Originally Posted by golflaw
Where did you get your law license? A conflict of interest is when you represent one side and later switch to another.
I really get tired of people today making up their own facts. You can have your own opinion, but at 62 I am not going to let someone make up their own facts and then spout them off as though they have any merit.
You may choose to believe the earth is flat if you wish. Your opinion is not a fact.
Saying that Chinese or other clones of product are comparable to name brands is actually false. It is not a fact. You may not like it or you may say 1000 times that clones are the same. It doesn't make that so or a fact. I have no conflicts. I choose not to represent knock offs for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is they move their factories all the time, they hide their money, they create and dissolve Corproate entities to avoid paying damages. Again, those are facts.
Sweeping generalizations are not facts either. You made a sweeping generalization about clones which is not necessarily true. Therefore your statement was not fact. You have yet to cite a concrete fact as it pertains to this particular debate; you're talking about counterfeiting products rather than clone products. Obviously there'd be a lot of easy money in it for you if they were the same thing, so I can see why you'd use rhetoric to lump them together.
FYI there's a difference between clones and counterfeits; clones use the same general designs with the same materials and processes but don't pass themselves off as name brand clubs. Counterfeits will copy the exact logos and attempt to look like the real thing, but aren't meant to be playing quality. The clones will also charge much less, with less advertising, while counterfeits will try to get full market price if they can. Clones are made by more or less honest businesses, while counterfeiters are trying to make money without following the law. (And as an aside, complaining about companies hiding money and using loopholes to maximize profits is pretty laughable, because that's exactly the kind of shit lawyers tell them to do. And also the same tricks companies in the US use.)
If I made my living trying to viciously defend the brand name mystique, as you admit you do, I would be biased. You are biased, having never compared the equipment in question, yet still believing more expensive equipment to be superior. I have at least a basis for my opinion which isn't prejudiced, having played both clones and brand names. Your opinion is not based on fact, mine is.
I don't think I was incorrect about the conflict of interest thing either, even as a matter of semantics. You are paid to represent one side in this debate, since it would be damaging to your career as an lawyer to admit the clubs were the same. Yet you are also attempting to weigh in on a public forum. You cannot be objective in this debate without possibly affecting your other interests ie your career. Same reason you can't trust a judge in a lawsuit against a tobacco company to also be the CEO of a tobacco company. Your support for the brands can be explained by the fact they pay you money, you could not be expected to potentially undermine your income, therefore you are not able to be objective. As long as you admit that you're totally biased and have no basis of experience to compare clones and brand clubs, that's fine.