> Except copying someone else's design and presenting it as your own is literally that infraction?No, it's different. The infraction in question would be, say, copying a Rolex watch and putting "Rolex" on it. In that case, the copier would not be presenting it as their own. They'd be presenting it as a Rolex, in order to fool people into buying their knockoff.
If one were to instead copy the design of a Rolex watch, then put their own company's name on the face, it would be wholly inaccurate to describe this as "tricking unsuspecting customers into accidentally buying a cheap knockoff," since any customers who are shopping for the original Rolex brand would (by definition) be aware of the Rolex brand name.
> We end up with the current situation and people in this thread arguing that somehow design theft is okay because it was executed efficiently.
You continue to say "design theft," presumably to make the case that it is an axiomatically wrong thing do. The reality is that this is not theft. Theft has a very particular definition, and is wrong because it it deprives the victim of an actual good or item that was in their position.
What's actually happening is not theft but "copying," which is in no way axiomatically wrong, and is instead the very mechanism by which humanity has grown and thrived, as it is a necessary component of innovation. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" and all that.
There are specific instances of copying that we've outlawed for purely utilitarian purposes. This is copyright/patent/trademark law, which again, is wholly separate from theft, both in denotation and morally. And even copyright infringement doesn't apply here, because as far as I'm aware, there are no copyright laws protecting the design of a shoe.
I'm not an expert, but I'd guess at most we're dealing with potential trade dress infractions here, and even that's arguable.
> What are you actually saying with this paragraph? That Allbirds should take Amazon to court over copyright infringement? Or design patents?
If Amazon is violating the law, sure. If not, that's Allbirds' problem to solve with whatever business strategy they choose. Why wouldn't it be? Are they entitled to business success?
If Allbirds' product and business is truly more appealing, and that matters to consumers, they'll choose Allbirds. However, if people don't care about the things Allbirds thinks they care about, then Allbirds will suffer and competitors who better cater to actual consumer desires will thrive. As it should be.
> It's too bad you feel that we're not allowed as consumers to dislike or even consider the business practices of where our products come from.
Where did I say you shouldn't be allowed to do that? You can vocalize support for whoever you want. You can also vote with your dollars by shopping at your favorite companies.
If consumers like Allbirds more than Amazon's shoes, there's nothing stopping them from buying Allbirds. I happen to like Allbirds' sustainable approach, personally, even though I don't buy their shoes.
But they are not entitled to win the market just because they were first, and their case against Amazon is a business challenge to be surmounted, not a legitimate moral issue.
> But no. Efficient theft is moral because it costs the consumer less.
Again, it's not theft, and it's not immoral.
> Hard work is meaningless
Yes, if we're talking about how the market rewards companies and creators, hard work is meaningless. Why should it be otherwise?
The point of capitalism is to incentivize us to provide value to others, not to incentivize us to work hard for its own sake. Hard work is merely a means (sometimes an optional one) to an end, and provides no direct value to consumers itself.
"Person X works hard, therefore they should be paid more" is another very common misconception about how the market operates. Intuitively, that makes sense on a personal, familial, or tribal level. We want to show appreciation for the people we interact with. But those personal relationships are not analogous to how the market does or should reward people.
> Is this addressed to me?
No, I meant the figurative "you" aka "one" or "someone."