Edit:
It seems to have been proven in court that they have copyright (rather than the old patent) of the design. A bit like the coke bottle design I suppose.
https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/brompton-puts-the...
Oh, I so wish that were true.
Software is the poster child for multiple IP regimes applying to the same thing, with copyrights applying twice over (source code and object code/binary executable) as well as patents. Patents can in theory also be applicable to the compilation of source code into object code, but as far as I'm aware no one has pursued a case on that basis, and in any case open source compilers are now standard.
But it gets even crazier when you start adding trademark and trade dress (ie. "look and feel" etc.) into the mix.
Just about the only form of IP that in practice is invalidated by the other forms is trade secret, as the others all involve some form of disclosure or publication.
(Brompton is a UK company, so this wouldn't apply to UK-based competitors, but it would protect US-based competitors.)
EDIT: it looks like the EU actually has similar rules. Brompton is very likely going to lose this case, and is probably just counting on the court proceedings to delay this competitor's entry into the market. Expect a flood of Brompton-likes when the lawsuit settles.
If there is a downside that would be that even though the wheels are quite a bit bigger than the ones of the bike showcased here that the tires are very high pressure and need frequent topping up.
Do you use CC0 for all your own work?
a) yes, when it's used anti-competitively; which it almost exclusively is. I haven't been sold on the idea that idea exclusivity funds creative and public works and value-stores. I tend to believe that capitol does that -- and I think capitol can be generated regardless of copyright state.
b) Yes, I have a cc0 1.0 license on anything I release outside of the contracts i'm beholden to from other entities. My thingiverse profile, for one, is filled with general purpose models and assets that are all licensed cc0 1.0 -- these took real person-hours to produce and have actual value for some folks.
other than the occassional irritation with persnickety users here and there I enjoy the work and view it as a social good -- I hope others find the work valuable and use it themselves; surely others exist with the same motivations.
The concern is that they're double-dipping. They had a patent. Patents expire after 20 years, but give you exclusive right to use an invention in the meantime. After a patent expires, what's supposed to happen is that anyone can make use of it.
After the patent expired, they started abusing copyright to kill competition.
It's incredibly unethical to try and have it both ways. They had their patent. Their patents is gone. Competitors should be allowed to use the technology in that patent, without worrying about a random court for some forsaken reason allowing them to abuse copyright to stop competitors from being able to compete.
e.g. ARM, Dyson, the RepRap project, the Raspberry Pi, the Oxford/AZ vaccine, Rolls-Royce jet engines. Graphene. The micro-satellite. Vantablack. The genuinely trailblazing .gov.uk project. Quorn. Cloning!
And most importantly, the tikka massala, the balti, and the Henry vaccum cleaner.
(And, someone told me the other day, bungee jumping. Sorry about that)
I have no idea if our IP regime is worse or better than anywhere else's; we do not have a tradition of crazy software patents, though, so my guess is better, not worse.
I like the Brompton and tried one in a shop, but decided I couldn't see springing $1400+ for one unless I was sure I would use it a lot, so I would possibly start with a lower cost folding bike and see how I liked it. That was pre-pandemic so I put the whole thing aside.
I'm not concerned about travelling with the bike. The attraction of a folder to me is just an easier time getting it in and out of an apartment for commuting purposes.