Rapha, nice but a bit pricey?

I would chop up your question into two categories. 1) Is IP a useful and protective measure for people or companies to safeguard their innovations? Yes. 2) Is the current IP legal landscape doing much good for actual innovation and provide substantial benefit to consumers? I'd say no. There are plenty of good suggestions of how to change the regime in the Economist article.

"Patents are supposed to spread knowledge, by obliging holders to lay out their innovation for all to see; they often fail, because patent-lawyers are masters of obfuscation. Instead, the system has created a parasitic ecology of trolls and defensive patent-holders, who aim to block innovation, or at least to stand in its way unless they can grab a share of the spoils. An early study found that newcomers to the semiconductor business had to buy licences from incumbents for as much as $200m. Patents should spur bursts of innovation; instead, they are used to lock in incumbents’ advantages."
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/08/08/time-to-fix-patents

Here's some serious, tangible evidence that the IP legal landscape hinders invention and innovation seriously.

"Do intellectual property (IP) rights on existing technologies hinder subsequent innovation? Using newly-collected data on the sequencing of the human genome by the public Human Genome Project and the private firm Celera, this paper estimates the impact of Celera’s gene-level IP on subsequent scientific research and product development. Genes initially sequenced by Celera were held with IP for up to two years, but moved into the public domain once re-sequenced by the public effort. Across a range of empirical specifications, I find evidence that Celera’s IP led to reductions in subsequent scientific research and product development on the order of 20 to 30 percent. Taken together, these results suggest that Celera’s short-term IP had persistent negative effects on subsequent innovation relative to a counterfactual of Celera genes having always been in the public domain."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3955392/

A jersey is not a genome granted, but is it really necessary to copyright a jersey fade? With all the artistic talent at these companies, you would hope that the closing of one design door would open another.

Came for the discussion on nice but pricey cycling kit, got educated on patent law instead.

Cadbury now protect the shade of purple used on wrappers

Their trademark for the purple colour was in fact ruled invalid when challenged by Nestle.

Did Rapha invent fades though?

Having worked in ip for science in a us university,my impression was that everything got patented in the early days because of fear of missing out. Also, genes being patented was a proper blind alley. Patenting the sequence in the hope of protecting a receptor for study so you could get a drug?
Patent lifetime is 25 years, time for a drug to market is approx the same. All being well the drug should be through all clinical trials with approx 5 years left on the patent to make money back.

When it comes off parent protection though, the silly games to extend and protect are a bit meh and my personal opinion is that the price should go down.

I could waffle on but I'll stop.

I guess my point was that I was amazed at the time (and still am) that people were sympathetic to such lazy, blatant copying coupled with (an active?) naivety. The forum was a curious place at that time.

'Their trademark for the purple colour was in fact ruled invalid when challenged by Nestle.'
ah-ha, didn't realise this, bad example, confectionary must be a warzone for this sort of thing! The general point was; Tiffany teal(?) box for jewellery, Dyno Rod orange drain cleaning vans, whatever, a detail over time establishes a status which can be protected & strengthened within that specific field.

Can you give more insights like that without me having to listen to a podcast? #lameroads

(Dig at rapha not you, would genuinely like to know)

True, a jersey fade copyright would be a long, very difficult path.... but my point wasn't about the Shimano jersey, but the original protected design. Who was the (US or Aus I think) brand a few years back there was a bit of discussion after the ombre fades on Super Light Weight Jersey?

https://theradavist.com/2016/02/team-dream-on-their-fade-jersey/

Yeah I see what you mean. And what I meant was that, over time, designs shouldn't be protected, or at least not for fashion...the new design has been invented, innovated, dispersed and is now widely available. Time to let go. I don't think because a company had one good idea they should be able to cash in on it singularly, and forever. Like the Christian Louboutin red heel trademark. "The law should not countenance restraints that would interfere with creativity and stifle competition by one designer, while granting another a monopoly invested with the right to exclude use of an ornamental or functional medium necessary for freest and most productive artistic expression by all engaged in the same enterprise." Obviously Louboutin won (and was supported by Tiffany's as you rightly mentioned).

It's such a broad arena, with large areas of arguable interpretation (and some binary categories too), as with anything on the internet this conversation can run and run......

....definitely agree about the stifling of innovation due to patent-grabbing, patent-sitting. Crazy the stuff that goes on if you want to play the system.

I wasn’t talking about the fade, I was talking about the Trademarked arm band.

These pro-Torm arguments are weak as fuck.

was that to me @amey? Anything in particular? I usually post here to clear something up, explain a technical detail or insight, or stop speculation. In the words of Dan Ackroyd in Dragnet 'only the facts!'

The forum was a curious place at that time.

The forum is still a rather curious place. :)

Never thought socks and slidders would make a comeback:

1 Attachment

Came to post this. They look quite similar to crocs and I'd never been seen dead in crocs. I do own some TORM though :)

I love my crocs! Definitely my guilty pleasure off the bike!

#sorrynotsorry

Rapha slides? lol

My eyes. As if there's not enough plastic tat in the world.

Non-shaved legs? FAKE NEWS

Considering adilettes are £30 they're actually nicely priced