John, you've mentioned Apple many times when this subject comes up but with respect, fake coins and fake Apple products are, well, comparing apples and oranges.
Apple products are technologically complex. They are made from many components, each often patentable, and produced by many subcontractors. All of these complex parts are assembly, again by subcontractors (FoxConn being the largest).
Suggesting that Apple and RCM have similar products and similar strategies for combating counterfeiting is not reasonable. Fake coins are easy to produce. Fake (working) iPhones are not.
In any case, any tech company that manufactures in China (which is about 99.99% of them) knows that their technology is going to be reverse engineered and copied. It's a business reality as is over production of products which get sold (read stolen) by subcontractors and/or employees.
When a new product (component) is created, the best defence is to be first to market, sell as much as you can before it's copied and move on to the next innovation. Companies also separate as many component sub contractors as possible so that no one supplier has access to 100% of the technology.
I think the example you should be using is a company like Burberry. They have a relatively simple product that are easily identified (unique plaid patterns) and very easily copied. Like the RCM, there are fakes of their products all over ebay. I wonder what Burberry's legal counsel are doing about that?
I'm not suggesting that counterfeiting is ok and the RCM shouldn't do whatever they can to combat it but I also do not know what activities the RCM's legal department may or may not being doing. I also haven't seen anything that states or suggests that the RCM "believes fakes will help their business model". I'd be very interested in hearing their explanation for that logic.
Apple products are technologically complex. They are made from many components, each often patentable, and produced by many subcontractors. All of these complex parts are assembly, again by subcontractors (FoxConn being the largest).
Suggesting that Apple and RCM have similar products and similar strategies for combating counterfeiting is not reasonable. Fake coins are easy to produce. Fake (working) iPhones are not.
In any case, any tech company that manufactures in China (which is about 99.99% of them) knows that their technology is going to be reverse engineered and copied. It's a business reality as is over production of products which get sold (read stolen) by subcontractors and/or employees.
When a new product (component) is created, the best defence is to be first to market, sell as much as you can before it's copied and move on to the next innovation. Companies also separate as many component sub contractors as possible so that no one supplier has access to 100% of the technology.
I think the example you should be using is a company like Burberry. They have a relatively simple product that are easily identified (unique plaid patterns) and very easily copied. Like the RCM, there are fakes of their products all over ebay. I wonder what Burberry's legal counsel are doing about that?
I'm not suggesting that counterfeiting is ok and the RCM shouldn't do whatever they can to combat it but I also do not know what activities the RCM's legal department may or may not being doing. I also haven't seen anything that states or suggests that the RCM "believes fakes will help their business model". I'd be very interested in hearing their explanation for that logic.
Edited by CC-Ottawa
06/01/2014 11:29 am
06/01/2014 11:29 am


















