7 ms·

The video is about Nikon blocking international sales of their used camera parts on eBay. It may be due to "free trade" agreements forbidding the import/export

The video is about Nikon blocking international sales of their used camera parts on eBay. It may be due to "free trade" agreements forbidding the import/export of patented goods without the IP-holder's permission, but I only know industry groups tried to include such terms - I don't know if any agreements in force actually contain them.

bb88 3y ago
As Louis Rossmann has pointed out in other videos he's made from the comfort of his lay-z-boy, it's not just Nikon wanting to restrict their goods coming in overseas. (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs_border_protection_seizes_louis/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs...
- RajT88 3y ago
  > (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Ah ha - so what seems to be different in this case is that he's selling products from the US, shipping to the EU. In the US, this is already settled law. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-protected-by-first-sale-supreme-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-pro... Same concern. Not sure how they're allowed to do this in the EU, but I assume it's to do with them not having precedent, or some EU regulation which disallows it somehow.
  - shagie 3y ago
    There is such a regulation and it is very settled law. From 1998 https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delivered-a-landmark-ruling-which-allows-trade-mark-owners-to-block-the-sale-of-goods-bearing-their-trademarks-within-the-eu-where-the https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delive... > The ECJ has delivered a landmark ruling which effectively allows trade mark owners to block the sale of goods bearing their trademarks within the EU, where the goods have been obtained on the so-called 'grey market' from suppliers outside the EU. The ruling means that the holder of a trade mark in the UK, or other EU country, can prevent the sale of parallel-imported goods from outside the EU even though such goods have been legitimately sold abroad in the first place. This means, in practice, that a trade mark holder can prevent retailers from obtaining goods bearing its trade mark cheaply from markets such as Asia or the US and selling them at a discount within Europe without its authorisation. And more recently (2022): https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-justice-allows-destroying-genuine-grey-market-goods-when-rights-arent-exhausted/ https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-ju... > The court may order that infringing goods be removed from the market, returned to the rightful owner, or destroyed. When making a decision, the courts consider the gravity of the infringement as well as the interests of third parties. Also, Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48 (Enforcement Directive) states that a judge may order “destruction” of goods to enforce intellectual property rights.
    - Beldin 3y ago
      Just to add: the EU mandates certain standards that other territories do not necessarily impose. For example: turn signals on cars: in the EU, they must be separate from brake lights and colored yellow or orange. That is: (1) vendors may abide by different standards elsewhere, and (2) implementation of those different standards may cause incompatibility (eg. US rear lights may not be compatible with EU models). While that might not completely justify such rules in all cases, they're not always fully anti-consumer either.
      - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
        But if a product does not comply with EU standards, it is illegal to sell/import/use it in the EU regardless of if the trademark owner allows its sale - it's not up to them. So yes, deputizing trademark owners to police imports, on the off chance that maybe sometimes their decisions will align with other consumer-protection laws, is always fully anti-consumer.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - hef19898 3y ago
        There is a whole industry around the import of US cars that are not directly sold in the EU. You can even register them with the US rear lights, in Germany. The absence of an EU CoC makes this a tack costly and lengthy, but it is absolutely possible. Coming back to the video, I think it is more an issue around Nikon US, eBay US and the seller. I don't think Nikon, or any other Japanese camera brand, are blocking international resale of used gear on eBay in general, there are way to many private and commercial sellers in Japan shipping through eBay to the US and the EU for thatbto be true. Also, with all the account blocking stories and copy right take downs being discussed on HN basically every day, why do we all assume it is Nikon's "fault"? I mean eBay is a party in this, too.
        lloeki 3y ago
        > There is a whole industry around the import of US cars that are not directly sold in the EU Same in France. The requirement when buying a foreign car is that it must get vetted by the DRIRE (ex Mines), which might be easy (e.g a EU car typically already has a registered entry because vehicles are extremely similar to identical) or hard (e.g US cars being subject to different regulations), but if one vehicle of a specific type went through the process it now has an entry as well and it's a matter of checking that the ingress vehicle matches the previous entry, fast tracking the process. IIRC there are provisions for historical cars (véhicules de collection, i.e > 30yo) that are allowed to not be compliant with current regulations as long as they're stock (except for some bits, e.g IIRC tyres must be upgraded to radial tyres to be road-worthy). Still lengthy and costly. (caveat: it's been a long time since I got interested in the process, things may have changed)
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  You're conflating product made by the company but intended for sale in a particular market...with goods being made not by the company. Either in factories that have nothing to do with Apple, or being made in factories contracted by Apple, but in ghost production lines in parallel to the official ones, or "after hours." Rossman was knowingly buying and importing parts made in Apple-contracted factories that were being made "off the clock" (ie, Apple parts are made from say, 9-5 and then from 6-10, the factory makes more, without telling Apple, and sells them through their own channels.) That's a contractual violation, which is a civil matter...but the factory was using the Apple logo on the labels of the batteries, which is a trademark violation, and that's where customs gets involved. So...yes, actually. Rossman has some valid points but he's also a slimy shyster. Everyone else in the repair and parts biz was buying batteries without Apple logos, Rossman knew that, and knew that he could charge more, or more easily sell, the apple-branded batteries. Apple has not, to the best of my knowledge, harassed anyone importing or using third party parts that lack an apple logo. It's hilarious that you're pissed about literally the whole point of a trademark.
  - vegardx 3y ago
    This is just part of the story. The other part of the issue has been importing refurbished items, like screens and other components. The parts are literally pulled out of Apple produced products, as is. But since Apple puts their logo everywhere on the parts, it's almost impossible to import them. They just claim they're counterfeit, without having to provide any evidence that they are. This went all the way to the supreme court in Norway, and the supreme court sided with Apple. It's too expensive to remove the Apple branding on genuine and refurbished parts, so now we're stuck with actual counterfeits, often from the same factory as the originals, just without the logo. But we could have just used perfectly fine refurbished parts.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The guy kind of immediately struck as someone who would not check the ruls forst, or outright ignore them, only to turn around and rant about him not being allowed to cheat. E.g. by selling basically counterfeight batteries when everyone else uses non-branded batteries is cheating those other repair shops. That he wants to ride the, very legitimate, right-to-repair wave only seems fitting. Right to repair does not allow you to use counterfeight parts or illegal sources and ignore customs.
- dataflow 3y ago
  > Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. Apparently those Apple logos were indeed fake, unlike what was generally reported in the media. He mentions how he found this out from the court filings in his recent video, and how Vice News didn't correct their story after he provided them the details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I'm confused what the downvote means here. Did I get the story wrong somehow? If so I'd love to know what actually happened.
    - bb88 3y ago
      Yeah, that's actually a different case. And yeah, Rossmann was wrong about that one. He's covered that before and told the story about it on his video blog.
devoutsalsa 3y ago
I don't know about what it takes to import a camera lens, but it's possible the lens itself would have trouble clearing customs in some places. I once tried to have a used laptop shipped to Mexico via FedEx, and I couldn't get it through customs (without an import partner & in less than a month or two). I had FedEx send the laptop back to a relative in the USA & had them fly down to Mexico to give it to me.

bb88 3y ago

As Louis Rossmann has pointed out in other videos he's made from the comfort of his lay-z-boy, it's not just Nikon wanting to restrict their goods coming in overseas. (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs_border_protection_seizes_louis/ https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/9pe9yd/us_customs...

RajT88 3y ago
> (In this case it's to protect Nikon's pricing structure between different continents.) Ah ha - so what seems to be different in this case is that he's selling products from the US, shipping to the EU. In the US, this is already settled law. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-protected-by-first-sale-supreme-court-rules/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/thai-student-pro... Same concern. Not sure how they're allowed to do this in the EU, but I assume it's to do with them not having precedent, or some EU regulation which disallows it somehow.
- shagie 3y ago
  There is such a regulation and it is very settled law. From 1998 https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delivered-a-landmark-ruling-which-allows-trade-mark-owners-to-block-the-sale-of-goods-bearing-their-trademarks-within-the-eu-where-the https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/1998/10/the-ecj-has-delive... > The ECJ has delivered a landmark ruling which effectively allows trade mark owners to block the sale of goods bearing their trademarks within the EU, where the goods have been obtained on the so-called 'grey market' from suppliers outside the EU. The ruling means that the holder of a trade mark in the UK, or other EU country, can prevent the sale of parallel-imported goods from outside the EU even though such goods have been legitimately sold abroad in the first place. This means, in practice, that a trade mark holder can prevent retailers from obtaining goods bearing its trade mark cheaply from markets such as Asia or the US and selling them at a discount within Europe without its authorisation. And more recently (2022): https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-justice-allows-destroying-genuine-grey-market-goods-when-rights-arent-exhausted/ https://trademarkblog.kluweriplaw.com/2022/10/21/court-of-ju... > The court may order that infringing goods be removed from the market, returned to the rightful owner, or destroyed. When making a decision, the courts consider the gravity of the infringement as well as the interests of third parties. Also, Article 10(1) of Directive 2004/48 (Enforcement Directive) states that a judge may order “destruction” of goods to enforce intellectual property rights.
  - Beldin 3y ago
    Just to add: the EU mandates certain standards that other territories do not necessarily impose. For example: turn signals on cars: in the EU, they must be separate from brake lights and colored yellow or orange. That is: (1) vendors may abide by different standards elsewhere, and (2) implementation of those different standards may cause incompatibility (eg. US rear lights may not be compatible with EU models). While that might not completely justify such rules in all cases, they're not always fully anti-consumer either.
    - NoRelToEmber 3y ago
      But if a product does not comply with EU standards, it is illegal to sell/import/use it in the EU regardless of if the trademark owner allows its sale - it's not up to them. So yes, deputizing trademark owners to police imports, on the off chance that maybe sometimes their decisions will align with other consumer-protection laws, is always fully anti-consumer.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hef19898 3y ago
      There is a whole industry around the import of US cars that are not directly sold in the EU. You can even register them with the US rear lights, in Germany. The absence of an EU CoC makes this a tack costly and lengthy, but it is absolutely possible. Coming back to the video, I think it is more an issue around Nikon US, eBay US and the seller. I don't think Nikon, or any other Japanese camera brand, are blocking international resale of used gear on eBay in general, there are way to many private and commercial sellers in Japan shipping through eBay to the US and the EU for thatbto be true. Also, with all the account blocking stories and copy right take downs being discussed on HN basically every day, why do we all assume it is Nikon's "fault"? I mean eBay is a party in this, too.
      - lloeki 3y ago
        > There is a whole industry around the import of US cars that are not directly sold in the EU Same in France. The requirement when buying a foreign car is that it must get vetted by the DRIRE (ex Mines), which might be easy (e.g a EU car typically already has a registered entry because vehicles are extremely similar to identical) or hard (e.g US cars being subject to different regulations), but if one vehicle of a specific type went through the process it now has an entry as well and it's a matter of checking that the ingress vehicle matches the previous entry, fast tracking the process. IIRC there are provisions for historical cars (véhicules de collection, i.e > 30yo) that are allowed to not be compliant with current regulations as long as they're stock (except for some bits, e.g IIRC tyres must be upgraded to radial tyres to be road-worthy). Still lengthy and costly. (caveat: it's been a long time since I got interested in the process, things may have changed)
KennyBlanken 3y ago
You're conflating product made by the company but intended for sale in a particular market...with goods being made not by the company. Either in factories that have nothing to do with Apple, or being made in factories contracted by Apple, but in ghost production lines in parallel to the official ones, or "after hours." Rossman was knowingly buying and importing parts made in Apple-contracted factories that were being made "off the clock" (ie, Apple parts are made from say, 9-5 and then from 6-10, the factory makes more, without telling Apple, and sells them through their own channels.) That's a contractual violation, which is a civil matter...but the factory was using the Apple logo on the labels of the batteries, which is a trademark violation, and that's where customs gets involved. So...yes, actually. Rossman has some valid points but he's also a slimy shyster. Everyone else in the repair and parts biz was buying batteries without Apple logos, Rossman knew that, and knew that he could charge more, or more easily sell, the apple-branded batteries. Apple has not, to the best of my knowledge, harassed anyone importing or using third party parts that lack an apple logo. It's hilarious that you're pissed about literally the whole point of a trademark.
- vegardx 3y ago
  This is just part of the story. The other part of the issue has been importing refurbished items, like screens and other components. The parts are literally pulled out of Apple produced products, as is. But since Apple puts their logo everywhere on the parts, it's almost impossible to import them. They just claim they're counterfeit, without having to provide any evidence that they are. This went all the way to the supreme court in Norway, and the supreme court sided with Apple. It's too expensive to remove the Apple branding on genuine and refurbished parts, so now we're stuck with actual counterfeits, often from the same factory as the originals, just without the logo. But we could have just used perfectly fine refurbished parts.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The guy kind of immediately struck as someone who would not check the ruls forst, or outright ignore them, only to turn around and rant about him not being allowed to cheat. E.g. by selling basically counterfeight batteries when everyone else uses non-branded batteries is cheating those other repair shops. That he wants to ride the, very legitimate, right-to-repair wave only seems fitting. Right to repair does not allow you to use counterfeight parts or illegal sources and ignore customs.
dataflow 3y ago
> Refurbished Apple parts have been caught up in import restrictions as well, not because they're fake, but because they have an Apple logo on them, and Apple insists that everything overseas coming into the US with an Apple logo must be counterfeit. Apparently those Apple logos were indeed fake, unlike what was generally reported in the media. He mentions how he found this out from the court filings in his recent video, and how Vice News didn't correct their story after he provided them the details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj3YbdgZUO4&t=23s
- dataflow 3y ago
  I'm confused what the downvote means here. Did I get the story wrong somehow? If so I'd love to know what actually happened.
  - bb88 3y ago
    Yeah, that's actually a different case. And yeah, Rossmann was wrong about that one. He's covered that before and told the story about it on his video blog.

devoutsalsa 3y ago

I don't know about what it takes to import a camera lens, but it's possible the lens itself would have trouble clearing customs in some places. I once tried to have a used laptop shipped to Mexico via FedEx, and I couldn't get it through customs (without an import partner & in less than a month or two). I had FedEx send the laptop back to a relative in the USA & had them fly down to Mexico to give it to me.