Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Federer
Sir, your definition of fake is grossly inaccurate. A knock-off that is labelled as such is not a fake. A fake is an attempt to pass off an item that is labelled like the real one. Buying a timex doesn't mean you've bought a fake Rolex or whatever company started making the first wrist watches. If I buy a red solo cup and then buy a red Dixie cup that looks the same I have not bought a fake. If I'm not getting my pizza from the first guy that made pizza then is my pizza fake?
|
Regardless of the distinction between fakes and knock-offs, and yes there is a difference and you pointed it out more or less, the key point of my post was the question with which it concluded: why is it that we put so much weight on the form -- the look that's aped -- rather than the substance, the movement inside the watch case?
Assuming that substance is more important than form, there really needed be any rancor about fakes when the substance is clearly not there, even if the form is. Aside from the legal factors, I don't see much point is worrying about it one way or the other. As for trademark laws, well, they are what they are. Whether they make any damn sense -- focusing as they do on form over substance -- is another matter.
All the best.