4 ms·

What kind of theft, and from whom? My understanding is that a person with decision making power at these factories are negotiating with third party repair shop

What kind of theft, and from whom? My understanding is that a person with decision making power at these factories are negotiating with third party repair shops, agreeing on a price, and selling authentic Apple badged components or Apple schematics to them. In that sense, it is not theft. My understanding is that this is in absolute violation of Apple's license agreements and contracts with these factories. Those factories do not have a de jure legal right to sell those parts. In that sense, it is intellectual property theft. If and when these factories put those components on a palette, put that palette into a container, and put that container onto a ship, and that ship sails to a Western country with intellectual property protections, Apple has reported the shipments to customs authorities and gotten them seized as counterfeit parts, despite the fact that they were manufactured as part of the same batches as parts that became devices that were sold in Apple stores. Apple's problem is that China doesn't give a shit about any objections Apple might have to two CCP sanctioned Chinese businesses doing (illegal) business with each other. It shouldn't be intellectual property theft- Apple ought to be obliged to make these components and schematics available at fair prices to shops like Rossman's. But that's the way it ought to be- in the mean time, it is theft, and those parts are stolen. Hopefully we'll be able to get the laws fixed someday.

jaggederest 5y ago
Theft is the wrong word here. No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". It's a violation of copyright, trademark, trade secrets, counterfeiting or patent, but it is not theft. The usage of the verbiage "theft" started in the late eighties to early nineties as part of a campaign to make intellectual property violation sound more severe than it actually is. The key difference is that, by depriving another person of their property, you are preventing them from using it, where in intellectual property violations, you are merely gaining use without denying use to the creator.
- jolux 5y ago
  >No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". How does selling physical parts that were manufactured for someone else in violation of a contract not fall under this definition? Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple?
  - m1el 5y ago
    > Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple. I don't know the actual situation, but let's say for the sake of argument; - Apple pays $1M to make 1M chips, with the contract that forbids making these parts to sell third parties. - A Shenzhen shop pays $15K to make 10K of the same parts, the manufacturer breaches the contract, violates Apple's IP and makes extra parts for the shop. None of this involves "theft" in any meaningful sense of the world.
    - singlow 5y ago
      So all of the senses of theft that do apply, which have been in use for millenia, are not "meaningful" because they do not meet the cause of your morality. Of course when Prometheus "stole" the fire from Mount Olympus he did not deny Zeus anything, but it was called theft. The fire that he brought to athens was the intellectual property of the Gods.
      - m1el 5y ago
        You may also find people murdered by words, yet no charges for murder.
      - pineaux 5y ago
        I think you are both right: I think the act of stealing is the act of taking something (an idea, an object) without permission from someone else. It doesn't matter how much this "something" costs to make in time, money or effort. In that sense, taking designs without permission and creating electronic parts is theft. However, having said this, I don't believe theft is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good thing (to a certain point) that the government steals your money (takes it without permission) as taxation. I also believe that where there is a limited supply - either by design or the nature of the thing - the owner of this supply should be coerced into doing what is not only good for themselves but also for the whole of society. I might be voicing an unpopular opinion here, but in my eyes you don't have the right as a home owner to leave your house empty when there is a shortage of housing. Squatting should be legal in such circumstances. This forces homeowners to keep rent affordable. I also believe that apple keeps these parts off the market to make more profits in a way that is not beneficial for the environment and society as a whole. This makes it a moral imperative to steal these parts and make them available for the general public.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  IP theft easily satisfies the quoted definition in your first paragraph. That’s why you had to add an additional “key difference” in your last paragraph. That “key difference” is what got invented in the early 2000s as part of a concerted effort to justify IP theft. It was never part of the definition of theft before, and indeed it makes no sense; if you steal a Snickers bar from a store, you have not deprived them of the use of the Snickers bar because they never intended to use it themselves. What you have really deprived them of is the opportunity to sell it. So does stealing IP.
  - markdown 5y ago
    Stealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products.
    - irjustin 5y ago
      And it's not stealing in the strictest sense. it was sold. The manufacturer of the chip made an extra 10k of product to sell on the side, which is a breach of contract. But no theft occurred because the manufacturer is supposed to have the schematics. Legally a rather annoying, wordy space to live in for sure.
    - ngc248 5y ago
      How is this not stealing ... Its like i gave you money/raw materials to do something for me. you skim off it and sell it off it is stealing. May not be a legally valid term, but it is stealing.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Stealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products. Actually, all of that is stealing physical, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is not the right to physical possession, so even to the extent that it can be said to be “stolen” (violation of IP rights are more like trespass than theft) taking physical objects in which it is in one form or another embodied into one’s possession isn’t it.
blueblisters 5y ago
> My understanding is that this is in absolute violation of Apple's license agreements and contracts with these factories. Those factories do not have a de-jure legal right to sell those parts. In that sense, it is intellectual property theft. I am not sure breach of contract/license agreements is IP theft. I bet IP theft has a very specific legal definition that draws a fine line between theft and breach of contract. Apple can of course try to bring these factories to court to seek damages.

jaggederest 5y ago

Theft is the wrong word here. No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". It's a violation of copyright, trademark, trade secrets, counterfeiting or patent, but it is not theft. The usage of the verbiage "theft" started in the late eighties to early nineties as part of a campaign to make intellectual property violation sound more severe than it actually is. The key difference is that, by depriving another person of their property, you are preventing them from using it, where in intellectual property violations, you are merely gaining use without denying use to the creator.

jolux 5y ago
>No IP violation is a theft unless it involves "a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use". How does selling physical parts that were manufactured for someone else in violation of a contract not fall under this definition? Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple?
- m1el 5y ago
  > Is the seller paying for the manufacture of these parts, or is Apple. I don't know the actual situation, but let's say for the sake of argument; - Apple pays $1M to make 1M chips, with the contract that forbids making these parts to sell third parties. - A Shenzhen shop pays $15K to make 10K of the same parts, the manufacturer breaches the contract, violates Apple's IP and makes extra parts for the shop. None of this involves "theft" in any meaningful sense of the world.
  - singlow 5y ago
    So all of the senses of theft that do apply, which have been in use for millenia, are not "meaningful" because they do not meet the cause of your morality. Of course when Prometheus "stole" the fire from Mount Olympus he did not deny Zeus anything, but it was called theft. The fire that he brought to athens was the intellectual property of the Gods.
    - m1el 5y ago
      You may also find people murdered by words, yet no charges for murder.
    - pineaux 5y ago
      I think you are both right: I think the act of stealing is the act of taking something (an idea, an object) without permission from someone else. It doesn't matter how much this "something" costs to make in time, money or effort. In that sense, taking designs without permission and creating electronic parts is theft. However, having said this, I don't believe theft is necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a good thing (to a certain point) that the government steals your money (takes it without permission) as taxation. I also believe that where there is a limited supply - either by design or the nature of the thing - the owner of this supply should be coerced into doing what is not only good for themselves but also for the whole of society. I might be voicing an unpopular opinion here, but in my eyes you don't have the right as a home owner to leave your house empty when there is a shortage of housing. Squatting should be legal in such circumstances. This forces homeowners to keep rent affordable. I also believe that apple keeps these parts off the market to make more profits in a way that is not beneficial for the environment and society as a whole. This makes it a moral imperative to steal these parts and make them available for the general public.
snowwrestler 5y ago
IP theft easily satisfies the quoted definition in your first paragraph. That’s why you had to add an additional “key difference” in your last paragraph. That “key difference” is what got invented in the early 2000s as part of a concerted effort to justify IP theft. It was never part of the definition of theft before, and indeed it makes no sense; if you steal a Snickers bar from a store, you have not deprived them of the use of the Snickers bar because they never intended to use it themselves. What you have really deprived them of is the opportunity to sell it. So does stealing IP.
- markdown 5y ago
  Stealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products.
  - irjustin 5y ago
    And it's not stealing in the strictest sense. it was sold. The manufacturer of the chip made an extra 10k of product to sell on the side, which is a breach of contract. But no theft occurred because the manufacturer is supposed to have the schematics. Legally a rather annoying, wordy space to live in for sure.
  - ngc248 5y ago
    How is this not stealing ... Its like i gave you money/raw materials to do something for me. you skim off it and sell it off it is stealing. May not be a legally valid term, but it is stealing.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Stealing a part made in a shop isn't stealing IP. Stealing schematics and methods would be, but not finished products. Actually, all of that is stealing physical, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is not the right to physical possession, so even to the extent that it can be said to be “stolen” (violation of IP rights are more like trespass than theft) taking physical objects in which it is in one form or another embodied into one’s possession isn’t it.

blueblisters 5y ago

> My understanding is that this is in absolute violation of Apple's license agreements and contracts with these factories. Those factories do not have a de-jure legal right to sell those parts. In that sense, it is intellectual property theft. I am not sure breach of contract/license agreements is IP theft. I bet IP theft has a very specific legal definition that draws a fine line between theft and breach of contract. Apple can of course try to bring these factories to court to seek damages.