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

101–110 of 160 posts

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#101

Post by TerraHertz »

Superficially it may seem like a generous response from Fluke. But you can bet that if there wasn't such a backlash against their action of lodging a complaint with US Customs, they would not have done this. Also I think they were already suffering serious commercial and image harm, which they realized would only get worse.

So really, it's self-preservation, not generosity.

Generosity would be to accept that 'yellow body, dark face' is not something they should try to own, or be able to own. If they cancel their ridiculous Mark registration, then I might believe Fluke had developed an actual soul, instead of mere corporate image loss/benefit calculation.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#102

Post by teacup50 »

jakethehuman wrote: post #78
EpicEng wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not just yellow. A distinctive yellow outer case with a black face.

The product looks like a Fluke -- until you look more closely and notice how awful the build quality is. That a cheap Chinese multimeter looks like a Fluke was not a fluke.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#103

Post by teacup50 »

mindslight wrote: post #100
anigbrowl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution to this seems to be (morally) compulsory licensing instead of notifying customs authorities about the fact of an infringement. Exactly why should a firm grant a license to its direct competitor to make inferior-quality goods in the first firm's trade dress? I could just as easily argue that the fault for the waste here lies with the Chinese exporter who refuses to take back the unwanted product which in…

In this case, I do not believe that the firms are actually direct competitors. Fluke seems to somewhat agree, judging by this gesture of goodwill that they're giving Sparkfun. We hear of plenty of similar cases where some firm sends a C&D to a barely related firm, and a common refrain is that the first firm simply must defend their trademark in such a manner, leaving no room for judgment. I am pointing out that this…

> Fluke seems to somewhat agree, judging by this gesture of goodwill that they're giving Sparkfun.

No, Fluke figured $30k was a cheap way to bury the PR issue and not have Sparkfun selling Fluke knock-offs.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#104

Post by teacup50 »

mindslight wrote: post #91
judk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Sparkfun's product actually fail in 590V environments? That seems like a more serious concern tha branding.

Probably not, but if it does fail at 500V, I wouldn't want to be around. The short circuit current and energies available generally go up with the voltage, and who knows how well thought out its failure modes are. Not that I'd like the CPSC anywhere near electronics, either. But given the amount of QA those meters probably (don't) receive and their intended market, Sparkfun should be responsible and either post their…

Probably not? Tear downs of cheap knock-off multimeters have shown that they very well can and will fail.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#105

Post by bananas »

damian2000 wrote: post #92

If SparkFun had decided to drop ship those same multimeters to their end-customers directly out of China (or wherever they are sourced from), via mail, would customs have seized each individual multimeter? I think not.

Actually I've had stuff imported from HK that was seized at EU border as in single items. It does happen. In this case a single rip off Rotring 600 clone from AliExpress.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#106

Post by gonzo »

rhizome wrote: post #94
jaeysin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

which is called "trade dress" and is much more difficult for fluke to prevail on.

though they did.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#107

Post by anigbrowl »

mindslight wrote: post #100
anigbrowl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your solution to this seems to be (morally) compulsory licensing instead of notifying customs authorities about the fact of an infringement. Exactly why should a firm grant a license to its direct competitor to make inferior-quality goods in the first firm's trade dress? I could just as easily argue that the fault for the waste here lies with the Chinese exporter who refuses to take back the unwanted product which in…

In this case, I do not believe that the firms are actually direct competitors. Fluke seems to somewhat agree, judging by this gesture of goodwill that they're giving Sparkfun. We hear of plenty of similar cases where some firm sends a C&D to a barely related firm, and a common refrain is that the first firm simply must defend their trademark in such a manner, leaving no room for judgment. I am pointing out that this…

Fluke and the Chinese manufacturers of the cheap multimeters, who are the infringers in this case, most certainly are direct competitors. They are both selling multimeters, and the price differential is beside the point. Sparkfun is just a distributor, they're not engaged in trademark infringement and have just been caught in the middle. Fluke is buying itself some nice PR, but that doesn't alter the legal situation one whit.

We hear of plenty of similar cases where some firm sends a C&D to a barely related firm

It's not similar if they're barely related.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#108

Post by gonzo »

jakethehuman wrote: post #78
EpicEng wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

actually, if the sales channels are different, there is an argument that use of a similar mark (or trade dress) is not confusing.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#109

Post by zmmmmm »

anigbrowl wrote: post #99
mindslight wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read my follow up response ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7439468 ). The legal environment is one specific context. I don't go around saying 'syntax error!' to anyone who misspeaks.

Your solution to this seems to be (morally) compulsory licensing instead of notifying customs authorities about the fact of an infringement. Exactly why should a firm grant a license to its direct competitor to make inferior-quality goods in the first firm's trade dress? I could just as easily argue that the fault for the waste here lies with the Chinese exporter who refuses to take back the unwanted product which in…

You seem to be shifting the goal posts. The discussion above is around whether trademark law requires Fluke to take the action they took today. Not whether it's morally right, wrong or what reasons there might be for it or anything else. Just the implication by the poster above that somehow Fluke was forced to do what they did by trademark law.

The truth is they are required to "protect" their trademark, but that doesn't require anything like what their actions were today. It's an almost irrelevant and highly misleading statement to throw into the discussion. Just to give an example, they could easily have arranged with SparkFun to allow the goods through but require a sticker be placed on each item identifying that it is not a Fluke product. That would also protect the trademark. If there is evidence that SparkFun is wilfully antagonistic and uncooperative then destroying products seems like a last resort you might arrive at. But before that there are a million different solutions that don't involve destroying and blocking SparkFun products open to both parties.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#110

Post by vacri »

userbinator wrote: post #62
EpicEng wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why in the world would/should Fluke give away ~$800,000 worth of product I've seen a lot more than that spent on marketing stunts, except in this case the consumers actually benefit by getting better equipment.

Marketing stunts don't usually give away the core product.
Post reply on HN