripoffs more or less acceptable.

The bottom line is rather simple. Trafficking in counterfeits is wrong both legally and morally. But while we may disagree on this, I'd love to read your book. Perhaps I can make a few copies to share with my friends. Books cost way too much these days and are certainly overpriced! I can make copies for a lot less. Besides, my friends wouldn't have purchased your book in the first place at its full retail price


----------



## Morris (Feb 13, 2006)

Aside from the obvious, trafficking stolen goods (not advisable for a gentleman), from a style standpoint, wearing fakes, replicas, etc. just reflects poor taste. 

We all have fiscal limitations, therefore, purchase within your means. There is nothing wrong with a Seiko, Casio, Bulova watch, if that is what you can afford. Purchasing imitations is bad form, and as previously mentioned, in this case, illegal.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

Morris said:


> Aside from the obvious, trafficking stolen goods (not advisable for a gentleman), from a style standpoint, wearing fakes, replicas, etc. just reflects poor taste.


Quite right. Wearing such goods is far worse than committing a crime. It's TACKY!!!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Several years ago I was a member of the Jaguar Club of North America.
Several members having had many problems with their e-type Jags made an intersting discovery , there was a suggestion to change the engine and electonic. a chevrolet 327 engine as well as GM elctronics would work wonders. The body was jaguar but engine , transmission and electric system was GM. it work ! Would any of you consider this illegal. Was this car a replica ? What if you sold it as a Jag with General Motors engine parts ?
I might also add that the car seen on Miami Vice the beautiful Ferrari Testarossa was really a replica Chevrolet with a Ferrari body , and they were for sale.
Many watch manufactures are happy to see replica's of their watches because only replicas of the most popular watches are manufactured.
There are replicas that are better made than Seiko's , Casio and Bulova and offer better warranties.
There are Rolex replica's that a jeweler has to remove the back to tell the differences. They are very well made and can cost a thousand dollars.
An observation.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

I don't understand your point. It doesn't matter if these fakes are as good as the original or even if they are better, they are _fakes_. They have _stolen_ someone else's name, look and reputation.


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> I don't understand your point. It doesn't matter if these fakes are as good as the original or even if they are better, they are _fakes_. They have _stolen_ someone else's name, look and reputation.


There are only a finite number of looks that watches can actually have, that said. Indeed, frequently in this forum members ask for, and are directed to, watches that are influenced by, and borrow the look of Patek, IWC, etc. Are those makers - Limes, Elysee, or whoever - accused of "theft"?

Further, if something is marketed as a replica (and I don't think that anyone is trying to defend passing them off as the real thing), how is one stealing any sort of reputation? Indeed, I suspect that products piggybacking on the heritage of a particular region - say, Naples for tailoring, or Savile Row, and holding themselves out to be beneficiaries of experience and tradition of which they are not part, are more guilty of stealing reputations.

But, having said that, there is not a finite pool of reputation, or goodwill. To steal something, one must deprive its rightful owner of it. I cannot see how the reputation of Patek or IWC (or of the traditional SR tailoring houses, for that matter) would be lessened by the fact that replicas exist.

So what we are left with is the theft of a _name_. Maybe even an acronym. And, if the word "Cartier" or "Lange" or "Portofino" is a paramount component of the worth of the object, then perhaps one's priorities really are messed up. And, if the legal right to use that name is all that justifies the difference in price between a $3000 watch and a $300 identical replica, again, it is not only the counterfeiters who are doing an injustice to the market.

I shall respond to your initial review of my argument when I have a little more time this evening, sir. I am grateful to you for assisting me in really clarifying my thinking.

Best,

Eden


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

Prophete-Faux said:


> There are only a finite number of looks that watches can actually have, that said. Indeed, frequently in this forum members ask for, and are directed to, watches that are influenced by, and borrow the look of Patek, IWC, etc. Are those makers - Limes, Elysee, or whoever - accused of "theft"?


If the designs are patented, absolutely yes.

But let's be clear. The ripoff watches under discussion aren't just _influenced by_ or _borrowing_ a _look_. They are _fakes_ -- counterfeit copies of the actual product -- and consequently they are _illegal_ copies of the real thing.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

Prophete-Faux said:


> So what we are left with is the theft of a _name_.


And what is more important than one's name?

_Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, 
Is the immediate jewel of their souls: 
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; 
But he that filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him 
And makes me poor indeed. _


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

Prophete-Faux said:


> So what we are left with is the theft of a _name_. Maybe even an acronym. And, if the word "Cartier" or "Lange" or "Portofino" is a paramount component of the worth of the object, then perhaps one's priorities really are messed up.


But if the name matters so little, why the need for a "replica"? Why not go with the valid makers such as Limes and the others you mention?


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

DocHolliday said:


> But if the name matters so little, why the need for a "replica"? Why not go with the valid makers such as Limes and the others you mention?


Quite right, Doc! In fact, I've been browsing those myself. Although, atm I'm keen to see what sort of discount I can get on either a Baume et Mercier Classima, or one of the Longines automatics (Master Collection or Flagship).

Please do not think I'm saying I have a house full of replicas, that they're better than other watches, or anything like that. I think I've strived to make a couple of general points:

1. The tone of some discourse around replicas is a little sensationalist and excessive. It is not a serious crime in the scheme of things, or even a serious property crime (we ain't talking Enron here, kids).
2. That many of the companies most concerned about the issue make goods that are shoddy and overpriced.
3. That, while not shoddy, many luxury watches are prices out of proportion to the materials and labour involved in their manufacture.
4. That in some cases, there is poetic justice in companies that trade too heavily on their name being bothered by the misuse of that name.

Unfortunately, when one reads enough law reports with words like "murder", "rape", even "genocide", "fake" and "stealing" don't seem so big and bad after all. Indeed, without meaning to direct this at anyone present (but more at the language of a lot of the advertisments sponsored by companies), it reminds me a little of a grade schooler tattling to the teacher, voice full of childish righteousness:

"He _pinched_ me, and called me a poo-poo head. AND, his Cartier is a _fake_ with a _stolen_ logo. He's a naughty boy..."

I remain,

Yours,

Eden


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

Prophete-Faux said:


> Quite right, Doc! In fact, I've been browsing those myself. Although, atm I'm keen to see what sort of discount I can get on either a Baume et Mercier Classima, or one of the Longines automatics (Master Collection or Flagship).
> 
> Please do not think I'm saying I have a house full of replicas, that they're better than other watches, or anything like that. I think I've strived to make a couple of general points:
> 
> ...


Obviously you do not understand the importance of copyright, patents, and business ethics as it applies to respecting another parties design.


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

joeyzaza said:


> Obviously you do not understand the importance of copyright, patents, and business ethics as it applies to respecting another parties design.


Sir, with respect, I'm trying to make some fairly complex points about the difference between what is objectively legal and what is morally and teleologically desirable. Of course, I'm doing it with plenty of opinons and more than a little mischief, but I'm not sure that's the charge against me!

If I were to take a trite point in response, I might say that it is beyond argument that Patent laws are killing children in the Third World (ie, by inhibiting the production of cheap generic anti-retroviral drugs to combat AIDS etc), and they are "immoral" and must be changed for that reason alone. I'd prefer not to place it in such black-and-white terms, however.

But I would be grateful if the next person to reply attempted to answer some of the _ideas_ I put forward, rather than simply presuming that I can't possibly know what I'm talking about. I would refer you to Prof. Lessig, in particular the book "Free Culture", for further proof, if it be necessary, that right-thinking persons who respect a democratic culture with free enterprise can nonetheless be circumspect about IP law as it stands in much of the world. I have discussed, for example, the point about AIDS drugs with learned member of the judiciary, legal and other academics, they all seemed to be in broad agreement that IP laws can, and frequently do, go too far.

Yours,

Eden


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

*An Interchange Discussion...*

_Donning moderator hat:_

This discussion has wavered between one appropriate to the Fashion Forum (the propriety of wearing certain attire and accessories) and one that should be pursued in The Interchange (the nature of copyright, patents and trademarks and their merit in international commerce). As this thread has wavered, so too have I as to whether to keep it here or move it.

I believe this discussion has now crossed over to an Interchange topic. If the focus remains the appropriateness of intellectual property laws, that is undoubtedly where it will end up. It is certainly appropriate to discuss the issues that are now being debated, but we should do so in the proper Forum.


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

I am late to this discussion....

1. SOMEONE I KNOW (as a young man), bought exactly such a watch on Canal Street and was quickly disappointed as day-to-day living revealed the flaws inherent within. 
2. You will tire of the fake on your arm and will still long for the real thing.
3. If you are looking for a particular style of a watch, I suggest you look here: 



4. If you still need the brand you want, start saving.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

medwards said:


> Try this website for advice on spotting counterfeit watches:
> 
> https://www.chronocentric.com/watches/counterfeit.shtml


Thanks Medwards.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*replica watch*

Why not buy several fake/replica's , they range in price from a few dollars to several hundred dollars.
There are fake diamonds , furs , cars , ladies handbags , men shirts , athletic
goods , shotguns , etc., etc. Why not watches ?
Are there not fake Polo shirts ? men Cartier wallets ? the list of fakes is endless. The only items not faked is an item nobody buys are is considered
to cheap to fake.
Buyer beware !!! There is also Ebay a heaven for fakes. Why do you think many manufactories put the label on the outside instead of on the inside?
It helps sales and so do fakes , it exposes more of their high priced goods to the general public.
Most Americans have never heard of Hermes , John Lobb , Richard Green ,
Kiton , Oxxford , Lattanzi , Borrelli and many other high end men clothiers.
Some American's but not that many has heard of Gucci , LV , Burberry ,
Rolex , Cartier , etc. Those items are made more popular to the average American because of fakes/replica's
It's about marketing not morals , greed not honesty. Are there any fake Timex's, London Fog's , or Fords ? It's about marketing which means profit !
It's a world of consumers and the ability to satisfy the many many consumers.
My two cents worth.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

i have something to ask:

if a tailor copies a suit perfectly from, say a&s, and labels it "savile row style" would that also be called a replica?


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

acidicboy said:


> i have something to ask:
> 
> if a tailor copies a suit perfectly from, say a&s, and labels it "savile row style" would that also be called a replica?


If he put an Anderson & Sheppard label in it, it would be cauled fraud!


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

*The allure of fakes?*

My pre-teen little brother wants a fake Rolex for his birthday due to the fact that he thinks it's cool to own something purchases from a guy in Battery Park with a briefcase of watches.

But do the sort of people you would be trying to impress with a fake really fall for it?

(I assume that you're trying to impress someone else since I doubt that anyone pats himself on the back for having an imitation Rolex.)

If you like the styling, why not get a 'real' watch in a similar style?


----------



## maxnharry (Dec 3, 2004)

Cantabrigian said:


> My pre-teen little brother wants a fake Rolex for his birthday due to the fact that he thinks it's cool to own something purchases from a guy in Battery Park with a briefcase of watches.
> 
> But do the sort of people you would be trying to impress with a fake really fall for it?
> 
> ...


If the folks you are trying to impress have Rolexes of their own, you can be certain that they know the difference between real and fake.


----------



## Eskie (May 5, 2006)

I would like to pass along a story (from a third person, so I make no claims this is my own).

A clerk in a NY store made a sale, only to note the $20 bill he was given was fake. Upset, he brought it to the store's owner with apologies that he missed it while ringing up the sale. Expecting the worst, he was surprised when the owner grabbed the bill and ran out of the store. Thinking the owner ran to the bank with the counterfeit money, he was surprised when the owner returning 20 minutes later with a smile. Asking what happened, the owner responded, "I just used a counterfeit $20 bill to buy a fake Rolex. Now, I really feel like a true New Yorker!".


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

Cantabrigian said:


> My pre-teen little brother wants a fake Rolex for his birthday due to the fact that he thinks it's cool to own something purchases from a guy in Battery Park with a briefcase of watches.


i am just curious, why would he think it would be cool to own a purchase from some dubious seller?


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

acidicboy said:


> i am just curious, why would he think it would be cool to own a purchase from some dubious seller?


Because he's a boy and from the suburbs and because he's 11. :icon_smile:


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

*Teach the children*

Sounds like a good time to help him to differentiate between quality and junk, between "cool" and responsible, and between right and wrong. A teachable moment, as they say


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

In America many car insurance companies support the use of replica/fake parts in the repair of foreign and domestic cars. These parts are cheaper .
Saving the insurance companies money but at the same time the parts are not as well made as orginial equipment. Many car distributors sell fake parts across the counter to customers knowing the reliablity of the parts are questionable.
Customers that are not aware of fake parts installed in their cars supported by American insurance companies. Some American car insurance companies 
will install only fake parts ! 
My point is that fake/replica goods are a part of the American experience watches is only a small part of that experience. At least the buyer makes an informed deision when purchasing a fake/replica watch , not so when having 
his or hers car repaired with fake parts supported by his American car insurance company. Is your newly installed brake pads orginal or fakes ?


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

I'm afraid you simply are missing the point. If these autoparts fraudulantly had the name or logo of another other manufacturer on them, if they violated the patent or trademark holders rights, or if they were being sold as being made by another manufacturer when in fact they were not...they would be _*unlawful*_ in the UK and in the US.

The analogy here is that the auto insurance companies may say you can -- or recommend that you do -- replace the equivalent of a Rolex with a Seiko because they both tell time equivalently...but in no circumstances would they countenance replacing it with an illegal copy that has the trademark of another manufacturer. In the US and the UK, if they knowingly supplied such an part, they would be breaking the law as well.

You are certainly free to buy cheap watches that are similar in appearance to more reputable luxury brands that sell their products at a much higher price. But the watches we are discussing here are _*counterfeits *_ and their trafficking is *illegal* in most parts of the world.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> My point is that fake/replica goods are a part of the American experience watches is only a small part of that experience. At least the buyer makes an informed deision when purchasing a fake/replica watch , not so when having
> his or hers car repaired with fake parts supported by his American car insurance company. Is your newly installed brake pads orginal or fakes ?


I think there may be a small flaw in your argument:
Automobile parts are made to specification for a particular vehicle. I'm not sure who makes my brake pads but I'm sure that Lexus (Toyota to a larger degree) contracts with different manufacturers for its OEM parts. Toyota designs and engineers the vehicle and then contracts out parts to be put together to make the vehicle. These parts are made to specification for that particular vehicle. "Fake" brake pads would imply that the brake pads are not really brake pads but something made to look like brake pads however not perform the same way.

A "fake" Rolex or Patek or whatever other watch is a different story. These fakes/replicas are not made to the same specification yet designed to deceive as to what they really are. They neither perform nor have the same inherent quality/value as the genuine article. The implication being that whomever buys the watch without knowledge as to its origin thinks he is getting the real thing.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*replica watch*

Gentleman, There are many fake car parts for especially European cars , wheels , brakes , rotors , etc. The German car manufacters tend to control their parts distribution much better than the Japanese and Americans resulting in fake parts for German cars especially for high-end BMW , Mercedes , Porsche and Audi.
The OEM parts are legit but not off the shelf parts made in Asia and Latin America. The brake pads are brake pads as fake watches are watches.
The quality of the fake pads are suspect as are fake watches. Some fake brake pads are better than others as is the case in fake watches.
As discussed earlier some fake watches uses the same inards as the legit watches.
Many car owners when having their cars repaired by other than dealers run the risk of fake parts being used , this is supported by many American insurance companies as it saves money. Since most American car owners knows little about their cars this is a little know practice. How do many of you know when a fake is used when your car shop is replacing a part after an accident ? Buyer beware !!! UK car owners are for more sophiscated than American car owners. A fake is a fake whether it is a brake pad , watch , or 
diamond.


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

Prophete-Faux said:


> Sir, with respect, I'm trying to make some fairly complex points about the difference between what is objectively legal and what is morally and teleologically desirable. Of course, I'm doing it with plenty of opinons and more than a little mischief, but I'm not sure that's the charge against me!
> 
> If I were to take a trite point in response, I might say that it is beyond argument that Patent laws are killing children in the Third World (ie, by inhibiting the production of cheap generic anti-retroviral drugs to combat AIDS etc), and they are "immoral" and must be changed for that reason alone. I'd prefer not to place it in such black-and-white terms, however.
> 
> ...


Your AIDS drug example makes no sense. If new drugs were sold without payment to the patent holder, drug companies would not invest in the R&D to develop new drugs. Accordingly, AIDS drugs would be unavailable to all, not just the poor in Africa.


----------



## joeyzaza (Dec 9, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Gentleman, There are many fake car parts for especially European cars , wheels , brakes , rotors , etc. The German car manufacters tend to control their parts distribution much better than the Japanese and Americans resulting in fake parts for German cars especially for high-end BMW , Mercedes , Porsche and Audi.
> The OEM parts are legit but not off the shelf parts made in Asia and Latin America. The brake pads are brake pads as fake watches are watches.
> The quality of the fake pads are suspect as are fake watches. Some fake brake pads are better than others as is the case in fake watches.
> As discussed earlier some fake watches uses the same inards as the legit watches.
> ...


They are not fake parts. They are replacement parts and they are sold legally in this country. I am not aware of anyone manufacturing a fake Lexus car and selling it as a knock off. If you are, please let us know. That would be a valid comparison.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Many car owners when having their cars repaired by other than dealers run the risk of fake parts being used , this is supported by many American insurance companies as it saves money. Since most American car owners knows little about their cars this is a little know practice. How do many of you know when a fake is used when your car shop is replacing a part after an accident ? Buyer beware !!! UK car owners are for more sophiscated than American car owners. A fake is a fake whether it is a brake pad , watch , or diamond.


Such Non-OEM (Original Equipment Manufactured) automobile parts are not _fake_ parts. They are simply replacement parts made by another manufacturer. Some such automobile body replacement parts are equal, better, or worse than Original Equipment Manufactured (OEM) parts. Regardless, they are not counterfeit and regulations do exist to assure their proper usage. In California, for instance, state law requires that the use of aftermarket parts must be identified on repair invoices. State law also requires that the type of each automobile part used in repairs must be identified on the repair invoice as being one of the following: new, used, reconditioned, rebuilt, or an OEM crash part, or a non-OEM aftermarket crash part. Moreover, insurance companies are required under the Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations to warrant that replacement parts are of like kind, quality, safety, fit, and performance as that of original equipment manufacturer replacement crash parts.

In no state is it permissible to manufacturer or sell a product in violation of federal patent, trademark, or copyright laws.


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

I agree, "aftermarket" parts are in no way replicas I would for instance never use OEM brake pads in my Porsche as they would be next to useless, instead I get to buy pads that are twice as expensive and last half as long...

There is however a teaming fake aircraft parts market. This is a huge problem as the parts are sold as legit. How would you like your left engine to sieze and fall off at 30,000 feet becasue your airline didn't do its due dilligence and bought fake parts?


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

*Back to Watches*

To me, the question is simply this:

If someone stole a Rolex watch and offered it to you at a really good price, would you buy it?

Counterfeiters are _stealing_ Rolex watches. They are taking their name, their image, and their legally protected trademarks without compensation and selling them to others for a profit. Justifying your purchase of such counterfeit commodities by saying Rolexes cost too much, or the fakes are almost as good, or no one can tell the difference, or everyone should be able to tell the difference may make you feel better. But it doesn't change the basic fact that you are a recipient of stolen goods!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> To me, the question is simply this:
> 
> If someone stole a Rolex watch and offered it to you at a really good price, would you buy it?
> 
> Counterfeiters are _stealing_ Rolex watches. They are taking their name, their image, and their legally protected trademarks without compensation and selling them to others for a profit. Justifying your purchase of such counterfeit commodities by saying Rolexes cost too much, or the fakes are almost as good, or no one can tell the difference, or everyone should be able to tell the difference may make you feel better. But it doesn't change the basic fact that you are a recipient of stolen goods!


So why would guys on the street sell them for $5 or $10 instead of what you pay in the stores?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Replica/fake watches are not stolen but manufactured in Switzerland , China , Mexico , Russia , and several other far eastern countries. There ae car parts that include the names of car companies parts that are sold as ligit. Wheels , engine parts , and transmission parts to name a few. Many of the car clubs such as Porsche and BMW has warned their owners to beware of these fake parts, especially wheels. 
Mr. Mithras how would you like your Porsche wheels to crack while driving at speed ? You are careful but others might choose to buy the fakes maybe because they are cheaper or they may think there is little difference between the Porsche wheels, OEM or fakes.
People buy replicas/fakes because they choose to. there is a fake for everything , Why pick on the poor fake watches. I didn't steal my replica watch I sent off for it and used a Visa credit card to pay for it. There was a return policy and warranty. So for after two years it has kept excellent time.
I would not buy fake wheels are car parts because of the safety factor.
I wonder if any of you have copied any software to save a dollar here and there. Would that not be using someone property without just compensation ?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Sounds like a good time to help him to differentiate between quality and junk, between "cool" and responsible, and between right and wrong. A teachable moment, as they say


Yes, sort of like a Bizarro World version of that Patek Philippe ad with the kid and the (authentic) watch from a few years ago.

PF, you raise interesting points. Unfortunately, online discussion tends to beer-goggle one's interlocutors.


----------



## ChriO (Feb 23, 2006)

A little snippet from Interpol:



> International trade in counterfeit products is estimated to exceed six per cent of global trade. It is not only damaging to business and investment opportunities, but also has severe implications for society, public health and the global economy. Counterfeits can now be found in almost every market area, including pharmaceuticals, automotive parts, luxury goods and DVDs.


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

joeyzaza said:


> Your AIDS drug example makes no sense. If new drugs were sold without payment to the patent holder, drug companies would not invest in the R&D to develop new drugs. Accordingly, AIDS drugs would be unavailable to all, not just the poor in Africa.


As I said, it's not my example at all, but one proffered repeatedly by academics, by human rights organisations, and indeed, by judges and lawyers whom I've been fortunate enough to attend conferences with. (EDIT: Although come to think of it, I did spend about a year researching aspects of medical ethics. Zing!)

The issue is, again, the fact that markets are not interchangable. Poor third-worlders cannot afford expensive brand-name drugs. They will never be able to. If they are provided with generic drugs, the large companies will not lose any business, as they weren't getting any in the first place.

(Likewise, LV doesn't lose business from people who would never buy $800 bags purchasing replicas, ditto Patek and $20K watches, ditto myself with people photocopying my work who would otherwise never have purchased the book anyway).

In any case, it is a false argument to say that noone would develop products if there weren't patents. What it might lead to is some actual competition on price and quality, rather than the proliferation of near-monopolies on particular types of drug. There would be significant competitive advantages to being the first with the latest (think the nuclear arms race - developing something first meant perfecting it first, and mass-producing it cheaply and easily first, even if the other side could belatedly copy the technology), although the profit margins would invariably lessen.

This leads to an question which is perhaps beyond the scope of the discussion, but which I'll put forward anyway, now that we're on the topic. If smaller profits (not none at all, but merely less) means more lives saved, would anyone really argue that's a bad thing?

EDIT: I just looked at my original post. Shall I assume that my request that "the next person to reply attempted to answer some of the ideas I put forward, rather than simply presuming that I can't possibly know what I'm talking about" fell upon deaf ears?


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

This isn't about smaller profit margins to save human lives..it's about a rip-off artists counterfeiting legitimate goods to make a profit for their own pockets...and breaking the laws of numerous nations to do so.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

medwards said:


> _Donning moderator hat:_
> 
> This discussion has wavered between one appropriate to the Fashion Forum (the propriety of wearing certain attire and accessories) and one that should be pursued in The Interchange (the nature of copyright, patents and trademarks and their merit in international commerce). As this thread has wavered, so too have I as to whether to keep it here or move it.
> 
> I believe this discussion has now crossed over to an Interchange topic. If the focus remains the appropriateness of intellectual property laws, that is undoubtedly where it will end up. It is certainly appropriate to discuss the issues that are now being debated, but we should do so in the proper Forum.


Sounds like we are firmly in Interchange territory now! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Prophete-Faux (Feb 18, 2006)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> This isn't about smaller profit margins to save human lives..it's about a rip-off artists counterfeiting legitimate goods to make a profit for their own pockets...and breaking the laws of numerous nations to do so.


My point was that this is a clear example of how laws can say one thing, but morality may dictate something else. It is an extreme example, but it seems like a starting point to accept that there may be flaws in IP law.

If you agree with me, even in this limited sense, then I think we've opened the door to a broader consideration of the appropriateness of all sorts of IP law. What I sought to do through the example was break down the syllogism legal=absolutely right, illegal=absolutely wrong. If things were that simple, there never would have been a debate in the first place. And likewise, it doesn't really advance the discussion to keep lobbing in the obvious truism "but it's _breaking the law_."

Are we now in agreement on that much, at least?

EDIT (Trying to keep in all in one post here):



> Counterfeiters are stealing Rolex watches. They are taking their name, their image, and their legally protected trademarks without compensation and selling them to others for a profit. Justifying your purchase of such counterfeit commodities by saying Rolexes cost too much, or the fakes are almost as good, or no one can tell the difference, or everyone should be able to tell the difference may make you feel better. But it doesn't change the basic fact that you are a recipient of stolen goods!


Okay, even if we are concerned about the semantics of the written law, this is plainly not true. The common law for several centuries (and yes, that's the basis of U.S. law, Canadian, Hong Kong, Australia, NZ etc etc) has recognised that stealing requires not only taking something, but depriving its rightful owner of the property. You cannot, by definition, steal something merely by copying it. You do not steal someone's image by photographing them in a compromising position in breach of their privacy (now their soul is another question, hehe), and you do not receive stolen property by reading a tabloid that prints those photos.

Again, I am analogising. Please, if you want to respond, respond to my major point rather than taking a swipe at my analogy!


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Sounds like we are firmly in Interchange territory now! :icon_smile_big:


Indeed you are!


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

RJman said:


> Yes, sort of like a Bizarro World version of that Patek Philippe ad with the kid and the (authentic) watch from a few years ago.
> 
> PF, you raise interesting points. Unfortunately, online discussion tends to beer-goggle one's interlocutors.


You never actually own a Canal Street Rolex...

... if it happens to be real, it legally belongs to someone else.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

P-F:

There are lots of laws with which individuals take issue. Few statutes are enacted by unanimous consent of the legislature or law-making body. Most are subject to great debate and differences of opinion about their language, degree of sanctions, and enforcement. Different communities come to different conclusions about the same matter. A law can be passed by a the slenderest of margins just as your Supreme Court can decide by a 5-4 vote. But once the decision is made, the law should -- indeed must -- be respected until the legislature or the courts change it.

Yes, there are often moral uncertainties. Sometimes laws are indeed broken to demonstrate their unjustness (think the American Civil Rights movement). But I find your Intellectual Property example far less compelling than one that occurs every day. A destitude man with a large family is wandering through a marketplace. There is food on a cart that is will not be sold that day and undoubtedly go to waste. The vendor will not have a customer for it (perhaps it's overripe or damaged) so the man puts it in his pocket (without paying) so that his children can eat. No harm was done to the farmer; perhaps a child's life was saved. But we don't dismantle our laws against theft because of this...nor do we encourage the unlawful behaviour. 

In the Intellectual Property example there are lots of ways societies can uphold the rights of the patent-holder and still make low cost drugs available to those in need. But the way we make these determinations is through careful thoughtful and appropriate legal action and decision-making...not by turning a blind eye to the law and wantonly disregarding it. The stolen Rolex or the counterfeit Rolex are both wrong.

By the way, I doubt that too many authors share your view that it is okay to sell or give away their work without any compensation to them. You, of course, are free to do so. But one would hope you would want to protect them from such an undermining of their rights and livelihood.


----------



## Cantabrigian (Aug 29, 2005)

*bungled design theft?*

Is it illegal if you try to steal the design but fail so miserably that no reasonable person can see that the fake bears any stylistic relation to the original?

e.g. from the site that Tripeed was looking it (watch-replica.net)

vs. the real one

The correctly spelled I-W-C and even got 'Schaffhausen' (which rather surprises me) but that's where the similarity stops.

It doesn't take much to realize that the original isn't a Eberhard-style chronograph...

Tripreed, if you do go fake - which I hope you won't - you may well be better off getting something on the street.


----------



## wolfgang42 (Aug 26, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> The vendor will not have a customer for it (perhaps it's overripe or damaged) so the man puts it in his pocket (without paying) so that his children can eat. No harm was done to the farmer; perhaps a child's life was saved. But we don't dismantle our laws against theft because of this...nor do we encourage the unlawful behaviour.


I think that part of the P-F's point is that most people would indeed condone just unlawful behavior, even if we don't dismantle our laws against theft as a result.

I think that the basic question is whether you accept the premise that one can act morally while breaking a law. If you think that abiding by the law is a necessary condition for behavior to be moral, then that's your right. But there are all sorts of very bad behaviors and outcomes that result from such a position.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

wolfgang42 said:


> I think that part of the P-F's point is that most people would indeed condone just unlawful behavior, even if we don't dismantle our laws against theft as a result.
> 
> I think that the basic question is whether you accept the premise that one can act morally while breaking a law. If you think that abiding by the law is a necessary condition for behavior to be moral, then that's your right. But there are all sorts of very bad behaviors and outcomes that result from such a position.


I do believe that following one's conscience and obeying the law can certainly be in conflict. For instance, I hope I would have aided and abetted Jewish fugitives from the Nazis regardless of the law, apartheid was -- and remains -- morally repugnant to me, I remain steadfast in my opposition to capital punishment, and I would undoubtedly break the speed limit to get a sick child to a hospital. I'm sure we could come up with a long list of hypotheticals that juxtaposition acting in accord with the law and acting in what one might view as a morally responsible manner. But I do believe that individuals must understand the consequences of their actions when violating the law and be prepared to accept those consequences. In democratic societies, we have mechanisms to try to change those laws that we feel are unjust, immoral, or inappropriate.

But none of these factors come to play -- at least to my mind -- in the underlying discussion which is the counterfeiting of watches.


----------



## wolfgang42 (Aug 26, 2005)

I don't disagree that your examples are far afield from the present discussion. And I agree that there's a real difference in moral weight between your examples and fake watches. But I think that the distinction gets to the heart of P-F's point, which is that the present IP system is not based on the protection of "property" in the same sense that laws against theft protect physical property. 

I think that it's possible to hold believe that intellectual property and physical property should (as a moral matter) be equally protected. But I don't think that it's necessary to come to such a conclusion, and I don't think that it's a particularly nuanced view to state (as some have in this thread) that violating IP laws is exactly the same as stealing a physical object. They're rather obviously different circumstances, even if one does conclude that they are equally wrong.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

I write a song, copyright it, and commit it to paper. Are you suggesting it is more egregious for someone to steal the hard copy of that work (property theft) than for him to take this song that I created and sell it a thousand times over with no compensation to me and while benefitting from the fruits of my labour undermine my ability to subsequently sell my own work (intellectual property theft) ? I would certainly argue they are both based on the protection of one's "property."


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Under US law, property is something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title.


----------



## wolfgang42 (Aug 26, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Are you suggesting it is more egregious for someone to steal the hard copy of that work (property theft) than for him to take this song that I created and sell it a thousand times over with no compensation to me and while benefitting from the fruits of my labour undermine my ability to subsequently sell my own work (intellectual property theft) ?


While I certainly see the counter-argument, my short answer is yes.

If the hard copy is stolen, you are deprived of both the physical object and the musical contents. Someone else wrongfully benefits, but (to me) the most egregious aspect is your deprivation an inability to use your (physical) property. If your song is copied and sold a thousand times over, but you retain it (in whatever form), you still have the song, and can do with it as you please. You're deprived of nothing save a government-created "right" to exclude others' uses.

While I don't doubt that the latter is circumstance involves illegal behavior, I'm not at all sure that it involves immoral behavior.


----------



## Mr. Chatterbox (May 1, 2005)

wolfgang42 said:


> While I certainly see the counter-argument, my short answer is yes. If the hard copy is stolen, you are deprived of both the physical object and the musical contents. Someone else wrongfully benefits, but (to me) the most egregious aspect is your deprivation an inability to use your (physical) property. If your song is copied and sold a thousand times over, but you retain it (in whatever form), you still have the song, and can do with it as you please. You're deprived of nothing save a government-created "right" to exclude others' uses.


Let me try this example. You have worked your entire life -- night and day -- to develop a process that will turn dirt into energy. After years of enormous effort and great personal expense, you succeed. You have invested time, money and all of your intellectual capacity in this endeavour. But it was worth it. The value of this formula is enormous and you protect it through the appropriate intellectual property laws of your nation. You write the formula down on a piece of paper. Unfortunately, someone (perhaps the counterfeiter of luxury watches with a little extra time on his hands) sneaks in at night and steals that piece of paper. What is it worth? Just the penny that it costs for the physical paper itself? I would think not. The value is in the content that is on that paper and if someone steals that content -- whether they do so by taking the piece of paper itself or just copying the information contained thereon-- they have committed theft. Property -- as medwards notes above -- can be tangible or intangible. I personally do not see how that makes a difference.


----------



## wolfgang42 (Aug 26, 2005)

Mr. Chatterbox said:


> Unfortunately, someone (perhaps the counterfeiter of luxury watches with a little extra time on his hands) sneaks in at night and steals that piece of paper. What is it worth?


I agree that the paper is worth far more than the physical medium. But to address your point, I would also agree that the thief behaves immorally even if he only copies the paper in the dead of night, leaves the original, absconds with the copy, and then monetizes the invention. But that's a function of all elements of your scenario. I don't reach that conclusion simply because what the thief does is illegal under the present IP regime, or because he copied the invention. It's a function of the effort expended to invent the machine, the effort of the thief to acquire it, and the benefit that innures to both people.

I would simply argue that the morality of many actions is a complex calculus, that the current status of IP law isn't a terribly good guideline. Patents are handed out like candy, and the patent term is wholly arbitrary and general. Copyrights that were due to expire decades ago are regularly extended by a Congress that is bought, lock stock and barrel, by the corporate IP holders.

I'm not a watch afficianado, and I haven't the foggiest idea how much (or little) work goes into the development and manufacture of the products. But in other industries, rights-holders are granted absurd monopolies on the basis of little or no effort.

I'm sure that medwards' point regarding the definition of property rights (including intellectual property rights) under current law is correct. But if we 
agree that moral behavior does not always parallel legal requirements, it's unclear to me how this statement gets us far down the road of weighing whether or not it's ethical/moral to buy a fake watch.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

*Computer IP*



wolfgang42 said:


> Patents are handed out like candy, and the patent term is wholly arbitrary and general. Copyrights that were due to expire decades ago are regularly extended by a Congress that is bought, lock stock and barrel, by the corporate IP holders.


For some great examples of the US's silly patent system, you need look no further than your web browser. Some of the dumbest patents are for obvious and trivial web features, like banner ads, web shopping, user feedback, embedded audio, you name it. Someone tried to patent the idea of animated gifs on a web page, even though they had not developed the animated gif, or the web browser, or any part of the web/http protocol.

If you can patent using a FORM html command to create, well, a web form, you can patent anything, especially if someone else has already invented it. Ugh.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

I think the comparison of a replica designer good to a print of a painting by a famous artist is faulty.

No one is going to think you have an original Van Gogh on your wall because you have framed a print (maybe if you have a copy painted and you have the means to convincingly portray the copy as a real painting) but visitors will simply think you like Van Gogh and have a very good copy in that case as well. I have prints because that is what I can afford, but nobody would be fooled. 

However, the intent of counterfeit watches and other luxury goods such as bags is to deceive people into thinking that you are actually wearing a Rolex or carrying a Louis Vuitton bag, unless you settle upon gazing on the replica in privacy so you can admire the "workmanship".

Given the ubiquity of fakes, however, most people whom you encounter will probably assume that you are displaying a fake, so the exercise would defeat the whole purpose anyway, kind of like parking that Testarossa in front of a tract house. "Why did Bob in accounts, who makes $55k a year, buy a $12k watch?" 

I think the only really good reason to have a fake/replica is if you're worried about the original being stolen, but a beautiful watch doesn't give you much pleasure if it is locked in a safe.


----------

