17 ms·

Apple's Trademark Exploit

294 points by lr0 3y ago

readyplayernull 3y ago
Traveled from Colombia, at the airport one of the agents seemed very interested in my Macbook Pro 2007, specially the logo, that big white 3D logo. I said to myself, hey that would be a clever way to conceal it ;)
- jonhohle 3y ago
  3D? Do you mean illuminated?
  - red369 3y ago
    I'm having a hard time finding an image, but I think that the plastic apple (which also illuminates) is not completely flush with the lid - it protrudes slightly from it, or the edges are recessed, and it is slightly rounded. I'm also probably mixing it up with the older, proper-coloured (black) MacBooks. Someone will be able to give a better answer soon!
    - vkoskiv 3y ago
      G3 PowerBooks and iBooks were the last to feature rounded, protruding Apple logos on the lid (And on the PowerBook, on the bottom as well!) This was before they glowed, and when they appeared upside down to onlookers with the lid up. All G4 models starting with the Titanium PowerBook G4 and everything since have had flush logos.
      - red369 3y ago
        Cheers - I thought I might be confusing it. I’ve dug out an old black MacBook I have, and even though it has a light-up logo, it doesn’t look like it has the same 3D look as the Aluminium MacBook Pro.
  - gield 3y ago
    I found an image that shows the 3D effect: https://www.realrecyclers.com/images/product_images/original_images/display-komplett-hochglanz-original-macbook-pro-15-zoll-a1211-2007--9-GE0944_7CI.jpg https://www.realrecyclers.com/images/product_images/original...
vlovich123 3y ago
This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then how is this unauthorized repair shop getting parts with original logos? That implies that maybe these parts were not obtained legitimately right? Not necessarily counterfeit but maybe stolen. That being said, Apple doesn’t do a great job here considering SF streets are flooded with actual counterfeit AirPods and AirPods MAX (like in fully sealed boxes that look exactly like original).
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  If you buy phones with cracked screens, you have a supply of iPhone flex cables. Apple does not own those flex cables, but them putting their holy sigil[0] on the cables lets them pretend that they do to cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple. Furthermore, the parts were seized on trademark grounds; the program in question only deals with trademark. There are different processes for dealing with stolen goods (as opposed to counterfeit ones) but those would require Apple to provide proof. CBP's trademark program lets you just say "we own this mark, here's a lot of money, we'll tell you what to seize". [0] Apple is a religion. Tim Cook is the iPhone pope. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
  - sunshinerag 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - nsriv 3y ago
      What a perfectly zealous response to that opinion, seems to have touched a nerve lol
  - tobinfricke 3y ago
    I think you mean iPope
denkmoon 3y ago
Seems similar to Nintendo's use of their trademark as an anti-piracy measure in the early consoles.
- pests 3y ago
  That's digital and involved copyright though. If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)
  - shagie 3y ago
    What if I go to a Ford part supplier and buy some Ford parts for cheap before they sent to Ford to be blessed, but after the Ford logo is stamped on them. Now I'm putting those parts in vehicles that I'm repairing. What happens when one of the parts that I put in goes to a dealership repair for a warranty repair? It may be as good as the Ford part (it's the same part), but Ford has no record of the serial number on it. Is Ford obligated to fix what appears to be a Ford part (what the customer thought was a Ford part) but isn't something that Ford ever sold, tested, or warrantied?
    - oez 3y ago
      That's not at all what is happening though. It's more like if I was to buy crashed Fords at salvage auctions to take the genuine parts from them, and Ford's private stasi force shows up at my house to take everything and then sell them for their own profit.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        Not sure what you are talking about. From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border. Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
parentheses 3y ago
[flagged]
- upwardbound 3y ago
  For those who had to look it up, here's the applicable definition of payola: From Dictionary.com: Payola - a secret or private payment in return for the promotion of a product, service, etc., through the abuse of one's position, influence, or facilities. [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/payola] From Wiktionary: Payola - a bribe given in exchange for a favor, such as one given in exchange for the promotion of goods or services (originally one given to a disk jockey to play a record). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/payola]
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > This is not Apple "exploiting" the legal framework but more optimizing how they use their capital to make the best of it. Using a legal framework designed to stop counterfeiting to stop shipments of things that aren't counterfeits (or even illegal at all) is absolutely exploiting it. > for which counterfeits and aftermarket replacements are very much desired. Only one of which CBP is tasked with stopping.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfeiting? Under the law, 100% indisputably; despite using a genuine logo from a genuine handbag. Despite me legally purchasing both items, the combination is, in a sense, illegal. I would risk up to a decade in prison if I sold that combination. Now replace handbag with iPhone screen. The distinctions become extremely difficult, and not the CBP’s job to figure out. Surgical legal changes are required. https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368
bruce511 3y ago
In one sense I'm not surprised that the general reaction seems to be "shrug ". This is a story about Apple being Apple, and Border Control being, well Border Control. Both organisations have a well-deserved reputation. Both are behaving completely in character. That the biggest company can pay to enlist the support of the most-insulated police force surprises no-one. Perhaps more depressing is that there's no expectation of improvement. Juicy press expose leading to reform? Not likely.
- emodendroket 3y ago
  The way CBP seizures work seems pretty backwards. A similar story happened with Li-Ning where the CBP alleged they were using North Korean labor and started seizing their products and apparently, for whatever reason, the onus moves on to them to prove they are not using North Korean labor, rather than on the government to prove that they are.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mherdeg 3y ago
Huh. What happened with the lot of 2000 seized OnePlus Buds? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-statement-oneplus-buds-seized-apple-airpod-trademarks https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-state... ) Did the company just write off that shipment and keep selling them?
- emodendroket 3y ago
  I wondered about that. CBP affirmed they didn't make a mistake and then you just never heard about it again.
  - AdamTReineke 3y ago
    I had a pair of white Denon Wireless Earbuds that I tried to sell on Facebook Marketplace, still in shrink and with my own photos. They were kicked off as counterfeit items, presumably because I described them as knockoff Air Pods and that triggered some filter. I wonder if Apple is also coaching classified ad sides with the same trademark messaging they're giving CBP?
    - joosters 3y ago
      'I described them as knockoff Air Pods' If Facebook didn't immediately block sales of items self-described as knockoff <whatever brand>, they'd be (rightly) criticised for allowing the sale of counterfeit goods
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        Is it a counterfeit if it's advertised as such? The harm of counterfeits is only when they're being passed off as the real thing. If the buyer is aware that it's counterfeit what's the issue?
        nulbyte 3y ago
        Are you asking if it's counterfeit if you say it's counterfeit? If it weren't, and you said it was, wouldn't you be lying?
efitz 3y ago
I hate IP in its current forms yet I have trouble getting particularly outraged by this article. If we have laws protecting IP, why is it wrong to enforce them? Why is it wrong to train LE to recognize counterfeits? Granted the article did discuss some shady stuff like CBP seizing stuff and auctioning it off; I think that civil forfeiture and other such seizures are unconstitutional takings but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. Also Apple has done shady stuff like sending their security people to private homes to track down leaked prototypes [1]. But my bottom line is let’s get rid of bad IP law, not complain about the side effects of enforcement. [1] https://www.cultofmac.com/112054/san-francisco-police-admits-to-helping-apple-in-iphone-5-prototype-recovery-report/ https://www.cultofmac.com/112054/san-francisco-police-admits...
- whelp_24 3y ago
  I have seen arguments that even word ip is bad as it conditions you to believe ideas are property, I think i may agree. We should definitely get rid of bad enforcement immediately, enforcement is like 90% of a laws effect.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. — <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html>
    - Karellen 3y ago
      I think Cory Doctorow has an interesting counterpoint which is worth considering: > When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges: > “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.” > That is, in a world of uncertainty, where other people’s unpredictability can erode your profits, mire you in scandal, or even tank your business, “IP” is a means of forcing other people to arrange their affairs to suit your needs, even if that undermines their own needs. -- https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/
gjsman-1000 3y ago
The author appears to accidentally make the assumption that in order for it to be a counterfeit part, it must be 100% counterfeit. CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfeiting. From these examples and others, they are trained to recognize “hybrids” as fake in multiple industries. Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  > Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. > How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts? That isn't CBPs problem, its Apple's problem to identify and enforce their trademark if someone actually does attempt to sell them as genuine parts.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. Not necessarily. The law cares about the brand, not the function. Morally, there’s a distinction; legally, I don’t see why the functionality has any relevance. > Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen CBP seized hybrid products, as mentioned above, all the time; even when no logo is present (honey with adulterations is a big problem). The claim it’s completely legal isn’t necessarily true. Individually selling a screen, or a ribbon cable, would probably have much better luck than the combination of the two.
    - ajsnigrutin 3y ago
etchalon 3y ago
I assume there's no way to "prove" the provenance of the flex cables. Maybe some type of test? But CBP isn't going to spend millions outfitting their agents with the training and equipment provided to do that. While I support Apple's right to do this, and can even accept/agree with the consumer protection rationale, the truth is Apple is attempting to fight a massive uphill battle hill with counterfeits. They're obviously losing. It's easy to find knock-off Apple products. We have some experience as a country allowing over-powered government agencies to seize property based on suspicion and without proof. It accomplishes very little overall, wastes an enormous amount of resources, and harms innocent people as readily as it harms the guilty. The "risk" of getting your property seized is obviously low enough that counterfeiters can just factor that in as a cost, just as cartels do. You know you're going to lose X number of shipments. So we're not accomplishing enough to make a real dent in the problem, and in trying to do anything at all, you're harming innocent people. Not a great look.
- CivBase 3y ago
  So if I assemble a computer for someone, do I have to scratch the logos off everything? Is it reasonable to call the machine "counterfiet" because the CPU says "Intel" on the heat spreader? Or because one of the memory chips says "Samsung"? Most other manufacturers produce electronics with components from a wide variety of sources, bearing many brand names. What makes Apple components special?
  - etchalon 3y ago
    Apple components aren't found in other products, only their own products. So if a product contains something with Apple logo, and it's not an actual Apple product, the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher, though obviously not absolute in the rare case of component re-use - which is 100% legal. It would be impossible to tell if a computer was counterfeit just because it included something with a Samsung logo. But it would be fairly easy, for instance, to tell a counterfeit Samsung phone if it featured a MediaTek processor. Is it possible someone legally bought 1000 legitimate Samsung phones and swapped out the processor? Sure. And it would be legal. But is it the most likely case? No. "Horses not zebras".
justinator 3y ago
Remember that anti-spam company that made you embed a haiku they trademarked and if some spammer used it, they go after them? What a weird idea. They must have gotten millions for such a ridiculous idea, as their logo was emblazoned on a large office building they most likely occupied right off the highway.
robbywashere_ 3y ago
I want to take this opportunity to mention CBP has jurisdiction 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dmurray 3y ago
  They have jurisdiction everywhere within the US, but enhanced powers near the borders. Some details in [0]. Specifically, they have the right to search and seize "with no suspicion of unlawful activity" within 100 miles of any border - including sea borders, so that's about 70% of the US by population. Also anywhere around international airports and inland waters "with ready access to the open sea", but the 100-mile zone doesn't appear to apply there. Certain other powers are limited to 10 or 25 miles from the border. [0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559
hooby 3y ago
Louis Rossmann needs to read this!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ada1981 3y ago
“Apple is being asked why they had the police raid someone’s business and steal their merchandise, and their response is a recitation of their business model: an incredible admission of how they view law enforcement as a simple weapon for Apple to use use to enforce their preferences.” I ask myself daily “What is law enforcement if not a simple weapon to be used to enforce my personal preferences?”
SillyUsername 3y ago
This is why I buy neither Apple nor Nintendo parts brand new wherever I can. I'd rather pay the last owner than have it go into the coffers of increasingly evil corporations. They may be right in some cases, i.e. genuine fraud, but not when abusing law to help maintain a near monopoly. Microsoft got done for maintaining a monopoly and browser walled garden at a time when it was the biggest company in the world. What has changed with Apple?
- mint2 3y ago
  One reason some people like buying Apple products new is they have a reasonable resale value. So actually buying used still helps Apple by maintaining the resale market.
mattpavelle 3y ago
Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers. Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them. If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part that “fell off a truck” or didn’t pass QA and should have been recycled or something… If I legitimately paid a manufacturer for a compatible part to be made, I’d expect no logo on it
- CivBase 3y ago
  > Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? No. The products in question were assembled using a combination of standard hardware components and genuine OEM parts salvaged from broken Apple devices. Since Apple goes to great lengths to prevent third parties from accessing components used in Apple devices, salvaging OEM parts from busted machines is often the only legitimate way to produce replacement parts that are compatible with Apple products. > If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part None of the products in the examples from this article were branded with Apple logos or advertised as being genuine Apple products. Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices. The Apple brand was never used to identify anything that wasn't a genuine, OEM component - ergo not counterfeit.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    > Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices. Source? It seems far more likely those parts came from the original factory selling original parts under the table for whatever reasons, or are actually counterfeited with just the logo stamped on them afterwards. Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would require a pretty extensive operation.

294 points by lr0 3y ago

Traveled from Colombia, at the airport one of the agents seemed very interested in my Macbook Pro 2007, specially the logo, that big white 3D logo. I said to myself, hey that would be a clever way to conceal it ;)

jonhohle 3y ago
3D? Do you mean illuminated?
- red369 3y ago
  I'm having a hard time finding an image, but I think that the plastic apple (which also illuminates) is not completely flush with the lid - it protrudes slightly from it, or the edges are recessed, and it is slightly rounded. I'm also probably mixing it up with the older, proper-coloured (black) MacBooks. Someone will be able to give a better answer soon!
  - vkoskiv 3y ago
    G3 PowerBooks and iBooks were the last to feature rounded, protruding Apple logos on the lid (And on the PowerBook, on the bottom as well!) This was before they glowed, and when they appeared upside down to onlookers with the lid up. All G4 models starting with the Titanium PowerBook G4 and everything since have had flush logos.
    - red369 3y ago
      Cheers - I thought I might be confusing it. I’ve dug out an old black MacBook I have, and even though it has a light-up logo, it doesn’t look like it has the same 3D look as the Aluminium MacBook Pro.
- gield 3y ago
  I found an image that shows the 3D effect: https://www.realrecyclers.com/images/product_images/original_images/display-komplett-hochglanz-original-macbook-pro-15-zoll-a1211-2007--9-GE0944_7CI.jpg https://www.realrecyclers.com/images/product_images/original...

vlovich123 3y ago

This article doesn’t make sense and self contradicts in a major way: > especially since Apple doesn’t sell these parts separately > The parts aren’t being seized because they’re counterfeit. In fact, they’re demonstrably not counterfeit: the only reason an Apple logo is on a piece of a “third-party” component is because that piece is original OEM Apple hardware being legally re-sold: If Apple doesn’t sell these, then how is this unauthorized repair shop getting parts with original logos? That implies that maybe these parts were not obtained legitimately right? Not necessarily counterfeit but maybe stolen. That being said, Apple doesn’t do a great job here considering SF streets are flooded with actual counterfeit AirPods and AirPods MAX (like in fully sealed boxes that look exactly like original).

kmeisthax 3y ago
If you buy phones with cracked screens, you have a supply of iPhone flex cables. Apple does not own those flex cables, but them putting their holy sigil[0] on the cables lets them pretend that they do to cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple. Furthermore, the parts were seized on trademark grounds; the program in question only deals with trademark. There are different processes for dealing with stolen goods (as opposed to counterfeit ones) but those would require Apple to provide proof. CBP's trademark program lets you just say "we own this mark, here's a lot of money, we'll tell you what to seize". [0] Apple is a religion. Tim Cook is the iPhone pope. Nobody can tell me otherwise.
- sunshinerag 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nsriv 3y ago
    What a perfectly zealous response to that opinion, seems to have touched a nerve lol
- tobinfricke 3y ago
  I think you mean iPope

denkmoon 3y ago

Seems similar to Nintendo's use of their trademark as an anti-piracy measure in the early consoles.

pests 3y ago
That's digital and involved copyright though. If I go pry the OEM badge off a Ford car and try to re-sell it... it doesn't matter that its a Ford part or that Ford doesn't sell it to the public (only with a car, might be wrong here, but go with me)
- shagie 3y ago
  What if I go to a Ford part supplier and buy some Ford parts for cheap before they sent to Ford to be blessed, but after the Ford logo is stamped on them. Now I'm putting those parts in vehicles that I'm repairing. What happens when one of the parts that I put in goes to a dealership repair for a warranty repair? It may be as good as the Ford part (it's the same part), but Ford has no record of the serial number on it. Is Ford obligated to fix what appears to be a Ford part (what the customer thought was a Ford part) but isn't something that Ford ever sold, tested, or warrantied?
  - oez 3y ago
    That's not at all what is happening though. It's more like if I was to buy crashed Fords at salvage auctions to take the genuine parts from them, and Ford's private stasi force shows up at my house to take everything and then sell them for their own profit.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      Not sure what you are talking about. From the article, Jessa who operated the repair shop knew that the screens were counterfeit and tried to import them anyway. They were subsequently seized at the border. Apple is not coming to your house with some private force. They are simply using an IP enforcement program that is open to every copyright holder.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

parentheses 3y ago

[flagged]

upwardbound 3y ago
For those who had to look it up, here's the applicable definition of payola: From Dictionary.com: Payola - a secret or private payment in return for the promotion of a product, service, etc., through the abuse of one's position, influence, or facilities. [https://www.dictionary.com/browse/payola] From Wiktionary: Payola - a bribe given in exchange for a favor, such as one given in exchange for the promotion of goods or services (originally one given to a disk jockey to play a record). [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/payola]
enragedcacti 3y ago
> This is not Apple "exploiting" the legal framework but more optimizing how they use their capital to make the best of it. Using a legal framework designed to stop counterfeiting to stop shipments of things that aren't counterfeits (or even illegal at all) is absolutely exploiting it. > for which counterfeits and aftermarket replacements are very much desired. Only one of which CBP is tasked with stopping.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  Here’s a thought experiment for why, I think, it’s actually very hard to make the case against CBP’s behavior. Imagine if I come into the possession of 80 severely damaged Chanel handbags for super cheap. They’re basically shedded, but they have intact branding. I go to China and get 80 replicas. Then, I carefully cut the genuine logo, off the ruined handbags, and sew it onto the replicas. Have I committed counterfeiting? Under the law, 100% indisputably; despite using a genuine logo from a genuine handbag. Despite me legally purchasing both items, the combination is, in a sense, illegal. I would risk up to a decade in prison if I sold that combination. Now replace handbag with iPhone screen. The distinctions become extremely difficult, and not the CBP’s job to figure out. Surgical legal changes are required. https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=38173368

bruce511 3y ago

In one sense I'm not surprised that the general reaction seems to be "shrug ". This is a story about Apple being Apple, and Border Control being, well Border Control. Both organisations have a well-deserved reputation. Both are behaving completely in character. That the biggest company can pay to enlist the support of the most-insulated police force surprises no-one. Perhaps more depressing is that there's no expectation of improvement. Juicy press expose leading to reform? Not likely.

emodendroket 3y ago
The way CBP seizures work seems pretty backwards. A similar story happened with Li-Ning where the CBP alleged they were using North Korean labor and started seizing their products and apparently, for whatever reason, the onus moves on to them to prove they are not using North Korean labor, rather than on the government to prove that they are.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mherdeg 3y ago

Huh. What happened with the lot of 2000 seized OnePlus Buds? ( https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-statement-oneplus-buds-seized-apple-airpod-trademarks https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/14/21436760/us-customs-state... ) Did the company just write off that shipment and keep selling them?

emodendroket 3y ago
I wondered about that. CBP affirmed they didn't make a mistake and then you just never heard about it again.
- AdamTReineke 3y ago
  I had a pair of white Denon Wireless Earbuds that I tried to sell on Facebook Marketplace, still in shrink and with my own photos. They were kicked off as counterfeit items, presumably because I described them as knockoff Air Pods and that triggered some filter. I wonder if Apple is also coaching classified ad sides with the same trademark messaging they're giving CBP?
  - joosters 3y ago
    'I described them as knockoff Air Pods' If Facebook didn't immediately block sales of items self-described as knockoff <whatever brand>, they'd be (rightly) criticised for allowing the sale of counterfeit goods
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Is it a counterfeit if it's advertised as such? The harm of counterfeits is only when they're being passed off as the real thing. If the buyer is aware that it's counterfeit what's the issue?
      - nulbyte 3y ago
        Are you asking if it's counterfeit if you say it's counterfeit? If it weren't, and you said it was, wouldn't you be lying?

efitz 3y ago

I hate IP in its current forms yet I have trouble getting particularly outraged by this article. If we have laws protecting IP, why is it wrong to enforce them? Why is it wrong to train LE to recognize counterfeits? Granted the article did discuss some shady stuff like CBP seizing stuff and auctioning it off; I think that civil forfeiture and other such seizures are unconstitutional takings but the Supreme Court doesn’t agree. Also Apple has done shady stuff like sending their security people to private homes to track down leaked prototypes [1]. But my bottom line is let’s get rid of bad IP law, not complain about the side effects of enforcement. [1] https://www.cultofmac.com/112054/san-francisco-police-admits-to-helping-apple-in-iphone-5-prototype-recovery-report/ https://www.cultofmac.com/112054/san-francisco-police-admits...

whelp_24 3y ago
I have seen arguments that even word ip is bad as it conditions you to believe ideas are property, I think i may agree. We should definitely get rid of bad enforcement immediately, enforcement is like 90% of a laws effect.
- teddyh 3y ago
  The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case. These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. — <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html>
  - Karellen 3y ago
    I think Cory Doctorow has an interesting counterpoint which is worth considering: > When you look at how “IP” is used by firms, a very precise – albeit colloquial – meaning emerges: > “IP is any law that I can invoke that allows me to control the conduct of my competitors, critics, and customers.” > That is, in a world of uncertainty, where other people’s unpredictability can erode your profits, mire you in scandal, or even tank your business, “IP” is a means of forcing other people to arrange their affairs to suit your needs, even if that undermines their own needs. -- https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/ https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

gjsman-1000 3y ago

The author appears to accidentally make the assumption that in order for it to be a counterfeit part, it must be 100% counterfeit. CBP doesn’t work that way. Honey that is adulterated with 25% corn syrup is counterfeit. Ripping the Nike logo off a genuine shoe, and gluing it onto an imported shoe, is still counterfeiting. Swapping the logo on a cheap handbag, with a genuine logo from a ruined one, is still counterfeiting. From these examples and others, they are trained to recognize “hybrids” as fake in multiple industries. Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts?

enragedcacti 3y ago
> Third party screens with genuine Apple cables and logos? Why should CBP treat that differently? Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen. Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. > How does CBP know you aren’t going to sell them as genuine parts? That isn't CBPs problem, its Apple's problem to identify and enforce their trademark if someone actually does attempt to sell them as genuine parts.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > Swapping logos is not comparable because the cable provides a genuine function completely unrelated to the logo that happens to be printed on it. Not necessarily. The law cares about the brand, not the function. Morally, there’s a distinction; legally, I don’t see why the functionality has any relevance. > Because reselling a genuine cable is completely legal even if you attach it to a third-party screen CBP seized hybrid products, as mentioned above, all the time; even when no logo is present (honey with adulterations is a big problem). The claim it’s completely legal isn’t necessarily true. Individually selling a screen, or a ribbon cable, would probably have much better luck than the combination of the two.
  - ajsnigrutin 3y ago

etchalon 3y ago

I assume there's no way to "prove" the provenance of the flex cables. Maybe some type of test? But CBP isn't going to spend millions outfitting their agents with the training and equipment provided to do that. While I support Apple's right to do this, and can even accept/agree with the consumer protection rationale, the truth is Apple is attempting to fight a massive uphill battle hill with counterfeits. They're obviously losing. It's easy to find knock-off Apple products. We have some experience as a country allowing over-powered government agencies to seize property based on suspicion and without proof. It accomplishes very little overall, wastes an enormous amount of resources, and harms innocent people as readily as it harms the guilty. The "risk" of getting your property seized is obviously low enough that counterfeiters can just factor that in as a cost, just as cartels do. You know you're going to lose X number of shipments. So we're not accomplishing enough to make a real dent in the problem, and in trying to do anything at all, you're harming innocent people. Not a great look.

CivBase 3y ago
So if I assemble a computer for someone, do I have to scratch the logos off everything? Is it reasonable to call the machine "counterfiet" because the CPU says "Intel" on the heat spreader? Or because one of the memory chips says "Samsung"? Most other manufacturers produce electronics with components from a wide variety of sources, bearing many brand names. What makes Apple components special?
- etchalon 3y ago
  Apple components aren't found in other products, only their own products. So if a product contains something with Apple logo, and it's not an actual Apple product, the chance it's counterfeit is significantly higher, though obviously not absolute in the rare case of component re-use - which is 100% legal. It would be impossible to tell if a computer was counterfeit just because it included something with a Samsung logo. But it would be fairly easy, for instance, to tell a counterfeit Samsung phone if it featured a MediaTek processor. Is it possible someone legally bought 1000 legitimate Samsung phones and swapped out the processor? Sure. And it would be legal. But is it the most likely case? No. "Horses not zebras".

justinator 3y ago

Remember that anti-spam company that made you embed a haiku they trademarked and if some spammer used it, they go after them? What a weird idea. They must have gotten millions for such a ridiculous idea, as their logo was emblazoned on a large office building they most likely occupied right off the highway.

robbywashere_ 3y ago

I want to take this opportunity to mention CBP has jurisdiction 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmurray 3y ago
They have jurisdiction everywhere within the US, but enhanced powers near the borders. Some details in [0]. Specifically, they have the right to search and seize "with no suspicion of unlawful activity" within 100 miles of any border - including sea borders, so that's about 70% of the US by population. Also anywhere around international airports and inland waters "with ready access to the open sea", but the 100-mile zone doesn't appear to apply there. Certain other powers are limited to 10 or 25 miles from the border. [0] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559

hooby 3y ago

Louis Rossmann needs to read this!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ada1981 3y ago

“Apple is being asked why they had the police raid someone’s business and steal their merchandise, and their response is a recitation of their business model: an incredible admission of how they view law enforcement as a simple weapon for Apple to use use to enforce their preferences.” I ask myself daily “What is law enforcement if not a simple weapon to be used to enforce my personal preferences?”

SillyUsername 3y ago

This is why I buy neither Apple nor Nintendo parts brand new wherever I can. I'd rather pay the last owner than have it go into the coffers of increasingly evil corporations. They may be right in some cases, i.e. genuine fraud, but not when abusing law to help maintain a near monopoly. Microsoft got done for maintaining a monopoly and browser walled garden at a time when it was the biggest company in the world. What has changed with Apple?

mint2 3y ago
One reason some people like buying Apple products new is they have a reasonable resale value. So actually buying used still helps Apple by maintaining the resale market.

mattpavelle 3y ago

Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? If the Apple logo is on a part then the manufacturer likely made that part for Apple under some agreement and the manufacturer is not permitted to make more of those exact pieces for other buyers. Also if those pieces were made for Apple and didn’t pass QA, then the manufacturer can’t just sell them. They have agreements to destroy them. If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part that “fell off a truck” or didn’t pass QA and should have been recycled or something… If I legitimately paid a manufacturer for a compatible part to be made, I’d expect no logo on it

CivBase 3y ago
> Isn’t this describing people having “grey market” or worse products confiscated? No. The products in question were assembled using a combination of standard hardware components and genuine OEM parts salvaged from broken Apple devices. Since Apple goes to great lengths to prevent third parties from accessing components used in Apple devices, salvaging OEM parts from busted machines is often the only legitimate way to produce replacement parts that are compatible with Apple products. > If the Apple logo is on a thing then it’s a counterfeit someone is trying to pass off as real or an official part None of the products in the examples from this article were branded with Apple logos or advertised as being genuine Apple products. Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices. The Apple brand was never used to identify anything that wasn't a genuine, OEM component - ergo not counterfeit.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > Internal components (e.g. cables) within the products were found to have Apple branding because the parts were salvaged from genuine Apple devices. Source? It seems far more likely those parts came from the original factory selling original parts under the table for whatever reasons, or are actually counterfeited with just the logo stamped on them afterwards. Salvaging parts from used devices at such scales would require a pretty extensive operation.