Sincerest Form Of Flattery? Copies Of Apple Stores So Convincing Even Employees Think They Work For Apple
from the they-can-hang-out-with-fake-nec-employees dept
Five years ago, we wrote about how counterfeiters in China weren't just making fake NEC products, but had built an entire fake NEC office, which basically acted as if it were the real NEC. They coordinated manufacturing with 50 different factories, employees carried NEC business cards and here's the kicker: they developed new product lines that the real NEC later admitted were "of generally good quality." So it came as little surprise -- as mowgs and probably 50 others of you submitted -- to hear that there are totally fake Apple stores popping up around China, which look like the real thing -- and have even fooled some employees who think they're working for the real Apple. Of course, this is the kind of thing where trademark law actually makes sense -- where consumers are at a high likelihood of being confused about the true origin of the goods they're buying. On the whole, though, I find somewhat fascinating the levels that folks in China are going to in order to copy other companies. If you're going to put in that much effort, why not just put up your own store?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, fake stores
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
With Apple declining to comment, does this mean they're afraid of tackling China's IPR/Copyright laws OR that they're happy to supply these stores as long as they make their money, knowing that if any product is faulty Apple can then not honour the warranty agreement by ways of the item being purchased in an unofficial/illegal store?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Talk about missing the obvious
Because, duh, branding is everything and makes you big money. Come on Mike, you're normally sharper than this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How You Can Tell They’re Fake ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'll believe that China is going through a phase of massive growth and the rules have yet to change into the IP quagmire that we in the US currently have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Talk about missing the obvious
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why Not
Different culture - less individualistic - a westerner would instinctively want their own name on it but in the far east they think differently.
Remember the expression "a Chinese copy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Come on Mike, are you really making this comment???? It's much easier to start a business with a fanmous brand than a busness from scratch. The owner will not have to invest much in advertisement because the trademark owner already did!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
So I now consider Mike to have accepted the principle of copyright, argument is only about where to draw the line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
Trademark is quite different from copyright - even Richard Stallman regards trademark as not objectionable (at least in principle.)
Trademark infringement is a form of deception (ie fraud) whereas copyright infringement does not require any deception.
Remember that the victim of trademark infringement is the public - not the trademark holder.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"If you're going to put in that much effort..."
Those (3 out of 8 so far) who seem startled that Mike asked that really need to check their premises that he's some fount of wisdom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My guess is that the products are knock-offs. C'mon, didn't anyone hear about the counterfeit toothpaste?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How You Can Tell They’re Fake ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
But larger, like copyright, trademark (which I'M not against) establishes ownership of an /idea/; in trademark it's generally a physical product line plus the business's reputation from manufacturing that product, but it IS "intellectual property" and IS inconsistent to /simply/ say it's entirely different.
I'm sure that you don't agree that I should be able to take the works of, oh, JK Rowling, and foist them off on some unsuspecting new people with my own name on them... (Spare me how it'd be discovered, I state that isn't the case so as to illuminate that fraud can exist in copying too.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not create your own store? Because customers want the foreign brands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the sense of produced in the same factory by the same workers using the same materials - but just not part of the contract with Apple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
Please don't confuse the prohibition of copying in academia (ie plagiarism) with copyright. Plagiarism is prohibited because it is fraud - not because it is easy.
If you want to get anywhere in this debate you have to think a bit more precisely about things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who here has EVER stated the reputation doesn't exist? The position of this site has ALWAYS been that reputation is a scarcity you can sell.
It's actually why, unless we're all misunderstanding what he was saying, Mike's question that everyone's been piling on is definitely suspect....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So everyone jumped on Mike for this line, but I was thinking the same thing. If you're going to copy Apple (or NEC) so perfectly, why not spend the same effort negotiating to open an actual Apple or NEC store.
I think everyone interpreted Mike to mean 'why not ignore the brand and go solo,' but I interpreted it differently.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
The public is not always the victim. If you, for example, go out and buy a faux Hermes handbag that you know is a faux Hermes handbag, then you're certainly not worse off, since you know what you're buying and Hermes isn't worse off, since you wouldn't have been able to buy one of their bags anyways. It's a victimless crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
No it doesn't. It establishes an association between a name or Logo and a person, company or geographical region. What is more that association is only valid within a given field of business, and for one off businesses a given location.
That is why you can have Lotus cars, Lotus shoes, Lotus S/w and several different Lotus flower restaurants in diffeent towns and there is no conflict.
Trademark is not violated so long as the public is not misled about the origin of goods and services.
It is similar to plagiarism in that - if you claim you wrote Hamlet you commit plagiarism but not copyright infringement - whereas if you try to sell bootleg copies of JK Rowling's work, whilst clearly identifying her as the author then you commit copyright infringement but no plagiarism or trademark infringement.
See the difference yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
After all the same things happen with paintings, antiques etc and no- one bothers so long as there is no attempt to deceive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Quote:
Source: http://www.popsci.com/iclone?page=1
Also some if not all components of the iPhone are full property of Asian countries, Apple does pay royalties to the Chinese already.
Quote:
Source: http://www.popsci.com/iclone?page=4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm sure the Chinese often say things like "why did that US company go to all that trouble to make a new type of widget when they could have copied the Acme widget and saved themselves the trouble."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Would not it be very simple to simply go into a side deal with the manufacture to maybe double the quantity bordered and the sell the overage locally in a sudo Apple store.
Profit would then come from purchasing Apple products below Apple's cost, Apple's corporate profit that would be repatriated to the US, and the local store profit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
It may just be that I am colouring what I read with my own opinions, but it seems to me that most people here aren't actually anti-copyright but rather 'anti-copyright-law-abuse'. The difference is in how the IP is actually being applied => to prevent 'vaguely similar' products rather then just 'actual' copies, and against 'personal use' copies rather then 'for profit' copies.
Attempting to create a similar photograph to the one your hero created should not be a crime unless you start mass producing it for sale.
Copying a song from the radio/internet is, at worst, a misdemeanor, not a capitol crime.
Customizing software for yourself or your friends should never be illegal. Even if you sell this as a service it should not be illegal.
Hopefully these examples are enough to get the point across.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: How You Can Tell They’re Fake ...
A bad fake store (with more user-friendly products) would say, "yes."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What's this? Tim Geigner appearing to engage me reasonably?
"There are white people, and then there are ignorant motherfuckers like you...."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/16071614792/misconceptions-free-abound-why-do- brains-stop-zero.shtml#c1869
Don't see how that can be taken as anything but racist ad hom, Timmy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's this? Tim Geigner appearing to engage me reasonably?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
No, it's a civil matter. The fact that you think it is criminal at all shows that they're making enough headway to be afraid of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Talk about missing the obvious
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
You're begging the question. You are assuming the term 'intellectual property' actually implies a similarity to show, using the term, that there's a similarity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Talk about missing the obvious
“…this is the kind of thing where trademark law actually makes sense -- where consumers are at a high likelihood of being confused about the true origin of the goods they're buying. . .. “
It is kind of like barry bonds. He was a hall of fame baseball player whether he did the steroids or not, the steroids just brought him up another level.
In this case the hard work and quality product is what keeps the customers coming back and allow them to believe it is an apple store; but the customer would not have walked through the door in the first place, without the Apple brand on the door.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
Unless it was a song released by Capitol Records
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
Crime is defined (from dictionary.com) as an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
Thus if a crime is committed we can reason that the victim is either a person, a group of persons or animal, an institution, organization, company or other such entity - public or private, or indeed morality itself. Including the morality of the perpetrator. There is no such thing as a victimless crime. Just like there is no such thing as free. Someone pays in the end, the middle or the beginning. In a crime, someone or something is hurt in the beginning, the middle or the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about missing the obvious
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lol @ Reuters
Reuters has the story and they claim that some "blog" made it famous. Luckily, you actually linked to the blog...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's this? Tim Geigner appearing to engage me reasonably?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
DH, why are you racist against us non-reptilian shapeshifter folk?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
no such thing as a victim less crime
wow
Not all "crimes" are equal (but that shreds you pretty badly)
I was always told imitation was most sincerest form of flattery
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: China heading toward "perfectly competitive"...
Wrong, there is such a thing as a victimless crime. In my country (Ireland) for example, it's a crime to drive without car insurance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: "If you're going to put in that much effort..."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
> comment???? It's much easier to start a
> business with a fanmous brand than a busness
> from scratch.
I could be wrong, but I took Mike's comment as "Why not just open a legitimate Apple Store franchise?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's this? Tim Geigner appearing to engage me reasonably?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How You Can Tell They’re Fake ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/18678/china_shuts_down_fake_apple_stoers_in_kunming
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Apple doesn't have a franchise store program, except perhaps in India. SEE: Apple Store Franchise
[ link to this | view in thread ]