Not legally. But it is still taking someone else's design and profiting from it. It's the Chinese way.
Oh give me a break. It’s the human way.
There’s nothing unethical about copying 30-year-old out-of-patent devices. Such copying is one of the biggest sources of technological and economic progress in the world, and everyone does it all the time.
It would be wonderful if the material standard of living everywhere in the world could be improved to the point that labor-intensive products cost roughly the same to produce anywhere in the world, but that’s not going to happen any time soon and it’s not worth complaining about.
The biggest difference between Chinese and US/European manufacturing at this point in many cases isn’t even the cheaper labor or lax environmental standards; instead, the Chinese supply chain is much more condensed and efficient, and there is an amazing scale and concentration of manufacturing expertise and experience in some parts of China. It’s really quite an achievement, and just throwing out racist stereotypes about “the Chinese way” being to “profit from someone else’s design” is ignorant and wrongheaded.
(Which isn’t to say there isn’t also plenty to criticize about Chinese labor practices, government policies, etc., but it needs to be done with understanding and nuance.)
Cherry produces products today that are slightly inferior to their product from 20 years ago, and they haven’t really done any substantial innovation in that timeframe either. They have persistent supply issues that make keyboard manufacturers go through hell to source switches, and dramatically delay shipments.
If Kaihua, Gateron, et al. want to make a slightly tweaked version of a long-out-of-patent part available for a fraction of the price, I say that’s great: it can only expand the market for mechanical keyboards and get more people typing on something healthier and more efficient than a rubber dome. Maybe it’ll even be the kick in the pants Cherry needs to start doing some real innovation again.