Landwind X7 - nice!
Discussion
yonex said:
There's nothing clever about copying someone's work using cheap labour and components. LR don't need to sue....
Again, you are missing the point, and demonstrating ignorance. JLR cannot sue even if they wanted to. We bestow upon brands and companies we recognise some kind of deference, but this incident proves that they make mistakes.It is neither here nor there how the Landwind X7 compares to the Evoque dynamically. The point is that the feigned outrage in this topic at the copying of the design is misplaced as JLR had the ability to prevent it but the incompetence and igorance of their lawyers let them down.
If Landwind (who have manufacturing tie-ins with Ford incidentally) can now make some money out of this because of its resemblance to an Evoque then I don't see them being too worried.
r11co said:
Again, you are missing the point, and demonstrating ignorance. JLR cannot sue even if they wanted to. We bestow upon brands and companies we recognise some kind of deference, but this incident proves that they make mistakes.
It is neither here nor there how the Landwind X7 compares to the Evoque dynamically. The point is that the feigned outrage in this topic at the copying of the design is misplaced as JLR had the ability to prevent it but the incompetence and igorance of their lawyers let them down.
If Landwind (who have manufacturing tie-ins with Ford incidentally) can now make some money out of this because of its resemblance to an Evoque then I don't see them being too worried.
Ignorance, really? I am pointing out that the vehicle in question is a disposable piece of tat, one which will likely have little in the way of backup and the only reason it will sell is because it looks like something else and is very cheap. As I pointed out, LR need not worry about this, even if under patent the Chinese would have likely made a dogs ear out of something else anyway, that is how they 'innovate'. It is neither here nor there how the Landwind X7 compares to the Evoque dynamically. The point is that the feigned outrage in this topic at the copying of the design is misplaced as JLR had the ability to prevent it but the incompetence and igorance of their lawyers let them down.
If Landwind (who have manufacturing tie-ins with Ford incidentally) can now make some money out of this because of its resemblance to an Evoque then I don't see them being too worried.
yonex said:
Ignorance, really? I am pointing out that the vehicle in question is a disposable piece of tat, one which will likely have little in the way of backup and the only reason it will sell is because it looks like something else and is very cheap.
A presumptuous statement based on nothing but prejudice, which is ironic because JLR made presumptions about the laws of a nation and market they were entering.You can bleat all you want, but this incident underlines that there are other ways to do business that are clear and transparent and will work for you if you are prepared to learn and understand them, and will bite you squarely on the arse if you are too stupid or hubristic.
This is not how the Chinese innovate - this is how they make money by which they drag an almost non-existent peasant economy into one we can only dream of in less than a decade. Once they have that money they can then burn it on R+D and your righteousness about the whole thing will make not a jot of difference.
drivin_me_nuts said:
Unless my memory is particularly wonky today, didn't the Chinese do this with an X5 a few years ago that when on to do a particularly god job at dissolving itself within a couple of years.
40 years ago the Japanese were doing the exact same thing, with the same reputation.Edited by r11co on Thursday 23 April 17:23
r11co said:
40 years ago the Japanese were doing the exact same thing, with the same reputation.
Just a couple of questions. How long have you worked in China and with Chinese companies. I take it you have also seen the various copies running about the streets in Russia? Lastly, how long have you been involved in prividing technical solutions in a Weatern manufacturer and have seen erosion of your industry eventually leading to a full circle of investment back into the original supplier, because, the 'copy' didn't perform and had no support.Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 April 17:23
It'll be interesting to see if actually have any experience or if you are basing your opinions on other things...
yonex said:
and have seen erosion of your industry eventually leading to a full circle of investment back into the original supplier, because, the 'copy' didn't perform and had no support.
That's just market forces, and if it does happen then the people making the cheaper alternatives have to up their game or go out of business.This is the thing I don't get - 'western' industries are all cosy and protected in their own territories by legislation they lobbied governments at various levels to get implemented. Then they venture into other territories because they want a slice of the pie there and get burnt because the arrangements are different and they didn't do their homework.
I'll remind you of the point here - JLR failed to get their patent application for the design of the Evoque in on time with the relevant Chinese authorities. They had six months from first revealing the design in China to get it in (better arrangements than many 'western' nations) and missed the deadline by 2 months. The consequences of failing to file the patent were clearly stated in the relevant legislation.
Us 'back home' get all uppity because of our ignorance of the situation, accusing these nations of lawlessness when they are nothing of the kind, they just operate differently. At the same time our economy crumbles because we've become too complacent in our own wee sand box.
If cheaper 'copy' does the job it'll get the business. If it doesn't then it won't, but ultimately that is not the point here. Won't stop people like yourself raising it as a red herring though...
Edited by r11co on Thursday 23 April 19:10
A good website for following the state of the Chinese car industry/market IMO
http://www.carnewschina.com/
I don't think people quite realize the scale of the market... nor the number of manufacturer's battling it out.
http://www.carnewschina.com/
I don't think people quite realize the scale of the market... nor the number of manufacturer's battling it out.
r11co said:
That's just market forces, and if it does happen then the people making the cheaper alternatives have to up their game or go out of business.
This is the thing I don't get - 'western' industries are all cosy and protected in their own territories by legislation they lobbied governments at various levels to get implemented. Then they venture into other territories because they want a slice of the pie there and get burnt because the arrangements are different and they didn't do their homework. I'll remind you of the point here - JLR failed to get their patent application for the design of the Evoque in on time with the relevant Chinese authorities. They had six months from first revealing the design in China to do get it in (better arrangements than many 'western' nations) and missed the deadline by 2 months, and the consequences of this clearly stated in the relevant legislation.
Us 'back home' get all uppity because of it, while at the same time our economy crumbles because we've become too complacent in our own wee sand box.
If cheaper 'copy' does the job it'll get the business. If it doesn't then it won't. Simples.
Again, please state your actual experience of the market and industry? You're making some pretty bold claims, what are they founded upon??This is the thing I don't get - 'western' industries are all cosy and protected in their own territories by legislation they lobbied governments at various levels to get implemented. Then they venture into other territories because they want a slice of the pie there and get burnt because the arrangements are different and they didn't do their homework. I'll remind you of the point here - JLR failed to get their patent application for the design of the Evoque in on time with the relevant Chinese authorities. They had six months from first revealing the design in China to do get it in (better arrangements than many 'western' nations) and missed the deadline by 2 months, and the consequences of this clearly stated in the relevant legislation.
Us 'back home' get all uppity because of it, while at the same time our economy crumbles because we've become too complacent in our own wee sand box.
If cheaper 'copy' does the job it'll get the business. If it doesn't then it won't. Simples.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 April 19:01
yonex said:
Again, please state your actual experience of the market and industry? You're making some pretty bold claims, what are they founded upon??
Again - irrelevant to the argument. JLR failed to follow due procedure when registering a patent and so their design fell into the Chinese equivalent of public domain ('existing design' as they call it). Another manufacturer (legally) exploited JLR's mistake.A lot of the 'copying' that goes on with products in China is because many 'western' companies incorrectly assume that intellectual property law is the same as in their own territories, which very often means little or no action is required to copyright a visual design. In China a specific application has to be made, and providing that is done a design will get the full protection of the law there.
What exactly has your question got to do with that?
Edited by r11co on Thursday 23 April 19:21
but im cheap as chips.r11co said:
That is a separate argument, but by all means conflate the two issues if it makes you feel righteous, but the fact remains China is eating the industrial establishments' lunch because they just aren't clever enough to compete. JLR will start no legal proceedings against Landwind over the X7 because they know they have already lost, not because of an injustice, but because of their ignorance of the laws of a country they thought they could exploit.
Talking of ignorance, it seems you are unaware of the difference between a patent and copyright.Mr2Mike said:
Talking of ignorance, it seems you are unaware of the difference between a patent and copyright.
Lost in translation! In China a patent application (nearest translation) is used to protect intellectual property such as visual designs, logos etc. that our law would separate out as copyright items. So effectively no distinction between them there!See - this is the point. The error is made because people assume that everything is done the way they are used to in their own familiar environment.
yonex said:
r11co said:
40 years ago the Japanese were doing the exact same thing, with the same reputation.
Just a couple of questions. How long have you worked in China and with Chinese companies. I take it you have also seen the various copies running about the streets in Russia? Lastly, how long have you been involved in prividing technical solutions in a Weatern manufacturer and have seen erosion of your industry eventually leading to a full circle of investment back into the original supplier, because, the 'copy' didn't perform and had no support.Edited by r11co on Thursday 23 April 17:23
It'll be interesting to see if actually have any experience or if you are basing your opinions on other things...
J4CKO said:
I think you missed his point, think he was saying the Japanese were producing knockoffs and were a watchword for crap but that isnt the case now, the Chinese will move on from producing crap knockoffs of western designs, to average, to credible to pretty decent like the Japanese did and potentially become a market leader with their own, less flagrantly stolen designs and I think it may happen more quickly than the Japanese thing due to the internet and the world being that bit smaller.
They are already there with mobile phones.
r11co said:
Again - irrelevant to the argument. JLR failed to follow due procedure when registering a patent and so their design fell into the Chinese equivalent of public domain ('existing design' as they call it). Another manufacturer (legally) exploited JLR's mistake.
A lot of the 'copying' that goes on with products in China is because many 'western' companies incorrectly assume that intellectual property law is the same as in their own territories, which very often means little or no action is required to copyright a visual design. In China a specific application has to be made, and providing that is done a design will get the full protection of the law there.
What exactly has your question got to do with that?
Well when a preacher hasn't read the Bible.....A lot of the 'copying' that goes on with products in China is because many 'western' companies incorrectly assume that intellectual property law is the same as in their own territories, which very often means little or no action is required to copyright a visual design. In China a specific application has to be made, and providing that is done a design will get the full protection of the law there.
What exactly has your question got to do with that?
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 April 19:21
yonex said:
Well when a preacher hasn't read the Bible.....
Someone else covered that already...KAgantua said:
If you dont work for NASA, you aren't qualified to say the sky is blue, innit.
but you still keep coming back to questioning my experience, which has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion of how Land Rover made a 
of their patent application leading to one of their designs falling into Chinese public domain.But hey, they and you must be right because when asked I didn't lay out my CV for you to peruse.
Even if I was the Chinese ambassador to the UK it wouldn't change the facts.
Edited by r11co on Thursday 23 April 20:47
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff