Should this be encouraged, or is it theft?

An interesting and vexing,complex question.
My thought first up is if it were a problem,wouldn't Canon/Nikon have taken some form of legal action.?

Yongnuo are not the worst ones out there. There are some knockoffs who actually advertise their product as a geniune Canon one and copy everything and brand it as Canon. It's the same with the fake Sandisk's. They looked fairly real too.

This is more than common in China. A lot of the knockoffs are even made in the same factory as the "OEM". They simply finish the order for say, Canon, then make a new label and keep on making them under some other brand name.

Mark1 wrote in post #9000144
This is more than common in China. A lot of the knockoffs are even made in the same factory as the "OEM". They simply finish the order for say, Canon, then make a new label and keep on making them under some other brand name.

Yes they do. The tooling on this is different enough that they had to make a new one, but they could easily have rendered from the original cad with a few minor tweaks. Thats where the theft originated.

mattograph wrote in post #9000156
Yes they do. The tooling on this is different enough that they had to make a new one, but they could easily have rendered from the original cad with a few minor tweaks. Thats where the theft originated.

The joy of a Chinese-centric economy.

Just ask Moto. They never had a cell phone design ripped off until they started manufacturing in China. It took (IIRC) less than 6 weeks for a look-alike to hit the market.

Everyone loves cheap electronics (and other things) but few consider the full magnitude of the situation.

Im not sure i follow your argument/point.

You ordered a 3rd party battery pack. You received a 3rd party battery pack. You knew you were not paying a premium price for a genuine canon product, but bought the pack anyway. The fact that you ordered it from a retailer you respect and trust should have nothing to do with it. Is the fact that the retailer sources their "3rd party" from the same place you could have got it a month ago, or from ebay if you so desired upsetting? If you ordered a genuine pack and received something like that, i would see the argument.

The fact that Yongnuo make the product resemble the original will help prospective customers feel familiar with the product, and give an easy indication of what brands the products are compatible with. If the intent was for Yongnuo to rip-off canon, im sure they could quite readily pop it in a box that has a red canon logo, and ship them via ebay as genuine products.

Other things to consider included that Yongnuo could be paying royalties or licencing, or they could have a non exclusive design or research partnership, etc etc

Cheers

Ash

mbellot wrote in post #9000198
The joy of a Chinese-centric economy.

Just ask Moto. They never had a cell phone design ripped off until they started manufacturing in China. It took (IIRC) less than 6 weeks for a look-alike to hit the market.

Everyone loves cheap electronics (and other things) but few consider the full magnitude of the situation.

It is going to become a huge problem as manufacturers will not be able to afford the R&D costs due to lost sales, repairs will be a problem, residual values will drop like a stone and those are just a few of the problems!

neilwood32 wrote in post #9001549
It is going to become a huge problem as manufacturers will not be able to afford the R&D costs due to lost sales, repairs will be a problem, residual values will drop like a stone and those are just a few of the problems!

Yup. It's just one big snowball.

Being an engineer for a large manufacturing company I've become more and more aware of the costs and time of bringing a product to market. But as a consumer I also like to find the best deal. It's a tough balancing act out there. We all want free enterprise and the most for our money, but like Neil said, the more we support the companies that are riding someone elses R&D coat tails the more the new products are going to cost us.

I'm all for third party vendors but they need to do their own leg work. I am sure it is all patent infringement but at what cost can Canon even do anything about it to an overseas company?

Again there is also the argument about sending the production overseas to begin with.

I for one, won't support these companies that rip off someone elses design, but its not always so black and white.

ash.m wrote in post #9001524
Im not sure i follow your argument/point.

You ordered a 3rd party battery pack. You received a 3rd party battery pack. You knew you were not paying a premium price for a genuine canon product, but bought the pack anyway. The fact that you ordered it from a retailer you respect and trust should have nothing to do with it. Is the fact that the retailer sources their "3rd party" from the same place you could have got it a month ago, or from ebay if you so desired upsetting? If you ordered a genuine pack and received something like that, i would see the argument.

The fact that Yongnuo make the product resemble the original will help prospective customers feel familiar with the product, and give an easy indication of what brands the products are compatible with. If the intent was for Yongnuo to rip-off canon, im sure they could quite readily pop it in a box that has a red canon logo, and ship them via ebay as genuine products.

Other things to consider included that Yongnuo could be paying royalties or licencing, or they could have a non exclusive design or research partnership, etc etc

Cheers

Ash

There is such a thing as a 3rd party accessory that does not infringe on trademarks and trade styles of a manufacturer. Tamron and Sigma make 3rd party lenses. Quantum and Sunpak make TTL lights that use Canon technology. Yet you could never mistake those units for Canon units after a brief inspection. I have ordered 3rd party accessories before that were not blatant ripoffs of the originals. Many people have.

This is different. Not only is the product identically styled to the Canon piece, but the packaging is as well. "Helping prospective customer feel familiar" certainly sounds altruistic, but its not an excuse -- in fact, its an admission you stole their intellectual property in an effort to "comfort" your customer. And Canon's packaging is downright lousy. Why copy that?

RE: Licensing. Its well established that Canon and Nikon do not do that -- ask any of the 3rd party lens manufacturers who have to reverse engineer all their lenses, as neither of the big two will provide any of their architecture or programming property to assist them in their efforts. And if it were licensed, you are required in the US to indicate that in your packaging and materials.

Here is the question of the hour:

Are you keeping it or returning it in favor of an official product?

I would send it back if I were you. Problem solved.

Dave.H wrote in post #9001791
Here is the question of the hour:

Are you keeping it or returning it in favor of an official product?

rklepper wrote in post #9001860
I would send it back if I were you. Problem solved.

I wondered when someone would ask that!

I am returning it. Waiting for my RA now.

mattograph wrote in post #9002203
I wondered when someone would ask that!

I am returning it. Waiting for my RA now.

I think you deserve credit for bringing this up. There are very few people out there that would let this weigh this heavy on their mind. It says something about your character.

Mark1 wrote in post #9000144
This is more than common in China. A lot of the knockoffs are even made in the same factory as the "OEM". They simply finish the order for say, Canon, then make a new label and keep on making them under some other brand name.

Now THAT would be awsome! Muhahaha Edit: just the concept would be awsome. Not the reality of it.