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

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#91

Post by vkoskiv »

red369 wrote: post #14
jonhohle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

G3 PowerBooks and iBooks were the last to feature rounded, protruding Apple logos on the lid (And on the PowerBook, on the bottom as well!) This was before they glowed, and when they appeared upside down to onlookers with the lid up. All G4 models starting with the Titanium PowerBook G4 and everything since have had flush logos.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#92

Post by Karellen »

teddyh wrote: post #90
whelp_24 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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:/…

I think Cory Doctorow has an interesting counterpoint which is worth considering:

> When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges:

> “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.”

> That is, in a world of uncertainty, where other people’s unpredictability can erode your profits, mire you in scandal, or even tank your business, “IP” is a means of forcing other people to arrange their affairs to suit your needs, even if that undermines their own needs.

-- https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#93

Post by gield »

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 found an image that shows the 3D effect: https://www.realrecyclers.com/images/product_images/original...

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#94

Post by withinboredom »

etchalon wrote: post #58
CivBase wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if I assemble a computer for someone, do I have to scratch the logos off everything? Is it reasonable to call the machine "counterfiet" because the CPU says "Intel" on the heat spreader? Or because one of the memory chips says "Samsung"? Most other manufacturers produce electronics with components from a wide variety of sources, bearing many brand names. What makes Apple components special?

Apple components aren't found in other products, only their own products. So if a product contains something with Apple logo, and it's not an actual Apple product, the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher, though obviously not absolute in the rare case of component re-use - which is 100% legal. It would be impossible to tell if a computer was counterfeit just because it included something with a Samsung lo…

That sounds wrong. We (and the border) have no idea who Apple is licensing their technology to. Sure it is easy to say “probably nobody” because they are incredibly isolationist but that won’t always be the case, in fact, it may currently not be the case.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#95

Post by semanticist »

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.

The point wasn't that the shape was secret, it's that the shape was trade-marked, and so very easy for Nintendo to shut down anyone using it.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#96

Post by ajsnigrutin »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #50
enragedcacti wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So you advocate for not being able to sell a honda civic with a ferrari air freshner inside it? What about a skoda with a VW radio inside (i think it fits in some models)?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#97

Post by Terr_ »

threeseed wrote: post #24
plorg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Stop trying to pretend it's all about the filing fee, nobody (else) is making that claim.

The article clearly identifies seizure-and-resale as the dubious profit motive, where CBP is permitted to erase trademarks and make money selling the seized equipment at auction.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#98

Post by Luc »

semanticist wrote: post #95
dylan604 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point wasn't that the shape was secret, it's that the shape was trade-marked, and so very easy for Nintendo to shut down anyone using it.

It didn't work like that though.

A pirate doesn't need to copy the Nintendo logo to make the disc functional, they just need to make 2 rectangular slots on each side of the disc.

Nintendo just arranged it so it fits nicely within their logo.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#99

Post by Nextgrid »

joosters wrote: post #88
AdamTReineke wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it a counterfeit if it's advertised as such? The harm of counterfeits is only when they're being passed off as the real thing. If the buyer is aware that it's counterfeit what's the issue?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#100

Post by ada1981 »

“Apple is being asked why they had the police raid someone’s business and steal their merchandise, and their response is a recitation of their business model: an incredible admission of how they view law enforcement as a simple weapon for Apple to use use to enforce their preferences.”

I ask myself daily “What is law enforcement if not a simple weapon to be used to enforce my personal preferences?”

Post reply on HN