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

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#31

Post by fortran77 »

threeseed wrote: post #23
kmeisthax wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

> 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.

Flagged. This is about trademarks.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#32

Post by etchalon »

I assume there's no way to "prove" the provenance of the flex cables. Maybe some type of test? But CBP isn't going to spend millions outfitting their agents with the training and equipment provided to do that.

While I support Apple's right to do this, and can even accept/agree with the consumer protection rationale, the truth is Apple is attempting to fight a massive uphill battle hill with counterfeits. They're obviously losing. It's easy to find knock-off Apple products.

We have some experience as a country allowing over-powered government agencies to seize property based on suspicion and without proof. It accomplishes very little overall, wastes an enormous amount of resources, and harms innocent people as readily as it harms the guilty.

The "risk" of getting your property seized is obviously low enough that counterfeiters can just factor that in as a cost, just as cartels do. You know you're going to lose X number of shipments.

So we're not accomplishing enough to make a real dent in the problem, and in trying to do anything at all, you're harming innocent people.

Not a great look.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#33

Post by kmeisthax »

threeseed wrote: post #23
kmeisthax wrote: post #4

Earlier 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…

> 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.

First off, this is trademark, copyright. Second, merely registering a trademark doesn't get you this level of treatment from CBP; Apple pays them significantly more money in order to be able to tell them how they want their trademark enforced at the border. Third, when your shit gets seized by CBP, that's based purely on the allegations of Apple; there's no due process (like there would be with, say, an ITC patent action).

Keep in mind here: the products in question are not counterfeit. If Apple had to sue to get the parts taken out of the market, they would lose, because of very obvious exceptions to trademark law - e.g. official Apple flex cables don't stop being official Apple flex cables when you plug a third-party iPhone screen into them. That would be like, if I sold you a Samsung TV, but I had an Apple HDMI cable hanging off the back of it, and then Apple sued me saying that I was selling a counterfeit Apple TV because the HDMI cable had an Apple logo on it.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#34

Post by justinator »

Remember that anti-spam company that made you embed a haiku they trademarked and if some spammer used it, they go after them? What a weird idea. They must have gotten millions for such a ridiculous idea, as their logo was emblazoned on a large office building they most likely occupied right off the highway.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#35

Post by upwardbound »

parentheses wrote: post #21

[flagged]

For those who had to look it up, here's the applicable definition of payola:

From Dictionary.com:

    Payola - a secret or private payment in return for the promotion of a product, service, etc., through the abuse of one's position, influence, or facilities.  [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/payola]
From Wiktionary:

    Payola - a bribe given in exchange for a favor, such as one given in exchange for the promotion of goods or services (originally one given to a disk jockey to play a record). 
 [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/payola]

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#36

Post by threeseed »

fortran77 wrote: post #31
threeseed wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Flagged. This is about trademarks.

From the article:

> Apple participates in CBP’s e-Recordation Program, a “service for trademark owners” where American rightsholders proactively re-register their US registered trademarks with CBP and pay regular fees to ensure special, stricter enforcement on the particular trademarks they request.

The fee for e-Recordation is $190 per International Class of Goods (IC) i.e. trademarks and copyright.

https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/ipr/protection

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#37

Post by threeseed »

kmeisthax wrote: post #33
threeseed wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

First off, this is trademark, copyright. Second, merely registering a trademark doesn't get you this level of treatment from CBP; Apple pays them significantly more money in order to be able to tell them how they want their trademark enforced at the border. Third, when your shit gets seized by CBP, that's based purely on the allegations of Apple; there's no due process (like there would be with, say, an ITC patent ac…

> Apple pays them significantly more money in order to be able to tell them how they want their trademark enforced at the border

Do you have a source for this.

Because in the article it does not mention Apple paying any extra money to CBP and there is no information on the CBP website about it.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#38

Post by enragedcacti »

parentheses wrote: post #21

[flagged]

> This is not Apple "exploiting" the legal framework but more optimizing how they use their capital to make the best of it.

Using a legal framework designed to stop counterfeiting to stop shipments of things that aren't counterfeits (or even illegal at all) is absolutely exploiting it.

> for which counterfeits and aftermarket replacements are very much desired.

Only one of which CBP is tasked with stopping.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#39

Post by whelp_24 »

parentheses wrote: post #21

[flagged]

I feel like this isn't supported by the article. The seized shipments are of things that are legitimate to resell and other companies that didn't violate trademarks at all. The whole complaint is really "Apple is avoiding having this illegal behavior challenged in court". (with a healthy dose of Border Patrol has too much power and too little oversight)

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#40

Post by tadfisher »

threeseed wrote: post #37
kmeisthax wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, this is trademark, copyright. Second, merely registering a trademark doesn't get you this level of treatment from CBP; Apple pays them significantly more money in order to be able to tell them how they want their trademark enforced at the border. Third, when your shit gets seized by CBP, that's based purely on the allegations of Apple; there's no due process (like there would be with, say, an ITC patent ac…

> Apple pays them significantly more money in order to be able to tell them how they want their trademark enforced at the border Do you have a source for this. Because in the article it does not mention Apple paying any extra money to CBP and there is no information on the CBP website about it.

The source is the article we're discussing.
Post reply on HN