3 ms·
> At issue in the case is the definition of what makes an aftermarket part “counterfeit.” [..] the court decided that because the logos were not visible, Apple'
by deogeo 7y ago
> At issue in the case is the definition of what makes an aftermarket part “counterfeit.” [..] the court decided that because the logos were not visible, Apple's trademark hadn't been violated,
Am I to understand that if a company plasters its logo in enough places so that hiding it is impractical, they can make an end-run around resale and user rights, and just call anything you do with their parts 'counterfeiting'?
- Topgamer7 7y agoThe argument apple is making is a third party cannot manufacture for example a car door, because the door shape is a company trademark. They are trying to prevent repair and maintenance of their products, so you will go buy a new one, which they receive a larger margin on, as well as they can deprecate old products and no longer support them.
- kevin_b_er 7y agoCorrect. This is a common abuse of intellectual "property" law. Check this one out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_S.A._v._Costco_Wholesale.... Corporations abuse these laws to restrict trade in goods already manufactured. What you can see here is Apple's legal declaration: You do not own the device. Apple does. Apple has the right to refuse sale of the device and you have no recourse. What you see is a fundamental attack on the notion of ownership. Do you own an Apple device? Apple decides what you may do with it. Apple even apparently decides who you may sell or give it to. Do you really own the device? Even "buying" something doesn't really give you ownership of it, the corporation still controls it. You are a serf. This is the how of the danger of these intellectual "property" laws being misused against the public.
- teh_klev 7y agoSee also Tesco vs Levi's: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-to-sell-cheap-Levis-jeans.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1403156/Tesco-loses-battle-...
- ezoe 7y agoIt was tried by Nintendo in Japan for Disk System which use floppy disks as a medium for Nintendo's Family Computer(NES in outside of Japan) As a physical DRM for the floppy disk with Nintendo logo shaped relief on it. The floppy disk reader recognize the relief and validate the disks. Soon, third-party started selling compatible floppy disks, Nintendo sued them for trademark violation. They lost. The court concluded that mere protocol can't be trademarked even if it use trademarked logo.