AllLookSame iPhone? and Intellectual Property in China
By Dyske July 5th, 2008
Apparently the Chinese engineers have managed to create a knock-off iPhone. This is a functional knock-off, not a scam with an empty shell. So, they copied not only the hardware, but also the software. There is a discussion on MacRumors.com about this.
What I find interesting about the Chinese culture is that they do not believe that ideas should be owned by anyone. There is some truth to this. Any inventions, artistic creations, and scientific breakthroughs owe much to the ideas of others past and present. To put a patent and/or copyright protection on a product which is really a culmination of one’s culture, and reap the benefit of it personally, does seem wrong to some degree. There are many ideas and contributions to our culture that cannot be protected in a practical manner. Whether you end up with something that can be copyrighted, patented, or credited is a matter of luck. Many people have contributed to the steps in-between, which cannot be patented, copyrighted, or credited. If you have ever worked for a large organization, this is quite obvious.
The Chinese, especially because of their Marxist past, see their intellectual contributions almost like the Open Source movement. It becomes a fair game to take the ideas of others if you don’t protect your own ideas. Chefs have always been operating (and thriving) in this environment, since one cannot copyright recipes.
Here is an interesting article about two dumpling restaurants in New York at war with each other. I find it interesting that the owner of the original restaurant, Lucas Lin, does not understand what his competitor meant by “We’re all Chinese”. Even though I’m not Chinese, I understand it. What he means by it is that dumpling is a culmination of the Chinese culture that all Chinese people are part of. It’s sort of like saying, “We are all Open Source programmers.” Lin does not own the idea of dumpling. He wasn’t even the first person to think of opening a restaurant that sells nothing but dumplings in New York. His original contribution was to use a memorable mascot to strongly brand a dumpling business, but why couldn’t someone else also copy that idea, just like Lin simply copied the idea of dumpling, and the idea of opening a dumpling-only restaurant?
Copying the ideas of others become unfair only when you protect your own ideas. If you do not protect your own ideas, then copying the ideas of others become a fair game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59kFfubw2Vk
Jacqueline says:
July 24th, 2008 at 10:39 amHahaha, iPhonie… gold, just gold. =p I agree with the conclusion users came to though, that the simple act of creating what appears to be a (very?) similar product in itself is not necessarily infringement, but that some of these “iPhonies” are marketed as real iPhones to the public is.
While I do think the production of knock-offs in China is out of control, I think it’s evident that this is not an issue of intellectual property, but of money, and just money.
Crass as it may be, you’ve got people with still very different realities (though times are certainly changing) and experiences, e.g. economy, standards of living, etc., and here, as evident, very different business senses (or as some might perceive it, none at all). Your average consumer in China is also probably not all that exposed to original Western name brand products either (though maybe changing slowly as well); coupled with the affordability of these “knock-offs,” it’s not hard to figure out what all the fuss is or isn’t about.
Jacqueline says:
July 24th, 2008 at 10:44 amAt any rate, haven’t been to AllLookSame in a while, looks like I’ve missed quite a few interesting posts since then. With the exception of the robot girlfriend thing, I haven’t read any of the other news anywhere else. Always something new and interesting here. =)
Homer says:
August 18th, 2008 at 3:48 amYou wrote: “Copying the ideas of others become unfair only when you protect your own ideas. If you do not protect your own ideas, then copying the ideas of others become a fair game.”
What utter nonsense. Copying ideas of others is also unfair if you do not contribute equally in the creation of ideas. As any economist who has looked seriously into the matter will tell you, the rate of actual original idea / intellectual property creation in regions with poor respect for intellectual property is much lower than those with high. There’s a good reason why you probably can’t name a significant invention from China since the apocryphal spaghetti and fireworks, but can name dozens if not hundreds of innovations from Japan.
Because not all ideas are worth the same, though, it’s not possible to say what ‘contribute equally’ means. This is why we give ideas protection through intellectual property laws. This makes them monatizable and this, ultimately, both in theory and in practice, leads to the development of “useful arts” as the US constitution calls them.
Paul says:
August 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am“As any economist who has looked seriously into the matter will tell you, the rate of actual original idea / intellectual property creation in regions with poor respect for intellectual property is much lower than those with high.”
That is interesting if true, link please? Also, please be careful, even if it is true that only yields correlation not causation. Similarly for your next statement. There probably are good reasons why Japan has had a host of innovations recently but not China. However, one cannot conclude from the information given, that any of the good reasons have to do with IP.
The goal of copyright is to give artists monetary incentive to create. This is accomplished by the government giving them a limited time monopoly on the distribution of their work (and derivative works). While this has worked to varying degrees in the past, this model is becoming impractical. Due to the Internet, distribution is cheap, and extremely difficult to control (servers in other jurisdictions with different laws, etc..). Also copyright has been extended from the original 14 years or so to lifetime +70. This breaks it in a different respect. It was never intended for the artist to monetize the full economic benefit of their work. Artists cannot create from a vacumn, thus it is important for creative works to pass into the public domain where it can be freely used as creative material for artists to build off of. Copyright was suppose to give just enough incentive for artists to create but not too much as that would lessen the amount of work in the public domain. By extending the copyright term, the public domain has essentially been frozen since Mickey Mouse.
lolympics says:
August 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pmInteresting.
They ignore every copyright law of every other country, but go batshit insane when people upload youtube videos of the olympic ceremonies. Hohum!
bob says:
August 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pmit is actually the IOC who goes batshit about the their IP. They even make host countries pass new laws specifically protecting all the marks of the IOC.
Second the united states was just as bad as china when it had the same boom, that china is going through now. Once china starts innovating you will see them clamp down on infringement the same as the rest of the world. It’s not a new story and it has nothing to do with different cultures. The dirty Chinese thieves are just the dirty American thieves of a couple hundred years ago.
Otis Agabey says:
September 29th, 2008 at 10:58 amHi,
Unlike the other free market people up there, I will back you up on this one. The objections brought against your stance on open-source are very much true within their due restrictive doxas, that is mostly due, but not limited, to: the Right to Property, and the internalized Bourgeois Legality which is a corollary of the former, along with a hint of sustained growth paradigm, a subsidiary of capitalist overproduction over-stressing the importance of individual creativity and incentives to further that cause.
These, of course, are so internally consistent that they leave out the possibility of a world where sharing of goods and commodities are not limited to free-market dynamics, of which iPhone is a product of. Since the free-market people are hardwired into accepting the firmware of the system they are product of, they, too, can not be hacked or tampered with, or else, they’ll lose their warranty and user-service that they feel they are entitled to. Yet, we all know that feeling of entitlement, too, stems from the kernel of the firmware, and that firmware, like most firmwares, keep a lot of the options that certain product is capable of performing. So please don’t forget, and do remind them, that they need a firmware update, because the warranties they’ve been forcibly holding onto does not mean shit. It covers the rights of the producer, not the product. It’s there for the benefit of the user, not the used. Same goes for the intellectual property, sadly, it often denotes the slaves who are speaking with the intellect and the mind of their masters, citing system-technicians (in this case economists) as their resources of the authorized truth.
Aside from the objections towards the lack of creativity, as exemplified by the emergence of ultra-gadget like iPhone under the supervision of the capitalist production, there are no ethical objections to justify the necessity of the right to intellectual property, or attempts to summon a moral umbrella on top of it. As it is, the products following the blueprints of patented intellectual properties, all converge at the point of production, where components all necessitate the initial capital, that is a product of forced-alienated-oppressed-exploited labor, the labor force that is forced, alienated, oppressed, and exploited, for the trade surplus, made possible by forced, alienated, oppressed, and exploited labor, to be purchased by the masses who are forced, alienated, oppressed and exploited, save a dwindling the minority, the ruling class. So any intellectual product within this existence, owes itself to a grand inequality, pronounced and learned, cultivated and justified, policed and trivialized, where the ‘creative value’ and primacy of any product like iPhone, is rendered meaningless, obsolete and frankly given the circumstances, inhumane. Who cares what capitalism can give, and how it should be kept free because it gave us iPhone and why China (with its own brand of state capitalism) cannot come up with its own products because they don’t respect the intellectual property rights like they do in Japan? Please take note of the things that make iPhone possible and then tell me how can you justify NOT stealing iPhone, in any form, be it intellectual or actual?
Peter says:
October 5th, 2008 at 3:43 amOne point that should be made is that these phones are only “clones” on the cosmetic level – they have completely different internals to the iPhone (the one I took apart had a Mediatek chipset and two SIM holders!) if you do a side-by-side comparison it’s also obvious that it’s not running the same firmware, since there are a number of subtle differences in operation – even if the overall look is extremely similar.
I have seen real 100% cloned phones in China (notably some of the Nokia models), but the iPhonys are copies of the stying rather than the design.
Ziee says:
November 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm“What I find interesting about the Chinese culture is that they do not believe that ideas should be owned by anyone”
It has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with being a developing country. Every country went through a phase where things were copied and taken advantage of. Only through crap like that did the concept of IP protection arise. China has yet to reach that stage. They don’t have an IP concept, or legal protections in place because this is all new to them.
The chinese are also very opportunistic. They will see a cash earning opportunity very quickly and pursue it with vigor. Alot of business people are from the country. They’ve barely received an elementary education, let alone know concepts of business law and ethics. Believe me, if anyone were to copy their own products, all hell will break loose and people will be screaming for the enforcement of IP laws.
The lack of IP protection is also not a good explanation for the lack of innovation. China has only in the past 20 years come out of the cultural revolution. During that time no artisitc endeavours could be freely expressed unless they were government friendly. That effectively shut down any form of creative thought in a whole generation of people. This also feeds into the reluctance of parents to let their children pursue creative interests and careers.
Yen says:
November 15th, 2008 at 9:22 amOnce I saw a pictured tutorial/walkthrough on how a lab in China made fake eggs and fake marinated bamboo shoots from chopsticks. Now I don’t know how true that is, but it seems Chinese are short on just about everything so they’re duping everything from iPhone to eggs.
zevgoldman says:
November 18th, 2008 at 11:17 amChina is currently a Marxist country. Referring to its Marxist past is incorrect.
Shanna says:
December 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pmI’ve always toyed around with this concept in my mind. While I believe an “idea” cannot be copyrighted, I do – as a writer – see some people’s concern with an entire concept being taken and claimed as belonging to someone else.
Yet, I worry that this is just my Ego speaking; that an invisible “Open Source”, artistic, muse-spirit floats in and around all of us with free-flowing ideas for anyone to grab on to. One piece I’ve read on the subject that really has stuck with me was Peter McWilliams “My Philosophy of Created Stuff” at http://www.mcwilliams.com/philo.htm
I have to say – even though the idea of someone using my work is shudder-inducing – McWilliams is on to something there. Thoughts, ideas, concepts – these things cannot be copyrighted. How to blend that into my desire to have my stuff remain “my own work” is something I still, after all these years, have yet to master.
Con says:
December 6th, 2008 at 7:58 amChina is an Extreme Capitalist country, not Marxist. This whole debate wouldn’t be existing if China were a ‘Marxist’ country.
Also, China is in Asia which is entirely different to the west! In Asia things are taken for granted which we take very seriously and vice-versa. I read the above article and found it quite believable.
Also someone earlier, I think it was the person who went citing economists or some nonsense like that, mentioned “not all ideas are worth the same, though, it’s not possible to say what ‘contribute equally’ means. This is why we give ideas protection through intellectual property laws. This makes them monatizable and this, ultimately, both in theory and in practice, leads to the development of “useful arts” as the US constitution calls them” is a load of bullshit. For starters ‘monatizable’ isn’t even a word! Also, he’s implying that gucci handbags and prada sunglasses (in which China does a roaring trade) are “useful arts”! Can any explain to me how these things are useful??? Intellectual property laws and copyright laws are all financially driven, they are all designed to protect the pocket of the maker. They benefit you and I, aka the little guy, in no particular form, except that, perhaps, they might make us look great (that is if you are donning some “useful arts”). The idea that each product we manufacture is another brick in a substantial wall of civilisation is not old. The development of humanity to this point would not exist if it were not for the thousands of centuries before us.
China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and all the other dynamic Asian countries realise this and that is why they are streets ahead of us technologically. If we take the iphone as an example, samsung released a similar product not much long after. Who makes the best cars? Who manufactures more electronic products? I could go on… but where did the ideas come from? So, stop bitchin about China etc. and steal the ideas back and make something better!
The world is a food chain and the developing world is recycling our waste and finished products and feeding us with newer incentives to produce and add to our already impressive cache of goodies. At the same time, developing countries such as China and India and South East Asia have added a competitive edge to the global circle of production which poor poor developed economies are all upset about because they find it hard to compete!
As a consumer, I couldn’t care less about intellectual property rights or the fact that Apple have to make something newer and better for the Chinese to copy, I just want the best product for the best (cheapest) price.
copykatya says:
December 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pmWell, I can’t speak for the rest of Asia, but Japan is NOT so far ahead of the West technologically. They’re very good at innovation, but not at invention, and their innovations tend to be formal, not functional… or formal-parading-as-functional. Meaning that they like to take existing inventions and combine them in new and convenient ways, but they’re not really making much of anything that’s new. Leave that to the Americans.
I will applaud them for their willingness to share information, which relates to this discussion about intellectual property. There are plenty of projects in the U.S. that never really got off the ground because companies couldn’t cut the shit and swap ideas long enough to agree on a standard form or coda for a given technology. In-band on-channel radio (or “HD radio”) is a good example of this, and it’s for this reason exactly that you probably haven’t heard of it. This is also why Japan has faster Internet service available in certain brackets than they have in the States…
mai says:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:05 pmWhile on a “common sense” level, this may sound like utopia, you cannot interchange research and development, marketing, distribution and capital requirements with the creative arts, such as the art of cooking, and call them equal. These sorts of arguments seem to universally be put forward by the users of goods and services, not the providers of such. I don’t work for free and I rather doubt you do. If there is not a financial or other tangible benefit, why bother? Certainly most people prefer to sit under a shady palm with a nice drink than work 15 hours a day perfecting an idea – if I get equal compensation for both; guess which one I’m doing. I suspect that if you had invested a chunk of your own money researching and creating the iPhone, not only would you be truly wicked off by people stealing your idea and selling it, but even more wicked off by those justifying the exploitation of your money and work.
Common sense arguments always skim along on the surface because if you start to explore the depths, the illusion fades. Every time I hear someone complain about “big oil” making billions from the clubbing of baby seals, I ask “why don’t you invest your money in oil companies and get rich too?” No one ever does, although one might expect a “big oil is evil” reply. But the truth is that if we go beyond the easy simple surface, we all know that no one is getting rich off their oil company stocks. Again, if you think I’m wrong, go out and invest all your money in oil company stocks. The oil company gets no benefit from you – you’re buying the stock from another owner, not the company. Then you can use your riches to right the wrongs of the world. Maybe sell it, take the cash, build a company and invent free stuff for the rest of the global family.
Monetary payment is meant to compensate others for time spent out of their limited lifespan of hours, doing something of benefit for you at the cost of losing hours of their life to this cause. What you’re ultimately saying, is that people should spend a portion of their limited lifespan of hours for nothing but the satisfaction of pleasing you cost free, because fluffy bunnies would love a society where everyone did this….everyone but “yourself” that is. If you believe in that theory, by all means, fly here – I have laundry that needs washing, yard for you to tend to, I am confident I can build a lengthy list of activities for you to spend your time doing for me…err society…. to make my life better at the simple expense of your time.
Look at both sides of an equation and understand all the components before you run out in ignorance and proclaim you have the answers. Just because something sounds like you’d like it, does not automatically make it a deep philosophical truth that mankind is missing out on.
mai says:
December 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm“I just want the best product, for the best “cheapest” price”
THERE is the problem with our economy, our society. Two things actually – “I want everything, and give you nothing” is the what this reduces to. I, along with most rational adults, gave that philosophy up at age 2. The second is a lack of sophistication; understanding value versus cheap. Best price is not cheapest price.
One simple example – people go on line to buy the CHEAPEST airline ticket they can find, giving zero consideration to the safety of the carrier, the quality of the flight, on-time record, overbooking habits or any other consideration. Just cheapest. Then they’re all amazed when they get to the airport and the flight is overbooked and the employees have a bad attitude and don’t care. They don’t care, because you already voted – passively. You’ve told the industry all you care about is price, and so, that is all they’re going to worry about.
Another example – banking, or really even anything in the financial industry. All the consumer looks for is the word ‘free’, followed by convenience – ATM locations, pay for my home to be appraised, ‘quick and easy’. It wasn’t very many years ago, one walked into a bank and was greeted by professionals, who knew you and took good care of you. Now, you get a punk with an attitude and if you need help – call some telephone center that won’t know what to do, or care, because our motto is “we’re not happy, until you’re not happy”. We also get the complete erosion of competent management and business ethics as we watch WA MU, AIG, and countless others swirl down the bowl. Then we get the bill – the $700 billion tax funded bill; ah the virtues of cheapness, sing it loud, sing it proud.
But, you say, “I don’t work for an airline or a bank, so I don’t care”. Yep, and that’s the problem. No one wants to pay anyone – which means, less jobs, less pay for those jobs and a downward spiral. It means farming your job off to a distant country or finding a way to have a computer do your job so your employer can survive the price wars. When your kids graduate from university and you’re so excited for their future, and they find themselves flipping burgers with their post grad degree, remember; you saved $15 on your last airline ticket and you don’t pay any monthly charge for your checking account. You are truly savvy, so hazzah. And I’m sure that cheap nursing home will be just awesome.
Logan says:
January 24th, 2010 at 9:23 pmEast Asians are greedy. East Asians want what you have. They will even steal your personality.
pepper says:
January 28th, 2010 at 6:17 amThey don’t have an IP concept, or legal protections in place because this is all new to them.
Also, China is in Asia which is entirely different to the west! In Asia things are taken for granted which we take very seriously and vice-versa. I read the above article and found it quite believable.
========
Alright, I am just happened to be here and I dont mean to make arguments, but as a Chinese who grows up in China and is still living in China, I will just say there are some points I need to make clear about these comments.
The IP concept and legal protections of IPRs is expanding now, I major in law and I could see the progresses we are making in China, I am sure you ppl in western country will feel that in a near future.
And, nothing is taken for granted in China, even if some ppl here are “stealing” something from others, you have to admit that some of them are making innovations and try to benefit the rest.