by Steve » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:26 am
I understand that the company PR rep sold it to you as protecting the consumers. And you certainly have the option of buying that statement as truth.
From the outset, I wholeheartedly support the rights of IP owners. I'm most of the way through a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I have a vested interest in protecting IP rights, since I (hopefully) will end up being able to sell things I have designed in a manner that benefits me. I don't blame KRISS, in fact I totally support them in fighting IP infringement. IP rights are what, fundamentally, support innovation. When I design a Cool Thing(tm), there are research costs associated with it. When I manufacture it, I am paying for tools, tooling, materials, labor, all sorts of costs. When some jackal reverse-engineers it, they don't have to recover those research costs. They can cut costs with substandard materials, hire cheaper labor. The out-the-door cost of a knockoff product can be a ton less than it costs me to produce a first-rate original. And every time some useless douchebag kid buys a knockoff eotech, for example, they are rewarding the jackals at the expense of the innovators. If it happens enough, the original producers don't recoup their design costs, and they go under.
There are arguments against this view. With the Eotechs, for example, it is highly unlikely that a 15-year old is going to drop twice what they paid for their AEG on a real holographic sight. They have an effectively fixed budget that realistically means even if the knockoff product was not available for sale, they would never buy the real product. Therefore, L3 communications doesn't suffer any harm from the existence of the knockoff. That, however, is bullshit.
The value of a product is the point where the price the producer is willing to sell an item for matches the price that consumers are willing to purchase the product for. If there are a bunch of knockoff products available for a fifth of the price of an original, it devalues the original. And when a knockoff product is visually identical to an original, even if someone knows that it's a knockoff, flaws from the knockoff carry over in the mind of the customer to the original. For example, the knockoff Eotechs I have handled have been red dots, not holographic sights. With a red dot, you center the reticle in the window, zero it, and then when you shoot it, you center the reticle in the window. With a holosight, you center the reticle in the window, zero it, and when you shoot it you put the dot on the target regardless of where the reticle is in the window. There are reasons why L3 Communications can charge $500+ for an Eotech. If your experience has been with a red dot pretending to be a holosight, and you don't know any better, then the Eotechs have been artificially devalued.
KRISS in apparently in the position of having functionally equivalent, if lower quality, knockoff products in the same market space as their own. When a knockoff product is purchased, they can realistically show that the infringer caused monetary damages. When a knockoff shits the bed, they can make a case that it devalues their brand image. Shutting down infringers clearly benefits KRISS. What I'm not seeing is a way that they can make a case that their actions are undertaken in order to benefit their customers. What I'm also not seeing is how the OP could evaluate the available data and come to the conclusion that IP enforcement on the part of KRISS benefits the customers.
Now, there are cases where this happens, and can be demonstrably proven. Years ago, LASD bought a bunch of MP-5s. got a good deal on them. They started breaking. They shipped them back to HK, who repaired them and returned them to LASD. These same MP-5s broke again. HK fixed them, sent them back. On their third go-around, HK dug into them a bit deeper. Turns out they were knockoffs produced in some shit village in Pakistan.
HK could make a case that shutting those folks down is in the interest of their customers. The customers legitimately believed that they were purchasing HK products and were willing to spend the money that it costs to buy HK products. The products failed in a manner that made HK look bad in the eyes of their customers, devaluing the brand image. The products were unsafe.
If the folks at KRISS can demonstrate that the infringers are producing unfit products and convincing buyers that the products were produced by, and warranteed by, KRISS, I could see a case being made for undertaking IP enforcement to protect their customers. Unless and until this is demonstrated, I must respectfully suggest that the OP is either a company shill or lacks basic critical thinking skills. Again, the title is aggressively misleading.
This Week In Airsoft wrote:This Week in Airsoft stands behind its statement... The internet and YouTube can be your teacher.
