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

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#111

Post by emodendroket »

Nextgrid wrote: post #99
joosters wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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?

That you’re cutting into the sales of the legitimate item and the buyer could easily sell on the counterfeit to an unwitting buyer. The protection does not solely exist for the benefit of consumers.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#112

Post by MichaelZuo »

CivBase wrote: post #109
mattpavelle wrote: post #108

Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers. Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them.…

> Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? No. The products in question were assembled using a combination of standard hardware components and genuine OEM parts salvaged from broken Apple devices. Since Apple goes to great lengths to prevent third parties from accessing components used in Apple devices, salvaging OEM parts from busted machines is often the only legitimate way t…

> Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices.

Source?

It seems far more likely those parts came from the original factory selling original parts under the table for whatever reasons, or are actually counterfeited with just the logo stamped on them afterwards. Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would require a pretty extensive operation.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#113

Post by etchalon »

Dah00n wrote: post #105
etchalon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher So, "guilty until proven innocent" is the way they look at anything made by Apple and "innocent until proven guilty" otherwise? Seems… fishy at a minimum. Corrupt more likely.

It’s literally just logic and is purely speculation on my part.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#114

Post by etchalon »

withinboredom wrote: post #94
etchalon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When it stops being the case, it’d be one of the biggest tech stories of our lifetime.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#115

Post by CivBase »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #112
CivBase wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? No. The products in question were assembled using a combination of standard hardware components and genuine OEM parts salvaged from broken Apple devices. Since Apple goes to great lengths to prevent third parties from accessing components used in Apple devices, salvaging OEM parts from busted machines is often the only legitimate way t…

> Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices. Source? It seems far more likely those parts came from the original factory selling original parts under the table for whatever reasons, or are actually counterfeited with just the logo stamped on them afterwards. Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would r…

So guilty until proven innocent, then?

This is exactly why the title calls Apple's practice an "exploit". Apple recognizes that CBP does not follow due process and they take advantage of that by slapping their label on every last little, insignificant component - including stuff the customer will never even see. It probably helps catch counterfeits, but it has the added benefit of significantly disrupting legitimate competition.

> Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would require a pretty extensive operation.

It'd be a lot easier than reverse-engineering every Apple component and manufacturing it yourself. What else is a legitimate replacement part producer supposed to do?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#116

Post by Reubachi »

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.

The parts are not counterfeit or fell of a truck. THey are OEM parts from previously disassembled phones, which has been proven with small sample testing.

Back to the car example, imagine if Ford went after ebay and FB marketplace with some regulatory body, citing the huge industry of totaled -vehicle-part-out sales as being an "exploit".

For this ford example, or the exact equivlent example that is occuring with phones, can you possibly make it make sense to me for a regulatory body to waste it's time with such a simple, obvious non-issue? Bonus points if you can do it without referencing Apple's major influence/market share (this would be illegal.)

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#117

Post by yencabulator »

mattpavelle wrote: post #108

Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers. Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them.…

Read the part under "Versus Competing Accessories", there's no Apple logo involved, there's nothing grey about a manufacturer making their own goods. Their alleged crime is that it's an earbud, with a shape that doesn't even look like Apple's products: https://www.oneplus.com/us/product/oneplus-buds

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#118

Post by MichaelZuo »

CivBase wrote: post #115
MichaelZuo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices. Source? It seems far more likely those parts came from the original factory selling original parts under the table for whatever reasons, or are actually counterfeited with just the logo stamped on them afterwards. Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would r…

So guilty until proven innocent, then? This is exactly why the title calls Apple's practice an "exploit". Apple recognizes that CBP does not follow due process and they take advantage of that by slapping their label on every last little, insignificant component - including stuff the customer will never even see. It probably helps catch counterfeits, but it has the added benefit of significantly disrupting legitimate…

What does this have to do with providing a source?

You are the one who wrote the, not trivially obvious, claim.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#119

Post by efitz »

wh0knows wrote: post #103
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 think it’s massively problematic that a few select mega corporations with deep pockets get to enforce what products are allowed to be brought into the US with no due process. CBP should train to learn what products to seize, but that training shouldn’t be taught by a self-interested corporation. It increases the barrier to entry of new competitors as you must bribe the CBP to have your trademarks enforced, and the…

I agree; let’s change the laws!

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#120

Post by AdamTReineke »

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

Why's that? For example, wouldn't you describe any rotomolded cooler as a knockoff Yeti? To me, that doesn't seem to comment on the legit vs. counterfeit nature of the cooler, it just anchors the viewer's expectation.

Is there some special protection (in the USA) given to describing something as a "knockoff" versus "similar to"?

Post reply on HN