Counterfeit locks

[zeepia]

At the shop I looked at these locks and wondered how they were in that kind of plastic package, Abloy don´t sell them like that...
And when I came closer, it was clear that these were just copies. 13€ for two padlocks and keys when the real deal cost you around 30€.
And the lack of quality is present even if I didn´t buy it and open the package, these was residual brass from the cast around the keyway.
These have so distinctive shape that I would be deceived if I only looked at them in distance.



So I´m interested how well made counterfeits have you seen around? Yono have this 70mm Haliba which had also details copied, also there only thing missing is quality

[Squelchtone]

The word counterfeit suggests something was done illegally. If the Abloy PL3020 handbag padlock design has not been patented for 20, 50, or 75 years, then anyone can make a "similar" or even an exact Abloy Classic padlock and not be accused of counterfeiting. Does that make the company complete jerks for making a clone of a famous lock, yes, but I think they are in their right to do so.

I ran across a Medeco Classic clone made by Angal, bought it on ebay, it has no markings on the face of the mortise cylinder, and internally the parts look identical to Medeco, very well machined.

Squelchtone

[GWiens2001]

Just look on eBay and see all the 'clones'. When I was looking for Mul-T-Lock, I had to finally add '-type' to the search field. And still, many counterfeits. You have to look close. Abloy, have to do the same thing. Don't see it with Medeco or BiLock.

Gordon

[minifhncc]

Don't see it with Medeco or BiLock.

That's probably because BiLock still is patented.

[GWiens2001]

I thought the first generation had expired by now. Hmmm.

Gordon

[GWiens2001]

Quoting from Datagram's paper on Beating the BiLock...

Patented in 1981, the original design is referred to as the BiLock First Generation (FG) and
features twelve pins arranged in two rows of six (Figure 1.1). Two sidebars are placed at 3 and 9 o'clock in the plug, each interfacing with one row of pins. Unlike traditional pin-tumbler
locks, the FG uses no driver pins. Instead, each chamber has a single spring-biased pin with
holes on one side that interact with the sidebars legs (Figure 1.4). When all pins are properly positioned their holes line up with the legs of the sidebar, allowing the sidebar to retract and the plug to rotate.

Patents, as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), expire after 17 years. This means that BiLock's first generation patent would have expired in 1998, almost 15 years ago. True, their more recent modifications would have later expiration dates, but not the original.

My thanks and credit to Datagram, for his exceptional work and papers, including the one I quoted from above.

Gordon

[vinnie]

I think knockoffs get too much bad press. I'm talking about knockoffs in anything. Sometimes they really are worthless pieces of junk, but sometimes they're almost as good as the original. So why not have the option to buy a non-name brand product for much cheaper. It drives competition and as such ingenuity much faster than it would normally occur. The original company is always going to want to be a step ahead of the knock off so that's when progress is faster

[WOT]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there were counterfeit locks.

There are even counterfeit circuit breakers these days.

[lockr]

Quoting from Datagram's paper on Beating the BiLock... [snip]
Patents, as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), expire after 17 years. This means that BiLock's first generation patent would have expired in 1998, almost 15 years ago. True, their more recent modifications would have later expiration dates, but not the original.

Since the FG and NG are so very similar (the only patentable difference being the moving element in the NG key), any manufacturer making clones would still likely run the risk of being challenged.

It's the same with the Protec 2 - the design is identical (AFAIK) with the only difference being the addition of the ball bearing in the key and the associated mechanism in the lock. It's the same concept: add a feature whose only significance is to change the design just enough to allow a new patent; the remainder of the mechanism is unchanged.

Truth be told, probably the reason Bilock hasn't been cloned by some Chinese knockoff company is because they're relatively obscure....

[maestrodt]

I see master lock knockoffs all the time... my friend has a box of knockoff Master no 40's and I have a few knockoff Master no 3's at home.

I agree with the above, I don't think it's counterfeiting... especially with the Master no 3's... I don't think someone has the patent rights to laminate padlock design... maybe to the internal parts but not the outer-body type. CVS has their own version of the No. 3, I've seen a version at Giant, Safeway, Walmart, Target... etc. They look exactly the same, but without the Master logo across the front... they have a slightly cheaper feel to them, but it's not like a "real" master 3 presents much of a problem to bypass in the first place... I'd be more worried about the internal parts rusting or wearing out quicker on the knockoffs though.