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

91–100 of 160 posts

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#91

Post by mindslight »

judk wrote: post #89
aeberbach wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, did your banana have "CAT III Max 600V" stencilled on it? The $15 multimeter does. I suspect the cheap meter has about the same right to wear that label as the banana.

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 ongoing testing process, or probably just drop the rated voltage to 100V.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#92

Post by damian2000 »

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.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#93

Post by quarterwave »

Imagine how much money would have been spent if this had to go to court to achieve the same result: we'll let you go this time, but in future please pay more attention to product design/appearance.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#94

Post by rhizome »

jaeysin wrote: post #75
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…

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.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#95

Post by analog31 »

asimpletune wrote: post #45
larrys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"what an amazing and generous response from Fluke" Agree. And curious what the PR value will be vs. the cost of goods for Fluke (which is their cost, not the wholesale and/or selling price). Personally I think it's unfortunate that they needed, in this day and age of social media, to have to bogu on this situation and get out in front of this issue by doing this. Of course by what I say in the first paragaph it may v…

I doubt they're getting any serious PR from this. I've been to Fluke HQ. They're a pretty small company, full of incredibly nice people.

I'm guessing the PR value is magnified by the unusual brand recognition of SparkFun -- one of those brands that folks admire, even if they've never bought anything from them.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#96

Post by rch »

davesque wrote: post #72

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…

Agreed. There's nothing wrong with a company wanting to run damage control in this situation, but the level of praise here seems out of sync.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#97

Post by jmathai »

bch wrote: post #53
dublinben wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You still have to visit facebook.

It hasn't been explicitly stated yet, and may not be apparent to everyone, but it's blocked in some networks. It's not just a case of "I despise Facebook so much I refuse to visit it."

That's a very valid point. Hadn't considered that.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#98

Post by sigstoat »

markrages wrote: post #71
sisk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

or meterman.

http://www.wavetekmeterman.com/mmusen/home/default.htm

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#99

Post by anigbrowl »

mindslight wrote: post #84
anigbrowl wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 infringes on someone else's trade dress. I don't buy the argument about import taxes making it too expensive, this is what entrepots are for.

Re: SparkFun: We Hear You

#100

Post by mindslight »

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…

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 is patently false.

Post reply on HN