Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 291 posts

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#241

Post by ardy42 »

mindslight wrote: post #231
ardy42 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The TSA is responsible for creating the roadblock, and therefore should be responsible for keeping travelers whole. "read the rules" is not a justification for their policies, as it's common to have an arbitrarily-prohibited item hide in your bag. Especially the types of items that you want to live in your backpack (eg pocket knives) that you have to make sure to unpack before the airport. Knives aren't "arbitraril…

... and which will never succeed again. "Arbitrarily-prohibited" was a jab at everything else they've seen fit to condemn by extension, for example pliers . It's not just knives that you have to be concerned about, but anything remotely non-basic that you otherwise keep in your backpack.

> ... and which will never succeed again.

That seems a little...overconfident. While some of the TSA stuff is definitely security theater that adds little value, not all of it is.

> "Arbitrarily-prohibited" was a jab at everything else they've seen fit to condemn by extension, for example pliers. It's not just knives that you have to be concerned about, but anything remotely non-basic that you otherwise keep in your backpack.

You can carry on pliers, just as long as they're less than 7 inches long:

https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Mana...

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/whatcanibring/...

The pair of pliers I have is 7.25 inches long. That rule seems quite reasonable to me.

They do have a difficult task: write rules that can be executed quickly by relatively low-level employees to exclude items that could be used as a weapon or be a danger to the plane. I doubt that's even possible to do without creating corner cases that someone could gripe about.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#242

Post by perryizgr8 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #240
perryizgr8 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The audio quality is not good compared to other similarly priced buds. And the latency with Apple is exactly what I mentioned, it is an anti-competitive move by Apple.

I don't feel like arguing about audio quality, but the reason they're being anti-competitive about it is because they're leveraging the objectively better latency.

There are standard ways of achieving low latency. Everybody else does it. Why did they choose to implement a proprietary solution that works only with their phone and their earmuffs?

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#243

Post by tyingq »

ardy42 wrote: post #220
tyingq wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"what should they have done?" Seized the adapters. That would have been enough for me to be more careful about adapters in the future. Seizing the whole shipment hurts me, but not the supplier. See my other example here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24469959 There's any number of things you might not expect, and the receiver is the only one hurt when they are a smaller player.

> Seized the adapters. That would have been enough for me to be more careful about adapters in the future. Seizing the whole shipment hurts me, but not the supplier. Where the adapters packaged separately to make that possible? Or are you asking some customs inspector to unbox all your items, remove the adapters, and repack it all?

They could have me do it. Also, they do it eventually to auction off the main parts.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#244

Post by Dylan16807 »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #242
Dylan16807 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like arguing about audio quality, but the reason they're being anti-competitive about it is because they're leveraging the objectively better latency.

There are standard ways of achieving low latency. Everybody else does it. Why did they choose to implement a proprietary solution that works only with their phone and their earmuffs?

> Everybody else does it.

Hahaha I wish.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#245

Post by normalnorm »

true_religion wrote: post #188
saul_goodman wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or more traditionally known as owning class and working class. Most folks here are probably in that quasi-state of working class but make plenty of money so it's a moot point.

I always prefered the 4-class system, which specified a class of people who cared more about the perfection of their art, than monetary concerns. Tradesmen, engineers, and academics would fall into this category. Just lumping everyone into the middle-class based on income alone, always seemed to be an American conceit. Class is supposed to be able pedigree; thus a king in exile is still part of the aristocratic elite…

You are looking for meaning. That is a normal human instinct. I am talking about power structures. They should be examined. Most people here are not willing to do that, because they figure they will soon be the top dogs. They are wrong, and this expectation is being exploiting by less naive actors.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#246

Post by tyingq »

jschwartzi wrote: post #203
jkelleyrtp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole thing seems crazy to me (I don't do a lot of importing). Customs has the ability to determine if the UL logo on a charger is fake or if a phrase breaks trademark law, and then confiscates an _entire_ shipment? Why is it CBP/custom's job to enforce trademark law? I could just as easily print a fake logo in the US, but border control won't come after me - the people responsible for enforcing those laws will.…

It’s CBPs job because consumers have no idea if the UL or Intertek logo is legit or not. Because those adapters aren’t listed they don’t have to follow the electrical and fire safety standards. So a purchaser may be tricked into buying something that is much more likely to burn their house down. Having CBP intercept it makes perfect sense.

On safety, note that the same adapters could have shipped with no UL mark. CPB was enforcing trademarks, not safety.

Edit: Regarding below, sure. But there are tons of unlisted adapters that come with electronics you might buy. I'd hazard a guess that most people have at least one in their house. Not that it's okay, just noting that it's common.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#247

Post by solarkraft »

tyingq wrote: post #246
jschwartzi wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s CBPs job because consumers have no idea if the UL or Intertek logo is legit or not. Because those adapters aren’t listed they don’t have to follow the electrical and fire safety standards. So a purchaser may be tricked into buying something that is much more likely to burn their house down. Having CBP intercept it makes perfect sense.

On safety, note that the same adapters could have shipped with no UL mark. CPB was enforcing trademarks, not safety. Edit: Regarding below, sure. But there are tons of unlisted adapters that come with electronics you might buy. I'd hazard a guess that most people have at least one in their house. Not that it's okay, just noting that it's common.

However safety expectations are tied to that trademark.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#248

Post by relaxing »

Navarr wrote: post #226
kop316 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, how would they be able to verify that a) you are being truthful, and b) that only part of the shipment is real, when once part has been shown not to be?

It doesn't matter. The burden of truth is supposed to be on the accuser. Consider if you will - a robber is caught by police in his own house. In this house, they found the items the robber stole. Should they: a) take the items the robber stole b) take everything

Thanks to civil asset forfeiture laws, the police will in fact b) take everything.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#249

Post by tyingq »

tyingq wrote: post #130

The CBP is very hard to deal with. I once bought about 100 electronic items that come with AC adapters to power them. Unknown to me, the AC adapters had fake UL marks on them. So, the CBP seized the shipment. I asked if they could just seize the adapters, and explained that I hadn't even asked for UL listed adapters. No dice. The adapters represented less than 10% of the value of the shipment. Argh. And, of course, t…

Since I'm now better educated about the potential fake UL marks, thought I'd note that it's pretty rampant.

The first result for "Raspberry PI Power Supply" on Amazon for me, is this: https://www.amazon.com/NorthPada-Tinker-Supply-Charger-Adapt... I get similar results with other searches for adapters and power supplies.

It's a fake UL mark. The manufacturer isn't listed in UL's database, and a genuine UL mark would almost always have the UL listing number right below it.

There's also lots of adapters there with no UL or Intertek marks or testing.

Re: Feds seize ‘counterfeit Apple AirPods’ that are actually OnePlus Buds

#250

Post by nybble41 »

pdpi wrote: post #119
jstanley wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they consider them to be safe enough that it is not unethical to sell them in job lots to members of the general public, maybe they shouldn't be seizing them in the first place?

Context matters. I don’t see a problem with a job lot of chef’s knives, but I definitely wouldn’t want somebody to carry one as cabin luggage

Before the change in policy you could choose to have the items moved to checked baggage, or packaged and shipped separately. Seizing the items is not the only alternative to letting them into the cabin.
Post reply on HN