Bloomberg News reports that Ford won an International Trade Commission ruling barring the import of grilles, headlights, bumpers, side-view mirrors and taillights for the F-150 truck from Taiwan on grounds they infringed seven design patents link here. The design patents are reported to run for 14 years. The finding is subject to presidential review. Ford characterized the parts as "counterfeits" which harm not just Ford, but the entire industry.

Most consumers think the price of replacement parts is outrageous and ask how a grill that fits the vehicle constitutes a new, significant, addition to knowledge or that revealing it somehow conveys an important benefit on the public warranting the granting of a monopoly for 14 years.

If only everyone could tell the difference between:

1) A manufacturer approved part, often named with trademark 2) A copy/derivative and purportedly equivalent part, but clearly and emphatically non-approved 3) A counterfeit imitation, of dubious equivalence, intended/easy to confuse as an approved part - often abusing the trademark

Now, 1 and 2 are fine and ethically wholesome, whereas 3 isn't.

And then we have patent and copyright that say 2 must be prohibited for umpteen years or lifetimes. And corrupt legislators pretend that 2 and 3 are identical classes in order to persuade people that the commercial benefits of prohibiting 2 are actually the ethical justifications of prohibiting 3.

Perhaps someone should ask "Ok, so are you telling us that you'll allow unsafe counterfeits back on the market after 14 years despite their clear danger to the consumer? Don't you think these counterfeits should be prohibited forever?"

That is a very bad idea. THe last thing we wnat is for patent protection to last forever, and that woulld be the IP lawyer's solution to the problem.