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

121–130 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#121

Post by mynameisvlad »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #118
CivBase wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your claim is just as not trivially obvious. So, source?

In reality, nobody knows why Apple is doing it except the people who made the decisions nor would it really be possible to trace the parts, but it’s far more likely that it comes from the many devices that can be salvaged for parts than it coming from some black market operation coming from the factory.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#122

Post by CivBase »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #118
CivBase wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If by "source" you want proof that the componenets with Apple branding are genuine parts salvaged from broken Apple products, I obviously can't do that.

Here's what the article says:

> 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 parts I buy have an original flex on it because that’s what’s best for my consumers,” [repair shop owner Jessa Jones] said. “It’s difficult and pointless to erase the existing Apple logo that’s printed on a tiny piece of flex. There’s no customer-facing Apple logo, no logo anywhere on the glass. It’s smaller than a grain of rice. We have never said online, in person, or anywhere else that these are Apple-certified screens.”

That aligns with claims I've heard from Louis Rossmann about the parts he uses.

https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/clgnmh/comment/evx65...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47-LNbb2vR8

I can't prove that any of these claims are true by Jessa, Louis, or the author of this article. But it shouldn't matter. People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#123

Post by Kon-Peki »

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…

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

The courts disagree that this is always true.

For example:

https://casetext.com/case/martins-herend-imports-v-diamond-g...

https://casetext.com/case/mary-kay

https://casetext.com/case/warner-lambert-co-v-northside-deve...

Even Wikipedia:

> A trademark owner can overcome the first sale doctrine defense if it can show that the unauthorized reseller is using the trademark on goods that lack its quality control standards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#124

Post by red369 »

vkoskiv wrote: post #91
red369 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cheers - I thought I might be confusing it.

I’ve dug out an old black MacBook I have, and even though it has a light-up logo, it doesn’t look like it has the same 3D look as the Aluminium MacBook Pro.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#125

Post by MichaelZuo »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #121
MichaelZuo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with providing a source? You are the one who wrote the, not trivially obvious, claim.

Your claim is just as not trivially obvious. So, source? In reality, nobody knows why Apple is doing it except the people who made the decisions nor would it really be possible to trace the parts, but it’s far more likely that it comes from the many devices that can be salvaged for parts than it coming from some black market operation coming from the factory.

My claim of what?

If you meant my previous comment, I clearly phrased it as my own person opinion?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#126

Post by campboy »

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…

The source is the article? That’s rather one of the points of the article.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#127

Post by me-vs-cat »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #102
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…

Even more so than this, counterfeit goods can be made in the same factories as the real deal. One of the problems that luxury brands have is that contract manufacturers will sometimes either divert items with minor quality-control failures, or overproduce and sell into grey-market channels. Is there a difference between a factory that overproduces some fancy sneakers and resells them through unauthorized channels (wh…

Did these cables come from factory overproduction? The article doesn't say.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#128

Post by mynameisvlad »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #125
mynameisvlad wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim is just as not trivially obvious. So, source? In reality, nobody knows why Apple is doing it except the people who made the decisions nor would it really be possible to trace the parts, but it’s far more likely that it comes from the many devices that can be salvaged for parts than it coming from some black market operation coming from the factory.

My claim of what? If you meant my previous comment, I clearly phrased it as my own person opinion?

In no way shape or form is that phrased as your own personal opinion. You asked the parent commenter for a source and then parroted an alternative theory as what actually happened.

Considering you were so adamant on asking a source for the other person’s theory, and were so sure of your own, that you must have proof of it, right?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#129

Post by MichaelZuo »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #128
MichaelZuo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My claim of what? If you meant my previous comment, I clearly phrased it as my own person opinion?

In no way shape or form is that phrased as your own personal opinion. You asked the parent commenter for a source and then parroted an alternative theory as what actually happened. Considering you were so adamant on asking a source for the other person’s theory, and were so sure of your own, that you must have proof of it, right?

To be frank, your opinion of another HN user's comments doesn't outweigh anyone else's opinion. If your unsure about this point, perhaps review the HN rules?

If it was indeed as you say, and that the large majority of passing readers indeed perceived it as such, then the previous comment would have been downvoted into 'dead' status a while ago.

Since it hasn't, then that's proof enough.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#130

Post by someguydave »

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…

The problem is that CBP is enforcing Apple’s desire to prevent people from importing used Apple products (or new items that compete with what Apple sells). Neither activity is actually illegal, but CBP has vast powers that are not constrained by the normal domestic legal process and Apple had found a way to maximally abuse CBP’s powers
Post reply on HN