Dana Thomas goes after high-fashion counterfeit handbag producers and sellers link here. "As soon as a handbag hits big, counterfeiters around the globe churn out fake versions by the thousands. And they have no trouble selling them. Shoppers descend on Canal Street in New York, Santee Alley in Los Angeles and flea markets and purse parties around the country to pick up knockoffs for one-tenth the legitimate bag's retail cost, then pass them off as real."

He argues that most people think the counterfeit trade is harmless but it 1) is run by criminal syndicates also in drugs and child prostitution, 2) "may have helped finance the 1983 World Trade Center bombing," and 3) is made by child labor. All bad. His solution is greater enforcement and persuading people not the buy the knock-offs.

Thomas doesn't seem to think that most buyers are fooled by the counterfeit into thinking it is the real thing. The price difference and the seller's facilities attest to that. Enforcement doesn't seem to work and it is very expensive trying to catch all those little entrepreneurs. So we need to persuade the public not to buy.

In favor of the counterfeit trade is an argument that it actually helps the "legitimate" industry. David points out that the fashion industry would be greatly harmed by fashion patents (posted on 08/23/2007 07:49 AM at http://www.againstmonopoly.org/) Wouldn't a consumer boycott or over active enforcement of trade marks in handbags do the same thing by removing the stimulus of competition to improve designs and create new design trends?