The iPad clones have been the talk of the Shanzhai scene since January, with several noteworthy participants, including Shenzhen Dragon Brother Industrial’s P88 and Superman Industrial’s Epad.  The knockoffs vary widely in quality and features; Shanzhai.com has described the Epad as “the first honest attempt at an iPad clone.” Whatever that means.

The baldfaced intellectual property infringement is quite entertaining in its own right, but a recent article in Computer Daily News (Chinese) takes the whole story to “laugh out loud” status. The article is a fairly standard rundown of the iPad clone scene, with the addition of an interview with Engineer Huang of the Hong Kong TESO Computer Technology company.

Huang is a very proud engineer and explains that making fakes is not an easy process. One shouldn’t minimize the importance of the exterior design, for example. Huang seems to know his business quite well, not to mention the importance of intellectual property rights. That’s why when he makes a knockoff, he is very careful in the choices he makes.

In the interview, Huang shares some “tricks” of the master Shanzhai craftsman. The bottom line is that you can “borrow” design elements and overall appearance, but the details must be revised. Huang suggests at least seven changes to avoid design infringement. Why seven and not, say, six or eight? No idea. Isn’t this priceless?

It gets better. Some of Huang’s little changes are rather amusing:

1. Although the fake version copies the iPad black border, it adds a thin silver line.

2. The screen size of the fake has been “fine tuned.” One wonders how much is enough here for Huang. 5mm? .5cm?

3. USB and other ports have different locations from the original.

Huang claims that even though at first glance, the clone is 90% identical to the design of the iPad, this is OK because the differences become apparent upon quick examination. I guess whatever helps you sleep at night, Engineer Huang.

The rest of the article is devoted to some of the marketing efforts of the clone manufacturers. Early sales at trade shows (read: under the radar) seem to be important for these guys, but it’s not just about revenue. The COO of TESO pointed out that one trade show, which was organized by the government, afforded them excellent opportunities to work on guanxi. I guess if you’re in the business of IP infringement, government relations is a top priority. How nice.

The article ends with a comparison: Apple vs. Shanzhai. Also entertaining, if slightly depressing. The TESO product sports the following:

• Intel Atom N450 processor + NM10 chipset
• 10.1-inch LCD screen
• 1GB DDR2 memory
• 320GB SATA hard drive
• Bluetooth
• WiFi
• Web camera and 3G (optional)

This sucker runs Windows 7 and supports Flash, and of course is a lot cheaper. Sure, you don’t get the App Store, battery life is much less, and the knockoff may fall apart pretty quickly, but that’s a compelling list of hardware and functionality. The usual crowd seems quite impressed with the effort.

Nothing else to say except to speculate about Apple’s IP strategy. Despite Engineer Huang’s assurances, we are dealing with design infringement here, not to mention possible unfair competition. I am fantasizing about a future Apple vs. TESO litigation in Hong Kong (PRC courts generally do not hear live witnesses), where Engineer Huang testifies about his seven design fixes, explaining cogently why there is no IP infringement here and the case should be dismissed.

They could sell tickets.