• mySFWaccount@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Yeah, they aren’t “knock-offs” or “imitations.” That is some bad reporting.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      59
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      They are absolutely 100% imitations copied from an original. Just because the imitation is good or even perfect, doesn’t make it any less an imitation or knockoff.

      Edit2:
      There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
      But disregarding how close it comes, even if it’s identical it’s still a knockoff, and it will always be considered “cheap” because it’s not an original product.

      I find it strange that the perception is that these medicine copies are not knockoffs because they are well made??? Because in medicine that’s very common, is widely sold as cheaper alternatives, and generally has the exact same effect as the original. And it’s perfectly legitimate once the patents expire.

      • SplashJackson@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Just like going to buy corn in the grocery store is ripping off the Incan farmer who domesticated them 10000 years ago

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It is chemically indistinguishable. This is usually not the case for imitations or knockoffs in other market sectors. So it should be highlighted to prevent a misleading narrative.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          32
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          This is usually not the case for imitations

          So what? That doesn’t make them not imitations or copies, and it’s called an exact copy and is not unusual, and it’s still a copy. No matter how accurate good and efficient, doesn’t change that it’s a copy of an original heavily researched product.
          These new weight loss medicines are Nobel Price material, no doubt it’s not the knock offs that will get the Nobel Price for copying what someone else did.

          • Otter@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            1 month ago

            The original comment you replied to said

            Yeah, they aren’t “knock-offs” or “imitations.” That is some bad reporting.

            They used quotes to point out that those words usually imply an inferior quality, something which doesn’t do what it says that it does, something that is produced without permission, etc.

            While the drugs may still be copies, word choice can affect how people perceive the quality / efficacy of them.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              A knock off is a copy, a cheap knock off is a cheap copy.
              There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.
              In medicine it’s quite common that cheaper copies or knockoffs are identical to the original product, and those are very common to become available when patents have expired.

              • Otter@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                There is nothing inherent in knockoff that says it doesn’t work. That would be a fake.

                While I can find definitions that call it “an inferior copy” (link), that’s not the point. Common usage has made it so that people will assume things about the quality or efficacy of the medication when certain words are used. Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.

                Often when patents expire and other options emerge, they are called “generics” or “store brand” versions. Those terms don’t carry the negative associations.

                • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Even if a word is technically correct, perceptions about the word can make it a bad choice.

                  I agree, I just find it strange that that is the perception of medicine that is a knockoff of an original, because that’s very common, is widely sold, and generally has the exact same effect as the original.
                  A knockoff is also used for a cheaper copy of an original. Cheaper as in price, not necessarily quality, although that is often the case, it doesn’t have to be. As is usually NOT the case when it regards medicine. The cheaper copy (knockoff) can usually be used interchangeably.

                  There are also knockoffs of Louis Vuitton products that are hard to identify even by experts. Louis Vuitton products are often not that expensive to make, so a knockoff can easily be cheaper, and have similar quality.
                  But disregarding how close it comes, it will always be considered cheap because it’s a knockoff and not an original product.

                  • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    What is your point? There’s a difference between a bag and a molecule and it really seems like you’re just embarrassing yourself.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Hey, this isn’t real water! This asshole just combined one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms!

          • P1nkman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Did you know there’s an abundance of H²O in the world, and that it kills people every year? It can literally kill you, so we need to ban it!

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 month ago

        “Imitation” very strongly implies that it is not in actuality the thing being imitated. Imitation butter is not butter. Imitation crab is not crab.

        These medicines are the same chemical, therefore the same product.

        I will however grant that while calling store brand painkillers “imitation ibuprofen” is nonsense, calling them “imitation advil” is okay because advil is a brand. Though in my opinion it should be avoided because it carries an implication of inferiority that is simply not the case.