10 ms·
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 sei
by 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 agoIf 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 agoWhat a perfectly zealous response to that opinion, seems to have touched a nerve lol
- tobinfricke 3y agoI think you mean iPope
- threeseed 3y ago> cash-strapped government agencies that are willing to accept bribes from Apple It's $190 to register a copyright and is open to any copyright holder. And it makes sense to enforce this at the border rather than allowing counterfeit products into the market.
- fortran77 3y agoFlagged. This is about trademarks.
- threeseed 3y agoFrom the article: > Apple participates in CBP’s e-Recordation Program, a “service for trademark owners” where American rightsholders proactively re-register their US registered trademarks with CBP and pay regular fees to ensure special, stricter enforcement on the particular trademarks they request. The fee for e-Recordation is $190 per International Class of Goods (IC) i.e. trademarks and copyright. https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/ipr/protection https://www.cbp.gov/trade/priority-issues/ipr/protection
- kmeisthax 3y agoFirst off, this is trademark, copyright. Second, merely registering a trademark doesn't get you this level of treatment from CBP; Apple pays them significantly more money in order to be able to tell them how they want their trademark enforced at the border. Third, when your shit gets seized by CBP, that's based purely on the allegations of Apple; there's no due process (like there would be with, say, an ITC patent action). Keep in mind here: the products in question are not counterfeit. If Apple had to sue to get the parts taken out of the market, they would lose, because of very obvious exceptions to trademark law - e.g. official Apple flex cables don't stop being official Apple flex cables when you plug a third-party iPhone screen into them. That would be like, if I sold you a Samsung TV, but I had an Apple HDMI cable hanging off the back of it, and then Apple sued me saying that I was selling a counterfeit Apple TV because the HDMI cable had an Apple logo on it.
- 3y ago
- noitpmeder 3y agoThere are tons of ways to legitimately obtain these cables that are completely legal. The fact that it's also possible to obtain them illegally should not place a ban on the product. You're perfectly within your rights to strip your iPhone for parts and resell each piece individually with original logos intact.
- gurchik 3y ago> The screens that were seized are “hybrid” parts: the screens are third-party, but use a few original Apple parts like a flex cable that connects the screen to the phone. That invisible, internal part is marked with an Apple logo, which is enough to let the CBP seize the entire shipment.
- pests 3y agoI'm still not why "original Apple parts" mean anything special?
- plorg 3y agoAs far as I can tell the justification amounts to, "it has our logo" followed by a lawyer's version of a meaningful look and the "yadda yadda yadda" gesture. And because Homeland Security is largely unaccountable they'll just accept that justification from Apple when accompanied by a giant wad of cash or the chance to do some operator shit.
- threeseed 3y ago> when accompanied by a giant wad of cash $190 per copyright: https://iprr.cbp.gov/s https://iprr.cbp.gov/s
- Terr_ 3y agoStop trying to pretend it's all about the filing fee, nobody (else) is making that claim. The article clearly identifies seizure-and-resale as the dubious profit motive, where CBP is permitted to erase trademarks and make money selling the seized equipment at auction.
- jeroenhd 3y agoParts produced by Apple are allowed to have Apple's trademark on them. That's pretty much the reason trademarks exist. In the same way, only original Honda parts are allowed to have the Honda trademark on it. Of course in the case of Apple's customs bullying, hardware is being stolen because it's composed of a mixture of Apple parts and non-Apple parts. Like seizing an aftermarket car door because you put a Honda window control assembly into it.
- cool_dude85 3y agoIf they're stolen, go prove it in court. The logo doesn't really enter into it.
- haimez 3y agoCounterfeiting parts, including passing even a small part off as an original OEM one, absolutely enters into it
- Dylan16807 3y agoThis is a non-sequitur to the comment you replied to.