Apple's Trademark Exploit
blog.giovanh.com
Apple's Trademark Exploit
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#2Traveled from Colombia, at the airport one of the agents seemed very interested in my Macbook Pro 2007, specially the logo, that big white 3D logo. I said to myself, hey that would be a clever way to conceal it ;)
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#3This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way:
> especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately
> The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold:
If Apple doesn’t sell these, then how is this unauthorized repair shop getting parts with original logos? That implies that maybe these parts were not obtained legitimately right? Not necessarily counterfeit but maybe stolen.
That being said, Apple doesn’t do a great job here considering SF streets are flooded with actual counterfeit AirPods and AirPods MAX (like in fully sealed boxes that look exactly like original).
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#4This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then…
If you buy phones with cracked screens, you have a supply of iPhone flex cables. Apple does not own those flex cables, but them putting their holy sigil[0] on the cables lets them pretend that they do to cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple.
Furthermore, the parts were seized on trademark grounds; the program in question only deals with trademark. There are different processes for dealing with stolen goods (as opposed to counterfeit ones) but those would require Apple to provide proof. CBP's trademark program lets you just say "we own this mark, here's a lot of money, we'll tell you what to seize".
[0] Apple is a religion. Tim Cook is the iPhone pope. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#5This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then…
There are tons of ways to legitimately obtain these cables that are completely legal. The fact that it's also possible to obtain them illegally should not place a ban on the product.
You're perfectly within your rights to strip your iPhone for parts and resell each piece individually with original logos intact.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#6This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then…
> The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#7Seems similar to Nintendo's use of their trademark as an anti-piracy measure in the early consoles.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#8This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then…
If you buy phones with cracked screens, you have a supply of iPhone flex cables. Apple does not own those flex cables, but them putting their holy sigil[0] on the cables lets them pretend that they do to cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple. Furthermore, the parts were seized on trademark grounds; the program in question only deals with trademark. There are different processe…
[flagged]
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#9[deleted]
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#10This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then…
If they're stolen, go prove it in court. The logo doesn't really enter into it.