281–290 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought they look funny (although not ugly) when they first came out. But other designs (e.g. round blob sticking out of earholes) are even worse, and convinience outweighs visibility.
> But other designs (e.g. round blob sticking out of earholes) are even worse Interesting, I always thought they look better simply because they don’t stand out as much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was a UL mark. Underwriters Laboratories. They are a company that tests products for electrical safety. The manufacturer of the AC adapter didn't pay for testing, but put the mark on the adapter. The adapters weren't the main thing I was importing, so I hadn't paid any attention to it in the order process. The technical reason for the seizure was trademark violation.
>The technical reason for the seizure was trademark violation. Do you know what a trademark is? This wasn't a trademark violation, it was a fake certification. The reason for the seizure is I don't want electronics in my house that could burn it down. UL cetifiies that. That's NOT a trademark. That's a certification. You really don't seem to understand that you were caught trying to import bogus goods. It's also conc…
I do understand the issues, and would not have sold products using those adapters knowing the UL mark was fake. The cost to get "real" adapters was a trivial portion of the overall cost.
However, that was NOT at all what the CBP was complaining about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you even saying? Why the flame? You probably have a perverted notion of free trade to say so. I defend free trade and this is an absurd. Free trade applies for both sides, and should be seen always unilaterally, without retaliation by state actors or third parties.
I'm not flaming anyone, except Canadian trademark law. And in what way do you consider my view on free trade perverted? Don't you find that giving the trademark owner the ability to prevent imports restricts the free trade of people who bought their goods? Say I'm Canadian, I buy a Mercedes, and 2 years later, decide to sell it to a buyer in the US. Now Mercedes can prevent that sale, by not giving permission to expo…
Your original post seemed to be a criticism of free trade.
It's not that the "free trade stuff never applies to consumers". Everything that the state does in the name of free trade is baloney and only works to give power to politicians or lobbyists. As I said in my comment before: free trade is really free when it is unilateral. When there is no politics involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter. The burden of truth is supposed to be on the accuser. Consider if you will - a robber is caught by police in his own house. In this house, they found the items the robber stole. Should they: a) take the items the robber stole b) take everything
Thanks to civil asset forfeiture laws, the police will in fact b) take everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter. The burden of truth is supposed to be on the accuser. Consider if you will - a robber is caught by police in his own house. In this house, they found the items the robber stole. Should they: a) take the items the robber stole b) take everything
In a civil case like the one above, its based on a preponderance of evidence. Are you saying that when one device is fake, I should give the benefit of the doubt and assume no other is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is more to the story here than being told really. I bet they did investigate, and the poster didn't have documentation. Why are we assuming the commenter is being totally.honest?
Why would I want adapters with fake UL marks? The adapter is a very small amount of the cost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
by your logic shouldn't they also seize all future shipments sent to and/or from the shipper?
Yeah, or least inspect them much more closely. If you bought something and it arrived and was a fake, would you buy from that shipper again?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CBP in this case isn't looking out for his best interest, they're looking out for the consumer's best interest. Counterfeit goods? Well, now the whole thing is suspect. It makes sense to me.
Counterfeit probably isn't the best word for this. It was whatever brand adapter it said it was. The UL mark was fake. After this happened I found that's pretty common. Not that it's okay, but there's tons of generic electronics on Amazon that come with adapters with a fake UL mark.
To be fair, OnePlus Buds appear to be counterfeit AirPods in everything but the name. Same shape, same white plastic, same metal endcaps, same black dots, even the same case design. In other words, a straight-up rip-off of Apple’s design with a few minor changes.
The phone your holding has the same screen in the front, camera on the back, a home button, and the keyboard shows up on the bottom when you're typing. Maybe even the same front camera design. All of that is just straight-up rip-off of.. everyone's phone?
Perhaps this is linked to the China and US trade war? Maybe US customs have been instructed to be harsher on Chinese company imports? Not saying it is necessarily unethical considering that China is no doubt doing similar.
I'd be more tempted to apply Hanlon's razor: Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.