5 ms·

A couple thoughts: - It's not quite fair to compare the service you get from some randomly chosen retail employees with the service you get from a near-celebri

A couple thoughts: - It's not quite fair to compare the service you get from some randomly chosen retail employees with the service you get from a near-celebrity repairman. - Aggressively suing people over copyright infringement is sometimes required by copyright law. If you don't do it, other people in the future can argue in court that you were implicitly giving up your enforcement rights. I don't know how often they win with that argument, but I know how Apple's lawyers feel about risking it.

mrkstu 8y ago
You’re confusing copyright and trademark- copyright can be as selectively enforced as wished without giving up any other or future rights.
- oconnor663 8y ago
  Very good to know, thank you.
sumedh 8y ago
The issue Rossmann found was not complicated, any competent repair guy working for Apple should have known what the issue was and how to fix it instead of saying the device would need significant repairs.
- sjwright 8y ago
  And how did the pin get on the outside of the connector? Presumably the laptop was working sometime in the past. Which means that whatever happened, it wasn't Apple's fault, nor is it their responsibility to fix it. Apple doesn't claim to offer electronic circuit diagnosis services, they offer limited repair options for a limited set of devices. Sure, it would have been nice if the Genius Bar staff could offer a disclaimer-laden advertisement for competent third party repair shops, but I'm not surprised that they don't because as Rossmann himself acknowledges, many third party repair shops are staffed with incompetent fools.
  - sumedh 8y ago
    > nor is it their responsibility to fix it. They were happy to charge $1000+ for making "significant" repairs.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      That's because they don't offer electronic circuit diagnosis services, they can only replace entire parts. And remember, that $1000+ was a quote, not a final invoice. If it turned out to be a broken cable, a motherboard replacement wouldn't have solved the issue. It's likely the actual repair technician would have identified this fault and the customer would have ultimately paid a much lower price.
      - sumedh 8y ago
        > If it turned out to be a broken cable So why give a quote of $1000+ when the Apple guy did not know what the problem was?
        sjwright 8y ago
        Because the Apple Stores do not offer electronic circuit diagnosis services. The quote would have been based on an educated guess, as backlight failure plus triggered moisture sensors often points to a corroded motherboard as the underlying fault. It's not fair to expect Apple's store staff to accurately diagnose faults on the assumption that the device was opened and mishandled by the customer or a third party repairer. The guys in these stores aren't electronics experts, they're just regular people with some training on the most common points of failure and the out-of-warranty repair options offered by Apple.
        sumedh 8y ago
        > Because the Apple Stores do not offer electronic circuit diagnosis services. Interesting, can you please give a link on the Apple site which says that. > It's not fair to expect Apple's store staff to accurately diagnose faults Apple says the people working in the genius bar are experts, I would assume an expert would be able to diagnose faults.
syshum 8y ago
>Aggressively suing people over copyright infringement is sometimes required by copyright law. No it never is, EVER. This is a myth people use to give companies like Apple cover for the aggressive actions This myth has been debunked countless times, yet it still used by fan boys https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- sjwright 8y ago
  Your link is not relevant. The Canonical dispute was about another website using their name and logo as descriptive materials associated with reportage/complaint. It was not about the selling of goods bearing that trademark. Selling non-genuine products bearing another company's trademark is not legal. Failure of the trademark owner to police such activity can dilute the strength and future defensibility of the trademark.
  - killaken2000 8y ago
    What if the products are genuine but the company doesn't like that they're being sold outside of their control.
    - sjwright 8y ago
      If a product was actually genuine, then sure. In this case—as Louis himself admitted—they were not manufactured by or on behalf of Apple. They weren't even manufactured by the current OEM and sold on the side. They might prove to be of equal quality, they might have been manufactured to Apple's particular recipe, but that doesn't make them genuine. Just because a company used to be an OEM for Apple in the past doesn't mean their present output is "genuine" or is allowed to bear the Apple logo. If Nike ended a contract with a shoe factory, should that factory be allowed to continue manufacturing Nike branded shoes and import them directly to shoe stores in the USA?
  - syshum 8y ago
    My comment is relevant because the person i replied to claimed a company must aggressively enforce their mark or lose it. That is the relevance of the comment, not to the Apple Situation but as a rebuttal to the claim the parent made

mrkstu 8y ago

You’re confusing copyright and trademark- copyright can be as selectively enforced as wished without giving up any other or future rights.

oconnor663 8y ago
Very good to know, thank you.

sumedh 8y ago

The issue Rossmann found was not complicated, any competent repair guy working for Apple should have known what the issue was and how to fix it instead of saying the device would need significant repairs.

sjwright 8y ago
And how did the pin get on the outside of the connector? Presumably the laptop was working sometime in the past. Which means that whatever happened, it wasn't Apple's fault, nor is it their responsibility to fix it. Apple doesn't claim to offer electronic circuit diagnosis services, they offer limited repair options for a limited set of devices. Sure, it would have been nice if the Genius Bar staff could offer a disclaimer-laden advertisement for competent third party repair shops, but I'm not surprised that they don't because as Rossmann himself acknowledges, many third party repair shops are staffed with incompetent fools.
- sumedh 8y ago
  > nor is it their responsibility to fix it. They were happy to charge $1000+ for making "significant" repairs.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    That's because they don't offer electronic circuit diagnosis services, they can only replace entire parts. And remember, that $1000+ was a quote, not a final invoice. If it turned out to be a broken cable, a motherboard replacement wouldn't have solved the issue. It's likely the actual repair technician would have identified this fault and the customer would have ultimately paid a much lower price.
    - sumedh 8y ago
      > If it turned out to be a broken cable So why give a quote of $1000+ when the Apple guy did not know what the problem was?
      - sjwright 8y ago
        Because the Apple Stores do not offer electronic circuit diagnosis services. The quote would have been based on an educated guess, as backlight failure plus triggered moisture sensors often points to a corroded motherboard as the underlying fault. It's not fair to expect Apple's store staff to accurately diagnose faults on the assumption that the device was opened and mishandled by the customer or a third party repairer. The guys in these stores aren't electronics experts, they're just regular people with some training on the most common points of failure and the out-of-warranty repair options offered by Apple.
        sumedh 8y ago
        > Because the Apple Stores do not offer electronic circuit diagnosis services. Interesting, can you please give a link on the Apple site which says that. > It's not fair to expect Apple's store staff to accurately diagnose faults Apple says the people working in the genius bar are experts, I would assume an expert would be able to diagnose faults.

syshum 8y ago

>Aggressively suing people over copyright infringement is sometimes required by copyright law. No it never is, EVER. This is a myth people use to give companies like Apple cover for the aggressive actions This myth has been debunked countless times, yet it still used by fan boys https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

sjwright 8y ago
Your link is not relevant. The Canonical dispute was about another website using their name and logo as descriptive materials associated with reportage/complaint. It was not about the selling of goods bearing that trademark. Selling non-genuine products bearing another company's trademark is not legal. Failure of the trademark owner to police such activity can dilute the strength and future defensibility of the trademark.
- killaken2000 8y ago
  What if the products are genuine but the company doesn't like that they're being sold outside of their control.
  - sjwright 8y ago
    If a product was actually genuine, then sure. In this case—as Louis himself admitted—they were not manufactured by or on behalf of Apple. They weren't even manufactured by the current OEM and sold on the side. They might prove to be of equal quality, they might have been manufactured to Apple's particular recipe, but that doesn't make them genuine. Just because a company used to be an OEM for Apple in the past doesn't mean their present output is "genuine" or is allowed to bear the Apple logo. If Nike ended a contract with a shoe factory, should that factory be allowed to continue manufacturing Nike branded shoes and import them directly to shoe stores in the USA?
- syshum 8y ago
  My comment is relevant because the person i replied to claimed a company must aggressively enforce their mark or lose it. That is the relevance of the comment, not to the Apple Situation but as a rebuttal to the claim the parent made