5 ms·
How to confirm it's not a farce but the actual source code? I could post anything, whatever, and say "this is iBoot leaked".
by rambojazz 9y ago
How to confirm it's not a farce but the actual source code? I could post anything, whatever, and say "this is iBoot leaked".
- loeg 9y agohttps://twitter.com/supersat/status/961480792483381248 https://twitter.com/supersat/status/961480792483381248
- romanovcode 9y agoDoesn't prove anything. Apple is huge, they can do with GitHub whatever they want.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoSo, Apple just lied and said it was theirs? That makes absolutely zero sense.
- ikeboy 9y agoI was involved with a case earlier this week with Apple making a false IP claim under penalty of perjury, they don't seem to care too much. Have heard from others who've been bullied by them as well. Look up HARD2FIND ACCESSORIES INC v. AMAZON COM INC APPLE INC for another instance of them abusing IP claims.
- jmull 9y agoI looked that case up... Doesn't it show the opposite of what you claim? Hard2find's suit against Apple and Amazon was dismissed with prejudice and that decision was confirmed on appeal.
- ikeboy 9y agoThey ruled that Apple had immunity, which is not the same as finding that Apple didn't lie.
- jmull 9y agoWell, they ruled Apple had immunity because their petition could not be construed as a sham. Also, they ruled there were no facts to support the Apple/Amazon conspiracies the plaintiff suggested AND ruled there wasn't even any hope that such facts could be supplied where the suit to be amended. Whatever lie you think Apple is guilty of, there doesn't appear to be any sign of it amongst the material of the suit. Going to court is expensive and time-consuming, so I presume that if such facts were available, the plaintiff would have used them. You can believe whatever you want, but it seems like you'll have to do it despite the absence of supporting facts, at least in this case.
- ikeboy 9y agoI didn't say anything about the anti-trust claims, it's typical for plaintiffs to pile on as many claims as they think are remotely plausible to stick. The lie is the claim that Apple made that plaintiffs were selling fake goods, which you'll note Apple retracted later. Whether they have liability for their lie or have immunity under free speech doctrines doesn't change the fact that they abused IP claims. This is not an isolated instance with Apple, I have seen many others. But, as this case demonstrates, it's very tough to hold large companies accountable without a very large legal budget.
- ikeboy 9y agoI don't think the court ended up considering the main point, which is that Apple had no evidence that H2F's units specifically were fake.
- Steko 9y agoNo evidence? H2F's complaint included customer complaints regarding the authenticity of H2F's products, which could support Apple's trademark infringement and counterfeiting concerns, and therefore Apple's notice to Amazon was not baseless.
- Retroity 9y agohttps://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-02-08-Apple.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-02-08-A... Apple submitted this DMCA to GitHub, and admitted, under penalty of perjury, that this source code is legitimate. Additionally, if it was fake, they wouldn't submit a DMCA.