Although you write that “trade dress is increasingly difficult to prove”, actually the opposite is true. Trade dress protection has been on the books for decades and little understood, but frustrated manufacturers are increasingly using it and becoming savvy in the nuances of this formerly obscure field.

My final point is an ethical rather than legal one. Stealing is wrong and everyone knows it. Just because the laws are inadequate to protect the artists and designers who conceived these products doesn’t mean its OK to steal bread from their table.

The strongest cases against unlicensed manufacturers of furniture rely on the misuse of a brand name or trademark — not on a design. Knoll just filed a slew of suits against manufacturers of knock-off Barcelona items. None of the suits mentions a copyright. They rely on trademark infringement. Let’s see how they will turn out.

The point is not about the manufacturing quality, it is about who Frank Lloyd Wright (through his estate) allows to produce his designs. By the way, the name “Frank Lloyd Wright” is a registered trademark… a brand name like Kleenex or Cadillac. Any company producing his designs without permission is not only creating fakes, if they call them “Frank Lloyd Wright” furniture they are also committing felony trademark counterfeiting.

Legitimate manufacturers don’t use child labor, they pay people a wage. You are advocating giving the work to criminal counterfeiters who exploit child and prison labor. Shame on you.

Ethics should be held separate from design; when mixed they only produce two things: feel good bullshit and propaganda.