Wait- so if I hand a counterfeit 20 dollar bill to a cashier and he uses his little pen and discovers the fake and tells me that, it becomes no longer counterfeit?

You're making up definitions of words Dean. If the item has someone else's brand name and logo on it, it's counterfeit.

Deception is the key Erik. The 20 dollar bill is created with the purpose of deceiving the cashier. Dean is talking about things that are not supposed to be originals so the customer is not deceived in the process.

If you make blue jeans that look like Ralph Lauren jeans but do not have a Ralph Lauren label, that is not counterfeit.

If you put a Ralph Lauren label on it then I think you have to do some exceptional mind reading to determine there was no intent to deceive. In this case, two people may argue about angels on heads of pins but it is certainly not fair to say the NYT was absolutely wrong in the use of this word.

Dean,

I'm pleased that you chose to comment on this article. I found it fascinating.

Apple make the iPhone. A Chinese manufacturer makes the HiPhone. If both are clearly labeled, there is no real possibility of deception to a customer who makes more than a cursory inspection of the phone. Unfortunately, the standard that the courts use is not actual deception but a merely that the original and the "copy" are sufficiently similar to create confusion as to the source or authenticity of the "copy". Rather than using an objective standard based upon a ordinarily diligent consumer, the courts seek to determine whether the village idiot might be confused.

This is a replay of the 1960's land line telephone disputes here in the United States. Initially Western Electric, an AT&T subsidiary made all the land line telephones. AT&T and its "baby Bell" subsidiaries would not permit phones made by others to be connected to the telephone lines. Such conduct and other outrageous behavior made the comedy sketch quip of Ernestine the Operator (We're the phone company) so funny. Ultimately sanity prevailed and the telephone land lines were opened up not only to manufacturers of land line telephones but to other competitors, including service providers, as well. The most beneficial result has been the Internet.

The Internet is having a similar effect on "intellectual property"now. Creative content produced outside mainstream media and entertainment is readily accessible on the web. That access is quietly, quickly and effectively eroding the power of the "intellectual property" oligarchy.

Unfortunately, the path forward is not clear and free of obstacles. At this time the European Union is taking up legislation to extend the copyright for an additional 75 years. That action may be just in time to prevent the Beatles songs from falling into the public domain.

Erik, it's like the diamonds that inevitably come out of your butt. People would be willing to pay less for them even though a good guy like you told them they were man-made and not mined. You can just sell them cheap because your colon can make them by the dozens.

A 'look-like' is not necessary counterfeit/knockout only if it has component violating IP protected by law - usually in the form of patented items - name and its logo, design, proprietary technologies, etc.

Meizu’s M8 phone is scheduled to be in US market. How it could be possible for the maker to sell if it is a counterfeit of iPhone? Meizu’s early products legalized to be sold in US, the M6 MP3 players have better reputation than iPod and Microsoft Zune in the users.

From the article: "Nearby, dozens of other vendors are selling counterfeit Nokia, Motorola and Samsung phones — as well as cheap look-alikes that make no bones about being knockoffs."

That seems to make your point pretty clearly.

From the article, "“We’re being severely hurt by shanzhai phones,” says Chen Zhao, a sales director at Konka, a Chinese cellphone maker. “Legal cellphone makers should pay 17 percent of their revenue as value-added tax, but shanzhai makers, of course, won’t pay it.”"

Not sure about this. If the suppliers to the illicit cellphone makers charge them VAT, they will pay the tax. If the illicit phone makers pay VAT to their suppliers, but don't file taxes, they also won't be able to deduct this expense.

From the article: "While the phones may look like famous brands, companies actually add special features like bigger screens, dual-mode SIM cards (which allow two phone numbers) and even a telescopic lens attachment for the phone’s camera.

Since it is the SIM card that makes a phone run in China, as in most places other than the United States, all you have to do is insert a valid SIM card into a shanzhai phone and it works."

It looks pretty unlikely that anyone is being deceived here. It seems like people might be choosing to buy better and cheaper phones than those offered buy the big brand oriented companies.

It seems like the bigger "legitimate" cellphone companies are attacking the small entrepreneurs with allegations of counterfeiting and violating trademark law. This is, presumably, part of their business model, which is based on anti-market advertising designed to instill brand loyalty and other irrational attitudes toward buying their products. When more efficient producers start offering an alternative product . . . look out!

I think it's important to recognize Baker's point here. The New York Times is displaying bias (for big cell phone manufactures) by implying that the marketing practice of the chinese cellphone producers is meant to deceive customers into buying an inferior product.

Great point, Mr. Baker!

Mr. Baker, This is David Barboza from The New York Times Shanghai Bureau. Just a note: My story means to convey the popularity of these so-called "shanzhai" cell phones. In asking quite a few industry experts and also sellers, "shanzhai" phones include both outright counterfeit cell phones (which call themselves the "iphone" or "nokia" and "samsung" (and there is often not an easy way to know it's counterfeit) and those phones that say "nckia" and "sumsung" that just look like the real things. also, the look-a-likes, like "Hi-Phone" and "iOrgane." These are all, for some reason, considered part of the "shanzhai" culture. So some phones are meant clearly to deceive the buyer and others are meant to simply suggest to the buyer that they offer something very similar.
Best,

David

There used to be a brand of shirt called "Knights of the Round Table" with a logo of a knight mounted on a horse with a long stick. Ralph Lauren didn't like it, but the manufacturer was not infringing his copyright. What has changed in the law?

Just looked up 'counterfeit' in the dictionary and the author is correct - the word denotes an intent to deceive. So, knockoffs (ie, "unauthorized copies") are indeed different from counterfeits, at least for anyone smart enough to realize a real Gucci handbag isn't only $50.
Nice work.