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

Apple's Trademark Exploit

blog.giovanh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#11

Post by pests »

gurchik wrote: post #6
vlovich123 wrote: post #3

This 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.

I'm still not why "original Apple parts" mean anything special?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#13

Post by pests »

denkmoon wrote: post #7

Seems similar to Nintendo's use of their trademark as an anti-piracy measure in the early consoles.

That's digital and involved copyright though.

If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#14

Post by red369 »

jonhohle wrote: post #12
readyplayernull wrote: post #2

Traveled 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 ;)

3D? Do you mean illuminated?

I'm having a hard time finding an image, but I think that the plastic apple (which also illuminates) is not completely flush with the lid - it protrudes slightly from it, or the edges are recessed, and it is slightly rounded.

I'm also probably mixing it up with the older, proper-coloured (black) MacBooks. Someone will be able to give a better answer soon!

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#15

Post by shagie »

pests wrote: post #13
denkmoon wrote: post #7

Seems similar to Nintendo's use of their trademark as an anti-piracy measure in the early consoles.

That's digital and involved copyright though. If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)

What if I go to a Ford part supplier and buy some Ford parts for cheap before they sent to Ford to be blessed, but after the Ford logo is stamped on them.

Now I'm putting those parts in vehicles that I'm repairing.

What happens when one of the parts that I put in goes to a dealership repair for a warranty repair?

It may be as good as the Ford part (it's the same part), but Ford has no record of the serial number on it.

Is Ford obligated to fix what appears to be a Ford part (what the customer thought was a Ford part) but isn't something that Ford ever sold, tested, or warrantied?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#16

Post by plorg »

pests wrote: post #11
gurchik wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm still not why "original Apple parts" mean anything special?

As far as I can tell the justification amounts to, "it has our logo" followed by a lawyer's version of a meaningful look and the "yadda yadda yadda" gesture. And because Homeland Security is largely unaccountable they'll just accept that justification from Apple when accompanied by a giant wad of cash or the chance to do some operator shit.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#17

Post by jeroenhd »

pests wrote: post #11
gurchik wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm still not why "original Apple parts" mean anything special?

Parts produced by Apple are allowed to have Apple's trademark on them. That's pretty much the reason trademarks exist. In the same way, only original Honda parts are allowed to have the Honda trademark on it.

Of course in the case of Apple's customs bullying, hardware is being stolen because it's composed of a mixture of Apple parts and non-Apple parts. Like seizing an aftermarket car door because you put a Honda window control assembly into it.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#18

Post by tobinfricke »

kmeisthax wrote: post #4
vlovich123 wrote: post #3

This 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…

I think you mean iPope

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#19

Post by oez »

shagie wrote: post #15
pests wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's digital and involved copyright though. If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)

What if I go to a Ford part supplier and buy some Ford parts for cheap before they sent to Ford to be blessed, but after the Ford logo is stamped on them. Now I'm putting those parts in vehicles that I'm repairing. What happens when one of the parts that I put in goes to a dealership repair for a warranty repair? It may be as good as the Ford part (it's the same part), but Ford has no record of the serial number on i…

That's not at all what is happening though. It's more like if I was to buy crashed Fords at salvage auctions to take the genuine parts from them, and Ford's private stasi force shows up at my house to take everything and then sell them for their own profit.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#20

Post by haimez »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #10
vlovich123 wrote: post #3

This 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.

Counterfeiting parts, including passing even a small part off as an original OEM one, absolutely enters into it
Post reply on HN