3 ms·

Well, if you actually read into the case, the screens that originally got him in trouble almost certainly were genuine parts that had "fallen off the back of th

Well, if you actually read into the case, the screens that originally got him in trouble almost certainly were genuine parts that had "fallen off the back of the truck" or whatever excuse someone gave for trafficking in stolen components, and the guy's defense was "there's no way I could be infringing on their trademarks because the Apple logos are all inked over to make sure nobody sees them before I put them on the phones, and once they're installed you don't see them either!" Which is not exactly the tale of plucky indie DIY repair hero people wanted it to be, and probably quite close to the "illegal importer trying to spin his way out of it" Apple accused him of being.

on_and_off 8y ago
Thanks for assuming I have not read the case !
Dylan16807 8y ago
> Well, if you actually read into the case, the screens that originally got him in trouble almost certainly were genuine parts that had "fallen off the back of the truck" or whatever excuse someone gave for trafficking in stolen components If they're stolen, that's bad, sure. But that's only one possibility for where they came from. > the guy's defense was "there's no way I could be infringing on their trademarks because the Apple logos are all inked over to make sure nobody sees them before I put them on the phones, and once they're installed you don't see them either!" When someone accuses you of infringing a trademark, pointing out that you don't use the trademark is a completely legitimate defense. I honestly don't understand why you imply that's a bad argument. > Which is not exactly the tale of plucky indie DIY repair hero people wanted it to be, and probably quite close to the "illegal importer trying to spin his way out of it" Apple accused him of being. What is an "illegal importer"? You shouldn't need Apple's permission to import anything.
- ubernostrum 8y ago
  What is an "illegal importer"? You shouldn't need Apple's permission to import anything. If I steal something from you, can I then run around declaring I shouldn't need your permission to use it or to take it where I like? Or -- since it's legally yours -- should you have some say in that and the opportunity to get it back? At best the stuff he was importing was in the realm of really good counterfeits, and included trademark-violating logos that he or his accomplices did a bad job of covering up. At worst (and seemingly pretty likely) the stuff he was importing was legally Apple's property and had been stolen from them. There is no chain of argument here that turns this guy into the narrative you want him to be.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Either he had legal possession or he didn't. That matters. He did not violate trademarks. You don't violate a trademark by having a secret hidden logo. That's not even close to how trademarks work.
    - ubernostrum 8y ago
      Either he had legal possession or he didn't. That matters. Either the components were counterfeit, and bore hastily-covered-up trademark-infringing logos, and thus shouldn't have been legally importable. Or they were genuine but stolen, and thus shouldn't have been legally importable. No amount of narrative spin can change that.

on_and_off 8y ago

Thanks for assuming I have not read the case !

Dylan16807 8y ago

> Well, if you actually read into the case, the screens that originally got him in trouble almost certainly were genuine parts that had "fallen off the back of the truck" or whatever excuse someone gave for trafficking in stolen components If they're stolen, that's bad, sure. But that's only one possibility for where they came from. > the guy's defense was "there's no way I could be infringing on their trademarks because the Apple logos are all inked over to make sure nobody sees them before I put them on the phones, and once they're installed you don't see them either!" When someone accuses you of infringing a trademark, pointing out that you don't use the trademark is a completely legitimate defense. I honestly don't understand why you imply that's a bad argument. > Which is not exactly the tale of plucky indie DIY repair hero people wanted it to be, and probably quite close to the "illegal importer trying to spin his way out of it" Apple accused him of being. What is an "illegal importer"? You shouldn't need Apple's permission to import anything.

ubernostrum 8y ago
What is an "illegal importer"? You shouldn't need Apple's permission to import anything. If I steal something from you, can I then run around declaring I shouldn't need your permission to use it or to take it where I like? Or -- since it's legally yours -- should you have some say in that and the opportunity to get it back? At best the stuff he was importing was in the realm of really good counterfeits, and included trademark-violating logos that he or his accomplices did a bad job of covering up. At worst (and seemingly pretty likely) the stuff he was importing was legally Apple's property and had been stolen from them. There is no chain of argument here that turns this guy into the narrative you want him to be.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Either he had legal possession or he didn't. That matters. He did not violate trademarks. You don't violate a trademark by having a secret hidden logo. That's not even close to how trademarks work.
  - ubernostrum 8y ago
    Either he had legal possession or he didn't. That matters. Either the components were counterfeit, and bore hastily-covered-up trademark-infringing logos, and thus shouldn't have been legally importable. Or they were genuine but stolen, and thus shouldn't have been legally importable. No amount of narrative spin can change that.