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

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#41

Post by whelp_24 »

efitz wrote: post #29

I 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 does…

I have seen arguments that even word ip is bad as it conditions you to believe ideas are property, I think i may agree.

We should definitely get rid of bad enforcement immediately, enforcement is like 90% of a laws effect.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#42

Post by enragedcacti »

threeseed wrote: post #28
oez wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway.

TFA: 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

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#43

Post by gjsman-1000 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #38
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.

Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior.

Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding.

I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas.

Have I committed counterfeiting? Under the law, 100% indisputably; despite using a genuine logo from a genuine handbag. Despite me legally purchasing both items, the combination is, in a sense, illegal. I would risk up to a decade in prison if I sold that combination.

Now replace handbag with iPhone screen. The distinctions become extremely difficult, and not the CBP’s job to figure out. Surgical legal changes are required.

https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#44

Post by CivBase »

parentheses wrote: post #21

[flagged]

How is Apple getting the CBP to seize products legally produced by competitors with no Apple branding or IP infringement anything but an "exploit"?

We're not talking about counterfeits here. We're talking about products from recognizable competitors like OnePlus.

And why should Apple get to claim "counterfeit" for products just because they internally include components which were produced by Apple? The products are not passing themselves off as being made by Apple.

None of this aligns with actual trademark law in the US. Whether or not payola is involved, the CBP is clearly abusing their power and Apple is taking advantage of it to unfairly harm competitors.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#45

Post by enragedcacti »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30

The 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 counterfei…

> Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently?

Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it.

> How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?

That isn't CBPs problem, its Apple's problem to identify and enforce their trademark if someone actually does attempt to sell them as genuine parts.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#46

Post by oez »

threeseed wrote: post #28
oez wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you conflating third party parts with counterfeits? If you actually read the article the reason the shipment was seized had nothing to do with the screens, it was the logo on the reused original parts that Apple believed were counterfeit.

Besides, I'm not American so maybe my view is different, but if a company can pay money to a government agency for increased policing for their benefit, and that government agency raids businesses under the direction of that companies representatives, that is a private force. E: And the fact that it's open for any company to use does not make it better in any way whatsoever.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#47

Post by CivBase »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43
enragedcacti wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfei…

That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand.

In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified.

In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as OnePlus devices, which they were.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#48

Post by CivBase »

efitz wrote: post #29

I 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 does…

This is not a case of IP law being enforced. This is a case of the CBP using their power to punish Apple's competitors, despite no actual violations having occurred.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#49

Post by gjsman-1000 »

CivBase wrote: post #47
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfei…

That's not like what is happening here. In your hypothetical situation, you are selling bags featuring the Chanel brand. In the first situation from the article, the products seized by the CBP only included Apple branding on internal components which were created by Apple and not modified. In the second situation from the article, the products did not feature any Apple branding at all. They were clearly branded as On…

In the first situation from the article, it explicitly states briefly that they are “hybrid” parts:

> 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.

Which brings up my Chanel handbag analogy of an Apple-branded flex cable, “sewn” onto a part they did not make; to create what CBP may reasonably interpret as a counterfeit product consistent with how “hybrids” in other categories are treated.

As for OnePlus; that one never made any sense and probably embarrassed Apple too because… it’s not like Walmart has had any problem selling AirPods knockoffs.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#50

Post by gjsman-1000 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #45
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #30

The 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 counterfei…

> Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. > How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts? That is…

> Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it.

Not necessarily. The law cares about the brand, not the function. Morally, there’s a distinction; legally, I don’t see why the functionality has any relevance.

> Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen

CBP seized hybrid products, as mentioned above, all the time; even when no logo is present (honey with adulterations is a big problem). The claim it’s completely legal isn’t necessarily true. Individually selling a screen, or a ribbon cable, would probably have much better luck than the combination of the two.

Post reply on HN