Topic
Become a member to post in the forums.
.
"You are almost alone, I am afraid. Due process is almost a thing of the past but maybe we could reintroduce the idea; I am all for that."
I'm clearly looking at this from a legal perspective and don't understand where you're coming from. I ask without hostility, what does this mean to you and could you provide an example?
Well, if you are ok with me bringing up drones, then yes, I do have an example.
There have been at least 4 American citizens, one famous case the others not so much, that have been killed by drones without due process.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-08/obama-s-drone-attack-on-your-due-process.html
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/24/aclu-calls-bullshit-on-obamas-drone-spee
Well that's a whole other thread altogether!
I can't speak for Valerie but from reading her response, it seemed she's implying that the individual citizen should apply due process before judging the ebay vendor. To me, this isn't a case of being judgmental towards the vendor but one of using good judgment.
The trademark owner has stated the wind shirt is a counterfeit. There is no other information available to us at this time to dispute this. If the vendor or another source is willing to provide conclusive evidence that this isn't a fake, I'll order a couple for my kids tomorrow.
If this was a legal proceeding, we'd have probable cause to arrest. But it isn't.
Edit to add: "If this was a legal proceeding, we'd have probable cause to arrest. But it isn't." wasn't directed at the OP but at the vendor. My apologies.
"If this was a legal proceeding, we'd have probable cause to arrest. But it isn't."
To arrest already… or to investigate more and then maybe arrest?
Nice sleuthing, Franco. The Patagonia connection seems to come from the 'dini' reference in the thread title to the Houdini, one of their windshirts. FWIW: http://www.jackwolfskin2013online.com/jack-wolfskin-women-windproof-jackets_c6
Took a look at this thread because wondered how a post about a windshirt could possibly go on at such length.
Made me think of a guest Bill Moyers had on his PBS show recently. She was a psychologist who specializes in how the internet and portable computers have totally changed how we spend our time, and how that affects us. She had a very pleasant way of presenting her views and findings, but reflection on what she said was for me positively scary. Will we all end up like those pod people in the Matrix movie sequel, physically and socially inert, but happily living out our existence in pods while communicating on computers?
The thread started with " I decided to try out a cheapie Faux Houdini …"
My original point was that it has nothing to do with that American brand and in fact it isn't even a copy of a JW jacket simply because they don't sell a jacket of that type…
(you can't buy a fake iPod 7 because Apple does not make one…)
If it is right or wrong that has nothing to do with me, I and Rick simply tried to share that info.
"The thread started with " I decided to try out a cheapie Faux Houdini …""
Deceiving start for a tragedy.
Hi Ian
Having written several patents under very good tuition and studied IP for 6 months in a management course, I have a small amount of knowledge of IP principles. Not lots, but some basic principles.
I wonder – is this a case where the whole jacket is a fake, or where the Chinese company is using the JW logo illegally? If JW do not sell an identical jacket – same pattern, same fabric, etc, then I suspect the latter. I also note that that Franco thinks there were several different logos on display.
Does all this matter? Well, if JW do not market an identical jacket, then I question whether the misuse of their IP (the logo) really hurts the bottom line for JW. It is most unlikely that customers willing to buy one of the Chinese jackets at their price would be willing to pay the JW prices. At least, the Chinese vendor was not claiming to be selling a JW product. The misuse of the logo is naughty of the Chinese vendor of course, but that's all.
Cheers
Ian B. wrote:
"The funny thing is that this ebay company adds no value to this wind shirt that I can perceive by adding the logo. It seems far simpler to just remove the logo or create their own TM and sell this product through legitimate means. Lord knows that there's a market for this shirt.
Edit to add: If they sold this shirt legally with the logo "cheap piece of crap" on the chest for <$20, I'd buy one right now."
In China, there are billions of products circulating of this exact type, some counterfeits, some fake counterfeits (yes there are actually several levels of counterfeit there, after a particular counterfeit makes a name for itself there will be copies of it. There is genuine "counterfeit" Pabst Blue Ribbon!) There are people who appear to be counterfeiting but actually just don't know what they are doing. There are brands that seem like they should be a counterfeit but actually are not, and vice versa.
I find it likely that a clothing company hired a recent college grad and said "we need some cool shirt ideas." Interspersed with generous time stealing carrots on QQ Farm, said grad surfed the internet and the wave arrived at a picture of a good looking western model in a jacket that said "Jack Wolfskin." The grad had just enough English to think "WOW now that's cool!" and handed the words over along with half a dozen other ideas and the company ran a few off. It is quite possible that those involved never even realized this was a "competing" clothing company.
I haven't seen a shirt over there that said "cheap piece of crap" but I did see a young girl in a shirt with two blue acorns that said "No more blue nuts!" (and I almost died laughing). Respectable businesswoman wear trousers with the Playboy Bunny logo printed in full gorgeous color across the backside -twice- and don't have the slightest idea what it means. The most popular music format is ".mp5" (whatever that means, it's just a name that sounds good to them). Heck, I saw a guy wearing a T-shirt with my own run-of-the-mill university's logo on it! I started talking to him and saying the university's name (being only a year out of college) and he was absolutely confused about the whole situation. He had no idea what it said or that it was even a university, or even a state! All of this is common and quite innocent.
If they see an idea in western popular culture they like, they copy it straight up because it seems hip, wealthy, stylish, whatever with no concern for anything deeper or even for accuracy. Only a handful of brands have the cachet to be truly counterfeited (TNF, Goretex, Lois Vitton, et al). I think this is the innocent one, or else they would have done a better reproduction and marketed it as such. If you stay a week in "real" China you'll realize this isn't even worth a second thought, pretty much the entire population does it, as well as the populations of the nearest 36 countries.
"I wonder – is this a case where the whole jacket is a fake, or where the Chinese company is using the JW logo illegally? "
I didn't see the wind shirt on their website when I went looking for it the other day. It's certainly a trademark infringement but there isn't enough information on this thread or the response from Jack Wolfskin to determine if this is a discontinued item and if there is a design patent associated with this garment.
Raven,
I'm not sure if you read some of the earlier responses but apparently Jack Wolfskin is a German company and it sounds like they are well known in parts of Europe.
They may resist the false advertisement charges by not directly advertising, yet they still entice the customer with the photography. The names could have been easily covered up. It's a back alley way of doing the same thing.
While this may have little to do with labor practices, it is a red flag. We know the deal is shady, just not how shady. it reminds me of an old joke. I'd tell it but it wouldn't stay up long and then somebody would be upset that my rights were being trampled on and the cycle would continue.
I bet many moralizing people or their family members here do "shady" things
– go over the speed limit
– run "bootleg" copies of windows
– download or stream cids/music from unauthorized sources
– cowboy camp
– use alchy stoves inspite of fire restrictions
– hike indecently exposed
– toke a joint where its still not "legal"
– etc ….
Theres nothing so ineffective as intraweb "moralizing"
As a "moraless" AZN i really dont get what all the fuss is about … Just walk around any AZN mall in north america and youll see how "lacking" we are in "morals"
Taliban, murder, etc … All over a windshirt
Now back to the REAL questions for those that have one
– how does it perform on an actual hike
– does a XL fit a mens medium
I mean this IS backpackinglight???
Not the the republican convention or a church sermon right ???
;)
Done here. I'll still post my review of the windshirt when I get it, but probably not considering what this thread had turned to. If anybody wants to know how it does, you can PM me in a week.
In the mean time:
Bunnies.
I'm glad that as a forum of people sharing similar passions care enough about the world to have serious discussions. I just wish it could've been done as a separate thread, as I only kept checking here to see if any more relevant reviews/pictures have been posted, before my own arrives.
Hmmm.
Most thrift stores sell the majority of their items at a fraction of their worth. Not many people are looking for light backpacking items.
Maybe we should let them know about the jeans they are selling at 2.99 that are "worth" fifty dollars? Their sofa could be sold at 150 instead of 35? The roll of fabric at 60 instead of 12?
Should thrift stores sell at what everything is worth, making them unaffordable to many?
I think your post is a stretch and implies that any time one gets a deal they are actually stealing, or at least they ought not to get the deal and leave it for someone else. That is on a whole other level.
Eh, I'm done with this thread.
Also, to Katharina, my bad. You weren't the one being preachy. Hard to keep track of 188+ posts.
"See, you are just sitting there trying to justify what fits your morals. But have no problem preaching about anything else that you see as immoral."
Actually I do very little preaching as far as what is moral. Give me an example of what you are accusing me of please, or take it back.
Thanks for editing that.
I try and not preach much.
AndE> "I find it funny how people are soapboxing here, while there was another thread earlier with many posters bragging about how they've ripped off good will and other thrift stores, yet there was no backlash and 100+ posts about morality…"
Good point! Not just ripping off the thrift stores, but also ripping off the corporations who are being robbed of new sales (like the corporation Jack Wolfskin, which is being robbed of sales via the eBay store, Cnfocus). The secondary market is immoral. Gear Swap is immoral. The whole commercial marketplace is immoral.
Moral people who purchase from thrift stores should feel ashamed, and contribute the difference between the below-market purchase price, and the retail price, to a charity! Also, moral people who check books out of the library for free, should feel ashamed for stealing IP from the author, and donate the purchase price of the book to charity!
Hey, I'm full of ideas on how all YOU people should lead your lives to satisfy my moral standards. And the reason I get to decide if you are moral enough, is because I'm waaay more moral than you. (In my own mind, at least.) Can't beat argument by assertion, so don't try.
The charity you should donate to is the Delmar O'Donnell Center for Superior Morality–a subsidiary of Johann Tetzel's Indulgences, in operation since 1517. Be certain to send your donation as a PayPal "gift," so we can shaft PayPal out of a commission. If you prefer to shaft the USPS instead, please send your donation by "media mail." Your donation is tax deductible, so we can shaft the US Government, too.
[EDIT: Aww AndE, that was a great post you removed. Replaced by bunnies, possibly dead ones. I'm fining you an indulgence for that, awaiting your payment.]
Same here, Katharina. Unfortunately, I snapped a little and wrote my post coming off being much meaner and whatnot than I intended, and ironically, stood upon the soapbox I was decrying.
Wow, LunchAndy. Never been called out on being immoral before. Not sure how to respond. However, if you will notice, I stated that I hoped what I had posted would inspire others….not to "ripoff" but inspire them to buy used rather than new….to consume less new things which, is arguably the root of most enviro issues.
My intent was not to brag but to give examples of what one can find at thrift stores…IF one is persistent enough. My wife and I have been thrift storing for yrs…in many different locales. The bottom line is this: Screaming deals can be found anywhere…if people will take the time to look.
You've made a few assumptions also. Goodwill? I didn't state which thrift stores I purchase most of my stuff from. That is another topic though which I wish not to participate in. I should also note that I donate items, I do not need, to thrift stores freely and often. I should have noted that in my thrift store thread you linked to.
Re your comment "Is it your job to teach the employee what price it should be then pay that price or leave the item to be purchased by people with lesser means"? I can't speak for all locales. However, I can say with confidence, where I shop, people of "lesser means" are not shopping for Goretex. They have no idea what it is. People of lesser means here are shopping for kids clothes and other such practical things. That appears to be the case most places I have been too. Those shopping for Goretex and the like usually have the means but shop at thrift stores for other reasons…including practicality, "moral" reasons, enviro and so forth. I say this not on assumptions but knowing many others who also shop at thrift stores…though not as regularly as I.
Getting into the subject of moral issues, and especially calling out people on it based on assumptions, isn't always the best place to go. We could get into all sorts of facets here like the type of agriculture and power you support, amongst many other lifestyle choices/habits that will affect our successors in a negative way.
Very sorry that my thrift store thread was taken for anything other that good intent.
EDIT: LunchAndy, looks like you deleted/edited your post before I posted my response. I didn't know. No hard feelings, I hope. I wish not to stir up poop here or any other thread. I know I'm not perfect. Far from it. Just wanna plant seeds of thought. Fundamentally, we're all the same in that we have feelings and wish to see our kids healthy and smiling. Peace!
> inspire them to buy used rather than new….
Immoral!
Robs the manufacturer of revenue, just like Cnfocus. Abusing the system. Just like refilling your soda cup too many times at In-N-Out.
Fortunately for you, you can restore your morality to shiny bright status. See my above post on how you can Get Moral again.
I was writing this long post apologizing for my unfair portrayal of a well meaning that and well meaning people and then my Android Chrome crashed.
Suffice it to say, I'm sorry. In the heat of the moment I said things that I didn't mean/said it in a way that, after reading it later, made me think WTF, why was I being so mean/accusatory.
It was my intention to point out that Valerie made a well making post about a cheap windshirt she bought, and people piled on the thread about the morality of the purchase/similar purchase habits, etc, and in ironic twist, I did the same thing by using the good will thread as my fodder.
I was being quite hypocritical, playing the devil's advocate, as I would buy gear at single digit prices in a heartbeat. And as mentioned, rebuying used products is scout as environmentally responsible as you can get.
Double post, phone went crazy.
Buying counterfeit goods is illegal. Buying an otherwise legal second hand jacket from the thrift store is legal. How is this complicated?
Become a member to post in the forums.
© Beartooth Media Group Inc.
Loading...
