Blatant Copies! :-(

Why is it that if a someone lists a cue for sale that is an identical copy of a famous maker's work then the members go bat-crazy over it and denounce both the maker and the seller BUT when the same thing is done to a famous case maker's work then not a peep is uttered?

Here is a blatant Whitten ripoff
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=177125

Here is an Instroke ripoff
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=176691

I am not talking about cases which use SOME elements of design from another maker but show improvements or other changes. That's normal to "borrow" elements of design and just about every case maker has used elements from others in their work.

No, I am talking about the deliberate 1:1 copying for the purpose of making money off of the iconic design that another maker established.

If you look at all the iterations of the Fellini case you will see that each new brand brought something new to the table. (well most did). But even Fellini borrowed from Gina cases before him.

When I owned Instroke I was sick to see these ripoffs hit the market. And Whitten's "look" has always been an inspiration for more than 15 years for domestic brands as well as imports. They weren't copied verbatim.

It's sad however for me to see these new Whitten knockoffs hitting the market and people don't say a word of condemnation.

But let a cue maker copy a Gina or a Joss West and watch the venom come out.

I don't want to get into a debate about economics and copyrights and patents and trademarks. It's like this - no matter whether it's legal or not - it's immoral to trade on the designs of other living producing case makers whose design is also their trademark.

Kinda sad if you ask me that not one person steps up to at least voice a little protest.