thaibeware
13-10-2009, 01:14 PM
I have been asked to bring this issue to the attention of the members of RE, by a fellow member, whose identity should remain anonymous, for reasons of personal safety. This person is not a Thai national. He is utterly devastated by the events that follow.
Background:
1. A full set of component details suitable for building a prototype heat-pump were supplied to a 'reputable' airconditioning manufacturer, in Bangkok, Thailand.
2. The design of the system was 100% the property of the designer - in other words the intellectual property resided completely with the designer.
3. The 'reputable' company was commissioned to quote on a suitable evaporator, box & fan to meet specification & to assemble the machine to designer's requirements.
4. The designer paid for the first prototype in full before the build commenced.
5. The first prototype was built, after many difficulties, & performance-tested at the builders' premises.
6. The designer then commissioned a second prototype to be built using the same components, but in a smaller box.
7. The second machine was also paid for, cash up-front.
8. The second machine was eventually built - difficulties included.
RHVAC 2009:
At a recent Trade Show (RHVAC 2009, Bangkok), the designer was requested to show his second heat-pump on the assembler's trade booth. This was understood to be in good faith & as a way to encourage new business.
On the first day of the trade show, the assembler's new product brochure arrived. On page 31, they listed a range of new heat-pumps they now manufactured. The picture of the unit was that of the designer's first prototype machine. No request for the picture had been asked for, nor obtained. This company had never previously 'officially' been in the heat-pump business, but did assemble for small designer/builders, upon request.
Upon observing this, the designer immediately instructed the assembler to remove his heat-pump from the booth, package it & return it to his company premises. This was done. This had to be done due to the clear conflict-of-interest situation that had arisen.
A metter of ethics?
When questioned as to why the assembler had acted in this manner, the answer was:
1. They could no remove the offending picture as the brochures had already been printed;
2. They considered it normal practice in the industry for companies to steal the IP from other companies;
3. They were utterly unrepentant in the matter.
Legal protection
Under Thai law, the designer will have very little real recourse to justice. At best, a very expensive, slow, legal battle would ensue, which would invariably exceed its statute-of-limitations of 10 years, before expiring.
Warning to foreigner developers
Please be very careful when building products in Thailand, as your IP will not be protected. Quite the contrary, it will be open season on your know-how.
Please be very, very careful when trusting in Thailand. :eek:
Edited by Frank.......Please do not name and shame in public. If you have a gripe with the Company, take it up with them directly.
Background:
1. A full set of component details suitable for building a prototype heat-pump were supplied to a 'reputable' airconditioning manufacturer, in Bangkok, Thailand.
2. The design of the system was 100% the property of the designer - in other words the intellectual property resided completely with the designer.
3. The 'reputable' company was commissioned to quote on a suitable evaporator, box & fan to meet specification & to assemble the machine to designer's requirements.
4. The designer paid for the first prototype in full before the build commenced.
5. The first prototype was built, after many difficulties, & performance-tested at the builders' premises.
6. The designer then commissioned a second prototype to be built using the same components, but in a smaller box.
7. The second machine was also paid for, cash up-front.
8. The second machine was eventually built - difficulties included.
RHVAC 2009:
At a recent Trade Show (RHVAC 2009, Bangkok), the designer was requested to show his second heat-pump on the assembler's trade booth. This was understood to be in good faith & as a way to encourage new business.
On the first day of the trade show, the assembler's new product brochure arrived. On page 31, they listed a range of new heat-pumps they now manufactured. The picture of the unit was that of the designer's first prototype machine. No request for the picture had been asked for, nor obtained. This company had never previously 'officially' been in the heat-pump business, but did assemble for small designer/builders, upon request.
Upon observing this, the designer immediately instructed the assembler to remove his heat-pump from the booth, package it & return it to his company premises. This was done. This had to be done due to the clear conflict-of-interest situation that had arisen.
A metter of ethics?
When questioned as to why the assembler had acted in this manner, the answer was:
1. They could no remove the offending picture as the brochures had already been printed;
2. They considered it normal practice in the industry for companies to steal the IP from other companies;
3. They were utterly unrepentant in the matter.
Legal protection
Under Thai law, the designer will have very little real recourse to justice. At best, a very expensive, slow, legal battle would ensue, which would invariably exceed its statute-of-limitations of 10 years, before expiring.
Warning to foreigner developers
Please be very careful when building products in Thailand, as your IP will not be protected. Quite the contrary, it will be open season on your know-how.
Please be very, very careful when trusting in Thailand. :eek:
Edited by Frank.......Please do not name and shame in public. If you have a gripe with the Company, take it up with them directly.