221–230 of 354 posts
Oh let us bow down and give thanks for being "allowed" to fix shit we own. What. The. Serious. Fuck. The fact that someone has the power to restrict this and or grant us the right makes me absolutely sick. The fact that there has to be a hearing means the forces of evil have won.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It tells me that I really shouldn't buy a Ford car, since apparently billing for repair parts is more important to them than building a robust and repairable car. Adding a tamper resistant circuit to random bits of your car's electronics is adding cost while reducing robustness - who wants that in their car?
Ford is basically stopping production of cars anyway as they found that trucks are more profitable. But yeah, don't buy one of their trucks either. But what manufacturer is an alternative? Tesla set up DRM to artificially limit the driving range of their cars until you pay them a ransom to simply let your car drive longer distances!
This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block a…
Apple already has some sort of sweetheart deal with US Customs that gets Apple parts shipped from China rejected at import time unless they're part of an Apple-tracked shipment. This blocks devices have been third-party-repaired in China from being re-imported; but also blocks "ghost-shift" (but otherwise first-party!) Apple parts from coming into the country. Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but is…
The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark.
Remember, the issue was NOT that they "looked like" Apple parts, the issue was that the parts had an actual Apple logo printed on them when they were not parts sourced through Apple.
This is just the stupidest issue. All Louis Rossmann had to do is purchase his non-genuine third party laptop batteries without an Apple logo printed on them, and he would have been legally entitled to them. He could have his batteries, he could perform the repairs, everyone would be happy.
With his complaint he is effectively saying is that trademarks mean shit and anyone can use anyone else's brand whenever they want. It's absurd. And it's a loser case. If he tries to fight Apple, he won't win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I thought, and then I fragged a Ferrari engine. Dunning-Kruger is not a river in Egypt...
I leveraged my embedded systems knowledge into a cottage side business rebuilding the old Magneti Marelli ignition modules in 308/328 models with new ARM Cortex based electronics. There's nothing magic about Ferrari engines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.
But they did. They paid for and received larger capacity batteries in their vehicles that are artificially hampered to a lower capacity.
This sounds like a niche for a small Pacific island. Islands like Jersey and the Cook Islands tailor their legal systems to cater for those who want a looser financial system. A small state could tailor their laws for those who want to repair things and potentially make a very nice "high tech" economy out of reverse engineering, importing broken stuff and exporting fixed stuff. Copyright holders might try and block a…
A tribal nation makes more sense for the US market. >Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. They can claim that it's counterfeit, have customs seize it, then force you to file legal action to reclaim your property. Not really the best place to be TBH.
But I don't get why anyone is complaining because the solution is INSANELY simple: if you want to parallel import parts from China, make sure they don't have Apple logos printed on them. That's an absurdly low bar to clear. It's so low that it makes me wonder if these controversies are being—pardon the pun—manufactured.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, #2 isn't really feasible because of the scale at which they now have to operate in order to meet customers' demand for products (IOW, you can't catch everyone). As for #1, this gets thrown around a fair bit, especially with the current GOP Congress. However people constantly forget that regardless of where final assembly takes place, these jobs are the lowest of the low on the tech food chain. Ripe for automati…
Maybe I misunderstood, but didn’t Tesla just prove this level of automation is still too far out? Or am I comparing apples and oranges?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple already has some sort of sweetheart deal with US Customs that gets Apple parts shipped from China rejected at import time unless they're part of an Apple-tracked shipment. This blocks devices have been third-party-repaired in China from being re-imported; but also blocks "ghost-shift" (but otherwise first-party!) Apple parts from coming into the country. Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but is…
> "Literally, anything that looks like an Apple part, but isn't an Apple part according to Apple, gets blocked. Think about the implications of that." The implication is that we are correctly enforcing trademark law... Or are you saying that anyone should be allowed to import anything with anyone's brand on it? Because congratulations, you have now destroyed the value and purpose of every single trademark. Remember,…
I think what's being said (well, implied) is that the first-sale doctrine states that those trademark rights are limited, and that by blocking imports, those right may be being violated (specifically, the right to resell).
If that's the case, that would mean that we are incorrectly enforcing trademark law.
Edit: To make it absolutely clear what I'm talking about, if I as a U.S. citizen go to China, and I have some used iphones, and I try to ship them to the U.S. after people buy them from me, does Apple's special handling prevent me from reselling Apple products? If so, that may be violating my rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A tribal nation makes more sense for the US market. >Copyright holders might try and block an import, but they would be fighting a harder battle against "parallel import" laws. They can claim that it's counterfeit, have customs seize it, then force you to file legal action to reclaim your property. Not really the best place to be TBH.
Given that Apple doesn't sell its batteries or screen assemblies to anyone in any country, it's therefore impossible for them to be legitimately parallel-imported and therefore trivial for Customs to suspect them of being counterfeit or stolen. That's why they're getting caught. But I don't get why anyone is complaining because the solution is INSANELY simple: if you want to parallel import parts from China, make sur…
It might surprise you, but Apple does sell all of those. The products that you are looking for are called for example iPhones and MacBooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling it ransom isn't spin, it's disingenuous. They paid for x range and received x range. They were given a standing offer to increase that range for a cost significantly less than the cost of replacing or physically upgrading the battery. Now if they had paid for 120kwh batteries and received 120kwh batteries that would only deliver 100kwh of range then we'd be having and entirely different conversation.
It’s a purely artificial limitation. You’re not getting anything new when paying for the upgrade, just effectively flipping a boolean.
Tesla didn't sell the vehicle as having a different curb weight, or a specified number of 18650 cells contained in the battery pack. They sold it based on having a 60 kWh capacity which it does.
Why do you feel entitled to the additional 15 kWh?