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

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#131

Post by MichaelZuo »

campboy wrote: post #126
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…

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

Then can you link or quote the specific parts of the article that back up the claim?

Because I don’t see it.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#132

Post by mynameisvlad »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #129
mynameisvlad wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look in the mirror; your entire comment applies to you.

Linking the lack of downvotes to people's opinions of said comment is a reach at best. Downvoting here doesn’t happen nearly as often or for the reasons you think they do. This isn’t Reddit. Things don’t just get downvoted because people disagree with your opinion.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#133

Post by MichaelZuo »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #132
MichaelZuo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look in the mirror; your entire comment applies to you. Linking the lack of downvotes to people's opinions of said comment is a reach at best. Downvoting here doesn’t happen nearly as often or for the reasons you think they do. This isn’t Reddit. Things don’t just get downvoted because people disagree with your opinion.

Okay so you agree that both our opinions in this comment chain aren't likely to be confused with statements of fact?

Then there's nothing in dispute?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#134

Post by mynameisvlad »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #133
mynameisvlad wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look in the mirror; your entire comment applies to you. Linking the lack of downvotes to people's opinions of said comment is a reach at best. Downvoting here doesn’t happen nearly as often or for the reasons you think they do. This isn’t Reddit. Things don’t just get downvoted because people disagree with your opinion.

Okay so you agree that both our opinions in this comment chain aren't likely to be confused with statements of fact? Then there's nothing in dispute?

That’s not what I said at all but is certainly a much easier goalpost to defend.

You still haven’t provided a source for that claim of yours. If you consider the other comment as fact to the point where you corrected it, then yours is just as much.

Also, next time, maybe keep track of the people you are replying to.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#135

Post by MichaelZuo »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #134
MichaelZuo wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay so you agree that both our opinions in this comment chain aren't likely to be confused with statements of fact? Then there's nothing in dispute?

That’s not what I said at all but is certainly a much easier goalpost to defend. You still haven’t provided a source for that claim of yours. If you consider the other comment as fact to the point where you corrected it, then yours is just as much. Also, next time, maybe keep track of the people you are replying to.

What are you confused about now?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#136

Post by mynameisvlad »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #135
mynameisvlad wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what I said at all but is certainly a much easier goalpost to defend. You still haven’t provided a source for that claim of yours. If you consider the other comment as fact to the point where you corrected it, then yours is just as much. Also, next time, maybe keep track of the people you are replying to.

What are you confused about now?

Maybe you should take a look at those guidelines yourself, bud.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#137

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

me-vs-cat wrote: post #127
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't - but, look, this is Apple we are talking about. What're the odds that there's anything in Apple's supply chain that they'd be willing to allow suppliers to sell to anyone else?

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#138

Post by me-vs-cat »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #137
me-vs-cat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It doesn't - but, look, this is Apple we are talking about. What're the odds that there's anything in Apple's supply chain that they'd be willing to allow suppliers to sell to anyone else?

A bunch of other commenters are saying these were pulled from legally bought and re-sold phones -- probably trade-ins or damages. I don't know who is right, but given the additional fact that the linked article is only about 38 screens, not hundreds, do you really want to default to the conclusion that the importer is guilty?

Is there evidence other than what intuition says Apple would allow/disallow over the entire market? Keep in mind, this very article is about one method they would use to prevent people importing original parts stripped from broken units.

(To find the 38 number, the article links to https://www.vice.com/en/article/evk4wk/dhs-seizes-iphone-scr... -- see the 4th paragraph.)

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#139

Post by MichaelZuo »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #136
MichaelZuo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you confused about now?

Maybe you should take a look at those guidelines yourself, bud.

I have? Your also free to opine that I don't know the HN 'guidelines', but it's unlikely that will lead to anything productive.

Re: Apple's Trademark Exploit

#140

Post by CivBase »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #131
campboy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Then can you link or quote the specific parts of the article that back up the claim? Because I don’t see it.

I responded to you a couple days ago with the relevant quotes from the article.
Post reply on HN