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

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#81

Post by [deleted] »

dylan604 wrote: post #67
ChickeNES wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Until somebody finds the right die to use to cue the covers. Reminds of the concert venue that was using a hole punch to indicate to the bouncers the person had floor access. Somebody had a pocket knife and everyone was gathered around the corner trying to cut round circles to fool the bouncers. Or the people that reversed the TSA master key from photographs. Shape based "security" is a joke.

[deleted]

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#82

Post by Clamchop »

threeseed wrote: post #72
enragedcacti wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> 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 Because other companies are incapable of putting an Apple logo on their products ? It's literally what counterfeiters do.

The case isn't closed when you spitball that it could be counterfeit but that's exactly what CBP is doing here.

TFA: [due process good]

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#84

Post by supermatt »

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.

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.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#87

Post by dmurray »

robbywashere_ wrote: post #76

I want to take this opportunity to mention CBP has jurisdiction 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S

They have jurisdiction everywhere within the US, but enhanced powers near the borders. Some details in [0].

Specifically, they have the right to search and seize "with no suspicion of unlawful activity" within 100 miles of any border - including sea borders, so that's about 70% of the US by population. Also anywhere around international airports and inland waters "with ready access to the open sea", but the 100-mile zone doesn't appear to apply there.

Certain other powers are limited to 10 or 25 miles from the border.

[0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#88

Post by joosters »

AdamTReineke wrote: post #73
emodendroket wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wondered about that. CBP affirmed they didn't make a mistake and then you just never heard about it again.

I had a pair of white Denon Wireless Earbuds that I tried to sell on Facebook Marketplace, still in shrink and with my own photos. They were kicked off as counterfeit items, presumably because I described them as knockoff Air Pods and that triggered some filter. I wonder if Apple is also coaching classified ad sides with the same trademark messaging they're giving CBP?

'I described them as knockoff Air Pods'

If Facebook didn't immediately block sales of items self-described as knockoff , they'd be (rightly) criticised for allowing the sale of counterfeit goods

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#89

Post by whelp_24 »

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…

The logos are microscopic and for internal connections. The screens don't claim to be genuine

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#90

Post by teddyh »

whelp_24 wrote: post #41
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.

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.

Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.

— https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html>

Post reply on HN