News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket by neilv on Sunday December 11, 2022 @12:41PM (#33945357)
The sometimes high cost of tooling and low cost of materials is a boon for counterfeits...

When I worked on an anti-counterfeiting and supply chain integrity startup, one of the kinds of counterfeits I heard was of factories that make the legitimate product secretly also make the counterfeits. (Sometimes called "third-shift counterfeits".) They'd not only reuse the design and processes, but also reuse the same tooling.

Corner-cutting the design/materials/QA is optional.

There's huge money in counterfeiting (hey, the brand hand counterfeiters their IP and brand-building and even tooling; and counterfeiters just pay materials, labor, and distribution), and some other supply chain shenanigans.

My impression was that besides hurting many businesses large and small (e.g., lost sales, price pressure, brand damage, and support/returns costs), and consumers (e.g., substandard product), it might also be concern for the relative economic power of countries (e.g., interests in one country steal profits from a major company, then that company sometimes also gets bought out by interests in that same country). (Though, bought-out companies still sometimes face supply chain fraud problems, including originating in other countries, so it's just not one single coherent national entity that's the problem.)

Had Covid not hit right after my startup's successful factory launch, and then the subsequent VC skittishness when we really needed a round (to grow our big-ticket enterprise sales/partnership and high-skilled engineering), we might've made bigger dents in the problem.

Re:Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket by akiselev on Sunday December 11, 2022 @02:42PM (#33946714)
Third shift counterfeiting has been an endemic problem since the invention of the Gutenberg press. I collect old and rare books going back to the 1500s and printers have been doing it for half a millennia. Once the type is set up for a print run, there’s nothing preventing the printer from running a secret shift to print a bunch more copies just for themselves. They’ll usually use cheaper paper or binding so they’re just different enough from real first editions to be worthless but you won’t know it until it gets to appraisal unless you physically inspect the book yourself and know exactly what to look for.
Re:Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket by moloch-hai on Sunday December 11, 2022 @03:43PM (#33947279)
They are also a sort of first edition, and equally old. It is odd that they are worthless. There probably is an opportunity awaiting the person who formalizes third-shift first editions.
Re:Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket by akiselev on Sunday December 11, 2022 @04:22PM (#33947676)
I think it mostly has to do with provenance. The third shift prints usually don’t make it into contemporary bibliographies [1] and since the printer is untrustworthy, you can’t be sure if it’s a real third shift first edition or the tenth impression of some typesetting that the printer forgot to recycle. If we were talking about the Gutenberg Bible or say, Origin of Species, it might be worth doing original research and chemical analyses because even a third shift copy could be worth more than its weight in gold, but for >>99% of books it’d be a losing proposition since few books are worth tens of thousands of dollars.

That said, if the paper and binding quality are the same between shifts and there’s no identifying mark like unique numbering on each copy, there’s no telling how many first editions in circulation are really third shift printings. So few of the books survive the centuries that I’ve never heard of more first editions showing up than the publisher admits to printing to bibliographers.

Edit: They’re not really “worthless” but old and rare books might see one genuine first edition sold every few years to some rich person with a hobby. Many if not most of these books are bought and sold by knowledgeable collectors so if a client is going to drop thousands on a book, they're going to buy the copy that is most likely to be genuine, making any also rans effectively worthless because there’s not enough of a demand to force buyers to settle for riskier copies.

[1] because they’re unauthorized and the publisher doesn’t talk about them to the bibliographers

Re:Meditations on an inexpensive laundry basket by WastingMyTime89 on Sunday December 11, 2022 @04:57PM (#33948003)
To be fair, it’s already odd that first editions are worth something. Collectors are just weird persons who will pay extraordinary sum for things of marginal interest. From there, it’s not surprising that the way value is ascribed itself doesn’t make much sense.