Jump to content
Playing in the Sandbox Group Build Sept 1, 2024 - Jn 1, 2025

Fokker DR.I in 1/32 announced from Meng

DocRob

By DocRob
in Modelling Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators
Clunkmeister

Clunkmeister

Posted
  • Administrators
Posted

My big deal is that I’m absolutely not cool with the Chinese doing what the Chinese do: openly stealing intellectual property for their own gain. 

Now, IF they acquired it legally according to NZ Law, I’d be 100% cool with it.   That’s just how I’m wired. I’m 100% against intellectual theft. 

The good news is, I’m under no obligation to buy it, or anything else I feel is stolen intellectual property.   And this is NOT because I support PJ whatsoever. A close friend of mine has, in other retail areas,  been the victim of Chinese theft, and it’s NOT a victimless crime. He lost hundreds of thousands in sales, tens of thousands in development dollars, and 10 years of his life. He had exactly 7 months of sales before flagrant bootleg Chinese copies arrived on the shelves at half price, and 1/10 the quality. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GazzaS

GazzaS

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Clunkmeister said:

My big deal is that I’m absolutely not cool with the Chinese doing what the Chinese do: openly stealing intellectual property for their own gain. 

Now, IF they acquired it legally according to NZ Law, I’d be 100% cool with it.   That’s just how I’m wired. I’m 100% against intellectual theft. 

The good news is, I’m under no obligation to buy it, or anything else I feel is stolen intellectual property.   And this is NOT because I support PJ whatsoever. A close friend of mine has, in other retail areas,  been the victim of Chinese theft, and it’s NOT a victimless crime. He lost hundreds of thousands in sales, tens of thousands in development dollars, and 10 years of his life. He had exactly 7 months of sales before flagrant bootleg Chinese copies arrived on the shelves at half price, and 1/10 the quality. 

The Chinese are pretty amazing at the copy game.  And I'm not saying I approve.  A long while ago I wanted to buy a Mauser C96.  Probably the ugliest, yet coolest pistol in the world.  I didn't want a Chinese copy so I bought a book about them.  Included were some pics of the copies...  and they were pretty good...  except for the one where they put the "M" upside down.  So, the pistol was engraved "Wauser".

 

Recently at a club meeting, I was told of a practice for disseminating copied goods within the People's Republic only.  Apparently, the model kits involved were sold in plain, white boxes.

 

But these sales are all out in the open.  I'm sure some kind of deal was struck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest DannyVM

Guest DannyVM

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Clunkmeister said:

My big deal is that I’m absolutely not cool with the Chinese doing what the Chinese do: openly stealing intellectual property for their own gain. 

Now, IF they acquired it legally according to NZ Law, I’d be 100% cool with it.   That’s just how I’m wired. I’m 100% against intellectual theft. 

The good news is, I’m under no obligation to buy it, or anything else I feel is stolen intellectual property.   And this is NOT because I support PJ whatsoever. A close friend of mine has, in other retail areas,  been the victim of Chinese theft, and it’s NOT a victimless crime. He lost hundreds of thousands in sales, tens of thousands in development dollars, and 10 years of his life. He had exactly 7 months of sales before flagrant bootleg Chinese copies arrived on the shelves at half price, and 1/10 the quality. 

Totally agree with you on this Ernie.

The same happened some years ago when a Dutch guy was planning to release a 1/32 B-25. Long story followed but at the end he lost his moulds and was left in the cold. Maybe he had to be more careful who to trust on this but at the end, Hong Kong Models came with the very first injected molded 1/32 B-25 made from the molds of the Dutch guy. It's a story i read somewhere some years ago but i don't know the source anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BlrwestSiR

BlrwestSiR

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, DannyVM said:

Totally agree with you on this Ernie.

The same happened some years ago when a Dutch guy was planning to release a 1/32 B-25. Long story followed but at the end he lost his moulds and was left in the cold. Maybe he had to be more careful who to trust on this but at the end, Hong Kong Models came with the very first injected molded 1/32 B-25 made from the molds of the Dutch guy. It's a story i read somewhere some years ago but i don't know the source anymore.

That was Wingscale. My understanding is the guy had contracted HK to design, make the moulds, and produce the kits for him. They had a disagreement about something and the partnership ended. As part of that settlement, HK ended up releasing the kit under their name. 

No idea on what the disagreement was about, only HK and Wingscale will know the full details. 

Likewise, the situation here. If Meng was contracted to make the moulds and subsequently the kits for WNW but hasn't received payment due to the closure of WNW, then I'd say they're just trying to recoup the cost of the work they've done. But again, only Meng and WNW will know.

This is a bit different from when Academy was caught outright copying other companies' kits and cutting badly copied moulds to make their own kits. In fact Academy was banned from selling in Japan after they were caught. They had to get a third party to rebox their kits sold there. 

I absolutely agree that theft (IP or physical) shouldn't be supported but we don't know if the moulds were stolen or obtained as settlement. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HubertB

HubertB

Posted
Posted

Before we speculate whether this kit, or others, are legitimately produced, let’s remember a few facts:

- Molds, aka toolings, are generally produced by a specialised company, and paid for by the ultimate user. They belong to this end user, as long as they have been duly, and completely, accepted by the end user after trials, and paid for in full. Only when the tooling has been paid for, after acceptance trials, by the end user, is property of said tooling transferred to the end user. I remember reading somewhere that the Pegasus 1/32 Spirit of St Louis was never released because the Korean mold-maker and Pegasus were in conflict and the final payment never made. Maybe it’s just another urban legend, but it illustrates my point. I also believe the B-25 story is in the same vein.

- When injection-molding is subcontracted, the tooling belongs to whomever paid for it. Sometimes, end users subcontract injection and ask the injecter to pre-finance the tooling, and recoup its cost in the cost-per-part until the nth production run. A contractual agreement, between the two parties, will settle who will be the end owner of the tooling and after how many parts. Until the contractual terms are reached, the toolings belong to whom paid for it, then the ownership might be transferred.


- WnW have announced they were going to dispose of their assets.
 

So, there are plenty of legitimate or legal reasons why Meng might have ended-up with WnW’s Dr-1 tooling, without going into « unlawful-Chinese » speculations. As pointed above by Carl, we just are not privvy with the details.

Just my :2c:

Hubert

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest DannyVM

Guest DannyVM

Posted
Posted

Great and learning discussion guy's:thumbsup2::thumbsup2::thumbsup2:

7 hours ago, BlrwestSiR said:

That was Wingscale. My understanding is the guy had contracted HK to design, make the moulds, and produce the kits for him. They had a disagreement about something and the partnership ended. As part of that settlement, HK ended up releasing the kit under their name. 

No idea on what the disagreement was about, only HK and Wingscale will know the full details. 

Likewise, the situation here. If Meng was contracted to make the moulds and subsequently the kits for WNW but hasn't received payment due to the closure of WNW, then I'd say they're just trying to recoup the cost of the work they've done. But again, only Meng and WNW will know.

This is a bit different from when Academy was caught outright copying other companies' kits and cutting badly copied moulds to make their own kits. In fact Academy was banned from selling in Japan after they were caught. They had to get a third party to rebox their kits sold there. 

I absolutely agree that theft (IP or physical) shouldn't be supported but we don't know if the moulds were stolen or obtained as settlement. 

Yep that's the one. I couldn't remember the name anymore, thank's for the heads-up.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...