Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

From the comments:

> My primary use of non-free firmware is to stop free riding by hardware cloners. It really sucks to put a lot of effort into a hardware and software design, then have your product get cloned using your own firmware.

That's a massive problem indeed. In ham circles, the tinySA spectrum analyzer is one prime example... there's tons of clones of them floating around despite the hardware actually being closed source, but the firmware being FOSS. And people turn up in ham forums asking why their "tinySA" doesn't work, only to find out they have been shipped counterfeits with sub-par components.

View on HN

Trademark law is for that. They can clone the product but they can't call it tinySA.

Perhaps that would prevent people from selling clones as if they were authentic, but the stated problem is that clones are undercutting the original creators devices. Changing the name puts an increased burden on the cloners to get their name out there, but in a hobbyist market surrounding a technical subject, that seems pretty small compared to the burden of developing hw/fw that users are willing to pay for.

If you don't want people to copy and improve your software, don't give them permission to copy and improve your software.

If you don't want people to copy and improve your hardware, don't give them permission to copy and improve your hardware. It works the same as software copyright, AFAIK.

If you don't want people to make their own products that are similar to yours... sorry, that's not possible. Imagine what the world would be like if Elon Musk could claim a monopoly on Twitter-like services - if Mark Zuckerberg didn't first claim a monopoly on all social media - if IBM didn't first claim a monopoly on all computing products. You get to differentiate your product based on price and features, just like everyone else does.

> If you don't want people to copy and improve your hardware, don't give them permission to copy and improve your hardware.

As if Chinese cloners would give a shit about permissions. You got everything there from "independents" reverse-engineering clothing or circuits over the "official" manufacturing contractor running "ghost shifts" [1] with original parts that got binned in QA to supposedly trustable brands getting shafted on their end [2].

Regarding electronics, bunnie has also dedicated a chapter about fakes in his book about that world [3]. China simply runs on an entirely different value system than Western countries, one where what we see as theft they see as a completely normal part of doing business [4]. Unfortunately, our politicians never realised that and still continue treating China as an "equal partner".

Utter madness, and we are paying for it.

[1] https://www.messynessychic.com/2021/07/08/the-secret-world-o...

[2] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2010/microsd-card-failure...

[3] https://bunniefoo.com/bunnie/essential/essential-guide-shenz...

[4] https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/2014/from-gongkai-to-open...

Good luck enforcing that against dropshippers and in China. Even the largest brands on this rock struggle with IP theft, fakes and trademark abuse.

But that was the original problem. People bought the device thinking it was authentic when it wasn't. If they're still selling crap with your name on it then how does it help you that it's subpar hardware running subpar firmware instead of subpar hardware running better firmware?

If your name's on it it's a trademark violation. If they merely said "our product is similar to tinySA" then nothing you can do - you don't get a special exemption from the laws of market competition, and it seems that customers like their product more.

> If your name's on it it's a trademark violation.

The GP's complaint was that you can't do anything about trademark violations when it's dropshipped from China and there is no one in the US to sue.

But when that's the case you don't want their product to be even worse, because customers attribute the failure to you.

When counterfeit products are imported, the importer is liable.

Sellers in China list counterfeit products on eBay. eBay never has possession of the merchandise. People in the US buy them. They get shipped directly from China to the end customer. Who is the importer? The postal service?

The buyer is the importer. Have you tried suing them for importing counterfeit products?

The concern here is that innocent buyers are mislead and end up with counterfeit products. Your proposal is for the innocent buyers to be mislead and end up with counterfeit products and then get sued for it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com