Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SparkFun: We Hear You

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#71

Post by markrages »

sisk wrote: post #7
[deleted] wrote: post #4

[deleted]

Summary of events leading to this response: SparkFun has been selling a type of inexpensive digital multimeter since 2008. About two weeks ago, they were informed that a recent shipment of 2,000 units (a $30,000 value) was seized by customs due to a trademark owned by Fluke (granted 2003). Specifically, their units violate Fluke's branding (gray face, yellow border). The Chinese manufacturer won't take them back (pro…

> Moving forward, SparkFun will change their DMMs to be red instead of yellow.

Amprobe might take issue with that: https://www.google.com/search?q=amprobe&tbm=isch

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#72

Post by davesque »

Am I the only one that is finding their response to be unsatisfactory?

Let me translate it for everyone:

"Hey, we realize how much it sucks that your merchandise was seized and will now be destroyed. As far as that goes, well...too bad. _However_, we'll allow you just this once to distribute our own merchandise and spread awareness of our brand name for us."

Is this really a fair deal? Does SparkFun really want to be under Fluke's thumb and promote Fluke's brand at the expense of promoting their own?

In addition to that, they still have a monopoly on the color yellow in their market.

How is this an admirable move by Fluke?

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#73

Post by anigbrowl »

mindslight wrote: post #20
toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its important to note that Fluke is required to enforce their trademark or they risk losing it.

Actually no, in fact it's counterproductive. That's a mindless aphorism thrown about to deflect blame from the actual people responsible for decisions, similar to "companies are legally required to maximize profit".

Wrong: http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/LossofT...

This is trademark law 101, not a 'mindless aphorism.' Any trademark lawyer will tell you that firms need to police the use of their marks if they wish to courts to enforce their rights in the mark. What basis do you have for claiming otherwise?

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#74

Post by georgemcbay »

aray wrote: post #66

Given that Fluke multimeters cost about 10x what the destroyed ones are, sparkfun is still out $30k to replace the shipment + destruction fees, and now have probably 200 fluke units to try to recoup some costs with.

While this is true, Fluke's response could have easily been "eat a bag of dicks, Sparkfun" and their actual response is quite a bit more friendly than that.

I think there is still blame to go around here but more on US Customs than Fluke, particularly since the Sparkfun multimeter color isn't really that close to the "Fluke yellow". It would be nice if there were some simple (via some arbiter, not the slow legal system) ability to appeal such decisions prior to exportation or destruction of all the stock.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#75

Post by jaeysin »

EpicEng wrote: post #31
johansch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nicer solution could have been: Fluke: "We'll swap your 2000 chinese multimeters with 2000 Fluke multimeters. We will send the non-fluke multimeters to under-funded universities in africa/asia/wherever."

Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here. You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a…

But they didn't violate their trademark, there is no use of the name Fluke or their trademark.

"A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services. " http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/

You could make an argument that the products themselves are look-alikes, or pursue them if they created a similar trademark to cause confusion, but it doesnt seem to me that they obviously acted to violate a trademark.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#76

Post by talklittle »

haptiK wrote: post #23
seszett wrote: post #2

It's a bit of a shame that Fluke uses Facebook for publishing official statements. Other than that... well, good reaction from Fluke. I'd say all events, from seizing the multimeters to the resolution today, unfolded in the best way possible.

Explain to me why it's a shame to have used Facebook?

I thought it was a shame for a different reason. Given I'm far from an avid Facebook user these days, the UI led me to believe this whole thing was a statement being made by Facebook, until I got to the very end of the letter: "Signed, Fluke Corporation."

Was very confused about Facebook talking so much about hardware.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#77

Post by mindslight »

fancyketchup wrote: post #58
mindslight wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, Sparkfun could rework them domestically to change their appearance, avoiding destruction and avoiding sending them back to China. Also, does anyone have tips on how to get the smell out after accidentally using an overripe banana to "test" my breaker panel? I thought checking the color would be sufficiently safe :/

The great thing about comments like this one are that they help me identify whose opinion not to take seriously in the future. Not being able to distinguish the difference between copying multiple distinctive elements of trade dress (yellow back AND yellow front border AND uniform grey front) and inadvertently using a particular color anywhere on the product is really quite an amazing feat.

Yep, any use of hyperbole forever invalidates everything someone says.

FWIW, there's only two "elements" (the back and border are one piece), and their distinctiveness is specified in terms of basic colors one learns in elementary school.

The ability to monopolize a general two-tone color scheme on a durable tool that someone may use every day is outright ridiculous.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#78

Post by jakethehuman »

EpicEng wrote: post #31
johansch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nicer solution could have been: Fluke: "We'll swap your 2000 chinese multimeters with 2000 Fluke multimeters. We will send the non-fluke multimeters to under-funded universities in africa/asia/wherever."

Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here. You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a…

You are comparing products aimed at two entirely different markets; may as well be saying that 'Lexus has every right to copyright a yellow car because KIA makes such an inferior car.' .

Just because a product is distributed with different intent and audience does not mean it does not deserve to exist.

Excuse me while I enjoy this hot pocket, I find them quite alright, thank you.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#79

Post by jakethehuman »

EpicEng wrote: post #31
johansch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nicer solution could have been: Fluke: "We'll swap your 2000 chinese multimeters with 2000 Fluke multimeters. We will send the non-fluke multimeters to under-funded universities in africa/asia/wherever."

Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here. You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a…

You are comparing products aimed at two entirely different markets; may as well be saying that 'Lexus has every right to copyright a yellow car because KIA makes such an inferior car.' .

Just because a product is distributed with different intent and audience does not mean it does not deserve to exist.

Excuse me while I enjoy this hot pocket, I find them quite alright, thank you.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#80

Post by jakethehuman »

EpicEng wrote: post #31
johansch wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nicer solution could have been: Fluke: "We'll swap your 2000 chinese multimeters with 2000 Fluke multimeters. We will send the non-fluke multimeters to under-funded universities in africa/asia/wherever."

Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product (that sparkfun would make a ton of money off of) because someone decided to violate their trademark and paid the price for it? We're talking about 2,000 vastly inferior multimeters here. You may or may not agree with the trademark being issued in the first place, but it was, and I don't blame fluke for wanting to protect their brand. They make a…

You are comparing products aimed at two entirely different markets; may as well be saying that 'Lexus has every right to copyright a yellow car because KIA makes such an inferior car.' .

Just because a product is distributed with different intent and audience does not mean it does not deserve to exist.

Excuse me while I enjoy this hot pocket, I find them quite alright, thank you.

Post reply on HN