22 ms·
The company was merely rebranding products they had purchased. Reselling rebranded equipment has a long legal history. No one was being ripped off as you put it
by donatj 9y ago
The company was merely rebranding products they had purchased. Reselling rebranded equipment has a long legal history. No one was being ripped off as you put it, they were being paid for their goods.
We just had a Supreme Court win for the right of resale in the United States over rebranded refilled printer cartridges. Should Lexmark now be able to go to court in Canada and get the refillers delisted in the United States? It's literally the exact same issue.
- 6stringmerc 9y agoDid you read closely in the story where the "rebranding" actually involved theft of material technology / code? Please explain how that is considered rebranding or anywhere NEAR the rights implied by the doctrine of first purchase in the US. You made a clear and coherent wrong observation and came out with a completely bass-ackwards conclusion.
- cmiles74 9y agoMy understanding is the company started out by re-branding equipment but then stole some proprietary data so that they could create their own competing product. "The case began as a dispute between two technology companies, Equustek Solutions and Datalink Technologies Gateways. The latter was accused of repackaging one of the former’s products as its own, and then of nicking confidential files from Equustek and using the information contained within to produce and sell a competing product."