[flagged]
Apple's Trademark Exploit
21–30 of 141 posts
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#22In one sense I'm not surprised that the general reaction seems to be "shrug ". This is a story about Apple being Apple, and Border Control being, well Border Control.
Both organisations have a well-deserved reputation. Both are behaving completely in character.
That the biggest company can pay to enlist the support of the most-insulated police force surprises no-one.
Perhaps more depressing is that there's no expectation of improvement. Juicy press expose leading to reform? Not likely.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#23This 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…
> cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple
It's $190 to register a copyright and is open to any copyright holder.
And it makes sense to enforce this at the border rather than allowing counterfeit products into the market.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> when accompanied by a giant wad of cash
$190 per copyright: https://iprr.cbp.gov/s
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#25Huh. What happened with the lot of 2000 seized OnePlus Buds? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-state... )
Did the company just write off that shipment and keep selling them?
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
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]
What a perfectly zealous response to that opinion, seems to have touched a nerve lol
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#27Seems 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)
It's digital /now/ but Nintendo also used the design of their logo embossed on FDS disks as a (very) primitive form of DRM (there was a corresponding piece of plastic in the drive that would only sit flush if the disk had the right cutouts).
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not sure what you are talking about.
From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border.
Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#29I hate IP in its current forms yet I have trouble getting particularly outraged by this article.
If we have laws protecting IP, why is it wrong to enforce them? Why is it wrong to train LE to recognize counterfeits?
Granted the article did discuss some shady stuff like CBP seizing stuff and auctioning it off; I think that civil forfeiture and other such seizures are unconstitutional takings but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree.
Also Apple has done shady stuff like sending their security people to private homes to track down leaked prototypes [1].
But my bottom line is let’s get rid of bad IP law, not complain about the side effects of enforcement.
[1] https://www.cultofmac.com/112054/san-francisco-police-admits...
Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit
#30The author appears to accidentally make the assumption that in order for it to be a counterfeit part, it must be 100% counterfeit.
CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfeiting. From these examples and others, they are trained to recognize “hybrids” as fake in multiple industries.
Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?