New Monorail, a Toho rip-off ?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I was just poking around the She-Hao web site (looking for specs on their rumored 7x17) when I came across this:

SR45-IIA

Now, this is NOT the same SR45II model that is shown on the Robert White web site (that started this whole thread), but what it is is a NEAR clone of another Toho model, the Toho FC-45Mini. And yes, the Toho FC-45Mini even comes in silver (as well as the standard black).

The reason I say it is a NEAR clone is they changed one seemingly minor detail - the size and shape of the lens board. Rather than the standard round Toho board, they went with the more common Linhof/Wista style board. While this may, at first glance appear to be a wise choice, it is in fact quite the opposite. You see, the Toho FC-45Mini has NO MOVEMENTS and relies on the accessory eccentric lens panel to provide front rise and shift. By eliminating this feature they have created a 4x5 camera that can't be handheld (it's a monorail with no viewfinder/rangefinder) that has absolutely no camera movements, not even front rise. Where the Toho FC-Mini is a lightweight affordable alternative to the wide angle 4x5 and 6x12 "shift" cameras (like the Cambo Wide DS and the Horseman SW612 Pro), the Shen-Hao SR45-AII is pretty much useless. If you're going to go to the trouble of copying someone else's design, at least understand what it is you're trying to build.

So, the appearance of the SR45-AII on the Shen Hao web site should remove any trace of doubt that Shen Hao is indeed in the business of ripping off Toho's designs. Fortuntately, in this case, they completely screwed up by changing one detail they thought would improve the camera and it backfired. I used to recommend the Shen Hao HZX45-ⅡA, but my opinion of them has dropped two notches as a result of this whole Toho cloning fiasco - once for ripping off someone else's designs, and twice for not even understaning the impact the design change they made has on the usability of the camera.

Kerry

[XH Wang]

Is it really true that Shen Hao or Robert White actually breaks any laws at all? Or it is just a "moral" thing. Does Toho actually have any patents to protect themselves? Anyone checked? If they don't, then it is their choice that they actually allow other people to copy their design. Maybe Toho doesn't care. It is possible Toho may even want someone to copy their design. What are we discussing here without direct reply from Toho? I just don't get it. We are basically saying a perfect legal practice should not be done because we guess Toho might not like it or we thinks it might affect Toho. How can we reach such conclusion? What's the point?

In my personal opinion, I don't think the Shen Hao copy will affect the sale of Toho at all. It is $200 cheaper with inferior workmanship. At least Shen Hao doesn't put a Toho label on it (then we will have a problem). Poeple want the best product or don't feel morally correct will pay the $200 extra to get the real thing. For other poorer people who want to try out something interesting but don't have the budget for a real Toho will just go for the inferior copy. These poeple will not buy a Toho to begin with. So in reality, the Toho design will actually reach more people. We all assume that a copy is bad for Toho, is it really the case?

For myself, I got a chance to buy a second hand Toho copy, M2 ,for $500. It certainly requires some work. But I would never buy a Toho to begin with, so Toho didn't lose a customer. On the other hand, now I have a workable LF camera like Toho. I love it very much. Now if you ask me if I will buy a Toho in the future, the answer is actually very possible. Any if you ask me if I will recommend the camera to other people. The answer is definitely "sure". So in fact, after I used the inferior copy, Toho can actually get more customers.

My point is that we cannot assume anything without further research or words from Toho. And I think it is definitely morally incorrect that one would not recommend the products from Shen Hao just because he assumes one thing the company does is morally incorrect by his own standard.

[Kevin Crisp]

Interesting first post, XH Wang. I can't follow your argument. I am sure that the Toho folks have not been hoping somebody in China would copy and market their design. Do you really need to have confirmation of that?

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

XH,

I think I can state with reasonable certainty that if you and I both lived to be 1000 years old, we would never agree on this issue. We, obviously, have totally different value systems. Even if Shen Hao has broken no laws, and Toho has not complained in this forum, the copying of Toho's designs violates the spirit of intellectual property rights - at the very least.

In my personal opinion, I don't think the Shen Hao copy will affect the sale of Toho at all.

I don't believe this for one second. Every sale of a Toho clone is a potential lost sale for Toho.

It is $200 cheaper with inferior workmanship.

Many people shop by price alone - especially online. Since there only appears to be one dealer in the world selling the Toho clone, how many buyers will actually see it in person and have a chance to compare it to the genuine article before buying. They see something that looks like a Toho, and it costs $200 less. So, they buy it and think they got a good deal. Unless they ever get a chance to compare their "inferior" product to the real thing, they will never appreciate the difference in quality that extra $200 would have bought. In the mean time, Toho has lost a sale.

Now if you ask me if I will buy a Toho in the future, the answer is actually very possible. Any if you ask me if I will recommend the camera to other people. The answer is definitely "sure". So in fact, after I used the inferior copy, Toho can actually get more customers.

Wow, that's some rationalization. To me it sounds an awful lot like: it's OK to cheat someone out of a sale today because I might recommend their products to someone who might buy something from them in the future.

And I think it is definitely morally incorrect that one would not recommend the products from Shen Hao just because he assumes one thing the company does is morally incorrect by his own standard.

If not my own, whose moral standards should I use when making a recommendation? Seriously, what I chose to recommend and not recommend is totally my decision and it is based on my personal value system. To me, the choice is simple. I chose to reward the company who innovates, not the one who imitates. I value innovation over rock bottom prices and inferior quality. After all, what happens when Shen Hao drives innovative companies like Toho out of the large format market. We all lose. Whose designs will the copycats copy when the copycats are the only ones still in business? What incentive will innovative companies like Toho have to invest the time and money needed to introduce new, improved designs when they know an unauthorized clone will show up on the market six months later?

I'm sure this rant will earn me the title of "Shen Hao basher" from those who support the company and defend their practices. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. I never said a negative word about Shen Hao or any of their products until they began blatantly copying other people's designs. I personally don't care if Shen Hao isn't technically violating any Toho patents. I find the practice of blatantly copying someone else's design morally reprehensible and personally chose not to support a company that would stoop to this level. I will not buy their products, and I will no longer recommend them to others. That's just my personal opinion. I'm not suggesting others boycott Shen Hao. Whether or not to support the company and buy their products is a matter of personal choice. We're all adults here and capable of making our own decisions. To each his own.

Kerry

[John_4185]

Ethics, Morals, Commercial Affairs?

We do not know whether there is a commercial legal (pragmatic) case, so that argument cannot be made. So far, we have only a chain of speculation, therefore a well made ethical and personal position is all one can address.

It is easy to find any number of rationalizations to appropriate the work of others in order to suit ones self: supporting the person/company (entity) who takes something made from the R&D investment of another is merely distancing ones self from the act, but the ethics remain the same and the purchaser is responsible. To me it is like buying something in a thieves' market, at best.

"But I can't afford (insert item here), therefore I steal it" is just lame. Chances are you don't "need" it anyway.

What leads me to this view is a personal penchant for _better things_, innovation, quality, and not just more of the same old crap under a different label. To abate the easy rebuttal that some things are just plain overpriced I say: True, so what? Is it something we truly 'need'?

I rather like Kerry Thalmann's stand. Obviously. If you don't like a personal ethical position, rant on, but best make it good.

[XH Wang]

Also, before we all blame Shen Hao for copying Toho's camera, let's think about why they want to do that? If the sale of Toho is only 10-20 each year, how much can Shen Hao gain from doing this. I don't think they will bother. So who has the information of the sale? The answer: dealers. So it is possible that dealers may want such a copy in their list and ask Shen Hao to produce it. The dealers must have pormised the sale of the camera before Shen Hao was willing to produce it.

[John_4185]

XH Wang's comment reminds me of a thought I had last year while working with some efforts in Beijing. There is a new economic paradigm rising in certain parts of China that remind me to be suspicious of the "irrational exuberance" we experienced during the crazy dot com years. Some enterprises are funded by the government based upon capitalist visions that are not really fully formed or mature (and others that are impressively strident). Could it be that Shen Hao need only produce a sample of products in order to garner some income from the government, and that they need not intend for a moment to produce a regular line unless it will be proven to be profitable? What I am suggesting is that Shen Hao (if they are so funded) need not have dealer commitments beyond a token few, nor realize any sales to be 'successful' at this time.

The idea that a Chinese company need not prove a profit in the American short-term view is enough to think about right now. We tend to disregard that which is not imminent, while they are in it for a long term that USA public companies cannot participate.

[XH Wang]

JJ,
I am sure what you said exist in China. But I highly doubt the government will fund a Toho copy project. You probably doubt it yourself. Copying a car design is much much more likely to be funded.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

let's think about why they want to do that?

Their bussiness is making cameras, so why should they spend time and materials designing their own camera when they can copy the efforts of other makers? That is why they want to do that.

Now, do you really think camera dealers phone Shen Hao and tell them "Hey, you know, I think it would be swell if you guys knock off Ebony and Toho and sell them for half the price?"

You are really grasping at straws here XH, you can try and rationalize all you want but I doubt your arguments are convincing anyone in this forum. You have to admit that what Shen Hao is doing is wrong, maybe not illegal, but wrong nevertheless......

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

So it is possible that dealers may want such a copy in their list and ask Shen Hao to produce it. The dealers must have pormised the sale of the camera before Shen Hao was willing to produce it.

But I highly doubt the government will fund a Toho copy project.

Does it really matter who is funding this behavior? Unethical behavior is unethical behavior no matter who is footing the bill. You're really grasping at straws here. The excuse that sombody (potentially) asked them to do it, or (potentially) offered them money to do so does not let Shen Hao off the hook. They chose to copy Toho's designs and should be held accountable for this decision - even if they haven't broken any laws or infringed on anyone's patents. Some may not find the blatant copying of others' designs offensive, but I do. No amount of rationalizing will change my mind. "What" they did offends me. "Why" they did it is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Kerry