4 ms·

I 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 othe

by ikeboy 9y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  They ruled that Apple had immunity, which is not the same as finding that Apple didn't lie.
  - jmull 9y ago
    Well, 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 ago
      I 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        No 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.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from
        Steko 9y ago
        Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be what they did. Was this overzealous or a dumb mistake? Maybe, maybe not - it's not clear that H2F wasn't selling counterfeit cases (""H2F also cannot support its conclusory assertion that the iPad cases it sold were genuine because it cannot say how or from whom it acquired them"). But it certainly wasn't a sham and that's the only bar Apple needs to clear for immunity under Noer-Pennington.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        >Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F. Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune. >one seller massively undercutting the rest As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.

by ikeboy 9y ago

jmull 9y ago

I 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 ago
They ruled that Apple had immunity, which is not the same as finding that Apple didn't lie.
- jmull 9y ago
  Well, 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      No 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.
      - ikeboy 9y ago
        I believe the complaints were on the listing, which means Apple had no way to know which seller it was from
        Steko 9y ago
        Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. They could also connect reviews of "cheap" "counterfeit" goods to the one seller massively undercutting the rest which was also not an authorized seller of Apple products and since Apple is the manufacturer and distributor, they may have been able to eliminate other sellers. Which appears to be what they did. Was this overzealous or a dumb mistake? Maybe, maybe not - it's not clear that H2F wasn't selling counterfeit cases (""H2F also cannot support its conclusory assertion that the iPad cases it sold were genuine because it cannot say how or from whom it acquired them"). But it certainly wasn't a sham and that's the only bar Apple needs to clear for immunity under Noer-Pennington.
        ikeboy 9y ago
        >Apple could send out takedown/cease and desist to any and all sellers if they wanted, based on the reviews of counterfeit. That's not the issue here, it's that they sent it to Amazon making false allegations about H2F. Again, the fact that they don't have liability for their lie doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. I'd note that the standard for a motion to dismiss is to accept the pleaded claims as fact, so they should accept H2F's claim that their products were geniune. >one seller massively undercutting the rest As the complaint says, several other sellers were pricing low.